Why has no one beat Mosconi's high run?

[measureman]

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.

first off let me say I have run over a 100 balls.
I have played on 10 foot and 8 foot tables.
10 foot tables are brutal.
8 foot tables are much easier.
I would take a bet that I could run 50 in an hour of tries on an 8 foot table.
Would not bet on 30 on a 10 footer unless I had a couple weeks to get used to it.

 

[alstl]

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.

I was thinking about Crane's 309. Some people are claiming Mosconi's run isn't legit because of the easy conditions. I disagree because you can still scratch or get frozen to a ball with no shot, but if easy conditions are an issue then nobody would claim 309 on a 10 foot table isn't legitimate - and he did it in 1939.

A few years ago at DCC they held the 14.1 challenge on a 10 ft table and only only player got to 100. It was eye opening as to how much harder the game is on a 10 ft table. So if Mosconi's run isn't legit then break Crane's run.

 

[Mr. Bond]

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

No, all 15 never existed, and no.

What warehouse is it that you mentioned?

 

[Poolmanis]

I know one guy here Finland made 1000+ balls from 15 ball lineup. He gave up without miss because he felt too tired.. He is 200+ 14.1 runner and reigning 14.1 Finnish champ. I saw him run 101 and 100(2 games to 100 ran on row) on last November at Finnish 14.1 championships. I believe he is right after Thorsten and Darren world 14.1 players.. Maybe Feijen is better. I think he is capable to break Mosconis high run and maybe 10 more guys on whole world..

 

[Corwyn_8]

Your statistics show that for a given number of attempts, the better ball pocketer will run more balls. I guess I was thinking more about real world situations. ... 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.

Statistics are about what has already happened, there is nothing not 'real world' about them. Probability is about what might happen in the future. If you want totally accurate run statistics, you should use only runs, of course. But I assume that 'playing safe' counts as a miss (it certainly is as far as runs are concerned) So Mr. Crane can't have a 1.30% miss chance, if he plays safe every 12 shots. At best he would have a 8.3% miss chance. The only way to have a 1.30% miss chance is if you habitually make runs longer than 100. If I was calculating the chance of winning a 14.1 match, rather than longest run, I would use different statistical measures.

In other words, Mr. Mosconi's previous runs tell us what his miss chance is. From this we can determine the probability that he will run a given number of balls in 1000 attempts (or whatever). Or we can take the known run, and his number of attempts to determine statistically, the probability that he will miss on a given shot.

Thank You Kindly.

 

[JB Cases]

I was thinking about Crane's 309. Some people are claiming Mosconi's run isn't legit because of the easy conditions. I disagree because you can still scratch or get frozen to a ball with no shot, but if easy conditions are an issue then nobody would claim 309 on a 10 foot table isn't legitimate - and he did it in 1939.

A few years ago at DCC they held the 14.1 challenge on a 10 ft table and only only player got to 100. It was eye opening as to how much harder the game is on a 10 ft table. So if Mosconi's run isn't legit then break Crane's run.

Agreed. I think all runs should be now categorized in terms of the Table Difficulty Factor and world records assigned accordingly.

Mosconi's run is totally legit, for the equipment he did it on. It's still Mosconi and still 500+ balls.

But when people use JUST the number and then say no one living can do it because no one has they really need to take all factors into account.

 

[measureman]

No, all 15 never existed, and no.

What warehouse is it that you mentioned?

I'm pretty sure it was his house that had a fire and destroyed the tapes.
You would think that he made copies and gave them to Brunswick or friends and family.

 

[Dan White]

Statistics are about what has already happened, there is nothing not 'real world' about them. Probability is about what might happen in the future. If you want totally accurate run statistics, you should use only runs, of course. But I assume that 'playing safe' counts as a miss (it certainly is as far as runs are concerned) So Mr. Crane can't have a 1.30% miss chance, if he plays safe every 12 shots. At best he would have a 8.3% miss chance. The only way to have a 1.30% miss chance is if you habitually make runs longer than 100. If I was calculating the chance of winning a 14.1 match, rather than longest run, I would use different statistical measures.

