I agree. I'm also wondering if a match is played to 200 and the player has a run going and decides to keep running after hitting 200 are his balls made after 200 considered an exhibition at this point or match points.
Cheers,
John Schmidt has beaten Mosconi
- Thread starter gunzby
- Start date
I agree. I'm also wondering if a match is played to 200 and the player has a run going and decides to keep running after hitting 200 are his balls made after 200 considered an exhibition at this point or match points.
Cheers,
I'd like to bet (high) on John right now in a long 14.1 challenge match against anyone! Say a Race to 2500.
The run speaks for itself. It's the record, and nobody has suggested otherwise. It's great achievement, and the difficulty of the accomplishment is truly profound. In a sports world in which people spend little time focusing on records that can be achieved away from competition, this record might hold up forever.
... but some have tried to suggest that the run, in and of itself, somehow eclipses the accomplishments of most of the all-time greats, and on this point, I have a big problem. One's track record when playing against one's world class peers over a career is the only real measure of a champion. John's record in competition is pretty ordinary, and while you might think that his endless practice on a 5" pocket table has suddenly and dramatically increased his competitive pedigree, it's hard to understand why you would believe so.
Last edited:
I believe that in some of Charlie Williams' 14.1 tournaments the players were allowed to continue at the end of the match if they were on a run over a certain length. In the 14.1 matches at the DCC at least some years the players were allowed to continue if they were on a run of more than 50. Pat Fleming was recording and offered a bonus of something like $500 to a player if they would add commentary to their own run of 100 or more. I believe that happened twice or so.
But in general you are correct. The only time a continuation is possible is in an exhibition match where the whole purpose is see the star shoot pool.
The DCC qualifying is certainly a vehicle for a record run...they shoot till they miss.
Early in the history of 14.1, there were some 1,000 point matches, played in blocks of
250, with the balls being marked for next day’s play.
It makes the 626 special....lots of attempts by other players could’ve produced it...
...but it didn’t happen.
Actually, the block matches lasted until at least the late 1970's. I believe Irving Crane's highest run came in this type of match. Jack Colavita of New Jersey had his all-time high run in this type of match, too.
The DCC 14.1 challenge, conceived by AZB's own Bob Jewett, I've read, is history. Such a shame. You're right, that was the perfect setup for a high run.
I'd love to see a re-emergence of the block matches.
... and 626 is more than special, it's super-amazing.
I guess technically a rule needs to be set, but in snooker the player carries on, even when the frame has been won (although technically it hasn't been 'won' until either the balls are cleared or the other player concedes, so whilst similar I guess its not exactly the same).
Credit where credit is due.... It was actually Earl Strickland who conceived the DCC 14.1. There is a thread on AZB about that where Earl stated that all-offense 14.1 would be the truest test of a player's skill. I just implemented the idea. Amusingly, Earl never played in the DCC 14.1.
A small nit on the "perfect setup" part: If the competition had been on easier tables -- 4x8 with 5.25-inch pockets, anyone? -- then it would have been more likely to produce a record beyond the 285 of Joshua Filler. For the first five years I thought no one would ever break 200 on those tight, nine-foot Diamonds.
A problem with easier tables would have been players spending much longer at the table due to the longer average time for a turn, like maybe twice as long.
Cool story, thanks for sharing. I knew Earl was a big fan of 14.1. I've discussed it with him, but never knew that the challenge was his idea.
Interesting tidbit about Earl. I watched him practicing for hours before the National Straight Pool Championships in 1999. His routine was quite unconventional. He always racked all fifteen balls and then shot a qualifying opening safety to the best of his ability. Then, from where the balls landed, he shot. The first time he missed, he re-racked all fifteen and began the routine again. Only guy I ever watched that went about it that way in practice.
Agree with that. The last well known challenge I recall is Babe Cranfield beating Luther Lassiter in a challenge match to 1,200. It would be nice to see some of those long contests again. But, as we know, there has to be something in it for the players.
