Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

[gerryf]

To remove all doubt.

I doubt it will remove all doubt. There are personalities that will focus on 'something' to keep alive their 'feelings' that Schmidt didn't beat Mosconi's record.

The evidence is solid already, with hundreds of people having seen the video including professionals who were looking for fouls and irregularities.

But if you don't like John Schmidt, there will always be a reason. Didn't Danny's Bowel Movement suggest that Schmidt had wiped the balls to build up a static charge, then steered the balls into the pockets using "Magnetism"? Danny Harriman wanted U.S. Naval Intelligence to examine the video.

There's no analysis that will ever satisfy people who are determined not to be satisfied. The cognitive biases are hard-wired into their personality.

 

[iusedtoberich]

He was playing CB fouls only in all his prior attempts. He would list that in the livestream description. I have zero problem with CB only fouls. MANY professional events are and have been played the same way, including straight pool events. I'm willing to bet nearly every single one of us in this whole forum typically play CB fouls only when we are gambling, whether its a local $5 weekly tourney, or a $1000 per game one pocket session.

 

[gerryf]

The higher the 14.1 run, the level of skill required progresses logarithmically.

IOWs, because you can run 100, does not mean you can run 200. If you can run 300, it does not mean you can run 400, and so on.

Lou Figueroa

If there were a database of straight pool runs, it would be interesting to determine the odds of a player running 1 rack, 10 racks, 100, 200, 300, etc., and actually plot it out.

With every rack being almost independent of the previous run, I wonder if the principal problem is fatigue. I think i read a quote from Jimmy Caras saying that on an 8 foot table, the only reason to ever miss was fatigue.

There are players who would be strong favorites to run a single rack, and players who would be strong favorites to run a rack and be in good position to run the second etc. Add in a little luck....

An interesting problem left for the student...

It would also be interesting to have enough tournament data to see the growth(?) in 100 ball runs with time.

 

[lfigueroa]

I doubt it will remove all doubt. There are personalities that will focus on 'something' to keep alive their 'feelings' that Schmidt didn't beat Mosconi's record.

The evidence is solid already, with hundreds of people having seen the video including professionals who were looking for fouls and irregularities.

But if you don't like John Schmidt, there will always be a reason. Didn't Danny's Bowel Movement suggest that Schmidt had wiped the balls to build up a static charge, then steered the balls into the pockets using "Magnetism"? Danny Harriman wanted U.S. Naval Intelligence to examine the video.

There's no analysis that will ever satisfy people who are determined not to be satisfied. The cognitive biases are hard-wired into their personality.

No, it's not like that.

Some us would just like to see unedited video. Those hundred of people you mention were all shown an edited video, a portion of which was played at high speed.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

He was playing CB fouls only in all his prior attempts. He would list that in the livestream description. I have zero problem with CB only fouls. MANY professional events are and have been played the same way, including straight pool events. I'm willing to bet nearly every single one of us in this whole forum typically play CB fouls only when we are gambling, whether its a local $5 weekly tourney, or a $1000 per game one pocket session.

Yes, we all play CB fouls only, unless we're playing in a championship 14.1 tournament... or maybe trying to break a 14.1 world record.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

If there were a database of straight pool runs, it would be interesting to determine the odds of a player running 1 rack, 10 racks, 100, 200, 300, etc., and actually plot it out.

With every rack being almost independent of the previous run, I wonder if the principal problem is fatigue. I think i read a quote from Jimmy Caras saying that on an 8 foot table, the only reason to ever miss was fatigue.

There are players who would be strong favorites to run a single rack, and players who would be strong favorites to run a rack and be in good position to run the second etc. Add in a little luck....

An interesting problem left for the student...

It would also be interesting to have enough tournament data to see the growth(?) in 100 ball runs with time.

The principle problem becomes depth of knowledge.

The longer the run the wider the variety of table layouts and shots that must be shot. And, as the run lengthens, the likelihood of difficult situations that take more knowledge, experience, and skill to overcome, occurs more often.

