Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

[rjb1168]

Is that the best you can do? What a joke!

That is cheating, is that better RKC!

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

I don't believe Bob was representing the BCA when he reviewed the tape and the bottomline is that the BCA had *many* more folks officially review Jayson's run, stopping and re-starting the tape numerous times, looking for whatever it is that they were looking for.

Given that, I think it's reasonable to wonder whether John's run would hold up to the same level of scrutiny.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

We were talking about BCA review -- all the others don't matter.

Lou Figueroa

 

[AF pool guy]

Thirty-seven months later, these posters have seen it all and heard it all.
Changing anyone’s mind is out of the question.
Mosconi526 is still unequaled, nor surpassed, during a competitive exhibition to 200 points and continuing to 526 on a single attempt.
1100 attempts by Schmidt and 125 attempts by Shaw doesn’t even compare.
Let either of them or anyone else announce a 14.1 Continuous-exhibition with a competitor and step up to the plate for a one-shot attempt, and see where they fall into the hi-run hierarchy.
Then, someone might take notice of their skills and abilities at 14.1 Continuous.
Until, then, just get in line and sthu.

So how many times did Mr. W Mosconi compete in an exhibition race to 200 where he didn’t go on to run 526? Should we count each of those as a failed attempt?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

We don't even know whether the word "scrutinized" can be applied to the BCA review of John's run -- two of the reviewers don't play pool and the other was John's friend.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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

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.

It is my understanding that the BCA has in fact created a new set of standards for 14.1 high run attempts.

The only problem is that, despite numerous requests, they have yet to respond and release them to us.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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!

Yes.

After Bobby left the first review all present agreed the run would be certified in a matter of days as 714. Hands were shook and backs slapped and there were happy campers all around. Then, over the course of several months, there were the additional reviews with new reviewers and eventually they decided they'd count OB fouls, contrary to what was agreed upon at the conclusion of the first review and their own posted rules.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Dan White]

Yes.

After Bobby left the first review all present agreed the run would be certified in a matter of days as 714. Hands were shook and backs slapped and there were happy campers all around. Then, over the course of several months, there were the additional reviews with new reviewers and eventually they decided they'd count OB fouls, contrary to what was agreed upon at the conclusion of the first review and their own posted rules.

Lou Figueroa

Someone in a prior post said that if you touch another ball while in the process of shooting the cue ball then that constitutes a foul under "cue ball only" rules. That, compared to accidentally bumping into a ball while getting down on a shot, etc.. Is that true?

 

[Dan White]

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?

Well I can't argue with that. BCA record, BCA reps are all that count, I guess. If later it turns out they missed something then a BCA record won't be worth much.

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.

Who did the racking for the JS run? I've seen him rack his own sometimes but in this case I don't presume he did here.

 

[Dan White]

Doug Desmond, team partner and sponsor racked all 1100 attempts in 79 days at two different pool parlors, over a six month interval.

Thanks. I hope there was a rack outline drawn on the table.

 

[Cornerman]

Well I can't argue with that. BCA record, BCA reps are all that count, I guess. If later it turns out they missed something then a BCA record won't be worth much.


Who did the racking for the JS run? I've seen him rack his own sometimes but in this case I don't presume he did here.

Assuming you mean John Schmidt and not Jayson Shaw…

Doug Desmond did the racking for John Schmidt for his 626. He used the Sardo rack, and you can can see him aligning the two alignment marks for every rack. They also had a pencil outline of the rack to determine in or out.

Doug was uber meticulous. He didn’t want there to be any question if John had a high run. So much for that. He is a pool aficionado who described some things about Mosconi’s run that I never heard of (that the table was an oversized 8, not an 8’ table).

In one rack, Doug marked the break ball and removed it while racking because he didn’t want to accidentally hit it with the clunky Sardo rack. I’m sure people will have issues with that.

 

[rjb1168]

Assuming you mean John Schmidt and not Jayson Shaw…

Doug Desmond did the racking for John Schmidt for his 626. He used the Sardo rack, and you can can see him aligning the two alignment marks for every rack. They also had a pencil outline of the rack to determine in or out.

Doug was uber meticulous. He didn’t want there to be any question if John had a high run. So much for that. He is a pool aficionado who described some things about Mosconi’s run that I never heard of (that the table was an oversized 8, not an 8’ table).

In one rack, Doug marked the break ball and removed it while racking because he didn’t want to accidentally hit it with the clunky Sardo rack. I’m sure people will have issues with that.

I see how good the sardo rack is, look at all the people using it. How do you explain
this in his last attempt?

 

[Dan White]

Assuming you mean John Schmidt and not Jayson Shaw…

Doug Desmond did the racking for John Schmidt for his 626. He used the Sardo rack, and you can can see him aligning the two alignment marks for every rack. They also had a pencil outline of the rack to determine in or out.

Doug was uber meticulous. He didn’t want there to be any question if John had a high run. So much for that. He is a pool aficionado who described some things about Mosconi’s run that I never heard of (that the table was an oversized 8, not an 8’ table).

In one rack, Doug marked the break ball and removed it while racking because he didn’t want to accidentally hit it with the clunky Sardo rack. I’m sure people will have issues with that.

Sounds good to me. I'm skeptical not paranoid. Hopefully some time everyone will be able to judge for themselves.

 

[Maniac]

Given that, I think it's reasonable to wonder whether John's run would hold up to the same level of scrutiny.

Lou Figueroa

Once again....what was the amount of scrutiny on the tape of Mosconi's 526 run?

Just asking for a friend.

Maniac (we will never know what Willie MIGHT have gotten away with)

 

[Maniac]

So.....who the f*ck has the record??/ Officially?

 

[Cornerman]

So.....who the f*ck has the record??/ Officially?

Cranfield obviously.

 

[lfigueroa]

Once again....what was the amount of scrutiny on the tape of Mosconi's 526 run?

Just asking for a friend.

Maniac (we will never know what Willie MIGHT have gotten away with)

Mosconi had three dozen pairs of eyeballs watching his run, after which they all signed an affidavit attesting to what they had witnessed.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

So.....who the f*ck has the record??/ Officially?

Officially, Jayson Shaw.

669 all ball fouls, 714 CB fouls only.

Lou Figueroa

 

[rjb1168]

Jason Shaw 714!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Maniac]

Mosconi had three dozen pairs of eyeballs watching his run, after which they all signed an affidavit attesting to what they had witnessed.

Lou Figueroa

Well, that's certainly as exact as a slow-motion video played over and over again on a high-definition big screen! Yes sir, that's some real scrutiny right there! LOL