Mr 600

[Cardigan Kid]

OK, now this piece is a different deal.

First off, I’m somewhat surprised that the publisher of BD would stoop to the level of name-calling, albeit disguised with a cockney accent.

Second, for someone supposedly well versed in the history of the game, I am also surprised he'd make a series of very specious arguments, such as:

“Mosconi conservatively played in hundreds of exhibitions, giving him hundreds of of opportunities to set records.”

No. He’d run 100 and quit to do his trick shots and then head off down the road to his next show in another town. There were no "hundreds of opportunities."

“As for not facing an opponent, we’re not being serious here, are we? Someone will have to explain to me the vast difference that must separate the propped up guppy that misses his first shot by a diamond and a half, while at the same time sending the remaining balls of the opening rack into a spread that would make Stevie Wonder lick his straight pool chops.”

This one is amazing in how profoundly inaccurate it is. Mosconi played whomever the room owner put up as an opponent and many of these guys could flat out play. Was there the occasional guppy? Sure. But there were also safety battles off the opening break and on occasion Mosconi’s opponent was of sufficient skill Mosconi would lose. Big difference from just racking, setting up your preferred break shot, and repeating when you miss.

“And after that first rack, absolutely nothing separates the obstacles faced by either Mosconi or Schmidt…”

This one is a bit of a face smacker because when Mosconi played he was playing in a different room, on a different table every night. There was the noise and movement distractions of a crowd and in all likelihood no ac during the summer months on the road. And there was certainly no Sardo and no racking at the wrong end of the table. Mosconi was probably not playing under perfect conditions anywhere he traveled.

Reading this piece made me wonder what our British cousins call “yellow journalism.”


Lou Figueroa

As always, Lou, well stated and you bring a POV that I wish more writers, even the BD editor would consult or team-up with in order to bring well rounded content into our pool world.

 

[JazzyJeff87]

It's not even close. Compare, in basketball, someone shooting free throws having a game on the line and only one chance to someone shooting free throws in his backyard with nothing at risk and all the attempts he wants...huge, infinite, difference. The difference determins champions.

It's extremely close. Not for the first 299 or so shots maybe but the pressure was definitely real, probably more so than any match he's ever been in.

Me in the basement or even John in the basement would be different but he announced to the pool world what he was up to and invited people to watch. He set a huge weight on his shoulders by announcing it and he probably started to feel like he'd make a bit of a whatever out of himself with all the negative comments of people on here, asking when would he give it up, he can't do it etc.

I don't know about everyone else here but I truly do play my game, opponent or not. It's not just a saying. Pool is an individual game where you display your mastery on the table to keep your opponent off and I can do the same things in a match as I do in practice. I imagine John Schmidt can as well

 

[skogstokig]

It's not even close. Compare, in basketball, someone shooting free throws having a game on the line and only one chance to someone shooting free throws in his backyard with nothing at risk and all the attempts he wants...huge, infinite, difference. The difference determins champions.

what did mosconi have at risk in his high-run? the fierce opponent? lol. next time john does this he should hire a stooge to run the first few balls

 

[jimmyg]

Originally Posted by JazzyJeff87 View Post
That is an outstanding set of runs. Like someone else mentioned. ..even without the 626 to cap it off that is an accomplishment.

I know it wasn't in competition but that doesn't matter much to me, he still physically had to do it and it's almost the same as in a match once you get good on a break ball.

what did mosconi have at risk in his high-run? the fierce opponent? lol. next time john does this he should hire a stooge to run the first few balls

I was responding to this post and statement. Completion adds stress and tension, it matters enormously.

Fair question. I don't know who he was playing, but he was indeed playing someone and he only had one shot at it...no do overs or months of attempts, nor was it done on his personally chosen table or with the aid of today's fast cloth. Ever play on one of those horse blankets? Totally different set of circumstances.

 

[Balls]

I don't know what you mean here. The percentage of John's attempts that resulted in runs of less than 100 was a lot higher than 43%.

You are correct sir. I messed that up.

if he had 1100 attempts then 67% of the time he couldn't break 100.

according to all those numbers.

 

[Jaden]

Lol...

I also do not see too many people paying to view this- maybe a few thousand worldwide at most! How much money could that possibly generate? When you think of this outside of the most die hard pool fans' mentality- I view a grown man locking himself in a room for many hours a day and months at a time to do something that does not really mean anything in terms of a COMPETITIVE sports accomplishment is more weird to me than a symbol of commitment, as some have suggested. That has been my take all along on him trying to do this- never understood the point of it. Joey Chestnut could sell more videos of himself eating 75 hot dogs than this pool video will ever sell.

I'll join some of those here with no desire to pay to see this if it is ever put up for sale. Good Luck to him, Congrats to him, but all along my biggest issue was that I never understood the whole point of it and I still don't, but that is just one guy's take on this whole thing - glad we can all agree to disagree somewhat on the meaning of this whole fiasco!

Someone with the screen name Mike mosconi comes on taking shit about someone who beats Willie mosconi's long standing high run record and we're supposed to value that as an unbiased opinion... Lol...