IOWs, play a few racks and you might not see anything too terrible. Keep going a few more racks and maybe the balls don't open up so well. A few more and maybe you misplay your position or pattern. More racks and perhap you need to manufacture a break ball. More racks and maybe you have to break the balls off a difficult 15th ball. And then there is maintaining focus -- let it wander just a bit and maybe you miss a ball or a positional play you'd normally make.

Wash, rinse and repeat.

Lou Figueroa

 

[iusedtoberich]

Yes, we all play CB fouls only, unless we're playing in a championship 14.1 tournament... or maybe trying to break a 14.1 world record.

Lou Figueroa

There is a championship 14-1 tourney from the 90's or early 2000's on youtube. I think Grady was commenting, or playing, I can't recall. Anyway they were playing CB fouls. It came up in the commentary. I'd link it but I forgot what it was called to find it.

PS, it was an exhibition high run. Not a tournament. And as mentioned, many tournaments are CB fouls only.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Where do you draw the line on these type of matters though?
Is it a disqualifying infraction:
If he moves a ball 1/4" and puts it back?
If he moves a ball 4" an puts it back?
If he picks up ball to clean it and doesn't put it back in exactly the same place?

The difficulty in drawing the line that would result from such a thing is easily eliminated by all-ball-fouls rule and I don't think it is unreasonable to require one who wishes to be on top of the cowpie to be able to have accomplished the feat cleanly.

I agree. All ball fouls have been the standard in Europe for quite some time. Cueball fouls only seem to be an American phenomenon as far as I can tell. It leads to all kinds of problems, as you outlined in your post. To me the idea that I can touch balls without fouling is quite hard to understand. It just wouldn't feel right, especially in a game like straigh pool where a couple of mm can literally be the difference between an epic fail and a perfect position in many cases. Picking the cueball up, willy-nilly, just invites all sorts of shenanigans. For a high run attempt such as this, the line gets a little blurred, but I do think it ought to follow the same rules as a standard game. It just makes things so much easier and cuts down on arguments and doubts.

 

[lfigueroa]

There is a championship 14-1 tourney from the 90's or early 2000's on youtube. I think Grady was commenting, or playing, I can't recall. Anyway they were playing CB fouls. It came up in the commentary. I'd link it but I forgot what it was called to find it.

PS, it was an exhibition high run. Not a tournament. And as mentioned, many tournaments are CB fouls only.

Well, as previously alluded to, there is a problem when you don't play all ball fouls.

If a guy jumps up and janks a ball way over there, or maybe just a little over there, how much are you willing to forgive because *you know* that ball is not going back exactly where it was.

It's tough to do it that way without some guidelines, which I don't know what those would be.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Cuebuddy]

Well, as previously alluded to, there is a problem when you don't play all ball fouls.

If a guy jumps up and janks a ball way over there, or maybe just a little over there, how much are you willing to forgive because *you know* that ball is not going back exactly where it was.

It's tough to do it that way without some guidelines, which I don't know what those would be.

Lou Figueroa

Agree. To me its like the diff between call pocket or call shot.
Call shot you would need to call every detail in that shot, the problem is if you don't see the object ball graze another ball but you make the shot and your opponent sees it then you have a problem. The problem is eliminated once you play call pocket.

As long as you call the ball and the pocket and make a legal shot you are good, no arguments.
In straight pool at a high level and you are shooting over another ball and your opponent/camera or spectators see your shaft touch the top of the other ball and you don't see it...its going to be a problem.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Well, as previously alluded to, there is a problem when you don't play all ball fouls.

If a guy jumps up and janks a ball way over there, or maybe just a little over there, how much are you willing to forgive because *you know* that ball is not going back exactly where it was.

It's tough to do it that way without some guidelines, which I don't know what those would be.

Lou Figueroa

I agree. But you know as well or better than most that almost all gambling is done cueball fouls only, and almost all tournaments on a local or regional level are played cue ball fouls only as well. I also recall even on national events that unless the match is officiated by a referee, they may be playing cue ball fouls only. There are generally accepted guidelines for resolution when a player moves a ball, that seem to work reasonably well when two people are gambling.

