The cloth John scratched on was about six months old in a pool hall.
14.1 Stats -- John Schmidt's Run of 434 on Video, December 2018
- Thread starter AtLarge
- Start date
Regardless, the CB in my video is rolling with a large amount of sidespin (after any initial effects right off the secondary hit), so the comparison to John's shot is good.
Regards,
Dave
My cloth is not brand new, but it is also not significantly "broken in," so it will be a good (typical) example.
Regards,
Dave
Maybe there was grass on the knoll?
Are you sure, Bob? A couple quotes from John on Facebook:
Nov. 28: "I’m playing on a loose rebco 9 ft, new cloth and polished balls so great conditions."
Dec. 17: "I’d like to thank Ivan Lee of simonis cloth. He generously gave me cloth for the 14.1 I played this month to try to set new records.it was 760 and played great."
Did John have the table set up 5 or 6 months before he started his attempts? Or maybe he did another round of attempts prior to this most recent set?
I could be wrong, but the cloth didn't seem new to me. He had a set of attempts before in which he failed to get to 400. I'll ask.
Edit: still checking on the cloth but his first tries were March 16 to April 10, 2018. He 23 runs over 200 and 5 runs over 300 during those tries including a high of 362. It looks from the notes at that time that he was playing the first set on 860, so that would mean that the 760 for the Nov/Dec tries was relatively new.
Last edited:
Sounds like the more pertinent detail than the cloth is that of the Pro Cup Measle cue ball he was using for his 434 ball run? Was it new or older? If it wasn't checked out before the start of this run, surely after that nasty rolloff that ended the run, John or someone must have checked out that cue ball for a possible bulging dot?
Last edited:
Well, realkingcobra thinks cloth weave tracking could have been a factor. But I think a bunch of us would like to know more about the cue ball. I posted this last night:
9 foot table is tougher regardless of game. Lesser experienced players may be inclined to believe that it is tougher to play 8 ball on a 7 foot or 8 foot table due to all the congestion and clusters because they have a hard time dealing with those in general. Even some semi-pro believe this when I asked them.
However, the larger number of clusters and congestion is offset by the shorter distances. Shot making is easier on a smaller table. Combos, caroms and kicks are also easier. But more importantly than that, because of the shorter distances involved, the margin for error is larger for getting certain lines/angles on breakouts. You don't have to be as precise coming off a rail or multiple rails to break out a cluster or knock out a blocking ball. Speed control is also easier, which is huge in 8 ball as there's a lot less "area" position play in 8 ball, and also due to having to often accept "what the table gives you" you find yourself having to cross natural position lines, rather than run along them as you would in 9 ball.
8 ball can be deceiving because on a large table, say a 9 or even 10 foot table, if the players are breaking well and spreading the balls, it looks like total ease and there's barely any safety play or need to address table issues. They just run out. Whereas even with good breaks on a small table, there's more pocket blockers, more clusters.
They key is to watch enough 8 ball played on large and small tables. While I have no stats, from my observation - it seems that on average clusters and pocket blockers are dealt with less successfully on an 9 foot table than on a 7 or 8 foot table. Players are more inclined to take much higher risk shots and play much more difficult patterns to get position on these higher risk shots than to attempt breakouts or ball movements. On small tables, it seems they are much more comfortable breaking out balls. Not only are they more accurate in doing it, the aftermath is more forgiving due to shorter distances thus less risky.
One thing is for sure, the size of the table changes the style of the play.
However, the larger number of clusters and congestion is offset by the shorter distances. Shot making is easier on a smaller table. Combos, caroms and kicks are also easier. But more importantly than that, because of the shorter distances involved, the margin for error is larger for getting certain lines/angles on breakouts. You don't have to be as precise coming off a rail or multiple rails to break out a cluster or knock out a blocking ball. Speed control is also easier, which is huge in 8 ball as there's a lot less "area" position play in 8 ball, and also due to having to often accept "what the table gives you" you find yourself having to cross natural position lines, rather than run along them as you would in 9 ball.
8 ball can be deceiving because on a large table, say a 9 or even 10 foot table, if the players are breaking well and spreading the balls, it looks like total ease and there's barely any safety play or need to address table issues. They just run out. Whereas even with good breaks on a small table, there's more pocket blockers, more clusters.
