Why has no one beat Mosconi's high run?

[Dan White]

I have to laugh at some of the comments in this thread.

I think there are two overlapping conversations happening.

The first conversation is whether the 526 record can be broken. I think are probably a handful of people who, given the same table conditions, could break the record if given enough time to do it. I would concede that point even if it can't be proven without actually setting up a table and trying.

The second conversation revolves around the question of how good Mosconi really was. People who saw him first-hand understand he was light years better than anybody else. My father, as I've said in the past, was invited by Mosconi to attend half a dozen of his exhibitions. He always ran 100 and it always looked routine. At the end of a rack, the break ball would always be in the same spot and the cue ball would also always be in the same spot. Please reread that and think about it. Hence, the term, the "Mosconi break shot." My father told that story to an older prominent professional we all know (who never saw Mosconi play) and he had trouble believing it.

Let's look at it another way. Let's set up the 8 foot table and tell Mosconi that some guy ran 526 on this table, but we'll give him $50,000 if he can run 527. Knowing Mosconi's talent and disposition, how long do any of you think it would take him to do it? One day? Two days? OK let's be silly and say two weeks. Give me a name of a player you think is going to do it faster than Mosconi.

 

[Corwyn_8]

Then why did he play so bad on video?

Every recording I have ever seen of him shows a game that is far inferior to todays top players.

Are there videos of Mosconi in his prime playing straight pool? Where can I find them?

Thank You Kindly.

 

[measureman]

I have to laugh at some of the comments in this thread.

I think there are two overlapping conversations happening.

The first conversation is whether the 526 record can be broken. I think are probably a handful of people who, given the same table conditions, could break the record if given enough time to do it. I would concede that point even if it can't be proven without actually setting up a table and trying.

The second conversation revolves around the question of how good Mosconi really was. People who saw him first-hand understand he was light years better than anybody else. My father, as I've said in the past, was invited by Mosconi to attend half a dozen of his exhibitions. He always ran 100 and it always looked routine. At the end of a rack, the break ball would always be in the same spot and the cue ball would also always be in the same spot. Please reread that and think about it. Hence, the term, the "Mosconi break shot." My father told that story to an older prominent professional we all know (who never saw Mosconi play) and he had trouble believing it.

Let's look at it another way. Let's set up the 8 foot table and tell Mosconi that some guy ran 526 on this table, but we'll give him $50,000 if he can run 527. Knowing Mosconi's talent and disposition, how long do any of you think it would take him to do it? One day? Two days? OK let's be silly and say two weeks. Give me a name of a player you think is going to do it faster than Mosconi.

I played Mosconi an exhibition game in 1964. He ran 85 perfect balls and out.
I also saw in person from 10 feet away Irving Crane run 141 balls.
While Irving was a great straight pool player he did not run balls as pretty as Mosconi.
Mosconi when he was on made the game look easy.
At that same exhibition that I played Mosconi I over heard a woman say "Hes not that good. He never made a hard shot!"
So the old conversation of who was the best Mosconi or Greenleaf?
I never saw Greenleaf play but if he was better then Mosconi then he was not human.
Also its always been my opinion that the 289,309 or so that Greenleaf,Crane and Mosconi ran on 10 foots tables was harder then the 526 on the 8 foot table.
I know its 200 or so more but a 10 foot table compared to an 8 foot?
I've played on both and I think the 8 foot was way easier.
Discuss that a little.

 

[Corwyn_8]

there is no reason other than luck why you can't run 500 if you can run 300.

So let's dispense with this misapprehension.

Start by assuming 1000 innings, how good do you need to be to have a 1/1000 chance of running X balls. <1 - miss chance>^<run> = <probability>

100 balls requires a 6.67% miss chance.
200 balls requires a 3.39% miss chance.
300 balls requires a 2.28% miss chance.
409 balls requires a 1.67% miss chance.
526 balls requires a 1.30% miss chance.
625 balls requires a 1.10% miss chance.
1000 balls requires a 0.69% miss chance.

So unless you are saying that the only difference between top players is luck, skill is required to run more balls. One would need to miss about 1% less often to get from 300 ball runs to 500 ball runs (per 1,000 innings).

This math also shows why records keep getting broken. If we extend from 1,000 innings to 1,000,000 we get:

100 balls 12.9% miss chance.
300 balls 4.5% miss chance.
526 balls 2.59% miss chance.
625 balls 2.19% miss chance.
1000 balls 1.37% miss chance.

