John Schmidt's 626

While acknowledging that those who choose not to acknowledge the run have very valid concerns, I think we've reached the point where each can make his/her own determination as to whether the run happened and what it has meant for pool. All things considered, as the run seems guarded in secrecy, and any opportunity to promote the game using the run has passed. I do not agree with those who say that John has any obligation to share the run, but each of us may accept or deny its legitimacy.

Whether its an official record in pool is a somewhat strange matter in the first place, as pool doesn't really keep records. Who had the highest TPA for an entire tournament? Who ran the most consecutive racks of nine ball in competition? Who had the most nine balls on the break in a single tournament? Who was the first player to win events on three continents in one pool year? Who hit the hardest ever nine ball break? The answer to questions like these is "nobody knows for sure because there is no governing body of pool dedicated to gathering and keeping the records." Why the BCA needed to review this record but not any other records in pool is anybody's guess, but the entire matter is swimming in a deep sea of mystery.

It's all as clear as mud.
 
sjm said:
Why the BCA needed to review this record but not any other records in pool is anybody's guess, but the entire matter is swimming in a deep sea of mystery.

It's all as clear as mud.
Click to expand...
This is a excellent point! Thank you sjm!
 
sjm said:
\Why the BCA needed to review this record but not any other records in pool is anybody's guess, but the entire matter is swimming in a deep sea of mystery.
Click to expand...
My guess: because there was already a recognized record of this kind.

pj
chgo
 
Playing devil's advocate, did anyone check the table that Appleton ran the 200 and out on? Were the pockets measured? Were the balls weighted and checked for diameter? Were his pockets and hands checked for any traces of silicone? Did he have any of the balls cleaned during the run? Did the BCA certify his record? What about the 174 (about, from memory), that Appleton beat that was held for decades? Did any of the above happen for that record?

For years the published specs didn't even match what most tournaments were played on. For example the pocket spec years ago was close to what a factory GC ran at, yet many of the tournaments were on tighter diamond pockets. One could argue none of those tournaments held on Diamonds were to "spec".

As Stu mentioned, we have no official record keepers in our sport. No consistent rule set. We don't even have a consistent game. We have no organization. But I suppose that's one reason a lot of us like pool. You can do whatever the hell you want.

And at risk of being yelled at, Danny mentioned a few pages back that its ok to run a dehumidifier while attempting to break the record. Why? Mosconi ran his record in a room packed with people, and no climate control system. Maybe a fan at best. So why would a dehumidifier be ok? Where do you draw the line? And why would a dehumidifier be ok, but a heater under the table would not (PS, I have no idea if one was used). The Earl vs Shane 10' table match in Ohio 10 years ago had a heater under the table.

Regarding all ball fouls, some of you mentioned straight pool events always play all ball fouls. Well I just came across an event posted to YouTube recently, with Grady either playing or commentating (Sorry I forgot), but the point of it was that it was CB fouls only, as stated by the commentators.

The whole point of this post is there are no rules/equipment/standards consistencies in our sport. If someone made the balls on the table, that is good enough for the most part.
 
sjm said:
While acknowledging that those who choose not to acknowledge the run have very valid concerns, I think we've reached the point where each can make his/her own determination as to whether the run happened and what it has meant for pool. All things considered, as the run seems guarded in secrecy, and any opportunity to promote the game using the run has passed. I do not agree with those who say that John has any obligation to share the run, but each of us may accept or deny its legitimacy.

Whether its an official record in pool is a somewhat strange matter in the first place, as pool doesn't really keep records. Who had the highest TPA for an entire tournament? Who ran the most consecutive racks of nine ball in competition? Who had the most nine balls on the break in a single tournament? Who was the first player to win events on three continents in one pool year? Who hit the hardest ever nine ball break? The answer to questions like these is "nobody knows for sure because there is no governing body of pool dedicated to gathering and keeping the records." Why the BCA needed to review this record but not any other records in pool is anybody's guess, but the entire matter is swimming in a deep sea of mystery.

It's all as clear as mud.
Click to expand...

It seems that unlike other claims this high run was sent to the BCA in an attempt to validate it. Might have had some success if it hadn't taken them weeks to do it. A friend makes hunting videos, no need to prove or disprove anything. He still edits them or at least reviews them frame by frame. Without someone that is an expert in the area examining john's video there is no way of knowing if the weeks before sending the video to the BCA were used for some discreet editing or not.