They key is to watch enough 8 ball played on large and small tables. While I have no stats, from my observation - it seems that on average clusters and pocket blockers are dealt with less successfully on an 9 foot table than on a 7 or 8 foot table. Players are more inclined to take much higher risk shots and play much more difficult patterns to get position on these higher risk shots than to attempt breakouts or ball movements. On small tables, it seems they are much more comfortable breaking out balls. Not only are they more accurate in doing it, the aftermath is more forgiving due to shorter distances thus less risky.
One thing is for sure, the size of the table changes the style of the play.
Yes. This can very well have been a contributing factor. I have seen poorly installed Simonis where there is a wavy pattern in the weave because it is stretched so tightly yet unevenly. I have seen balls that are rolling slowly BUT spinning fast which then causes a wobble or inconsistent CB path. It's slight, but it exists.
What happened to JS was probably NOT due entirely to that. To me it appears that it must have been a very slight depression in the slate or unevenness. A slight roll on a table is magnified by a slow rolling, high spin ball on thin cloth.
I don't think it was a piece of chalk as that causes a very visible and abrupt change of direction.
However, this was also not due to spin alone, because the amount of curve increased so much toward the end. Now, a slower ball does allow spin to "catch" more on the cloth...but on a shot like this we should have seen a much more even and consistent curve toward the pocket, not such a rapid curve in the last diamond or so....
The table had Simonis 760 yes? That certainly could magnify the effect.
Finally, on a lot of tables - that exact area is very common for roll off due to slave unevenness or issues with table level.
The cloth for the run of 434 was brand new Simonis 760 at the start of John's attempts on Thursday, November 22nd. The 434 was on December 3rd, the 9th day of attempts and by that time John had finished 30 runs over 100 on the cloth. Thanks to Doug, John's racker, for the correction.
The cloth was new, but not brand new, for the scratch.
The cloth was new, but not brand new, for the scratch.
Thanks for confirming. Although, in 14.1 there's not a whole lot of action down on that side of the table to break-in as much as the foot end. Could have still been fairly slick.
Thanks for following up on that, Bob. Now we need you to go back to that room, measure all the pocket specs, and examine the suspect cue ball closely (surely the proprietor hasn't lost track of it?).
[It's a pretty drive, right?]
It is a pretty drive. One winter just after some rain, a boulder about the size of a Volkswagen Beetle had crossed the road about five minutes before I passed that spot. The boulder seemed to have bounced over the center divider which was undamaged. :shocked2: It is a very narrow two lanes in each direction but the drivers know how to compress to one lane when the emergency vehicles need to get by, which is often. But I digress....
The cue ball was changed out for a new one eight days later on the 11th when I went down to watch. We will see if it was tracked. It looked fairly used.
the break shot at 196 point,
https://youtu.be/lf9hRHdA0A8?t=2545
wow, with the ball that far away and on the wrong side of it
https://youtu.be/lf9hRHdA0A8?t=2545
wow, with the ball that far away and on the wrong side of it
You are 100% correct!
Extremely little play at that end of table.
I've seen tables used for 14.1 and nothing else that had what looked to be extremely worn cloth on breaking end while the other end was still nice-looking and very slick.
Get two of your best players, give em 6'' pockets and see if they can run 434 the first time. At the end....John got screwed with that cue ball U turn movement to scratch. It's easy to knock anothers play conditions, cloth, shelf size, year of table, lighting, chalk type, manner of cue ball marking, cue ball size, weight, should it be left dirty, yadee yadee. Your post tho is also just as easy to comment on with the same type of delivery.
John....nice shooting.
Last edited:
lol. OMG, stop the presses, he marked the cue ball, picked it up, and put it back down in the exact same place, while on camera, during an exhibition with no opponent.
my god, is this John Schmidt fellow "mad". LOL
This is going to get so funny when more haters start coming out of the wood work. I think Mosconi was the best ever. But all records were meant to be broken. Nobody will ever break his world championship numbers in straight pool, but maybe 526 will be toast one day.
Either way, it certainly will NOT be a bad thing for pool. Maybe it even gets reported. I got a friend at USA Today. I will push for them to put this in their little rag if he breaks it
This is fun stuff, and you get to watch a master for FREE. yet, folks are still complaining. Holy Bat Shit.
FYI, I just spent some time at my table trying to find evidence that the weave direction could affect the motion of a ball, and I could not find any. I still think the primary cause of John's scratch was "ball turn" (and the fact that he lost control of the CB a bit).
Regards,
Dave