Wouldn't it take 3 to 6 months to even find a 8 foot table?
But, you're right, it would probably be done in less than a year....
Why has no one beat Mosconi's high run?
- Thread starter nineballsafety8
- Start date
Wouldn't it take 3 to 6 months to even find a 8 foot table?
But, you're right, it would probably be done in less than a year....
One thought is that while most North American pros don't play much 14.1 these days, it's not like there were no great players of the more modern era that did for years after Mosconi. The Miz, Sigel, Rempe all played a ton of top level 14.1. And the Europeans do play it. I suppose it is fair to say that at least none of the modern pros focus on it as much as Willie did.
The table may have had generous pockets, but it didn't have modern cloth or balls.
My own uneducated opinion is that Mosconi was the best 14.1 player ever and that's pretty much all he played and that's why his record hasn't been touched.
Gideon
The table may have had generous pockets, but it didn't have modern cloth or balls.
My own uneducated opinion is that Mosconi was the best 14.1 player ever and that's pretty much all he played and that's why his record hasn't been touched.
Gideon
This question has been asked before on the forum and I believe I gave some direct quotes from John Schmidt. John, who has run 400, explained that if you paid to lock him and a few other top pros in a room for a month, one of them would beat 526. The reason it has not happened is nobody capable of doing it is motivated to play 14.1 every day and try to do it. They have bills to pay. Mosconi traveled across the country every week for many years, shooting 14.1 exhibitions. He didn't run 526 every week, but after many years, the planets aligned and he did.
BTW, nobody has beaten Charlie Peterson's 1931 record in straight rail of 10,232 points, so all other cue sports players stink.
BTW, nobody has beaten Charlie Peterson's 1931 record in straight rail of 10,232 points, so all other cue sports players stink.
Last edited:
Nah, I beat that last night. The new record is 26,741. It took me 22 minutes. I got tired and quit without missing.
Exactly. Different size table with larger pockets.
Bum, I'm glad someone was right there to capture your expression make make it into your avatar. Hats off!
Earl said when he was young he really tried bust that record long time. He´s high run is 408 if i remember right...
He also said he was so exhausted due mental pressure and focus needed so long run that he barely kept on foot.
He really respect high that run(and Mosconi) even you could think he does not give a damn about straight pool...
He also said he was so exhausted due mental pressure and focus needed so long run that he barely kept on foot.
He really respect high that run(and Mosconi) even you could think he does not give a damn about straight pool...
Ya and a much slower cloth and unpolished balls ,, the funny thing is he never put his all in pool he did it because he could make money and he walked out on runs in the 400s and allegedly one at 599 ,, he won more matches with one turn at the table than any three combined ,, God knows how many he could run if he actualy put his all into it
Last edited:
I think if someone put up a lot of money for the first player to break the record there would be a better chance for it to be broken. Players have no incentive to practice straight pool is all I can think of. There aren't many straight pool tournaments. That is a remarkable run obviously and just maybe it might never be broken..
That's true but who would throw away $250k for no good reason at all?
I believe.... Most people now days do not have the mental capacity to see something through to this extent... Not enough instant gratification in trying to get this record beat. It would take too long, and too much effort for the newer generation to accomplish, and the older generation is stuck in a sociological void with failing eye sight and a bad back.
There is too much instant gratification, or the search there of in the world we live in. I bet the record would be broken on a video game of pool by some youngster now days before the record will be broken for real. Who knows, maybe we will see.
I would like to see O'Sullivan give it a try. Hell if we can get Earl to play snooker, why not let Ronnie try his hand at the record. Might be fun.
Sorry about the ramblings, good luck with your paper.
Aloha
There is too much instant gratification, or the search there of in the world we live in. I bet the record would be broken on a video game of pool by some youngster now days before the record will be broken for real. Who knows, maybe we will see.
I would like to see O'Sullivan give it a try. Hell if we can get Earl to play snooker, why not let Ronnie try his hand at the record. Might be fun.
Sorry about the ramblings, good luck with your paper.
Aloha
I don't know if it's worth $250K, but if anyone thinks John Schmidt or anyone can do it they should set up the same table somewhere and let them go at it and have it all recorded on video. I would imagine the rights to the recording is worth quite a few dollars in sales if they were to beat Mosconi's record.
If it is so easy, I would think they would jump on this "quick, easy money" offer and then they could sell the DVDs and keep all the money.
Aloha.
You put John Schmidt on an 8 ft. table with 5 inch pockets and I guarantee he can beat Mosconis run.
I think the smarter thing to do is look at things comparatively. Is running 500+ on an 8 footer equivalent to running 200+ on a 10 footer with 4 1/2 inch pockets? That's hypothetical by the way. Just an example of comparison.
Sent from my X501_USA_Cricket using Tapatalk 2
I think the smarter thing to do is look at things comparatively. Is running 500+ on an 8 footer equivalent to running 200+ on a 10 footer with 4 1/2 inch pockets? That's hypothetical by the way. Just an example of comparison.
Sent from my X501_USA_Cricket using Tapatalk 2
The fact is nobody has done it every good straight pool player goes to the table in attempt to run as many as the can some even clean the balls or spray them with silicon
to get the best playing conditions they could and have fallen miles short
However they say that it could easily be broken ,, ya ok tell me another one
1
Haha. You said silicone. Be careful as you might expose the truth about someone that is being mentioned a lot in this thread. If that information got out to everyone here than everyone might have to talk about him playing golf from now on.....
Not discounting anything the man did, he was great and I am a fan- but I do not think he would be as strong with tighter pockets. It goes to say, sloppier pockets equates more balls sunk. We all hit balls bad from time to time. On a bar box, I usually sink it. On a 9 foot diamond with shimmed pockets that go about 4 inches=NOPE....