Hu
 
iusedtoberich said:
Playing devil's advocate, did anyone check the table that Appleton ran the 200 and out on? Were the pockets measured? Were the balls weighted and checked for diameter? Were his pockets and hands checked for any traces of silicone? Did he have any of the balls cleaned during the run? Did the BCA certify his record? What about the 174 (about, from memory), that Appleton beat that was held for decades? Did any of the above happen for that record?

For years the published specs didn't even match what most tournaments were played on. For example the pocket spec years ago was close to what a factory GC ran at, yet many of the tournaments were on tighter diamond pockets. One could argue none of those tournaments held on Diamonds were to "spec".

As Stu mentioned, we have no official record keepers in our sport. No consistent rule set. We don't even have a consistent game. We have no organization. But I suppose that's one reason a lot of us like pool. You can do whatever the hell you want.

And at risk of being yelled at, Danny mentioned a few pages back that its ok to run a dehumidifier while attempting to break the record. Why? Mosconi ran his record in a room packed with people, and no climate control system. Maybe a fan at best. So why would a dehumidifier be ok? Where do you draw the line? And why would a dehumidifier be ok, but a heater under the table would not (PS, I have no idea if one was used). The Earl vs Shane 10' table match in Ohio 10 years ago had a heater under the table.

Regarding all ball fouls, some of you mentioned straight pool events always play all ball fouls. Well I just came across an event posted to YouTube recently, with Grady either playing or commentating (Sorry I forgot), but the point of it was that it was CB fouls only, as stated by the commentators.

The whole point of this post is there are no rules/equipment/standards consistencies in our sport. If someone made the balls on the table, that is good enough for the most part.
Click to expand...
Yes, the post-run calls for previously unneeded standards did not go unnoticed.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Playing devil's advocate, did anyone check the table that Appleton ran the 200 and out on? Were the pockets measured? Were the balls weighted and checked for diameter? Were his pockets and hands checked for any traces of silicone? Did he have any of the balls cleaned during the run? Did the BCA certify his record? What about the 174 (about, from memory), that Appleton beat that was held for decades? Did any of the above happen for that record?

For years the published specs didn't even match what most tournaments were played on. For example the pocket spec years ago was close to what a factory GC ran at, yet many of the tournaments were on tighter diamond pockets. One could argue none of those tournaments held on Diamonds were to "spec".

As Stu mentioned, we have no official record keepers in our sport. No consistent rule set. We don't even have a consistent game. We have no organization. But I suppose that's one reason a lot of us like pool. You can do whatever the hell you want.

And at risk of being yelled at, Danny mentioned a few pages back that its ok to run a dehumidifier while attempting to break the record. Why? Mosconi ran his record in a room packed with people, and no climate control system. Maybe a fan at best. So why would a dehumidifier be ok? Where do you draw the line? And why would a dehumidifier be ok, but a heater under the table would not (PS, I have no idea if one was used). The Earl vs Shane 10' table match in Ohio 10 years ago had a heater under the table.

Regarding all ball fouls, some of you mentioned straight pool events always play all ball fouls. Well I just came across an event posted to YouTube recently, with Grady either playing or commentating (Sorry I forgot), but the point of it was that it was CB fouls only, as stated by the commentators.

The whole point of this post is there are no rules/equipment/standards consistencies in our sport. If someone made the balls on the table, that is good enough for the most part.
Click to expand...
Thanks for a well presented and well reasoned post.
 
ShootingArts said:
It seems that unlike other claims this high run was sent to the BCA in an attempt to validate it. Might have had some success if it hadn't taken them weeks to do it. A friend makes hunting videos, no need to prove or disprove anything. He still edits them or at least reviews them frame by frame. Without someone that is an expert in the area examining john's video there is no way of knowing if the weeks before sending the video to the BCA were used for some discreet editing or not.

Hu
Click to expand...
Schmidt's 626 was on May 27, 2019. The videotape was taken to the BCA by Doug Desmond (the racker) in early June (per Billiards Digest, August 2019, p. 48).
 
Last edited:
maybe the amount of hatred and mean spirited anger is driven by alcohol and drugs and that inspires all the poor spelling?
 
