How does Mick Hill 456 /Darren Appleton 466 on E8B tables compare to Mosconi's 526?

spartan

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The breakout star of the just concluded Chinese 8 Ball World is Mick Hill who in his debut in this event steamrolled his way to the final.
Hill is a multiple English 8 Ball (E8B) World Champion and few years ago achieved straight pool record 456 on E8B tables ( Here are E8B equipment details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackball_(pool)#Equipment ) Darren Appleton holds unofficial record of 466
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/8688025.stm

Taking into account table diffculty, how does Mick Hill 456 /Darren Appleton 466 straight pool record on E8B tables compare to Mosconi's 526?
Not as good or better or cannot compare because of diff equipment and era?
:D
 
not sure why Mosconi's exhibition continues to be reffered to as a record

in any case, the above is way harder, as are some of the other recnet runs on 9' and 10 ' american pool tables
 
This topic has been debated so many times on this forum. Long story short- nobody agrees. Endless arguments ensue. It is basically pointless to continue debating this topic.
 
From the article on the BBC site:

"I aim to get the cue ball in the centre of the table - the blue spot on a snooker table - from my last ball then I punch the head ball," he added.

I think (and may be wrong) he wasn't actually playing straight pool as you know it in the US, but was simply seeing how many 15 ball racks he could clear without picking up the cue ball.
 
vjmehra said:
From the article on the BBC site:

"I aim to get the cue ball in the centre of the table - the blue spot on a snooker table - from my last ball then I punch the head ball," he added.

I think (and may be wrong) he wasn't actually playing straight pool as you know it in the US, but was simply seeing how many 15 ball racks he could clear without picking up the cue ball.
Click to expand...

And presumably with no requirement to make a ball on the smash break, similar to Equal Offense.
 
Back To The Future
Pretty sure this was the origin of straight pool...maybe a 100 years ago.
At some point it was decided to start the next rack with the 15th ball....
....14.1 was born.....much more civilized.

But the runs of Daz and Mick are impressive.

..pt...hoping Mr Jewett comments and corrects the above
 
pt109 said:
Back To The Future
Pretty sure this was the origin of straight pool...maybe a 100 years ago.
At some point it was decided to start the next rack with the 15th ball....
....14.1 was born.....much more civilized.

But the runs of Daz and Mick are impressive.

..pt...hoping Mr Jewett comments and corrects the above
Click to expand...

I think you're right but breaking a full rack, running 15 balls, re-racking and breaking and running. Not like the current game of Straight Pool. The lad in my avatar, Jerome Keogh, came up with the current rules in 1910 and they were first used in competition in 1911.
 
Fwiw, I think there is generally less traffic on an english pool table since the balls are so small,
pockets are pretty forgiving too when the object ball is off the rail and the sides are available
from angles that are impossible on a 9-foot.

But, balls on the rail are a nightmare. In total I would say that high runs are a little easier on the
english pool tables. Not sure what games exactly Darren/Mick had their runs on though.

gr. Dave
 
Double-Dave said:
Fwiw, I think there is generally less traffic on an english pool table since the balls are so small,
pockets are pretty forgiving too when the object ball is off the rail and the sides are available
from angles that are impossible on a 9-foot.

But, balls on the rail are a nightmare. In total I would say that high runs are a little easier on the
english pool tables. Not sure what games exactly Darren/Mick had their runs on though.

gr. Dave
Click to expand...

I did some quick maths (which may be wrong :-) and I think it disagrees with your logic about traffic:

9ft US table

16 x 2.25 inch balls = 36 inches
100 length x 50 width = 5,000 inches

Balls as a % of the playing surface = 0.72%

7ft English table

15 x 2 inch balls + 1 x 1.875 inch cue ball = 31.875 inches
78 length x 39 width = 3,042 inches

Balls as a % of the playing surface = 1.05%

I'd also disagree with you saying the pockets are forgiving.

I believe they are 3.25 inches (in the corners) versus (lets be generous) and a say 4.5 inches on a 9 foot US table, purely using those numbers we are looking at a ball that takes up around 61% of the pocket v 50% of the pocket on a (tight) US table.

I'm not going to go as far as to say I disagree that a high run is harder on a US table however, I personally feel the smaller table and tighter pockets roughly equates to the difficulty of the larger table and larger pockets, so its pretty even (but thats just opinion, I could be persuaded either way on that front), if you put a gun to my head I'd say the English table I guess is slightly harder (very specifically) for a high straight pool run (not necessarily harder in all games for clarity) as you don't have as many options. On a US table you can use a lot of top and play down the rail, two options that you don't really have on an English table. Also, if playing 'proper' 14.1 rules, breaking up the pack with the smaller cue ball would be really tough too...again easier with the larger balls/table.
 