Also, by all accounts of those who viewed the "edited" footage, and by Bob who has viewed the "unedited" footage, no balls were touched, so this is a moot point.

If you throw away the all ball fouls (which I know is opinion to do so...), but for arguments sake if you do, about all this is left is seeing if there was some sort of double hit type foul.

The skill level of the BCA members that watched this is brought into question. If all they have to watch out for is a double hit, I'm pretty sure they can manage. Hell, my high run is a measly 37, and I think I could make a call if I had the footage on a double hit or similar type foul. And if there was a shot that I was not sure of, I would definitely be able to see that it was questionable, and then call onto a more experienced player/referee to watch the shot on the video.

I certainly understand the desire to make the call for oneself, and not trust the expertise of someone else. But that just doesn't look to be the case that it will happen here. Unless you go to one of the viewings. Even at 2x speed for some portions, if there is something close to a foul, you will spot it. At that point you can jump up and down and ask John to show a replay in slow motion of that shot in question. So far maybe 100 people went to his shows, a few on here, and no one said any shot was close to a foul.

 

[alstl]

I doubt it will remove all doubt. There are personalities that will focus on 'something' to keep alive their 'feelings' that Schmidt didn't beat Mosconi's record.

The evidence is solid already, with hundreds of people having seen the video including professionals who were looking for fouls and irregularities.

But if you don't like John Schmidt, there will always be a reason. Didn't Danny's Bowel Movement suggest that Schmidt had wiped the balls to build up a static charge, then steered the balls into the pockets using "Magnetism"? Danny Harriman wanted U.S. Naval Intelligence to examine the video.

There's no analysis that will ever satisfy people who are determined not to be satisfied. The cognitive biases are hard-wired into their personality.

An unedited DVD would remove all doubt.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I finally found the video where there was a straight pool match with CB fouls only. I had seen it months ago, and found it again today. Its Grady vs Fleming in a player review match from 1993. The link below will open right to the timestamp where they are talking about the rules for this tournament. If the timestamp does not work, it starts at timestamp 1:20.41, and they talk about it for about 30 seconds.

 

[ShootingArts]

Despite having multiple pairs of knowledgeable eyes on each and every shot.

pj
chgo

Not unless people have x-ray vision or a most amazing fluke! Even if he releases the video showing everything in real time there will be the issue of the tripod mounted single camera. His body will block our view of some shots. One of my sharks when people were cheating me was to shoot shapre where my body blocked their view of the shot. Made them crazy when they realized I was playing shape to do just that! I could block the view of my opponent on a fourth of the shots or more, admittedly playing shape to do that deliberately. However, John had no larceny in his heart so let's say his body blocked a clear view of the tip hitting the cue ball during only one in twenty shots. That would add up to over thirty shots when we couldn't see the shot from that single camera. I noticed that Bob Jewett, a careful man with words, didn't say there were no fouls. He said he didn't see any.

I agree. But you know as well or better than most that almost all gambling is done cueball fouls only, and almost all tournaments on a local or regional level are played cue ball fouls only as well. I also recall even on national events that unless the match is officiated by a referee, they may be playing cue ball fouls only. There are generally accepted guidelines for resolution when a player moves a ball, that seem to work reasonably well when two people are gambling.

Also, by all accounts of those who viewed the "edited" footage, and by Bob who has viewed the "unedited" footage, no balls were touched, so this is a moot point.

If you throw away the all ball fouls (which I know is opinion to do so...), but for arguments sake if you do, about all this is left is seeing if there was some sort of double hit type foul.

The skill level of the BCA members that watched this is brought into question. If all they have to watch out for is a double hit, I'm pretty sure they can manage. Hell, my high run is a measly 37, and I think I could make a call if I had the footage on a double hit or similar type foul. And if there was a shot that I was not sure of, I would definitely be able to see that it was questionable, and then call onto a more experienced player/referee to watch the shot on the video.

I certainly understand the desire to make the call for oneself, and not trust the expertise of someone else. But that just doesn't look to be the case that it will happen here. Unless you go to one of the viewings. Even at 2x speed for some portions, if there is something close to a foul, you will spot it. At that point you can jump up and down and ask John to show a replay in slow motion of that shot in question. So far maybe 100 people went to his shows, a few on here, and no one said any shot was close to a foul.

