Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cornerman said:
I guess I don’t have to understand how you’re wired. You seem to ignore one of our most esteemed members saying years ago at this point that he reviewed the unedited run. And you can be sure he did the best job possible for the integrity of the game. He even detaile every break shot.

Have at it Lou. I’m sure you’ll come up with some other bone to chew. This whole 626 was satisfied a long time ago. And now it’s been surpassed. Great job Jayson and John. Hoping someone else breaks it.
Click to expand...

How you or I are wired has nothing to do with the fact the same people did not review both runs.

Nor was the level of scruntiny accorded the two runs equal in any sense.

Neither points are bones I’m chewing on, they’re merely responses to you asking if you missed something.

Somewhat obviously, you did.

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
How you or I are wired has nothing to do with the fact the same people did not review both runs.

Nor was the level of scruntiny accorded the two runs equal in any sense.

Neither points are bones I’m chewing on, they’re merely responses to you asking if you missed something.

Somewhat obviously, you did.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
And who voted for the politician in 1994 vs 2018 is irrelevant.

Winner is winner.
 
I don't understand all the cloak and dagger about who reviewed what. We don't even agree on who saw each tape? Bob saw the 626 and so did two other guys. Who were they and did these 3 guys also review the 714? It would be interesting to know how they were reviewed. For instance, was anyone looking at how each rack was placed on the table? We know there have been shenanigans there by JS on the recent tape and also in an analysis I did a few years ago of a different run. Edit: I'm not contending that JS was intentionally doing anything wrong -- only that rack placement was, let's say "casual" compared to a guy like Hohmann who placed his racks like a robot.

I've always contended that a run of this importance should be made widely available for scrutiny before a verdict is made.
 
Dan White said:
I don't understand all the cloak and dagger about who reviewed what. We don't even agree on who saw each tape? Bob saw the 626 and so did two other guys. Who were they and did these 3 guys also review the 714? It would be interesting to know how they were reviewed. For instance, was anyone looking at how each rack was placed on the table? We know there have been shenanigans there by JS on the recent tape and also in an analysis I did a few years ago of a different run. Edit: I'm not contending that JS was intentionally doing anything wrong -- only that rack placement was, let's say "casual" compared to a guy like Hohmann who placed his racks like a robot.

I've always contended that a run of this importance should be made widely available for scrutiny before a verdict is made.
Click to expand...
Bob reviewed both with equal scrutiny. How that’s not good enough is mind boggling.

Over 20 people watched John Schmidt’s 626 unedited. That doesn't really matter. The shenanigans in his latest attempts should have no bearing on the already-reviewed 626 since according to the one guy I have total faith in reviewing it, none of that happened. If we use shenanigans as some kind of determining factor, every pool player including Jayson has done questionable things. Mind boggling.

People seem to be talking about what could have happened, etc. Bob reviewed both with the scrutiny we all can expect from Bob. Many of us watched the traveling show, and nobody has said that they saw anything questionable, but that doesnt matter either.
 
Dan White said:
Agreed. I think a lot of people owe Dan Harriman an apology. He knows the character of JS up and close and was right to be skeptical. I am neutral on the issue but it won't be a record in my eyes until the video is publicly available.
Click to expand...
Thank You Dan, your always a voice of reason. Many posters that attacked me verbally on this forum - DO owe me an apology. Ny times, and other publications that tried to push the phony 626 story - owe the American public an apology as well. It is important to note that the evidence Charlie williams, j.s, bca, provided was a 'theatre review' of phony 626, which was sped up for 'time purposes' yuck. Unlike at a LEGIT 'book review' where the authors book is for sale - there was no disc for sale to anyone foolish enough to watch the edited 626 theatre corruption. After viewing some more of schmidts recent rack cheating antics - caught on camera rack 23 - I am 100% certain that he and charlie lied to American public about surpassing Mosconi's long standing 526 mark. Charlie williams draggin promotions makes most of schmidts business decisions ie he is probly the director of fictional theatre show, if they had an unedited 626 video for sale - then their dragon would have some real fire. Instead they are just blowin woke cancel culture smoke and askin us to take it all in as verbatim - No Thanks. Schmidt may have talent - but his temperament - is not that of what Champions are made, ie throwing chalk when losing, cheating on rack etc. Mosconi's World Record in 14.1 continuous - deserves better than to be erased during a plandemic' - without providing proper evidence to Open public. So again after further scrutiny their - 626 is not Legit.
 