If 1,000 players are all trying to break the record they can increase the record of one player from 526 to 1,000 assuming equal skill.

Thank You Kindly.

 

[Dan White]

Are there videos of Mosconi in his prime playing straight pool? Where can I find them?

Thank You Kindly.

Nope, sadly. I believe whatever footage did exist burned up in a warehouse fire. I'm not 100% on that, but I do know there is no footage.

 

[Corwyn_8]

Also its always been my opinion that the 289,309 or so that Greenleaf,Crane and Mosconi ran on 10 foots tables was harder then the 526 on the 8 foot table.
I know its 200 or so more but a 10 foot table compared to an 8 foot? Discuss that a little.

Are you 60% less likely to miss on the 8 foot table? That would appear to be the difference at those run numbers. Seems high to me, but I have never played on a 10 foot table, nor, of course, at that skill level.

Thank You Kindly.

 

[Dan White]

I played Mosconi an exhibition game in 1964. He ran 85 perfect balls and out.
I also saw in person from 10 feet away Irving Crane run 141 balls.
While Irving was a great straight pool player he did not run balls as pretty as Mosconi.
Mosconi when he was on made the game look easy.
At that same exhibition that I played Mosconi I over heard a woman say "Hes not that good. He never made a hard shot!"
So the old conversation of who was the best Mosconi or Greenleaf?
I never saw Greenleaf play but if he was better then Mosconi then he was not human.
Also its always been my opinion that the 289,309 or so that Greenleaf,Crane and Mosconi ran on 10 foots tables was harder then the 526 on the 8 foot table.
I know its 200 or so more but a 10 foot table compared to an 8 foot?
I've played on both and I think the 8 foot was way easier.
Discuss that a little.

Great story. My father had the same impression. It was almost disappointing because it felt like you didn't really get to see him do anything difficult. On the other hand, occasionally the balls would roll funny and he'd get stuck. Then he'd get a little angry and walk around the table, and around again, and then back the other way. Eventually, BLAM! balls would scatter and something would go in! Then it was back to boring old dink shots.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Did balls even skid back then on the old equipment?
All I see is balls skidding all over the place today.
Forget about it if you have to hit a shot softly. That's asking to fail.

 

[Dan White]

If 1,000 players are all trying to break the record they can increase the record of one player from 526 to 1,000 assuming equal skill.

Thank You Kindly.

That's the classic statistical way of looking at it, which can be very accurate. You do have to factor in that a player's pocketing probability is likely to change as the numbers get higher due to fatigue. Mosconi said he was tired and was glad when it was over. How many can a guy run when he is really motivated to prove something? Mosconi was doing it just for the crowd and had no incentive to push himself. He had a helluva temper and it makes me wonder what he could have done if he was really pissed off!

I think the other thing that cannot be measured statistically is the outlier kind of situations. For instance, how good is a player at caroms and identifying dead balls in the middle of a cluster? How creatively can he get out of trouble? I think these things can make the difference between a 300 ball run and a 500 ball run. (I'm assuming that the top handful of players all run the balls with good sequences and give themselves shots with multiple options, but that doesn't address how well they get out of trouble).

 

[Corwyn_8]

You do have to factor in that a player's pocketing probability is likely to change as the numbers get higher due to fatigue.

I think the other thing that cannot be measured statistically is the outlier kind of situations. For instance, how good is a player at caroms and identifying dead balls in the middle of a cluster?

1) Probably true. It would seem to a grueling enterprise.

2) I don't see how long runs are different in this respect from any other run (after you get past 1 rack). Getting into trouble will be reflected already in 'miss chance' unless that is more common in long runs than short ones.

 

[Mr. Bond]

Nope, sadly. I believe whatever footage did exist burned up in a warehouse fire. I'm not 100% on that, but I do know there is no footage.

That you know of.

 

[Dan White]

That you know of.

Are you saying you are sitting on a video encyclopedia of all 15 title matches, or are you just teasing? :grin:

 

[JB Cases]

So let's dispense with this misapprehension.