I don't know that I have seen every time Bob said something but what I read was that he didn't see any fouls. Not quite the same as saying there weren't any. Again, just what I read, the video is from a tripod mounted camera. With the low camera john's body would block a view of some cue ball hits. Given that his body blocked one shot in thirty that would still be twenty shots that weren't recorded clearly. john is a victim of his own sloppy work. My belief is that while the video may prove he fouled, it won't prove he didn't. A good reason for not releasing it.

Hu

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Despite having multiple pairs of knowledgeable eyes on each and every shot.

...there will be the issue of the tripod mounted single camera. His body will block our view of some shots.

I'm talking about the live spectators in the room with him - he'd have to stand in multiple positions at once to block all their views. Even accounting for people looking away randomly there must have been eyes on every shot.

I'm not saying there certainly was no foul, but the chances of that are slim - it takes some "personal interest" to object, particularly as loudly as we've seen here, on the basis of "anything's possible".

pj
chgo

 

[Dan Harriman]

Danny, I have been read into what Bobby Chamberlain is going to pull off and it is something historic -- an opportunity you should not pass up lightly.

I hope you reconsider because I figure you to be a favorite to bust whatever claims are out there -- on tape, unedited.

Don't blow this -- goferit.

Lou Figueroa

Roger that Lou, sum thin a bit squirrly' bout it - when he said he was tryin' to get bca involved with it but really wanted me to play - I sar' a giant Red Flag with his bca assoc -but I was still interested as he did sound enthusiastic bout my attendance. I never heard back from him after a couple months, so I called him - 2nd phonee' converseanation' I had with him - did not go well. he seemed much less enthused about my attendance, stating the event was costing him alot of $ and he seemed stressed out, it was kinda negative vibe I received from the 'whirld pro' - he regurgitated that he had shortened the list of players and it was costing him alot of $ and mentioned that Pool Players are always wanting something for free? I guess he was tryin to bitterly group me in with the rest of his vissionary mod's - I am old school - plus I would not trust anyone who wants to deal off the bottom of the deck - in reference to the two jokers over at bca. I am a Pocket Billiard player who happens to gamble, so in our 2nd phone converse it seemed I was talking to a different dude, his vibe was negative and he sounded much less enthusiastic bout my participation in the 5 1/2 wash uh ton' deal - plus I was going back over some threads here and saw where Bobbie offered to play me or j.s. heads up in 14.1. I received the line on bobbie chamberlain - he has zero chance of winning with me on a tight Diamond in 14.1 (300 point set) - so I did offer him 2-1 on the $. I say he is full of b.s. like j.s. - I am not too full of it - if I say I will play - that means - i will.

I mostly play full rack and bank pool and One Pocket now uh dais'. I am more of a mono ee mono type player anyhue - plus not going to travel to washington dc to fool around on gaffed up table. I prefer to stay in the sticks and play bank or one pocket on the diamond - against Who Ever comes to the Ozarks. Thanks for the advice though, I am not in the cool crowd - I prefer it that way. I have decided to use my (as Devo would say) 'freedom of choice'. Adios Lou Figueroa - Thank you for your service - to what's left of this Country (correct spelling of your name this time) ;-)

 

[Black-Balled]

Roger that Lou, sum thin a bit squirrly' bout it - when he said he was tryin' to get bca involved with it but really wanted me to play - I sar' a giant Red Flag with his bca assoc -but I was still interested as he did sound enthusiastic bout my attendence. I never heard back from him after a couple months, so I called him - 2nd phonee' converseation I had with him - did not go well. he seemed much less enthused about my attendence, stating the event was costing him alot of $ and he seemed stressed out, it was kinda negative vibe I received from the 'whirld pro' - he regurgitated that he had shortened the list of players and it was costing him alot of $ and mentioned that Pool Players are always wanting something for free? I am a Pocket Billiard player who happens to gamble, so in our 2nd phone converse it seemed I was talking to a different dude, his vibe was negative and he sounded much less enthusisastic bout mmy particiapation in the 5 1/2 wash uh ton' deal - plus I was going back over some threads here and saw where Bobbie offered to play me or j.s. heads up in 14.1. I received the line on bobbie chamberlain - he has zero chance of winning with me on a tight Diamond in 14.1 (300 point set) - so I did offer him 2-1 on the $. I say he is full of b.s. like j.s. - I am not too full of it - if I say I will play - that means - i will. I mostly play full rack and bank pool and One Pocket now uh dais'. I am more of a mono ee mono type player anyhue - plus not going to travel to washington dc to fool around on gaffed up table. I prefer to stay in the sticks and play bank or one pocket on the diamond. Thanks for the advice though, sorry to report it falls on deaf ears.

Jesus. You act like everyone is out to get you, but you literally bite any hand extended to you.

You are only an outcast because of yourself.

 

[ExilePreacher]

Jesus. You act like everyone is out to get you, but you literally bite any hand extended to you.

You are only an outcast because of yourself.

Tap tap tap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dan Harriman]

I agree. But you know as well or better than most that almost all gambling is done cueball fouls only, and almost all tournaments on a local or regional level are played cue ball fouls only as well. I also recall even on national events that unless the match is officiated by a referee, they may be playing cue ball fouls only. There are generally accepted guidelines for resolution when a player moves a ball, that seem to work reasonably well when two people are gambling.

Also, by all accounts of those who viewed the "edited" footage, and by Bob who has viewed the "unedited" footage, no balls were touched, so this is a moot point.

If you throw away the all ball fouls (which I know is opinion to do so...), but for arguments sake if you do, about all this is left is seeing if there was some sort of double hit type foul.

The skill level of the BCA members that watched this is brought into question. If all they have to watch out for is a double hit, I'm pretty sure they can manage. Hell, my high run is a measly 37, and I think I could make a call if I had the footage on a double hit or similar type foul. And if there was a shot that I was not sure of, I would definitely be able to see that it was questionable, and then call onto a more experienced player/referee to watch the shot on the video.

I certainly understand the desire to make the call for oneself, and not trust the expertise of someone else. But that just doesn't look to be the case that it will happen here. Unless you go to one of the viewings. Even at 2x speed for some portions, if there is something close to a foul, you will spot it. At that point you can jump up and down and ask John to show a replay in slow motion of that shot in question. So far maybe 100 people went to his shows, a few on here, and no one said any shot was close to a foul.

U stated - "Even at 2x speed for some portions, if there is something close to a foul, you will spot it." ??????

This is not accurate - I heard my buddy's 2nd cousin who's third cousin knew Bob Jewett say he heard that j.s. ran 626 and it was caught on tape, although here, here, I dare say I am from the show me state - unedited footage equals verifiable evidence. U will spot nothing but phony hollywood corruption at the bca's/j.s theatrical production. Nor should their thea'trick'al theater commercial be associated with Mosconi's legitimate (well touted) 65+yr old record. If I ever decide to start recording some more 14.1 long runs - I will employ an overhead camera plus a side cam, that way I will never protrude any footage from the viewers line of sight. I have many runs where my hand touched a ball during the run, I stopped and started over, as that is not a clean run in my view. PLUS the footage will be unedited and open to the general public for sale - no corrupt ' come and see the show' stuff. If u think the people want to see footage sped up in double speed and or that is normal digital adjudication procedure that speaks volumes to me about yer character.

 

[justnum]

"Even at 2x speed for some portions, if there is something close to a foul, you will spot it."

This is not accurate - I heard my buddy's 2nd cousin who's third cousin knew Bob Jewett say he knew that 626 was caught on tape, although here, here, I dare say I am from the show me state - unedited footage equals verifiable evidence. U will spot nothing but phony hollywood corruption at the bca's/j.s theatrical production.

good idea, i will make a phony 626 ball run,

the only way you believe JS is if there is unedited footage.
That is a challenge I will take by the end of the week.

I will provide unedited footage of a high run.