Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maniac said:
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
Click to expand...

If TAR didnt promote SVB would believe his break was possible?

Mosconi is legit. Was he given allowances on the rack? That is why proper spectating of the sport is needed.

Dan Harriman was the leader of additional verification of Schimdts high run. Ask WWDD?
 
soyale said:
im not saying it matters one way or the other. But after he fouled, the rest of the rack doesnt count right? So 44 ball run and then he knocks a few around for fun, and then on the next rack proceeds to break the world record.

whats the difference between the beginning of that rack and his opening break shot? that he didnt place the cue ball with his hand?

again, it doesnt matter, like AT ALL. but i fail to see how you can dispute this.
Click to expand...


Remember the number line when they were teaching you very basic arithmetic? If you wanted to count you started at zero. The big deals about certifying the 669 ball run are that this wasn't what they were asked to certify as valid or not and Shaw and company didn't start at zero as they would if it was a new attempt. I can run a thousand balls tomorrow, if I start at 998! The fact that Shaw and company didn't start a recount is proof they had no consideration of a 669 ball run. Not that he didn't run 669 balls but every shot of that great run was illegal because the shot before was. Had he been aware of the foul and restarted the ball count at 0 instead of calling it 45 he would have been fine. The 669 ball run started in the middle of a player's inning at the table. That is indeed unique and unprecedented.

The BCA was asked to verify and certify a 714 ball run. They looked at it and said it didn't happen. The BCA should have stopped right there.

vapoolplayer said:
Unless there is a written rule set that covers any of this, your argument is invalid.

As no one can just pick and choose which rules they want. Like saying “if he was in a match, then he would have sat down.”

Well this isn’t a match.

Also, unless there is a rule stating they can only certify what was submitted, your argument there is invalid as well.

Is there a rule for record runs that say you can’t start in the middle of a rack?


Unless you have the rules to reference, your arguments are actually what is invalid.

Some people don’t consider Barry Bonds’ home run record legit. But, the MLB does. That’s all that counts.

If the BCA says the record is X and is by Y player, well, that’s the record.
Click to expand...

Since you have determined that rules and frameworks are invalid then none of these johnny come lately guys have set a record anyway. There were reports of over seven hundred and fifty being ran and over eight hundred being ran over fifty years ago. We also should give some special mention to Fats' run, 526, banks!

We can assume normal rules and standards of play apply other than the opening break or we can get as silly as we want to. When you decide that straight pool rules and framework are invalid what becomes silliest is claiming the run is a straight pool record. You are in good company though. The BCA lost any credibility when they gave john a plaque for an exhibition run that was largely shot in private!

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
Remember the number line when they were teaching you very basic arithmetic? If you wanted to count you started at zero. The big deals about certifying the 669 ball run are that this wasn't what they were asked to certify as valid or not and Shaw and company didn't start at zero as they would if it was a new attempt. I can run a thousand balls tomorrow, if I start at 998! The fact that Shaw and company didn't start a recount is proof they had no consideration of a 669 ball run. Not that he didn't run 669 balls but every shot of that great run was illegal because the shot before was. Had he been aware of the foul and restarted the ball count at 0 instead of calling it 45 he would have been fine. The 669 ball run started in the middle of a player's inning at the table. That is indeed unique and unprecedented.

The BCA was asked to verify and certify a 714 ball run. They looked at it and said it didn't happen. The BCA should have stopped right there.



Since you have determined that rules and frameworks are invalid then none of these johnny come lately guys have set a record anyway. There were reports of over seven hundred and fifty being ran and over eight hundred being ran over fifty years ago. We also should give some special mention to Fats' run, 526, banks!

We can assume normal rules and standards of play apply other than the opening break or we can get as silly as we want to. When you decide that straight pool rules and framework are invalid what becomes silliest is claiming the run is a straight pool record. You are in good company though. The BCA lost any credibility when they gave john a plaque for an exhibition run that was largely shot in private!

Hu
Click to expand...

Again, *you* me, or anyone don’t get to “assume” anything.

The BCA does. You don’t get to decide what is or isn’t valid. Unless you want to start your own organization and make your own records.

You can whine all you want and be as salty as you want. Shaw is the BCA record holder for now.
 