Last edited:
My comments come from playing pretty extensively on both 9-foot and english pool tables, not from calculations.

And as you feared there are quite a few things wrong with your calculations. Like ball size, table size, pocket size
of the english pool equipment and then dividing surface area of the table by the lenght of a string of balls instead of
their surface area.

gr. Dave
 
Yep fair enough my methodology is wrong...but the ball sizes aren't, the playing surface area I got off a manufacturer website so I assume that's correct, the English pool pocket sizes the same and the US pocket size I've just assumed 4.5 inches as it varies so much.

I have no issues with you pointing out the flaws in my logic...but to imply I made up all the numbers is a bit unfair!
 
I am sure you did not make them up (nor did I imply that) but that does not make them less wrong, except ball size.

Playing size is around 31.5"x71", ball size you were/are indeed correct is 2", I had the size confused with snooker (2 1/16th).
The pockets are over 3.3" at the edge of the slate but they play bigger for balls not on the rail because they are rounded.

gr. Dave
 
Double-Dave said:
I am sure you did not make them up (nor did I imply that) but that does not make them less wrong, except ball size.

Playing size is around 31.5"x71", ball size you were/are indeed correct is 2", I had the size confused with snooker (2 1/16th).
The pockets are over 3.3" at the edge of the slate but they play bigger for balls not on the rail because they are rounded.

gr. Dave
Click to expand...

Interesting point about the rounded pockets actually, I guess the best people to ask about this are probably Darren Appleton and Mick Hill :-)

With regards to the surface area, just so you don't think I'm totally insane, this is the site I was referencing:

https://www.libertygames.co.uk/faq/answer/pool-table-sizes/
 
smashmouth said:
not sure why Mosconi's exhibition continues to be reffered to as a record

in any case, the above is way harder, as are some of the other recnet runs on 9' and 10 ' american pool tables
Click to expand...

Aahhh - that would be because it IS a record.

IIRC - it was officially referred to as the "Exhibition High Run Record"

Dale
 
ok i stand corrected

so its essentially officially an unofficial record

point being nobody ever references exshibition records against real play in other sports

if i was playing that game i'd almost reference justin gatlin's 9.45 from a few days ago
 
smashmouth said:
ok i stand corrected

so its essentially officially an unofficial record

point being nobody ever references exshibition records against real play in other sports

if i was playing that game i'd almost reference justin gatlin's 9.45 from a few days ago
Click to expand...

Is that the drugs cheat Justin Gatlin?
 
smashmouth said:
not sure why Mosconi's exhibition continues to be reffered to as a record

in any case, the above is way harder, as are some of the other recnet runs on 9' and 10 ' american pool tables
Click to expand...

smashmouth said:
ok i stand corrected

so its essentially officially an unofficial record

point being nobody ever references exshibition records against real play in other sports

if i was playing that game i'd almost reference justin gatlin's 9.45 from a few days ago
Click to expand...

The Ghost of Greyhound

In harness racing, a 'time trial' was distinct from a time in an actual race.
Greyhound, called the trotter of the 20th century, did a 155.25 time trial in 1938, which stood up till 1969.
Up till then, it was said that no matter how fast a horse trotted, the Ghost of Greyhound stayed a nose ahead.

I think Willie Mosconi and his 526 should get the respect ...it was an exhibition run as opposed to a competitive run, but admirable never-the-less.....
....and it was attended all the way with signed statements afterward.
The Ghost of Willie is still winning today.

Darren Appleton gets mucho respect from me for his competitive 200 run in the finals against Bustamante.......
.......but I think that has been surpassed now by Niels Feijen....
...pretty sure he ran 300 and change lately in a match to 1,000.

So I think there should be a distinction between competitive and non-competitive...
....but recognition for both is deserved.
 
Double-Dave said:
Fwiw, I think there is generally less traffic on an english pool table since the balls are so small,
pockets are pretty forgiving too when the object ball is off the rail and the sides are available
from angles that are impossible on a 9-foot.

But, balls on the rail are a nightmare. In total I would say that high runs are a little easier on the
english pool tables. Not sure what games exactly Darren/Mick had their runs on though.

gr. Dave
Click to expand...

Although yes what you say is a fact but also one can't simply decide where balls go, also regardless of the size of a ball if it is blocked it's blocked. A space does not get bigger or smaller because of the size of the balls used, not to mention what you're saying would have to happen for A LOT of continuous breaks.
One still has to play perfect pool not to mention be on the "good" side of the pool Gods
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top