Mosconi 526 Stop the Steal
- Thread starter markjames
- Start date
lol, I guess I missed the white smoke coming out of the Vatican's Sistene Chapel chimney making Bob the new pope and anointing him with papal Infallibility.
Lou Figueroa
It simply comes down to this: What does Bob have to gain? Nothing...
I have no idea what motivates Bob.
Whether it's something to be gained, or something to be lost, or something in between. We all shade our opinions one way or the other based upon many factors. In any case, unedited video which we can all see and examine, would put an end to all this (maybe, lol). But counting on someone else's opinion on this one -- the 526 -- is not good enough for many of us.
Lou Figueroa
I'm confident that the following sentiment holds true for many others, both within and without the pool world: I'll never actually watch the entire video even if it's released. Just like much of the pool (and other) content that is out there, I don't have the time, the inclination, or the desire to dedicate that many hours to something that doesn't impact my world directly. So, I will have to rely on others to review the video and report to the masses.
Notably, here, I have no reason to doubt Bob's interpretation and his personal knowledge of the video. Therefore, I am comfortable relying on his report. I understand that is insufficient for others, and I readily admit that I could be easily swayed to the other camp if there is enough counter-evidence refuting the totality of the evidence thus far (as limited as that may be, and which I understand is disputed). But, therein lies the conundrum. How could the anti-record camp possibly refute the first hand knowledge of those that have seen the video as well as the BCA's authentication of the record, without the video? We may never have closure on this point, so those that desire to pick a side, will do so.
Personally, I am comfortable with the position that the record stands as authenticated by the BCA. If it's overturned, I'll be comfortable with that as well. However, I won't make it my responsibility to marshal all the evidence for peer review. And, luckily, there are folks (many in this thread) that will try to run this to ground. I'll stand by waiting for the final ruling, whether it's an overturning or a confirmation. In the interim: The record is dead. Long live the record.
-td
How can they discredit the run without evidence, while others have had access to it?
Personal beef, bull-headed ignorance, undeserved self importance, really REALLY not wanting john to be the one...
No, just a desire to have the record validated by a proper level of scrutiny.
Perhaps, if video did not exist, but there was an affidavit signed by witnesses, we'd all be fine. But video does exist, so there's no legitimate reason to have to rely on the opinion of others. This was a long standing record that was supposedly broken and and videoed -- no one should have to rely on hearsay for evidence.
Lou Figueroa
All good lawyers argue the truth, the clients truth. There’s more than one truth according to my wife.
You have (mostly?) been able to keep nuttiness out of the issue.
The fact of it being a bca record and those tasked with speaking for the organization having spoken, though...
From what has been reported here, there were two guys at the BCA who watched the tape.
Under what circumstances and with what level of attention is unknown. One guy's specialty is race tracks, the other PR. It's is unknown whether either of them could run two racks of 14.1. So, personally I think their "certification" is Dubious with a capital D.
The BCA has all kinds of 14.1 HOFer's. To some of us it makes no kind of sense to certify a player has broken Mosconi's 14.1 record, that has stood for decades, without having gotten a couple of guys like Nick Varner, Ray Martin, Allen Hopkins, and so on, and have them watch/certify the video and the run. If they'd done that I doubt all these threads would exist but it was all handled poorly.
Lou Figueroa
Hey, legit question: What does the ability to run multiple racks have to do with determining a legit run on video?
Honestly, my high run is 28 (so an honest member of the can't run more than 2 racks club) and I am interested what value added a hall of famer would be compared to me watching a tape.
I'm not trying to be snarky, just born that a way.
Nonetheless, they have the authority to speak for the bca and to assume neither is up to the task ignores the reality that they are, because they do.
My boss' boss doesn't have the specialized knowledge required by my position. That doesn't make her unqualified to be queen.
It's a fair question.
Well, first off, I think there's the issue of basic familiarity with the game and knowing what to watch for in certain situations in terms of fouls, break shots, and racking. Ferinstance, if the CB is picked up, presumably for cleaning, I think an experienced 14.1 player would be watching to see how precisely it was put back on the table because they would know how even a very small difference can change options for position play or a break shot. Same for racking. An experienced player can spot a rack that has been twisted to one side or the other to favor the player. They will also know when to watch for fouls.
