Mosconi's run of 526. Sanctioned by the BCA.
Schmidt's run of 626. Sanctioned by the BCA.
It's a BCA record.
Your opinion doesn't matter much to the BCA.
Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit
- Thread starter Dan Harriman
- Start date
- Status
Schmidt's run of 626. Sanctioned by the BCA.
It's a BCA record.
Your opinion doesn't matter much to the BCA.
I’m not sure anyone ever cared about the BCA’s certification of Mosconi’s record — it is the affidavit signed by all those witnesses that is compelling and in the Smithsonian, not a certificate from the BCA.
Lou Figueroa
1. From Willie's Game, An Autobiography.
"...prepared an affidavit attesting to the validity of my claim to a new record. A few days later, the BCA gave it its stamp of approval."
2. From the NY Times, March 21, 1954
"Mosconi told The Associated Press the record run, made in an exhibition match in Springfield last night, would be presented to the American Billiards Congress for approval"
Willie cared.
Last edited:
To call the JS run an exhibition is laughable. Impressive record to be sure but it was a practice run. He was literally practicing high runs. It seems the only sanctioned high runs are tournament highs and exhibition highs. Maybe with the advent of personal recording devices practice high runs should be sanctioned as well. That way Mosconi could keep his exhibition high run record and JS could establish the benchmark for practice runs.
It occurs to me suddenly that after 177 pages this must have come up already, lol.
Pretty sure if you had anything worth taking then the owner of Predator would have sued you already for defamation. But as it is they probably see this action as good for promoting their brand and good for John Schmidt they are probably ok with you continuing it forever.
Now, two years later, I really am interested in seeing the show. Thanks MOSTLY to Danny Harriman keeping it relevant. If I were John I would promote all the dates of the shows on this thread.
Now, two years later, I really am interested in seeing the show. Thanks MOSTLY to Danny Harriman keeping it relevant. If I were John I would promote all the dates of the shows on this thread.
LOL, I have a thing with those who defame without proof. It bugs me. John Schmidt does not like me. He holds certain political views that are not compatible with mine and does not like to be called out on them. However when it comes to pool and what he can and has done on a pool table I am completely in awe. I have seen him not only do amazing things but also spend time teaching amazing things without any compensation.
So when it comes to this event my tendency is to believe him. And the fact that the BCA certified it is good enough for me. I value accuracy in reporting and to me, this accomplishment was accurately reported and verified.
My interest in this is simple, I am a "big" brand (not a big company) in pool. You are attacking another big brand and accusing them of fraud. I don't think that they have done anything fraudulent in this situation. I think that you are completely out of line and completely obsessed by whatever you made up in your head and cannot prove.
You don't care about the credibility of ANYONE other than yourself so no amount of testimony from others is going to be seen as valid. For $50 you could have seen the show and then commented on the video that was played but you won't even do that. I personally would not let you in after all of this or I would charge you $1000 to see it.
You talk about preserving records while you are defending one that was certified by the BCA based on sworn testimony. Then when a new record is set and certified by the BCA based on them stating publicly that they verified the full run by watching the full video it's not enough for you and you cry fraud. Fact, NO ONE WHO MATTERS CARES what you think other than for the entertainment value you provide railing against John's record. Those who matter have certified the record and it will be included in the record books with John's name next to it. That's the bottom line and the sooner you accept it the sooner you can move on to hopefully a better place in your life.
The funny part is that you think Charlie and John are even bothering to read this. A pest is only a pest when it bothers me. If it's buzzing around the yard doing its thing then I leave it alone to go do whatever it does.
Obviously, I can't speak for them but I can tell you that I have known them both for 15-20 years now and they are likely spending their time enjoying life and planning for the future.
It was a formality.
I think we've already established in this thread that most players of his era didn't care about high runs. I'm guessing his sponsor cared more than he did.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
I'm gonna quote John's moment of clarity for him.
Damn!
Oml it was to the people that matter. Your not one of those people that matter. Sorry about your ego.
John's run was 626 and willie's was 526. The context- practice/ exhibition/ time zone/ season, etc... is a detail and is of negligible impact to the matter.
It's not a matter of ego, or me.
I believe there are some folks besides myself, to include prominent pros, who have their doubts about JS' run. Regardless, I'm entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours.
Lou Figueroa
That's not true. Context is very important. Are you saying the home run derby should count towards a batter's career home run total?
The high run in practice is held by Babe Cranfield. The only reason he doesn't hold an official record is because there is none for practice runs, plus he didn't have a notary nearby.
I understand what you are saying but it is not an "exhibition" high run. Do you really think JS could have run 626 if it was a planned, actual exhibition?
Comparing it to baseball is apples to oranges.
How many billiard exhibitions are there nowadays? Does Brunswick, Diamond, Rasson, etc. have pros touring the county putting on exhibitions I'm not familiar with? While it may have been "practice" John's effort is as close as we are going to get to an "exhibition" in this day and age. The people that needed to verify the run's legitimacy have seen it and verified its authenticity which should be good enough. I'm sure John has his reasons for not posting it on YouTube for the masses. Maybe he's holding out hope a major network will buy it for production or maybe he's been in negotiations. We don't know but to insinuate he's holding onto it because he knows it isn't legit is absurd. He has held intimate viewings across the county and I'm not aware of one of the attendees claiming it was fraud, although I could have missed it. I applaud John for putting in the work to accomplish this feat in a game (14.1) that is no longer mainstream. If there are players out there who think it's BS, put your game where your mouth is and run 527 on video and post it on YouTube for everyone to see.
Yes, it is already clear that John Schmidt can run hundreds. So at this point it is certainly possible that he could run 600+ at any time.
John's run here is performative. It was a planned event with spectators and a camera and sponsored. This is as much or even more of an exhibition as Willie Mosconi's run due to the fact that it is available through organized shows that go into detail about it.
Records are interesting things and when a feat happens outside of competition then people will argue incessantly about the validity of such.
The 768 number is not a record, it is a claim. In order for something to become a record it must be recorded in some acceptable format. In Willie's case it was a signed affidavit and the BCA's acceptance.
In John's case it was a video recording of the event, sworn testimony and the BCA's verification.
How about the fact that technology has changed the environment in which the feat (is alleged to have) occured?
The fact that video of Willie's run is not necessary has a flip side: video IS available today and therefore, is an acceptable medium for 'exhibiting' the effort.
I'm just humoring the call for distinction between exhibition/ practice and pointing out another hypocrisy.
I see 0 difference in categorization of the run as practice or exhibition. A run is a run.
I do believe there is necessary difference between in/out of competition...outside of competition, its all funsies.
I don't think what you say about Babe is the complete truth: I believe it widely held that there were no witnesses to the entire run and that is the major hurdle to considering his run the record.
If prominent pros question Schmidt's claim, they should speak up, and give reasons. I did see some prominent players ask for clarifications, but that was in response to bogus claims from Danny Harriman et al. No prominent pros have publicly questioned his run that i can find. I did note lots of congratulatory messages from the best players in the game.
The fact remains that the BCA has viewed the video, other prominent players have also viewed the video. There is an affidavid from the people who were there during the run.
The BCA accepted that evidence and formally sanctioned Schmidt's 626 as a new record.
People who question the claim have to show that the evidence was false, not just speculate that Schmidt might have used 'magnetism', or shaved the slates, or had the help of Leprechauns, etc., etc.
If the BCA hasn't asked your opinion on the validity of Schmidt's run, it's because they don't think your opinion matters.
Pretty straightforward i think.
The difference for me, in this context, is having to perform on-demand in a short window of time. In the exhibitions of yesteryear, they'd play a 150-200 point game and records came when they continued a match-winning run. They had few chances per night to set any type of record. John's effort is a completely different context by coming in night after night and having dozens of tries. Just because it was announced doesn't change much for me. From what I understand, they said he would be making attempts during a certain time period on certain days. But the exception of course was if the golf was on or he was too tired to continue for the day, or he came in before the place even opened. This behavior is more aligned with practice than an exhibition. If we accept this definition of an exhibition, then literally any pro is putting on exhibition if when they practice at their homeroom because the locals likely know their schedule.
I think John has A record, and I think it is the practice record. I understand Cranefield has a higher run, but there is just too little information about it out there. And it really only started getting talked about after John ran his 626.
I don't find your summary inaccurate- except for the part about Babe. I think the 768 was oft referenced prior to 626- but a run is a run.
- Status