ShootingArts said:
Remember the number line when they were teaching you very basic arithmetic? If you wanted to count you started at zero. The big deals about certifying the 669 ball run are that this wasn't what they were asked to certify as valid or not and Shaw and company didn't start at zero as they would if it was a new attempt. I can run a thousand balls tomorrow, if I start at 998! The fact that Shaw and company didn't start a recount is proof they had no consideration of a 669 ball run. Not that he didn't run 669 balls but every shot of that great run was illegal because the shot before was. Had he been aware of the foul and restarted the ball count at 0 instead of calling it 45 he would have been fine. The 669 ball run started in the middle of a player's inning at the table. That is indeed unique and unprecedented.

The BCA was asked to verify and certify a 714 ball run. They looked at it and said it didn't happen. The BCA should have stopped right there.



Since you have determined that rules and frameworks are invalid then none of these johnny come lately guys have set a record anyway. There were reports of over seven hundred and fifty being ran and over eight hundred being ran over fifty years ago. We also should give some special mention to Fats' run, 526, banks!

We can assume normal rules and standards of play apply other than the opening break or we can get as silly as we want to. When you decide that straight pool rules and framework are invalid what becomes silliest is claiming the run is a straight pool record. You are in good company though. The BCA lost any credibility when they gave john a plaque for an exhibition run that was largely shot in private!

Hu
Click to expand...

I guess i see what you mean.

I was more concerned with what happened than what the bca said happened.
 
soyale said:
I guess i see what you mean.m

I was more concerned with what happened than what the bca said happened.
Click to expand...


As far as a personal accomplishment, what Jayson did was amazing! The BCA deciding to start the count in the middle of a run is what was crazy. I shot a perfect 600 with a pistol once, put me totally out of the money, my last shot was on the wrong target! A perfect ten except for that little detail. Fortunately it wasn't my only 600 fired in competition.

I shot well under the world record with a rifle, I buried the world record in fact with every group of five groups being under a long standing world record! Again there was a minor detail. An official world record could only be set at five places and only during five events each year. My "record" and those shot by a few more people over the years didn't count. I knew I had bettered the world record because every group was under the world record. I don't recall the aggregate, it was a lot like wetting your pants when you are wearing dark pants. It felt good but nobody noticed!

The BCA has sold off their amateur league division long ago and they are 90%(just a WAG) focused on being a trade organization focused on hot tubs and such from what I hear. The fact that it took three different viewings to make any decision at all on Jayson's run is a pretty fair indication of the BCA's expertise. We need a real leader for pool competition in the US. The BCA ain't it.

I would very much like to see Jayson set an untainted record and everything about the 669/714 be relegated to trivia questions. I don't doubt he is capable. I thought that he was supposed to get back in the grease but if they are peddling DVD's and a lock of hair from a Saint Bernard I guess both he and the sponsors of the attempts have lost interest. As it sits right now it seems any world record anyone claims, john or Jayson, is tainted. I believe Jayson deserves better. Then again, I wouldn't mind a third person blowing away all of the claims. I seem to remember a claim of over 800 from long ago so I would like to see a run over 900, even better over 1000 and somebody be able to claim the best run ever with nobody saying "well it's nice but..."

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
As far as a personal accomplishment, what Jayson did was amazing! The BCA deciding to start the count in the middle of a run is what was crazy. I shot a perfect 600 with a pistol once, put me totally out of the money, my last shot was on the wrong target! A perfect ten except for that little detail. Fortunately it wasn't my only 600 fired in competition.

I shot well under the world record with a rifle, I buried the world record in fact with every group of five groups being under a long standing world record! Again there was a minor detail. An official world record could only be set at five places and only during five events each year. My "record" and those shot by a few more people over the years didn't count. I knew I had bettered the world record because every group was under the world record. I don't recall the aggregate, it was a lot like wetting your pants when you are wearing dark pants. It felt good but nobody noticed!

The BCA has sold off their amateur league division long ago and they are 90%(just a WAG) focused on being a trade organization focused on hot tubs and such from what I hear. The fact that it took three different viewings to make any decision at all on Jayson's run is a pretty fair indication of the BCA's expertise. We need a real leader for pool competition in the US. The BCA ain't it.