AtLarge said:
Schmidt's 626 was on May 27, 2019. The videotape was taken to the BCA by Doug Desmond (the racker) in early June (per Billiards Digest, August 2018, p. 48).
Click to expand...
Thanks! The first time I noticed them saying the BCA had the tape was a few weeks later. I think Doug was the one who was saying it and he left the impression that it had just been delivered. All working from memory, I didn't write anything down or make an effort to save anything. If it was days instead of weeks that does remove one question. Makes it much less likely they had time to locate someone with the skills and doctor anything.

Hu
 
iusedtoberich said:
Playing devil's advocate, did anyone check the table that Appleton ran the 200 and out on? Were the pockets measured? Were the balls weighted and checked for diameter? Were his pockets and hands checked for any traces of silicone? Did he have any of the balls cleaned during the run? Did the BCA certify his record? What about the 174 (about, from memory), that Appleton beat that was held for decades? Did any of the above happen for that record?

For years the published specs didn't even match what most tournaments were played on. For example the pocket spec years ago was close to what a factory GC ran at, yet many of the tournaments were on tighter diamond pockets. One could argue none of those tournaments held on Diamonds were to "spec".

As Stu mentioned, we have no official record keepers in our sport. No consistent rule set. We don't even have a consistent game. We have no organization. But I suppose that's one reason a lot of us like pool. You can do whatever the hell you want.

And at risk of being yelled at, Danny mentioned a few pages back that its ok to run a dehumidifier while attempting to break the record. Why? Mosconi ran his record in a room packed with people, and no climate control system. Maybe a fan at best. So why would a dehumidifier be ok? Where do you draw the line? And why would a dehumidifier be ok, but a heater under the table would not (PS, I have no idea if one was used). The Earl vs Shane 10' table match in Ohio 10 years ago had a heater under the table.

Regarding all ball fouls, some of you mentioned straight pool events always play all ball fouls. Well I just came across an event posted to YouTube recently, with Grady either playing or commentating (Sorry I forgot), but the point of it was that it was CB fouls only, as stated by the commentators.

The whole point of this post is there are no rules/equipment/standards consistencies in our sport. If someone made the balls on the table, that is good enough for the most part.
Click to expand...
All this jargon is irrelevant to the bca not releasing un edited footage for sale to the public - all the bca is offering as a form of proof or factual clarity = a chopped video? Mosconi's accomplishment deserves better. So far most credible az posters are plagued with doubt that the bca/predcue/j.s. hidden chopped video is in fact legit. If u want to see scientific proof (unedited video) ur just s%*t out uh luck - all I can say is Wow. It might be omnipotent to note that the above poster does not want to even mention the fact that there is no unedited video for sale - in any form - welcome to their little fake news soiree.
I think the above poster could be referring to 'the devil is in the details' approach, sorry use to b - no unedited footage = no New 14.1 World record - All Day.
 
Last edited:
Texas Carom Club said:
the bellyaching is far more impressive than the new record of 626
Click to expand...
Very true..... you are quite correct.

Record breaking 14.1 runs can cause some serious side effects.

These can include a hard on that will not go away (priapism), sudden lack of clarity of vision in one or both eyes, and sudden illogical thinking. Some men have also experienced high blood pressure, irregular heartbeats and even severe anger after the record breaking high run of 626. Most, but not all, of these men were found to have had heart (i.e. lack of) problems post confirmation by the BCA. It is quite certain that the BCA confirmation caused or exacerbated these problems.

It's a really sad situation, and apparently not going away,,,,,,, ever.




😉 unowho
 
Here, too!

I think I you forgot to switch accounts before answering yourself. That’s pretty funny. I think JS is a tool but I’m actually hoping he can release the tape.
 
xradarx said:
Wrong. What makes u think js has the tape. Need to be speaking to team leader Desmond. teams usually share in expenses, same as profits. This was not a one man show. Move on with the program.
Click to expand...
This is correct, it was indeed a collaborated effort to try and dismantle Mosconi's 526. It's not one stupid/corrupt individual to worry about - but many stupid/corrupt/greedy people working in tandem - that can have some sort of petty impact. I know the character of j.s. and his co conspirators - I would not water their premises if it was on fire. The victory lap for bca trying to demolish Mosconi's 526 - will most certainly be paved with major obstacles - without unedited proof. I am sorry to report - all is left for bca,j.s.,predcueco. is charred remains. I hear it's hard to run with the weight of gold - I guess pred cue company made sure he was well compensated for his 626 lie.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top