Last edited:
Drama Popcorn GIF
 
Dan Harriman said:
Thank You Dan, your always a voice of reason. Many posters that attacked me verbally on this forum - DO owe me an apology. Ny times, and other publications that tried to push the phony 626 story - owe the American public an apology as well. It is important to note that the evidence Charlie williams j.s and bca provided was a theatre review of the 626 - but unlike at a LEGIT book review there was no disc for sale to any of the theatre puppets aka facebook friends of john and charlies. After viewing some more of schmidts recent cheating antics - I am 100% certain that he and charlie lied to American public about surpassing Mosconi's long standing 526 mark. So after closer scrutiny - 626 IS NOT LEGIT. Schmidt is a phony paper champion who throws chalk when losing - he may have talent - but his temperament - is not that of what Champions are made of Mosconi.
Click to expand...
Lol. Fantasy land is back for more.
Wonder how he feels about Jayson taking the lead?
Screenshot_20220623-162939.jpg
 
Cornerman said:
Bob reviewed both with equal scrutiny. How that’s not good enough is mind boggling.
Click to expand...
You have me at a disadvantage because you apparently saw a presentation of what was done to verify the 626, whereas I only know what I read on AZ, much of which is contradictory. Did Bob scrutinize the rack positions for each successive rack? Did the video quality allow that kind of scrutiny? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that nobody who reviewed the 626 paid much attention to how the racks were positioned. Given the fact that JS was caught on tape manipulating a high run attempt rack and given we have video of "casual" racking in the past, I think it is something that specifically needed to be scrutinized.

Also, did the 626 video quality even permit the kind of scrutiny that the 714 was subjected to? The 714 was invalidated because a ball was brushed in a way that is almost impossible to see with close up video run over and over in slow motion. It was such a small infraction that some here asked whether it could have been a camera aberration. Did Bob discover that contact? If not, then what else might he have missed? Maybe he did. I don't know, but think the point I'm trying to make is valid.

I have great respect and faith in Bob as you do, but I don't think the questions I raise are mind boggling at all. Just make the videos available to the general public. It's a digital world. Let's take advantage of the "2 million heads are better then 3" concept.
 
lfigueroa said:
How you or I are wired has nothing to do with the fact the same people did not review both runs.

Nor was the level of scruntiny accorded the two runs equal in any sense.

Neither points are bones I’m chewing on, they’re merely responses to you asking if you missed something.

Somewhat obviously, you did.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
My guess is that Freddie meant that the same 3 people who reviewed the 626 also reviewed the 714. That might be true (is it?) but it does leave an impression that the two videos were scrutinized equally, which might not be true. Actually, is it possible to give them the same level of scrutiny when the video quality for one is better than the other?

Maybe I'm grasping at straws. Making the video available would clear a lot of things up I think.
 
Dan White said:
My guess is that Freddie meant that the same 3 people who reviewed the 626 also reviewed the 714. That might be true (is it?) but it does leave an impression that the two videos were scrutinized equally, which might not be true. Actually, is it possible to give them the same level of scrutiny when the video quality for one is better than the other?

Maybe I'm grasping at straws. Making the video available would clear a lot of things up I think.
Click to expand...
I mean to say that regardless of anyone who reviewed the videos, the BCA had representatives that scrutinized it. Since it was a BCA record, then it’s theirs to review with respect to any BCA record. 15-20 other people watched the unedited video. As far the BCA is concerned, they don’t really count towards anything. Why would they?

Bob Jewett watched and scrutinized both, and he says he rewound and looked closer at anything that may be in question. I don’t need to watch the video if Bob already did the heavy lifting. For all I know, Bob might have caught the moving ball in Shaw’s run. I have no idea.

Maybe Bob doesn’t want to respond to this thread because frankly it’s a non-issue, in my opinion.

And how do people think the video quality was so different? When I saw the show, I don’t ever recall seeing anything that suggested the video quality was hiding something.
 
Dan White said:
You have me at a disadvantage because you apparently saw a presentation of what was done to verify the 626, whereas I only know what I read on AZ, much of which is contradictory. Did Bob scrutinize the rack positions for each successive rack? Did the video quality allow that kind of scrutiny?
Click to expand...
Was there ANY scrutinization of the racks when Willie ran 526??? You got three choices for an answer: yes, no or I don't know. If your answer is no or I don't know, it's pure bullshit to even bring up the subject of scrutinizing the racks.

Why not just let this shit go since JS's 626 has already been surpassed??? You probably have better things to do with your time than to spend it on here quibbling like a couple of 5 year olds.