Start by assuming 1000 innings, how good do you need to be to have a 1/1000 chance of running X balls. <1 - miss chance>^<run> = <probability>

100 balls requires a 6.67% miss chance.
200 balls requires a 3.39% miss chance.
300 balls requires a 2.28% miss chance.
409 balls requires a 1.67% miss chance.
526 balls requires a 1.30% miss chance.
625 balls requires a 1.10% miss chance.
1000 balls requires a 0.69% miss chance.

So unless you are saying that the only difference between top players is luck, skill is required to run more balls. One would need to miss about 1% less often to get from 300 ball runs to 500 ball runs (per 1,000 innings).

This math also shows why records keep getting broken. If we extend from 1,000 innings to 1,000,000 we get:

100 balls 12.9% miss chance.
300 balls 4.5% miss chance.
526 balls 2.59% miss chance.
625 balls 2.19% miss chance.
1000 balls 1.37% miss chance.

If 1,000 players are all trying to break the record they can increase the record of one player from 526 to 1,000 assuming equal skill.

Thank You Kindly.

Ok. I will take your word for it.

 

[JB Cases]

I have to laugh at some of the comments in this thread.

I think there are two overlapping conversations happening.

The first conversation is whether the 526 record can be broken. I think are probably a handful of people who, given the same table conditions, could break the record if given enough time to do it. I would concede that point even if it can't be proven without actually setting up a table and trying.

The second conversation revolves around the question of how good Mosconi really was. People who saw him first-hand understand he was light years better than anybody else. My father, as I've said in the past, was invited by Mosconi to attend half a dozen of his exhibitions. He always ran 100 and it always looked routine. At the end of a rack, the break ball would always be in the same spot and the cue ball would also always be in the same spot. Please reread that and think about it. Hence, the term, the "Mosconi break shot." My father told that story to an older prominent professional we all know (who never saw Mosconi play) and he had trouble believing it.

Let's look at it another way. Let's set up the 8 foot table and tell Mosconi that some guy ran 526 on this table, but we'll give him $50,000 if he can run 527. Knowing Mosconi's talent and disposition, how long do any of you think it would take him to do it? One day? Two days? OK let's be silly and say two weeks. Give me a name of a player you think is going to do it faster than Mosconi.

I don't think anyone is disputing Mosconi's greatness. Grady Matthews used to have a guarantee for his exhibitions that he would run 100 or it was free. I don't think he ever had to do a free exhibition.

I would be willing to bet that on a 4x8 with big pockets John Schmidt, Mike Sigel, Earl Strickland, Shane Van Boening, Johnny Archer, Thomas Engert, Oliver Ortmann, Ralf Souquet, and many others could run 527 in an acceptable amount of time.

I will concede that when it comes to 14.1 none of these men know as much as Mosconi did. He lived and breathed ONLY that game for his entire career which spanned 30 years or so? I mean he went on six month tours with Greenleaf several times playing every day against the world's best. There is simply no modern experience comparison for a 14.1 player. 14.1 is on life support in the USA when in Mosconi's day it was front page news at times.

 

[Dan White]

2) I don't see how long runs are different in this respect from any other run (after you get past 1 rack). Getting into trouble will be reflected already in 'miss chance' unless that is more common in long runs than short ones.

Your statistics show that for a given number of attempts, the better ball pocketer will run more balls. This makes intuitive sense and you've put the relative numbers on it. I understand that since your "miss chance" is a number calculated from the 1/1000 scenario you have created, it theoretically covers all shot situations. I think you are correct on that, but it is only theoretical. When I implied that the statistics aren't necessarily accurate, I guess I was thinking more about real world situations.

In reality, a figure like "miss chance" can be misleading. Your (1-miss chance) is basically the % chance that a player will pocket a ball attempted. So let's call it a "make percentage" for ease of understanding. You can have two players with the exact same make percentage, and but one will be better equipped to run 500 balls than the other. How?

Let's say the real world make percentage is calculated through actual tournament play results. Shots attempted, shots made, and so on. With enough data you can get a pretty good number for a player. However, this does not give you any information on the player's style of play. People have called Irving Crane "Mr. 14" because his safety play was so good that he didn't need to make long runs to win a match. So if he shoots 12 balls and gets into trouble, he plays safe. His make percentage remains at 100%, yet his run ended at 12. On the other hand, take a more offensive player like Mosconi. He's going to get to 12 and instead of playing safe, he's going to see some crazy shot that he can make. He shoots it and continues his run to 526. Both players might have a 99.5% make percentage from real world play yet one has a game that lends itself to longer runs than the other. Note: I only use Crane for discussion. I realize he was also capable of very long runs.