But at an even more basic level, I think you want experienced 14.1 players watching a run like this because they are the ones that have the knowledge and experience to stay engaged and attentive throughout a lengthy run. Put another way: think of all the times folks here have expressed the sentiment about 14.1 (or 1pocket), that they find the game boring. Those guys, who do not play and love the game, are not going to be watching a lengthy run with an appropriate level of attention, whereas an experienced player is going to love watching the shooter work through rack after rack, problem after problem, and will be studying the player's patterns along the way. The inexperience player is going to hit the ">>" button on the remote.
And, if you get HOF players to review the claim, that lends any certification a high degree of credibility, or at least a much higher degree of credibility, than two guys that perhaps don't play the game seriously.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
That doesn't mean you have to swallow what they whole and say, "Yes, I'll have another."
As to your work place analogy, I don't think it's appropriate -- this is not about specialized workers and their superiors. It's about a sports association and who is speaking on behalf of the sport, and I suppose, an industry. And I think most folks would agree that having someone who was an accomplished player and has lengthy experience in the sport is a good thing for a governing body for a variety of reasons, not least of which is giving a great deal of credibility to whatever the organization proclaims or certifies.
Take a look at just a couple of other sports. At the PGA their commissioner was a college golf champion and worked in golfing for years. In the case of tennis, their guy was like a world-ranked player, having played in major events. To the best of my knowledge, currently there's more expertise at the BCA about selling hot tubs and shuffleboard tables than anything pool. Nowadays It's hard to take anything they proclaim seriously.
Lou Figueroa
Out of curiosity (since you brought it up and I haven't seen any mention of it in the various threads), has there been any discussion of this record by any of the HOF'ers? Do you happen to know what any world champions have to say about the record? I'd be interested to know what folks like Sigel, Varner, Hopkins, etc have to say about the record (or have said). When the news broke, I saw a few "congrats" type tweets/FB posts from players, but since then, I have not seen any reference to any HOF'er taking a position on the record (likely because I don't pay attention to those news feeds). In my mind, this is either tacit agreement, or silent objection. In either case, it appears the net result is the same.
Separately: I do have a question as to why Bob Jewett's interpretation isn't given more weight by the pool playing community. Although he is not a HOF 14.1 player, in terms of people that "qualify" as knowing the game, he would surely be one of them. He has written pool articles for decades (including on straight pool), he has contributed to pool knowledge in numerous ways (including highly technical information), he is an accomplished player (including 14.1 (he beat SVB in straight pool on the TV table!)), and he was a significant contributor to the World Standardized Pool rules (chief editor). Personally, I would give his assessment significant weight as an expert in this field. Granted, no one would have "papal infallibility" - but I think his report should be considered credible. In any event, at bottom, his credentials far exceed the BCA "overseers" who have also validated the report.
-td
Good points made.
I wonder if Mosconi's run would have withstood the level of scrutiny you describe here.
John was being very deliberate in trying to run more than the record of 526 and he describes the dedication to the task.
Willie wasn't trying for anything particular,,, just an exhibition and doubtful the crowd, racker, or even Willie himself put the energy into the details you outline.
My bottom line is JS has called fouls on himself in the past in the effort to run more than 526,,,, I wouldn't think this run would be any different.
Of course John has called fouls on himself, but he has also missed fouls as seen in the one run over 400 he posted. After the run was posted viewers saw the foul!
What would happen if you had someone who wrote for a billiards magazine for years (decades), is an authority on rules, and has supported 14.1 both financially and boots-on-the-ground, keeping the game alive at some major events...what if that person was to view the video? Sounds qualified to me...but that's just me, I suppose
Nonetheless, they have the authority to speak for the bca and to assume neither is up to the task ignores the reality that they are, because they do.
My boss' boss doesn't have the specialized knowledge required by my position. That doesn't make her unqualified to be queen.
And took notes?
What if...what if?