The world championships back then were played on 10ft tables with tight pockets, so he was very familiar with them.
There are many players today capable of beating the record, and Willie probably wasn't even the only one capable of beating it in (or before) his time either.
As a reminder, Mosconi's 526 record was made at a paid exhibition, on an 8 ft table, with huge bucket pockets. Here are the primary reasons nobody has broken that record, roughly in order of significance:
1. Top players spend almost zero time playing on any 8 ft tables--ever. No top level tournaments are held on them, and practicing on them would be of no benefit and could even hurt their games.
2. Top players spend almost zero time playing straight pool as it is an all but extinct game with almost no tournaments. They wisely spend their practice time playing the games for which tournaments are common.
3. Top players spend very little time playing on very easy equipment with huge pockets regardless of the table size. Tight pockets are typical in modern tournaments, and practicing on loose equipment serves no benefit at all and could actually even hurt their games.
4. There is no incentive to break the record--no payoff, no fame, no money (certainly nothing even remotely close to enough to justify the effort), nothing. Time that could be spent trying to break the record is better spent playing the same games on the same equipment that is used in today's pool tournaments. If you are going to be putting in time on a table, you are going to do it in a way that might actually increase your chances to cash in the tournaments of today with the equipment of today. Back in Willie's time, when companies paid people to go around giving straight pool exhibitions for many years, the record meant something since the game was so popular (it was the main and almost only game, and it even had a more mainstream audience to boot). Being the record holder meant that you were going to get a higher salary and be kept on the payroll for a longer period of time.
5. Even if a top pro wanted to spend time on an 8 ft table with bucket pockets (which they don't), where would they even find one? They certainly don't have one as their home table, and there may or may not even be one in a pool hall in their area. If they were going to try to break the record, they would either be stuck in a pool hall somewhere for their attempts, or they would have to buy an 8 ft table with bucket pockets for their home. And getting one for their home probably means having to get rid of whatever table they already have. It would be hugely inconvenient and costly just to get access to similar equipment to try to break the record on.
6. Nobody is being paid to go around giving straight pool exhibitions for years on end where they incidentally end up having many, many chances over the years to beat the record.
Bottom line is that top players have no reason to be playing extinct games for which few tournaments ever come along, no reason to be playing on 8 ft tables that are not used in any modern high level tournaments ever, and no reason to be playing on extremely forgiving tables with really loose pockets that do nothing to help their games (and could hurt their games) and that are nothing like the tougher playing tables that are almost exclusively used in tournaments these days.
And here is a fact that most people forget. Tougher straight pool runs than Mosconi's 526 have already been made on other equipment, whether on 10 foot tables back in Mosconi's time, or on several types of 9 ft tables in modern times. Mosconi's 526 is the record with the highest number, but it was not the toughest or most impressive run that has been made.
As a reminder, Mosconi's 526 record was made at a paid exhibition, on an 8 ft table, with huge bucket pockets. Here are the primary reasons nobody has broken that record, roughly in order of significance:
1. Top players spend almost zero time playing on any 8 ft tables--ever. No top level tournaments are held on them, and practicing on them would be of no benefit and could even hurt their games.
2. Top players spend almost zero time playing straight pool as it is an all but extinct game with almost no tournaments. They wisely spend their practice time playing the games for which tournaments are common.
3. Top players spend very little time playing on very easy equipment with huge pockets regardless of the table size. Tight pockets are typical in modern tournaments, and practicing on loose equipment serves no benefit at all and could actually even hurt their games.
4. There is no incentive to break the record--no payoff, no fame, no money (certainly nothing even remotely close to enough to justify the effort), nothing. Time that could be spent trying to break the record is better spent playing the same games on the same equipment that is used in today's pool tournaments. If you are going to be putting in time on a table, you are going to do it in a way that might actually increase your chances to cash in the tournaments of today with the equipment of today. Back in Willie's time, when companies paid people to go around giving straight pool exhibitions for many years, the record meant something since the game was so popular (it was the main and almost only game, and it even had a more mainstream audience to boot). Being the record holder meant that you were going to get a higher salary and be kept on the payroll for a longer period of time.
5. Even if a top pro wanted to spend time on an 8 ft table with bucket pockets (which they don't), where would they even find one? They certainly don't have one as their home table, and there may or may not even be one in a pool hall in their area. If they were going to try to break the record, they would either be stuck in a pool hall somewhere for their attempts, or they would have to buy an 8 ft table with bucket pockets for their home. And getting one for their home probably means having to get rid of whatever table they already have. It would be hugely inconvenient and costly just to get access to similar equipment to try to break the record on.
6. Nobody is being paid to go around giving straight pool exhibitions for years on end where they incidentally end up having many, many chances over the years to beat the record.
Bottom line is that top players have no reason to be playing extinct games for which few tournaments ever come along, no reason to be playing on 8 ft tables that are not used in any modern high level tournaments ever, and no reason to be playing on extremely forgiving tables with really loose pockets that do nothing to help their games (and could hurt their games) and that are nothing like the tougher playing tables that are almost exclusively used in tournaments these days.
And here is a fact that most people forget. Tougher straight pool runs than Mosconi's 526 have already been made on other equipment, whether on 10 foot tables back in Mosconi's time, or on several types of 9 ft tables in modern times. Mosconi's 526 is the record with the highest number, but it was not the toughest or most impressive run that has been made.
If someone offered $1 million for the first to do it on similar equipment, my guess is the record would be gone within 6 months.