Jaden

 

[AtLarge]

You are correct sir. I messed that up.

if he had 1100 attempts then 67% of the time he couldn't break 100.

according to all those numbers.

From the given information, we can't really tell the percentage of attempts that were under 100 balls. Notice that the 100-199 category (called "100+" in the info) for the first 18 playing days does not have a count. So the total of 237 runs of 100 or more shown in the last section is incomplete.

We could estimate the missing number. On "Challenges" II, III, and IV, the 100-199 category was between 2 and 3 per playing day. So, with 18 playing days in Challenge I, maybe the 100-199 category was in the range of 35-55. That would put the total runs of 100 or more in the range of 272-292, or about 25%-27% of the estimated total of 1,100 total attempts. The attempts under 100 would then be about 73% to 75%.

A couple other comments on the given information:

It mentions a 98.7% successful-shot rate and a resulting expectation of running 100 or more about 27% of the time. But the 98.7% rate is said to be based only on the 209 runs of 100 or more rather than on all of the attempts. A successful-shot rate based on only the runs of 100 or more would be higher than the overall successful-shot rate from all the attempts.

But it also says John made 15,998 balls in those 209 runs, which cannot be correct (it would be 20,900 if all 209 runs were just 100 balls). I averaged the 64 runs of 100 or more from the final "Challenge," and it was about 186. So the balls made in those 209 runs would be much more than 15,998 (maybe 35,000-40,000), and the successful-shot rate in those 209 runs would be considerably above 98.7%.

Bob Jewett estimated that John was about 25% likely to run 100 from any open shot under the conditions he was using for these attempts.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Before Mosconi's record was broken, it will never be broken .
After it was broken, Mosconi could have ran a lot more balls .

 

[Bob Jewett]

From the given information, we can't really tell the percentage of attempts that were under 100 balls. Notice that the 100-199 category (called "100+" in the info) for the first 18 playing days does not have a count. So the total of 237 runs of 100 or more shown in the last section is incomplete.

We could estimate the missing number. On "Challenges" II, III, and IV, the 100-199 category was between 2 and 3 per playing day. So, with 18 playing days in Challenge I, maybe the 100-199 category was in the range of 35-55. That would put the total runs of 100 or more in the range of 272-292, or about 25%-27% of the estimated total of 1,100 total attempts. The attempts under 100 would then be about 73% to 75%.

A couple other comments on the given information:

It mentions a 98.7% successful-shot rate and a resulting expectation of running 100 or more about 27% of the time. But the 98.7% rate is said to be based only on the 209 runs of 100 or more rather than on all of the attempts. A successful-shot rate based on only the runs of 100 or more would be higher than the overall successful-shot rate from all the attempts.

But it also says John made 15,998 balls in those 209 runs, which cannot be correct (it would be 20,900 if all 209 runs were just 100 balls). I averaged the 64 runs of 100 or more from the final "Challenge," and it was about 186. So the balls made in those 209 runs would be much more than 15,998 (maybe 35,000-40,000), and the successful-shot rate in those 209 runs would be considerably above 98.7%.

Bob Jewett estimated that John was about 25% likely to run 100 from any open shot under the conditions he was using for these attempts.

Unfortunately not all runs were recorded. None of the runs under 100 were recorded. Only Challenges II, III, and IV have a full record of all runs over 99. In the 209 such runs, a total of 36898 balls were pocketed with 209 misses. It would not be fair to calculate a pocketing percentage from those numbers since we would be ignoring all the shorter runs with their misses.

It is fair to do statistics on the 209 runs if we ignore the first 100 balls of each run. If you do that, the balls pocketed in those 209 runs ignoring the first 100 in each totals to 15998. Pocketing percentage based on that number of innings and balls pocketed is (balls made)/(total shots) = 15998/(15998+209) = 0.987104, or 98.7%.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Here are the 209 runs that were more than 99 during Challenges II, III, and IV in numerical order for those who would like to do their own statistics. I was present for the 390 and the 421 and several of the shorter runs listed.

100 100 101 102 104 104 104 105 106 106
106 106 108 108 108 109 110 110 111 112
112 112 112 112 112 112 112 113 113 113
113 113 113 114 114 115 116 117 117 118
118 119 119 120 121 122 122 123 124 125
126 126 126 126 126 126 127 127 127 127
127 127 127 127 127 127 127 129 129 130
131 132 132 134 134 136 138 138 139 140
140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140
140 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141
141 141 144 145 146 146 148 148 150 152
153 153 154 154 154 154 156 159 160 160
164 164 168 168 168 168 168 168 169 169
169 169 169 170 171 171 171 172 175 175
176 176 176 177 177 179 180 180 182 183
183 185 186 187 190 190 193 196 197 197
198 200 204 209 210 211 211 211 212 217
219 224 225 225 226 227 228 234 235 236
239 240 245 250 283 283 289 293 293 295
308 319 320 332 338 350 350 351 365 378
384 390 395 407 421 434 464 490 626

 

[Dan Harriman]

ok

No I was seriously interested. I’ve seen it before and wondered the same. I can’t zoom much so I like to think it’s a lady ripping a hole out of the world for a gentleman of some kind. Possibly they’re lovers as I’m a romantic and I despise unrequited love.