In other words, Mr. Mosconi's previous runs tell us what his miss chance is. From this we can determine the probability that he will run a given number of balls in 1000 attempts (or whatever). Or we can take the known run, and his number of attempts to determine statistically, the probability that he will miss on a given shot.

Thank You Kindly.

Hi Corwyn. If a player opts to play a safety shot it is not scored as a miss. How could it be? He didn't miss anything. Therefore, two players could have identical miss percentages yet one be better able to make long runs.

If you want to say that we should tabulate run lengths and that a safety shot terminates a run, then there is another problem. The records are not adequate to make predictions about high run probability. The data are truncated at 100 and 125 and 150 points. If you want to determine a player's capability of running 526 within a certain number of tries, the historical data isn't a lot of help. What is the probability of Mosconi running 600 balls at any given exhibition? He ran 100 balls in virtually every exhibition he ever gave. So the probability of a 100 is 1.0. Then 1.0^6 = 1.0 so that says he has 100% chance of running 600 balls. This incorrect conclusion is caused by the fact that the runs are truncated at 100 balls. Of course if he were allowed to keep running balls we might have numbers like 140, 121, 405, 331, 609 and so on. Only then could we get any good information from his past history. On the other hand, I'm sure there is a way to use the shorter run lengths and how often they occurred to extrapolate out to the big numbers. But, I'm not a statistician so I couldn't comment on how useful an estimation like this would be.

What I meant by "real world" is that the "miss chance" numbers you derived were calculated with a formula and are purely theoretical. Nothing has happened or will happen to derive those numbers. They are just generated numbers. For a given confidence level, and 1000 tries, player X will need to have a miss chance at or lower than the figure you provided. I think that is completely correct.

To accurately predict a player's capability of running 526 you need to know his TRUE miss chance. However, using historical data will only provide you with an estimate of that number. The estimation of the player's true capability to make long runs by studying historical data will be hampered by safety play, truncated data, fatigue factor (pretty much unknowable). Also, are we using only tournament data? Most players are more conservative in a tournament than they would be in an exhibition. So all this boils down to me saying that a players "real world" miss chance is not necessarily a good estimate of his true miss chance - the one in your formula.

 

[Dan White]

Agreed. I think all runs should be now categorized in terms of the Table Difficulty Factor and world records assigned accordingly.

Mosconi's run is totally legit, for the equipment he did it on. It's still Mosconi and still 500+ balls.

But when people use JUST the number and then say no one living can do it because no one has they really need to take all factors into account.

I think people make too much of records in sports in general. Look at the ridiculous home run record. Every ballpark has different outfield dimensions, and not just a little different. Completely silly, yet gains the most attention.

I think you just have to leave things the way they are. Pretty soon we are going to have a record high run for humidity under 30% vs a record run for humidity under 60%.

Just leave the records be. If someone wants to get an 8' table and duplicate it, then great. Remember the big debate about 61*?

 

[pdcue]

No, all 15 never existed, and no.

What warehouse is it that you mentioned?

I'm not Dan, but he may be thinking of the fire at Brunswick a few decades ago
in which many company records were lost.

As far as World Championships on film, I had never heard even a rumor about one.

Dale

 

[Corwyn_8]

Hi Corwyn. If a player opts to play a safety shot it is not scored as a miss. How could it be? He didn't miss anything. Therefore, two players could have identical miss percentages yet one be better able to make long runs.

I have no idea how these things are scored in world championships. But, I and everyone I know scores runs terminated by either a miss or safety, with no record of which.

The records are not adequate to make predictions about high run probability. The data are truncated at 100 and 125 and 150 points. He ran 100 balls in virtually every exhibition he ever gave. So the probability of a 100 is 1.0. Then 1.0^6 = 1.0 so that says he has 100% chance of running 600 balls. ... On the other hand, I'm sure there is a way to use the shorter run lengths and how often they occurred to extrapolate out to the big numbers. But, I'm not a statistician so I couldn't comment on how useful an estimation like this would be.