Another way to illustrate it more clearly is if you have one player that shoots 1 ball and then plays safe. He does this 99 times, making every shot and playing safe every time after. Then on the 100th attempt he misses. His make percentage is 99%. The other player runs 99 balls in a row and misses the 100th, yet he is also at 99%. So we have two players with equal "miss chance" yet one is better at long runs because he has more knowledge of special situations.

That's why I said you can't necessarily measure things like run capability with statistics. I'm not a statistician and my stomach is telling me to go eat, so maybe I'm missing something. Let me know what you think.

 

[Dan White]

I don't think anyone is disputing Mosconi's greatness. Grady Matthews used to have a guarantee for his exhibitions that he would run 100 or it was free. I don't think he ever had to do a free exhibition.

I would be willing to bet that on a 4x8 with big pockets John Schmidt, Mike Sigel, Earl Strickland, Shane Van Boening, Johnny Archer, Thomas Engert, Oliver Ortmann, Ralf Souquet, and many others could run 527 in an acceptable amount of time.

I will concede that when it comes to 14.1 none of these men know as much as Mosconi did. He lived and breathed ONLY that game for his entire career which spanned 30 years or so? I mean he went on six month tours with Greenleaf several times playing every day against the world's best. There is simply no modern experience comparison for a 14.1 player. 14.1 is on life support in the USA when in Mosconi's day it was front page news at times.

Agreed. However, if you believe his autobiography, you didn't want to play 9 ball against Mosconi, either. He just hated the game and the money for him was in straight pool. Kind or ironic that it is opposite that now.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I don't think anyone is disputing Mosconi's greatness. Grady Matthews used to have a guarantee for his exhibitions that he would run 100 or it was free. I don't think he ever had to do a free exhibition.

I would be willing to bet that on a 4x8 with big pockets John Schmidt, Mike Sigel, Earl Strickland, Shane Van Boening, Johnny Archer, Thomas Engert, Oliver Ortmann, Ralf Souquet, and many others could run 527 in an acceptable amount of time.

I will concede that when it comes to 14.1 none of these men know as much as Mosconi did. He lived and breathed ONLY that game for his entire career which spanned 30 years or so? I mean he went on six month tours with Greenleaf several times playing every day against the world's best. There is simply no modern experience comparison for a 14.1 player. 14.1 is on life support in the USA when in Mosconi's day it was front page news at times.

I was just thinking of Grady when I came across your post. He came to Drexeline Billiards in the early 2000's, when he was still playing decent, to do an exhibition. He said he was going to attempt a 100 ball run. (No guarantee...) Several innings later, I don't think he got past 30. I doubt there is any pro alive today that would bet money they would run 100 every night on any random room they walked into.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Did balls even skid back then on the old equipment?
All I see is balls skidding all over the place today.
Forget about it if you have to hit a shot softly. That's asking to fail.

Bump for an answer? I recall on the old tapes that the players said the old equipment did not skid at all. I have no first hand knowledge...

 

[JB Cases]

I was just thinking of Grady when I came across your post. He came to Drexeline Billiards in the early 2000's, when he was still playing decent, to do an exhibition. He said he was going to attempt a 100 ball run. (No guarantee...) Several innings later, I don't think he got past 30. I doubt there is any pro alive today that would bet money they would run 100 every night on any random room they walked into.

I think he was already too old then. I mean anyone silly enough to bet on my playing one pocket like Grady did at $50 a game had to be not all there. I literally didn't even know the rules when he did that and that was in 98.

 

[lfigueroa]

Bump for an answer? I recall on the old tapes that the players said the old equipment did not skid at all. I have no first hand knowledge...

Balls have been skidding forever.

We had several discussions about it back on RSB 15 years ago and someone even came up with a way to reduce the chances of a ball skidding. Basically the propeller heads agreed that skid most often happens because of residue chalk on the CB and creating crazy friction at impact with an OB.

My personal theory about balls seeming to skid more nowadays involves the advent of newer "sticky" chalk, which leaves more chalk on the CB, and the use of uber hard break cue tips that abrade the surface of the CB and may also be a source of increased friction.

Lou Figueroa