I would very much like to see Jayson set an untainted record and everything about the 669/714 be relegated to trivia questions. I don't doubt he is capable. I thought that he was supposed to get back in the grease but if they are peddling DVD's and a lock of hair from a Saint Bernard I guess both he and the sponsors of the attempts have lost interest. As it sits right now it seems any world record anyone claims, john or Jayson, is tainted. I believe Jayson deserves better. Then again, I wouldn't mind a third person blowing away all of the claims. I seem to remember a claim of over 800 from long ago so I would like to see a run over 900, even better over 1000 and somebody be able to claim the best run ever with nobody saying "well it's nice but..."

Hu
Click to expand...
A bit off-topic, but your shooting story sort of reminded me of one of my own (and how it likely relates to my pool game).
During my army basic training, at the rifle range they gave us a lot of practice latitude. I got it into my 17-yr.-old head one day to buckle down and see how good I was. So, with a whole box of 30.06 clips at hand, and my M1 garand on a sandbag rest (open sights), I started knocking down silhouette targets at 300 yards. After all the ammo was finally gone, I noticed the drill sergeant over my shoulder, watching me and shaking his head. I had never missed once! But, when the official ‘sharpshooter’ test was staged (varying/surprise distances/time limit/offhand stance), I barely qualified.
Much like my pool game then, I was an outstanding shot-maker, but couldn’t play position or recognize patterns under pressure.
 
Last edited:
DynoDan said:
A bit off-topic, but your shooting story sort of reminded me of one of my own (and how it likely relates to my pool game).
During my army basic training, at the rifle range they gave us a lot of practice latitude. I got it into my 17-yr.-old head one day to buckle down and see how good I was. So, with a whole box of 30.06 clips at hand, and my M1 garand on a sandbag rest (open sights), I started knocking down silhouette targets at 300 yards. After all the ammo was finally gone, I noticed the drill sergeant over my shoulder, watching me and shaking his head. I had never missed once! But, when the official ‘sharpshooter’ test was staged (varying/surprise distances/time limit/offhand stance), I barely qualified.
Much like my pool game then, I was an outstanding shot-maker, but couldn’t play position or recognize patterns under pressure.
Click to expand...


I was a range bum with nothing else to do while recovering from an injury. Noticed a medium sized older guy, a bit of a pot gut, nothing looked too special about him. Main thing I noticed is that he never brought anything but a Garand, and he stood on his hind legs shooting it at 100 yards, as far as that range went to. When he started a group he didn't waste much time getting it downrange. The range owner's father was around one day and couldn't resist telling the man he would shoot better if he slowed down. We walked downrange to change out some other groups and looked at his target. You could cover his group with your hand! He was a marine, retired, and had a more than respectable rating with the Garand in his time.

Talking about pressure, I was out of work and living off of pool and stock car earnings. My car wasn't getting the care it needed other than the things to keep the engine in good shape. For example, I had three bent shock absorbers and the fourth was gone. I timed in at the front of the fast heat, actually outside pole. That meant ten faster cars behind me and twelve laps to hold them off! I pulled the pole position car down the front stretch and that was the last I saw of him. However, I had a car drop in every turn beside me and I could pull whoever it was a little down the straight. This went on until coming out of the final turn of the race.

A car ducked under me with two wheels in the mud to pass. Dumb move, he hadn't been able to pass me in a whole straightaway. I built pretty good engines. When he slid up the track he hit my left rear. Two choices, back off and catch the car to come in third or fourth or plan B. I whipped my steering wheel into the spin and nailed the throttle down. The finish line was fairly close at this track, halfway down the front stretch. The spinning stock car took up a lot of room on the track too. I crossed the finish line in first place, spinning since I left turn four.

Between having to drive twelve perfect laps to stay in first and the grand finale I was totally spent. I climbed out of the car and had to lean on it and rest a few minutes before walking off. It is amazing how much energy we can burn just dealing with pressure. My knees felt like rubber for a couple minutes!

I felt similar pressure a few times playing pool or snooker but it was rare. Going around in circles was the primary way I learned to deal with pressure.

