The discussion about Guinness/626 has been had.
You arent a child and ignorance is not a valid excuse for your wrongs.
Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit
- Thread starter Dan Harriman
- Start date
- Status
You arent a child and ignorance is not a valid excuse for your wrongs.
That is not a pretty painting youre trying to put down with your broad brush. I have an Aaron for you. Go see the video proof that the run exists. You think you can speak for the vast majority of pool community, you're a little bit comical. no one is worthy to speak for as you slurred the vast majority of pool community myself included you're not many you're just one my guess is that is probably enough
That run would still have to be higher than 626. Plain and simple.
I understand the logical ground your taking a stand on here. It is not out of the ordinary to want to personally see and verify something so extraordinary. The fact that Danny Harriman has not pored over, frame by frame, with a magnifying glass, John Schmidt's record is absolutely inconsequential.
The thing is, several trusted sources have verified the run. Many more have seen it. The only source Danny would ever trust is himself, and even then he would just claim the edits were just executed too well.
Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
Yes. Dingbat continues to imply unedited (don't forget, FREE) video would satisfy him, but we all know his rabid hatred for and jealousy of Mr. 626 makes that an impossible conclusion for him.
There are the only mentions of Guinness being discussed on AZBILLIARDS.
There are exactly two.
Dan is the third of the classic Guinness arguments for AZB records.
And Dan is actually capable of producing a run.
You can be on the side of history that people remember or be on the side of privately sponsored publications.
That alone is all the information needed to render a verdict.
you have a strong intellect he says, to justin
What side are you on?
Hint: GUINNESS IS A PRIVATELY SPONSORED PUBLICATION.
Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
I want independent verification.
Yes Guinness is privately sponsored do you want taxpayers to pay for it?
That would mean including records from local pool clubs. Each room has their own scoreboard. Should they consolidate?
The official pool room records of pool halls call it the PRR Inc Pool Room Records Inc.
Wait until next month I can make a website doing that.
If he could, he would. It would be the pinnacle of his life's achievements to beat Johns record high run.
But he can't and he knows it.
Fake news.
The Guinness book doesn't have all the records from the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. Sports Governing Bodies like the BCA, NFL, NBA etc., manage and maintain their own records. For obvious reasons.
The Smithsonian doesn't collect or sanction records. It collects cultural and historical artifacts. It didn't have anything about Mosconi until Mosconi donated it near the end of his career.
You have to read more.
And why does it matter what you want? Are you a representative of a sports governing body? Do you have any expertise in the field of interest? Are you a prominent or well-respected member of the billiard community?
Neither is Danny Harriman.
Good luck with that.
Don't forget to include the 626 from Easy Street Billiards.
Last edited:
I'm perfectly alright with the verification that has already occurred. The same body that validated Mosconi's claim has verified Schmidt's claim. I used the term validate to describe the actions of the bca in mosconi's case because none of them actually saw the run and therefore can't actual verify it. They took hearsay as evidence, yes a signed affidavit amounts to hearsay as it is someone else's recollection of events, and stated they believed those witnesses were telling the truth. For the record I also believe they were being truthful.
They do have the testimony of the people present at Schmidt's run and a video to verify, which they have done.
I'm not certain why the words of a handful of perfect strangers are held as gospel in Mosconi's case, but everyone involved here are no good money grubbing liars. You don't know any of these people. Imagine some filthy Brunswick executives throwing around free swag, greasing the wheels if you may. It could have happened. You've never seen, nor has anybody else seen a recording of Mosconi's run. It's just as plausible that his was staged. You don't expect me to believe that corporations and the media were any more trustworthy then than they are now.
Why the hell and how the hell would taxpayer money ever be used to verify a straight pool high run? No tax money was spent validating Mosconi's run.
I do understand that my use of hearsay in this instance is a stretch. However we all take the second hand acceptance of first hands accounts of Mosconi's run as factual validation. Pretty much the same thing.
Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Is he trying to set himself up as an organization that is responsible for verifying billiards records just so he can cry foul when they don't just send him a free of charge video to "verify"?
Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
Yup. If he took this fire that's up his @ and put it to some good use, maybe he'd stand a chance, maybe not. Ain't going get nowhere playing pocket pool with his key board.
Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
Yes, i agree. All the i's were dotted and T's crossed by John Schmidt's team. The BCA did what they were supposed to do. The new record stands.
But these innuendos and attacks on everyone associated, with no evidence, are just childish and dumb.
Danny hates John Schmidt and will probably never let up. It's gone on long enough, with all of Danny's objections answered so many times, that the main casualty now is Danny's reputation. That's fair.
- Status