Good night azb, I’ve done my off topics for the week

OK my bad, must have misunderstood yer post and your comment did seem to be a bit off topic - I have learned to watch out for that and yes it has a special meaning to me and also one of my favorite music videos from 80's glad you like - i post under my actual name 'n'n all dat jazz too. However back to reality n todays weird world of fakenews experiments it would appear when legend becomes fact - print the legend. Thats hollywould'. ehb duh ebduh - thats all folks.

 

[AtLarge]

Unfortunately not all runs were recorded. None of the runs under 100 were recorded. Only Challenges II, III, and IV have a full record of all runs over 99. In the 209 such runs, a total of 36898 balls were pocketed with 209 misses. It would not be fair to calculate a pocketing percentage from those numbers since we would be ignoring all the shorter runs with their misses.

It is fair to do statistics on the 209 runs if we ignore the first 100 balls of each run. If you do that, the balls pocketed in those 209 runs ignoring the first 100 in each totals to 15998. Pocketing percentage based on that number of innings and balls pocketed is (balls made)/(total shots) = 15998/(15998+209) = 0.987104, or 98.7%.

Aha; thanks for clarifying the description of 15,998 in 209 runs.

[And my estimate of 35,000-40,000 wasn't bad!]

 

[logical]

From a basic probability standpoint, Almost 10% of his runs above 99 were over 300. A 600 run is just a matter of stringing two of them together without that nasty miss in between.

A player that can put that kind of numbers down was almost a sure bet to break 526. It was just a matter of time.

I was maybe a "6 out of 10" free throw shooter 50 years ago in grade school but I stood out in the driveway all afternoon one Saturday and made 23 in a row at one point.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Dan Harriman]

Oh ok so it's a numbers thing

I guess i am not a catalyst for the fakenews and I am very thankful of that. the more #'s I guess the more moving parts as a distraction from the fact that there is not an video footage. I do not blame Mosconi for there not being any video footage - they did not have it.

 

[jimmyg]

From a basic probability standpoint, Almost 10% of his runs above 99 were over 300. A 600 run is just a matter of stringing two of them together without that nasty miss in between.

A player that can put that kind of numbers down was almost a sure bet to break 526. It was just a matter of time.

I was maybe a "6 out of 10" free throw shooter 50 years ago in grade school but I stood out in the driveway all afternoon one Saturday and made 23 in a row at one point.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I see what you did. :smile: Exactly!

 

[Balls]

OMG more number fun comming...

Someone with the screen name Mike mosconi comes on taking shit about someone who beats Willie mosconi's long standing high run record and we're supposed to value that as an unbiased opinion... Lol...

Jaden

Jaden, There is ZERO evidence he did anything of the kind.

Just go fix your website. lol. well if you have one.


NOTE about the insulting blog post somebody likes to call it an article. That site is advertising predator. So that blog post is paid for, or biased might be a better word.

I will never buy anything Predator or poison no matter how nice they look. Aren't we in a tariff war with them anyway?

for a select few...
I do like the glove though. Fits around both fingers really nice and holds them in place. I can even hide money in there.

 

[aaronataylor]

From a basic probability standpoint, Almost 10% of his runs above 99 were over 300. A 600 run is just a matter of stringing two of them together without that nasty miss in between.

A player that can put that kind of numbers down was almost a sure bet to break 526. It was just a matter of time.

I was maybe a "6 out of 10" free throw shooter 50 years ago in grade school but I stood out in the driveway all afternoon one Saturday and made 23 in a row at one point.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

23 free throws in a row? Who's going to believe that without unedited video evidence, documented witnesses, Notarized signatures, thumb prints and blood samples from everyone involved.

 

[JazzyJeff87]

From a basic probability standpoint, Almost 10% of his runs above 99 were over 300. A 600 run is just a matter of stringing two of them together without that nasty miss in between.

A player that can put that kind of numbers down was almost a sure bet to break 526. It was just a matter of time.

I was maybe a "6 out of 10" free throw shooter 50 years ago in grade school but I stood out in the driveway all afternoon one Saturday and made 23 in a row at one point.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

And now you have a high run of 23 free throws. I don’t do no basketball so I can’t say if that’s a high number or not but it’s probably more than I could do this minute.

 

[logical]

And now you have a high run of 23 free throws. I don’t do no basketball so I can’t say if that’s a high number or not but it’s probably more than I could do this minute.

My only point...if I had one at all..is that from a probability viewpoint, I think John's chances were pretty high.

I don't think 23 free throws is within a few thousand of the record for consecutive shots...but it illustrates the spread between an average and a good day.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[spartan]

Not CNN

LOL, it is Azb's fault again ! What is wrong with Mike Panozzo?
He should buy a better dictionary and read up definition of “forum”. Azb forum is a forum, Not CNN or some magazine that parrots politically correct positions of the pool establishment. Azb is just a convenient punching bag, scapegoat.