Maniac
 
Maniac said:
Was there ANY scrutinization of the racks when Willie ran 526??? You got three choices for an answer: yes, no or I don't know. If your answer is no or I don't know, it's pure bullshit to even bring up the subject of scrutinizing the r
Click to expand...
Willie did not rack the balls nor was he ever known to be a rack mechanic so I think in that case it is a moot point. I'm guessing Willie was not buddies with the guy racking the balls, either. If John did not rack the balls and did not have any interaction with the ball racker then it's probably not an issue
Maniac said:
Why not just let this shit go since JS's 626 has already been surpassed??? You probably have better things to do with your time than to spend it on here quibbling like a couple of 5 year olds.

Maniac
Click to expand...
Add yourself to the list lol. This whole concept of real high run attempts is a new phenomenon without any agreed upon standards. Arguing over these issues might help create better rules in the future.
 
Cornerman said:
Bob reviewed both with equal scrutiny. How that’s not good enough is mind boggling.

Over 20 people watched John Schmidt’s 626 unedited. That doesn't really matter. The shenanigans in his latest attempts should have no bearing on the already-reviewed 626 since according to the one guy I have total faith in reviewing it, none of that happened. If we use shenanigans as some kind of determining factor, every pool player including Jayson has done questionable things. Mind boggling.

People seem to be talking about what could have happened, etc. Bob reviewed both with the scrutiny we all can expect from Bob. Many of us watched the traveling show, and nobody has said that they saw anything questionable, but that doesnt matter either.
Click to expand...
Why did they change the BCA rules for Jayson on cue ball fouls only. Why would they go to all ball fouls?
That alone tells me there's a skunk in the wood pile!
 
rjb1168 said:
Why did they change the BCA rules for Jayson on cue ball fouls only. Why would they go to all ball fouls?
That alone tells me there's a skunk in the wood pile!
Click to expand...


That would seem more than a little odd but what many don't understand is that "cue ball fouls only" has a very narrow definition. The only thing that becomes a nonfoul is incidental contact of one other ball that doesn't affect the outcome of the shot. All other fouls still apply. Moving that object ball around during the shot as Shaw did would be a foul in typical "cue ball fouls only" play.

I don't like it but the BCA was asked to certify a 714 ball run. They could have acknowledged a 44 ball run but anything after the foul is just banging balls around. Had the foul been on the 670th ball then they could have certified a 669 ball run but there would have been a bit of smell about that because the BCA hadn't been asked to certify a 669 ball run. If the same video had been submitted but the BCA been asked to certify a 669 ball run I wouldn't see any issues unless closer scrutiny brings something else to light.

I don't think a little incidental contact during the shot affected the run. However, "during the shot" is huge. We either draw a hard line there or contact is OK when you are bridged over a ball or "accidentally" clearing a ball out of the stroke path.

Regrettably, Shaw has a 44 ball run. He has shown himself capable of a 714 ball run and I hope he gets back in the arena as planned and buries that 714 ball attempt and all controversy. The person that breaks 1000 will be remembered and recent runs indicate that is far from impossible. Shaw could be the man!

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
That would seem more than a little odd but what many don't understand is that "cue ball fouls only" has a very narrow definition. The only thing that becomes a nonfoul is incidental contact of one other ball that doesn't affect the outcome of the shot. All other fouls still apply. Moving that object ball around during the shot as Shaw did would be a foul in typical "cue ball fouls only" play.

I don't like it but the BCA was asked to certify a 714 ball run. They could have acknowledged a 44 ball run but anything after the foul is just banging balls around. Had the foul been on the 670th ball then they could have certified a 669 ball run but there would have been a bit of smell about that because the BCA hadn't been asked to certify a 669 ball run. If the same video had been submitted but the BCA been asked to certify a 669 ball run I wouldn't see any issues unless closer scrutiny brings something else to light.

I don't think a little incidental contact during the shot affected the run. However, "during the shot" is huge. We either draw a hard line there or contact is OK when you are bridged over a ball or "accidentally" clearing a ball out of the stroke path.

Regrettably, Shaw has a 44 ball run. He has shown himself capable of a 714 ball run and I hope he gets back in the arena as planned and buries that 714 ball attempt and all controversy. The person that breaks 1000 will be remembered and recent runs indicate that is far from impossible. Shaw could be the man!

Hu
Click to expand...
Even if you stop counting at 44, scrub the rest of that rack, and start from the next one, he still broke the “record.” i realize saying he has a 44 run was hyperbole but i feel the need to point that out. If you choose to look at it that way, he effectively played the ball “off bigfoots fat foot” and still broke the world record.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top