All the best,
WW
Both mosconi and Schmidt's feats are unbelievable in their own rights. I'm certainly not picking sides nor would I ever care to. I'm also not trying to slight either feat.
I do have to ask, how much pressure was Mosconi really under? He was playing an exhibition match and simply kept shooting. It wasn't like the expectation was a 526 or nothing. If hemissed on 4 something that simply would have been the record. I'm sure as the ball count got higher the self pressure increased but there was still nothing on the line, the pressure of the exhibition was surely long gone before he was anywhere near 526. I'm certain that not one soul would have left that room in disappointment if Willie didn't set a record that night, except maybe Willie, I don't know.
How many other nights on this and other exhibition tours did he continue to shoot? You could suppose that continuing to shoot at all past the official end of a match is always an attempt at a high run, or why else would you keep shooting? To entertain the crowd, I get it, but they were already entertained long before a record would have been reached. If he wasn't actually trying for a high run then you could argue there wasn't any pressure at all. So it could be argued that Mosconi was actively making a run at documenting a high run much the same as Schmidt, although quite different at the same time.
As for the table conditions, I am sure it is very hard to play on different tables night in and night out. I will tip my hat to Willie in this regard. It is more likely that he hit 526 on this particular night because he found these conditions to be favorable, than it is likely that he did it in spite of the less than favorable conditions. How many high runs were halted by less than favorable conditions on other nights?
Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
I do have to ask, how much pressure was Mosconi really under? He was playing an exhibition match and simply kept shooting. It wasn't like the expectation was a 526 or nothing. If hemissed on 4 something that simply would have been the record. I'm sure as the ball count got higher the self pressure increased but there was still nothing on the line, the pressure of the exhibition was surely long gone before he was anywhere near 526. I'm certain that not one soul would have left that room in disappointment if Willie didn't set a record that night, except maybe Willie, I don't know.
How many other nights on this and other exhibition tours did he continue to shoot? You could suppose that continuing to shoot at all past the official end of a match is always an attempt at a high run, or why else would you keep shooting? To entertain the crowd, I get it, but they were already entertained long before a record would have been reached. If he wasn't actually trying for a high run then you could argue there wasn't any pressure at all. So it could be argued that Mosconi was actively making a run at documenting a high run much the same as Schmidt, although quite different at the same time.
As for the table conditions, I am sure it is very hard to play on different tables night in and night out. I will tip my hat to Willie in this regard. It is more likely that he hit 526 on this particular night because he found these conditions to be favorable, than it is likely that he did it in spite of the less than favorable conditions. How many high runs were halted by less than favorable conditions on other nights?
Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
Only those that are clueless about 14.1 would question this accomplishment. In a run like that, there are so many potienal problem balls, cluster,which can kill a run, that must be delt with plus getting a decent break shot.
It matters not one bit if it was in competition or not. Mastering 14.1 is the ultimate level in pool. Once mastered, all the other games seem like childs play.
It matters not one bit if it was in competition or not. Mastering 14.1 is the ultimate level in pool. Once mastered, all the other games seem like childs play.
Duckie....good to hear from you again.
I've attended about a dozen SANCTIONED world straight pool championships, so I'd venture a guess I'm not clueless.
Your definition of mastering and mine are different. Mastering 14.1, to me, must include a tendency toward outplaying your rivals in the heat of battle in the toughest spots. John hasn't done this, and there's no reason to believe that his endless practice on a table with 5" pockets has prepared him in any way to beat the giants of straight pool on a table with pro specifications.
Amazing run for sure, a record that may stand forever, but we'll see if John can turn his very ordinary competitive record around. I'm betting against, but I'd be happy to be wrong.
Lou brings an extremely well informed point of view to the forum.
Thank You.... No way he'd stop. Even if he made it to 1K.I wouldn't expect many takers right now. Then again, right now, you may not get a taker at all.
Only two things you can count on at this point:
Naysayers
and
Taxes
627............:smile: