John Schmidt's 626

Dan Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
fair enough

I'm not about distraction, I am about truth. I've spent near 40 years chasing truth professionally, and I've raised three sons and a daughter. I've seen enough lies and bullshit to last 4 lifetimes, and, I assure you I know the truth when I see it and I know how to find the truth even when people are trying to hide it. I am dead serious about oral evidence and a person's reputation -- a lot of times that's all we have -- and many people have been judicially killed based simply upon words. This is one reason why truth is so important -- one never knows when the truth and your word might be the only two things you have to defend yourself with, the only two things standing between you and many years in prison or death. I am not kidding.

I am looking at this from both sides: two ends against the middle. I have, and will, call things like I see them, damn the consequences and who gets hurt -- but only when I am fully informed. It's all I can do -- it is how I was made and raised. For me, it is the only way I can live.

I told in a previous post what I felt about Bob Jewett -- I stand by it. I also spoke honestly and said I do not know Schmidt, and asked for someone who did know him to stand up and say . . . This is where I would like to begin my inquiry.

Let me ask about the video. Is it true that JS was actively pursuing the record? Does anyone know the details about the video? Was the video a "professional" set up? Who was hired to do the video? Multiple cameras? "Special" Lighting? What are the other right questions remaining to ask about video? My point is that if I was chasing a record believing I could break it, I would spend my last nickel, sell my extra cues, and plow it all into making the best video available, especially if I had any inkling that I was going to try to make money off the video. (Right? Does this make sense?)

SO, WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE EFFORT/MONEY PUT INTO THE VIDEO AND THE RESULTING QUALITY OF THE VIDEO WHICH IS BEING MARKETED?

I also think I made it clear that the money argument was, in my limited experience, not there. I would not allow my reputation to suffer. I asked for info about how much one could maybe make on a video. I will add that I believe the video's value diminishes with every passing day. The only way that real money might be realized is if somewhere in the world 14:1 is more popular than the US. The US 14:1 audience just ain't gonna do it. JS has a better chance of cashing in by getting Tom Cruise to star in the semi-autobiographical movie "JS: His Life and Times in Chasing, Catching, and Passing Willie".

So to hell with your "distraction" -- really read and digest this, and my other posts, and you will see I am doing my best to steer a middle course and learn about this deal -- this is my first exposure. Once I know enough, then I may say what I think. But if I do tell you, it ain't gonna be no "distraction". It will be something that will not easily wash off -- one way or another -- like the chicken man says "strong as catpiss".

You sound genuine enough Mississippi, I would however focus more on verifiable unedited video than I would j.s. character or popularity contests. Your also correct that the bca video diminishes in value each day they do not release un edited footage. this also devalues Mosconi's true record - this is a bit of a travesty.
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You need to provide a little more detail, Jay. Above I posted a complete list of all the break shots including the time during the run, the number of the break ball, and which side of the rack it was on, all observed from the unedited video.

Which break shot are you referring to?


ohhhhhhh.

Now you need *a little more detail* lol. Where was that need for *a little more detail* when you *repeatedly* posted unattributed rumors about Mosconi's run?

Lou Figueroa
 

Poolmanis

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I noticed only once when John had to play a slightly unusual shot after the break shot. On ball 562 (break shot was 561) he had a carom along the foot rail off a ball near the back of the rack to pocket a ball that was near the foot rail. I'd say it was about a 50% shot, so not that unreasonable to play at 14.1 when balls are all over the table.

Did John do any ball polishing after run started?
 

bb9ball

Registered
You sound genuine enough Mississippi, I would however focus more on verifiable unedited video than I would j.s. character or poplarity contests. Your also correct that the bca video diminishes in value each day they do not release un edited footage. this also devalues Mosconi's true record - this is a bit of a travesty.

How does it devalue Mosconi's record? For me, his record is his world championships and no one is taking those away. His 526 ball run, as a casual one off essentially, is even more impressive, knowing the effort now of a top player to equal it. He's shown that Mosconi was truly in another class.

Unfortunately, the video is the property of John, not the BCA. To me, his doubters are the only ones really giving the video any value now.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
To any world beaters who have a legit shot at topping 500 balls:

I'd recommend using Dynasphere balls. I just bought a set, and played 200 racks of 9 ball with them out of the box. I ran out all of the racks, even if I missed. My goal was to see how dirty the balls got. I kept track of my racks, and stopped at 200. It took me a few weeks.

200 racks x 9 balls per rack = 1800 balls pocketed. Never once did I clean any balls, not even rubbing the CB on my shirt before breaking.

The balls are super, super, clean after this experiment. I'd feel confident they could be used for a 1000 ball straight pool run without any need to clean. This was with using master chalk.
 

arnaldo

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
To any world beaters who have a legit shot at topping 500 balls:

I'd recommend using Dynasphere balls. I just bought a set, and played 200 racks of 9 ball with them out of the box. I ran out all of the racks, even if I missed. My goal was to see how dirty the balls got. I kept track of my racks, and stopped at 200. It took me a few weeks.

200 racks x 9 balls per rack = 1800 balls pocketed. Never once did I clean any balls, not even rubbing the CB on my shirt before breaking.

The balls are super, super, clean after this experiment. I'd feel confident they could be used for a 1000 ball straight pool run without any need to clean. This was with using master chalk.
To your knowledge, what physical property(s) or novel attributes of this brand of balls enables them to either shed transferred chalk or resist acquiring the chalk in the first place? Very curious about this.

Arnaldo
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Yes, twice, at 308 and 616.

Geesh, I hope that ends the speculation about frequent cleaning of the balls -- looks like he did it once in the first 616 balls! [And then, ironically, he missed in the first rack after the second cleaning.]
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Geesh, I hope that ends the speculation about frequent cleaning of the balls -- looks like he did it once in the first 616 balls! [And then, ironically, he missed in the first rack after the second cleaning.]
And I think that happened in another 400+ run when the miss happened just after a cleaning.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
And I think that happened in another 400+ run when the miss happened just after a cleaning.
Yes, in the 434 run in Dec. 2018, the one with the weird massé-like turn of the cue ball into a pocket on the break shot for rack 32, the cue ball was cleaned twice during rack 31 (after the break shot and after the 8th ball).
 

PoolBum

Ace in the side.
Silver Member
Yes, in the 434 run in Dec. 2018, the one with the weird massé-like turn of the cue ball into a pocket on the break shot for rack 32, the cue ball was cleaned twice during rack 31 (after the break shot and after the 8th ball).

I thought he showed a lot of poise by not sawing the table in half after what that cueball did to him.
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
You need to provide a little more detail, Jay. Above I posted a complete list of all the break shots including the time during the run, the number of the break ball, and which side of the rack it was on, all observed from the unedited video.

Which break shot are you referring to?

This information was provided to me by someone who watched the entire unedited video. I am not at liberty to reveal their name. They asked that be kept confidential and it will. I have not seen the video myself and have to wonder why it remains in the private domain to this day. What does John have to hide? I have no idea what break shot he was talking about or even what happened. Just that he felt there were inconsistencies in the placement of the balls, either before or after the break. And he may have also questioned how the balls were racked as well. As for me I'd like to see the video for myself and make my own evaluation.

The biggest difference in Mosconi's run and Johns is that Mosconi had over 30 eye witnesses who sat through the whole thing. I'm not sure if John had one person who watched the entire run from beginning to end. After what I've seen online I do know that video is easily edited digitally and none of us would ever know it. In the beginning I took John's word for it and defended him vehemently. Now, I'm not so sure it was all kosher. I have no problem with John cleaning any balls other than the cue ball. If the cue ball needed to be cleaned that should be done by someone other than John. That way it is placed back in its original position and not one more favorable to John. I do have a problem if I see a foul of any kind take place.
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This information was provided to me by someone who watched the entire unedited video. I am not at liberty to reveal their name. They asked that be kept confidential and it will. I have not seen the video myself and have to wonder why it remains in the private domain to this day. What does John have to hide? I have no idea what break shot he was talking about or even what happened. Just that he felt there were inconsistencies in the placement of the balls, either before or after the break. And he may have also questioned how the balls were racked as well. As for me I'd like to see the video for myself and make my own evaluation.

The biggest difference in Mosconi's run and Johns is that Mosconi had over 30 eye witnesses who sat through the whole thing. I'm not sure if John had one person who watched the entire run from beginning to end. After what I've seen online I do know that video is easily edited digitally and none of us would ever know it. In the beginning I took John's word for it and defended him vehemently. Now, I'm not so sure it was all kosher. I have no problem with John cleaning any balls other than the cue ball. If the cue ball needed to be cleaned that should be done by someone other than John. That way it is placed back in its original position and not one more favorable to John. I do have a problem if I see a foul of any kind take place.


Just one question, Jay, which by posting this info you've pretty much answered already: do you feel the guy who watched the video has sufficient knowledge/experience playing 14.1 that his judgement of what he witnessed is credible?

Lou Figueroa
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This information was provided to me by someone who watched the entire unedited video. I am not at liberty to reveal their name. They asked that be kept confidential and it will. I have not seen the video myself and have to wonder why it remains in the private domain to this day. What does John have to hide? I have no idea what break shot he was talking about or even what happened. Just that he felt there were inconsistencies in the placement of the balls, either before or after the break. And he may have also questioned how the balls were racked as well. As for me I'd like to see the video for myself and make my own evaluation.

The biggest difference in Mosconi's run and Johns is that Mosconi had over 30 eye witnesses who sat through the whole thing. I'm not sure if John had one person who watched the entire run from beginning to end. After what I've seen online I do know that video is easily edited digitally and none of us would ever know it. In the beginning I took John's word for it and defended him vehemently. Now, I'm not so sure it was all kosher. I have no problem with John cleaning any balls other than the cue ball. If the cue ball needed to be cleaned that should be done by someone other than John. That way it is placed back in its original position and not one more favorable to John. I do have a problem if I see a foul of any kind take place.
This certainly makes one question if this is why the video is yet to be released? It would/will be completely dissected with a microscope and if even one inconsistency in ball placement is discovered, that’s all it would take.
 
Last edited:

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
I thought he showed a lot of poise by not sawing the table in half after what that cueball did to him.

Personally I thought that shot looked super fishy. I've never seen anything like that happen, ever, with a level table. I'm not buying the explanations for it, either. That table looked like it slanted down towards the pocket.

Anyway, that's an entirely different matter.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Personally I thought that shot looked super fishy. I've never seen anything like that happen, ever, with a level table. I'm not buying the explanations for it, either. That table looked like it slanted down towards the pocket. ...
I spent about an hour on that table shortly after the astounding roll-off. The roll could not be duplicated with a non-spinning ball. Spinning balls were also tried and there may have been a very, very slight curve in the wrong direction.

My hypothesis is that the cue ball was spinning on one of the spots and that spot was not smooth.

I also have never seen a ball do such a thing on a level table even a ball that is spinning like a top as it comes to a stop.

That table is also where the 626 happened.
 

DynoDan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I would guess the only logical explanation would be a spinning ball that rolled over a chalk crumb (maybe crushing it then into the cloth, so no trace left). Except, if John was using Taom, that would be surprising as it doesn’t crumble like Master.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I would guess the only logical explanation would be a spinning ball that rolled over a chalk crumb (maybe crushing it then into the cloth, so no trace left). Except, if John was using Taom, that would be surprising as it doesn’t crumble like Master.
The cue ball moved in a continuous, smooth curve, gradually turning faster and faster until it was going maybe 45 degrees from its original path. It was originally headed about 10 inches from the head pocket (to the head rail). The curve was noticeable starting about the side pockets.

I don't think it was from chalk unless the chalk happened to be at the spinning point of the ball and was continuously rubbing on the cloth with each revolution. Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBb6Bp496oQ
 

gregcantrall

Center Ball
Silver Member
The cue ball moved in a continuous, smooth curve, gradually turning faster and faster until it was going maybe 45 degrees from its original path. It was originally headed about 10 inches from the head pocket (to the head rail). The curve was noticeable starting about the side pockets.

I don't think it was from chalk unless the chalk happened to be at the spinning point of the ball and was continuously rubbing on the cloth with each revolution. Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBb6Bp496oQ

Could gyroscopic torque cause the ball to curve like that?
 
Top