The truncated data is still usable. We can assume a Gaussian distribution of run length, with higher numbers missing. It would be 1.0^600 not 1.0^6, but whatever.

What I meant by "real world" is that the "miss chance" numbers you derived were calculated with a formula and are purely theoretical. Nothing has happened or will happen to derive those numbers. They are just generated numbers.

All numbers aren't real in the sense you want. They are ALL calculated with formulas; ALL generated. All numbers also should include error factors, and properly done my would as well. Since I don't have the actual data, there is no point.

To accurately predict a player's capability of running 526 you need to know his TRUE miss chance. However, using historical data will only provide you with an estimate of that number.

Nope. It is amazing what can be predicted. The Higg's boson was 'discovered' by exactly analogous methods. No Higg's was ever detected, nor were any of it's by products unique. But we have 5 Sigma confidence that it exists. Mosconi is a piece of cake in comparison (though FAR less data).

Thank you kindly.

 

[Dan White]

I have no idea how these things are scored in world championships. But, I and everyone I know scores runs terminated by either a miss or safety, with no record of which.

I know in statistics there are very specific meanings to various terms, so maybe that's why "real world" doesn't sit well with you. My example using safety play was merely to show that getting "miss chance" data from actual play will not necessarily yield a players true miss chance when attempting to run as many balls as possible, rather than playing in a tournament. I could also have said, "There lies, damned lies, and statistics." I'm simply pointing out that you have to be careful, which I'm sure you are fully capable of.

The truncated data is still usable. We can assume a Gaussian distribution of run length, with higher numbers missing. It would be 1.0^600 not 1.0^6, but whatever.

Let me ask you a stats question, if I may. If we stipulate that a 100 ball run is one trial rather than 100 individual trials, why wouldn't it be proper to use 100^6? The 1.0 I was referring to was Mosconi's probability of running 100 balls in a given evening.

Nope. It is amazing what can be predicted. The Higg's boson was 'discovered' by exactly analogous methods. No Higg's was ever detected, nor were any of it's by products unique. But we have 5 Sigma confidence that it exists. Mosconi is a piece of cake in comparison (though FAR less data).

OK then how would you tackle this problem: A guy performs exhibitions 3 nights a week and in every one he runs 100 balls on his first try, unscrews his cue and leaves. What is the probability that he will run 526 if asked to continue shooting? The answer to that is harder to find than the Higgs boson.

 

[KRJ]

I think people make too much of records in sports in general. Look at the ridiculous home run record. Every ballpark has different outfield dimensions, and not just a little different. Completely silly, yet gains the most attention.

I think you just have to leave things the way they are. Pretty soon we are going to have a record high run for humidity under 30% vs a record run for humidity under 60%.

Just leave the records be. If someone wants to get an 8' table and duplicate it, then great. Remember the big debate about 61*?

Actually, the records are what make sports fun. The HR record is just that. Yes, the OF fences are different dimensions in every ball park in the Majors. That makes it fun. And nobody, at anytime, cries about a record because you hit a HR "here" versus hitting it "there". Of course, you only get to play half of your games at your own ballpark, so you need to be able to hit them elsewhere to actually win a HR crown.

Plus, I'm guessing altitude and wind factors in a lot more the fence distances. US Cellular field is far from the shortest fences, but is one of the easiest to hit HR's due to the "wind" that is generated.

I say forget the 526 cause nobody has broken it in how many decades?? I'd much rather have someone talk about his dozen or so World Championships. A much greater feat in my mind. And one that may truly stand the test of time.

PS: 20,000th post and I did it talking about Mosconi

 

[BeiberLvr]

Actually, the records are what make sports fun. The HR record is just that. Yes, the OF fences are different dimensions in every ball park in the Majors. That makes it fun. And nobody, at anytime, cries about a record because you hit a HR "here" versus hitting it "there". Of course, you only get to play half of your games at your own ballpark, so you need to be able to hit them elsewhere to actually win a HR crown.

Plus, I'm guessing altitude and wind factors in a lot more the fence distances. US Cellular field is far from the shortest fences, but is one of the easiest to hit HR's due to the "wind" that is generated.

I say forget the 526 cause nobody has broken it in how many decades?? I'd much rather have someone talk about his dozen or so World Championships. A much greater feat in my mind. And one that may truly stand the test of time.

PS: 20,000th post and I did it talking about Mosconi

Of course it'll stand the test of time.

Fields were smaller. Competition at the highest level wasn't as evenly matched as it is today. The game and format today also lends itself to having more luck, which in turn, means the better player doesn't always win.

 

[PoolBoy1]

OK then how would you tackle this problem: A guy performs exhibitions 3 nights a week and in every one he runs 100 balls on his first try, unscrews his cue and leaves. What is the probability that he will run 526 if asked to continue shooting? The answer to that is harder to find than the Higgs boson. [/QUOTE]

"0" because it hasn't been done yet.

 

[Dan White]

Plus, I'm guessing altitude and wind factors in a lot more the [than] fence distances. US Cellular field is far from the shortest fences, but is one of the easiest to hit HR's due to the "wind" that is generated.
)

I was going to mention wind patterns but didn't want to complicate my point. Historically, there have been tremendous differences in field dimensions, far greater than what wind conditions do. Just look up the old Yankee stadium vs the polo grounds vs Fenway park. Look at the deepest part of each field as well as the distance to the foul poles.

Bottom line is that outfield dimensions affect the home run record probably as much as the difference between different table sizes for pool.

 

[Dan White]

Of course it'll stand the test of time.

Fields were smaller. Competition at the highest level wasn't as evenly matched as it is today. The game and format today also lends itself to having more luck, which in turn, means the better player doesn't always win.

Plus, there's nobody as good as Mosconi playing today.

 

[KRJ]

I was going to mention wind patterns but didn't want to complicate my point. Historically, there have been tremendous differences in field dimensions, far greater than what wind conditions do. Just look up the old Yankee stadium vs the polo grounds vs Fenway park. Look at the deepest part of each field as well as the distance to the foul poles.

Bottom line is that outfield dimensions affect the home run record probably as much as the difference between different table sizes for pool.

I'll take the wind over distance any old day. It's easier to hit HR's out of US Cell field with bigger dimensions than both Yankee Stadium, Wrigley field and Fenway Park.

Wrigley field is a "chip shot" in the outfield gaps, yet US Cell is still easier to hit home runs just 8 miles south, go figure

But the biggest difference, is baseball folks don't sit around saying "oh, he had a bigger park, he had a smaller park, he had a slow pitcher, blah, blah, blah. The stats count, and nobody disputes them unless steriods were involved

 

[cookie man]

I think people make too much of records in sports in general. Look at the ridiculous home run record. Every ballpark has different outfield dimensions, and not just a little different. Completely silly, yet gains the most attention.

I think you just have to leave things the way they are. Pretty soon we are going to have a record high run for humidity under 30% vs a record run for humidity under 60%.

Just leave the records be. If someone wants to get an 8' table and duplicate it, then great. Remember the big debate about 61*?

But every player plays in all the different parks. Don't think you can point to one record and say it was because of a certain park.

 

[Mr. Bond]

Fields were smaller. Competition at the highest level wasn't as evenly matched as it is today. The game and format today also lends itself to having more luck, which in turn, means the better player doesn't always win.

All due respect, I don't think any of these statements are true.

The fields today ( in 14.1) may be smaller than they have ever been in history.
Back when 14.1 was at its peak of popularity, competition at the highest level was very evenly matched. Why would it not have been?
The "game and format " today has more luck? It's basically the same exact game and there is no more luck than there ever was.

I enjoy learning, so if I am mistaken, feel free to let me know how and why.