Hu
 
In general, I'd say John's run is a lot more legitimate than him going on Facebook and pumping Bitcoin at $60,000 to his fans, and watching them lose their asses, as it is now at $19,000. I warned him how extremely risky it was, and how he was setting his fans up for failure. He messages me about how I was just jealous of his success, and then blocked me,so I can't even drop a comment on one of his posts anymore.

Somehow, I doubt he's talking much about crypto anymore. Or is he? Anyone who is still friends with him on there know?
 
Last edited:
Buy low, sell high. Crypto, or tulips, principle is the same. With risky speculation, something is only valuable, until it isn’t.
BTW: Watched a tv financial program recently, where a crypto fund manager was touting bitcoin, etc., claiming the main advantage was instantaneous $ transfer overseas. Beats me why that would be important (?), as if the recipient there would be waiting at the bank to collect a wheelbarrow full of cash.
 
DynoDan said:
Buy low, sell high. Crypto, or tulips, principle is the same. With risky speculation, something is only valuable, until it isn’t.
BTW: Watched a tv financial program recently, where a crypto fund manager was touting bitcoin, etc., claiming the main advantage was instantaneous $ transfer overseas. Beats me why that would be important (?), as if the recipient there would be waiting at the bank to collect a wheelbarrow full of cash.
Click to expand...
I've been really confused about bitcoins supposed value too. Seemed like a good way to avoid taxes for a while but outside that I just don't get it. I understand the total amount being limited. But to me, Bitcoin is more imaginary than the fiat currency bitcoin proponents belittle. Sure, dollars are technically imaginary but to me a bitcoin is even more imaginary. The omnipotent US government backs the dollars. What backs bitcoin?
 
Maniac said:
Yeah, he found out that he was in a very small minority.
Click to expand...
Actually yer wrong as usual, after we see schmidt's high run rack 23 i.e cheating - the group that was asking everyone here on az to trust in the leading experts - are truly the one's that look small. Take a lookee at rack 23 and we need not wonder why bca/c.w/j.s. did not want to share any footage of their 626. If u believe their is unedited version of c.w and j.s. 626 - y'all should keep investing in bitcoin - I am current see.
 
Last edited:
justadub said:
My feelings are that nobody will beat this record over the next 65 years
Click to expand...
Looks like u were wrong, those who try and get the public to believe in emotional evidence rather than verifiable evidence usually are - WRONG. What do u think about rack 23 in schmidts last high run fiasco - do u think the spot became a bit crowded on rack 23? Also do you think rack 23 is related to why bca never produced any verifiable evidence with their 626 claim. I will be surprised if u even care to comment. It's my view that rack 23 reflects why bca never had any verifiable evidence of the 626 footage for sale - and in disc form. But I saw where u went to their theater show lol.
 
Last edited:
justadub said:
You claim that you want to see unedited (or un-slowed down) footage in order to believe it.
Click to expand...
Unedited video constitutes equates to 'un slowed down' in yer world only? The video theuy played at theatre was 'sped up for time purposes'? Unedited does not mean 'un slowed down' - as u already knew, it means continual play or 'real time footage' I really think u need to get up to speed Bruce.
 
when dannys offline thinking about 14.1 threads

Always Sunny Dennis GIF
 
trob said:
Wow. Your an idiot and not worth anyone’s time. The new record is 626 no matter how much it hurts willie mosconi ass kissers like you. I never said I was a prominent pro but people who are and trusted stewards of the game have seen it and attested to it being legitimate Records are made to be broken. His has been. Your going to have to move ion with your life now. 😂😂 pathetic
Click to expand...
Yer not a pro, yer a puppet in many ways, I truly feel sorry for people like u. Maybe they will give u a carbon fibre shaft for trying to support the lie's being fed to public. Those trusted stewards of the game u mentioned would not dare try me in 14.1 for the cashola' neither nick or mark. U and yer pitiful fakebook crowd of leading excerpts have been exposed. Nothing wrong in believing in the hollywood lie's they are producing to public - that is yer choice. However the name calling towards me - from u - just cause I choose to see verifiable evidence before believing their 626 story - is out of line from yer end. I would add if u choose emotional/heresay evidence - as verbatim - rather than verifiable/factual evidence - well let me say - u have a poor ideology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top