Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

Status
Not open for further replies.
justnum said:
In the academic community its called, actual versus expected.
How many people actually play pool?
Of that group how many actually run 14.1 racks?
Of that group how many can run multiple racks in one inning?
Of that group how many can multiple racks without messing up?
Of that group how many can do that for 300 shots in one inning?

There is the top of a pyramid and then there is a meaningless point of no return.
Click to expand...
That is your position on why jayson's and John's runs can't have occurred?

You do realize your sample set is comparing the general population to proven skilled players?

Brilliant. You've demonstrated the uniqueness of top pros' abilities.

That's why running hundreds of balls is a noteworthy achievement.
 
Black-Balled said:
That is your position on why jayson's and John's runs can't have occurred?

You do realize your sample set is comparing the general population to proven skilled players?

Brilliant. You've demonstrated the uniqueness of top pros' abilities.

That's why running hundreds of balls is a noteworthy achievement.
Click to expand...

Runners know there is a mythical 4min mile.
Fishers know that some fish are easier to bait than others.
Basketball players know hangtime is limited.
Baseball players know the top speed a ball can be thrown.
Golfers know they can't outstroke the wind.

Pool players they believe in anything. Even in records that are impossible to replicate as deductions of scientific fact. Assuming John or Jayson are amazingly fast human calculators the chance of human error in a over 600 positional and shot calculations would make them as fast as a supercomputer.

I am saying there is a lower and upper bound for pool shotmaking abilities. The speed limit is easier to test at competitions. The upper limit is easier to test in practice. Most practice runs are ending before anyone hits 300+ regularly. The 3 records based on existing data suggest on a normalized scale have a 0.001% of happening ever again, in English its BS.

That is technically impossible, the human brain is good but not that good.
 
justnum said:
Runners know there is a mythical 4min mile.
Fishers know that some fish are easier to bait than others.
Basketball players know hangtime is limited.
Baseball players know the top speed a ball can be thrown.
Golfers know they can't outstroke the wind.

Pool players they believe in anything. Even in records that are impossible to replicate as deductions of scientific fact. Assuming John or Jayson are amazingly fast human calculators the chance of human error in a over 600 positional and shot calculations would make them as fast as a supercomputer.

I am saying there is a lower and upper bound for pool shotmaking abilities. The speed limit is easier to test at competitions. The upper limit is easier to test in practice. Most practice runs are ending before anyone hits 300+ regularly. The 3 records based on existing data suggest on a normalized scale have a 0.001% of happening ever again, in English its BS.

That is technically impossible, the human brain is good but not that good.
Click to expand...
To clarify: Amongst the three referenced runs is Mosconi's 526; are you calling BS on that?

Arnaldo
__________________________________________________________________________________________
 
justnum said:
Runners know there is a mythical 4min mile.
Fishers know that some fish are easier to bait than others.
Basketball players know hangtime is limited.
Baseball players know the top speed a ball can be thrown.
Golfers know they can't outstroke the wind.

Pool players they believe in anything. Even in records that are impossible to replicate as deductions of scientific fact. Assuming John or Jayson are amazingly fast human calculators the chance of human error in a over 600 positional and shot calculations would make them as fast as a supercomputer.

I am saying there is a lower and upper bound for pool shotmaking abilities. The speed limit is easier to test at competitions. The upper limit is easier to test in practice. Most practice runs are ending before anyone hits 300+ regularly. The 3 records based on existing data suggest on a normalized scale have a 0.001% of happening ever again, in English its BS.

That is technically impossible, the human brain is good but not that good.
Click to expand...

lol, clearly it's your brain that isn't that good.

Because *you* pull a claim out of your ass that something isn't possible we're suppose to take that as fact?

Lou Figueroa
don't think so
 
fastone371 said:
Why would anyone preserve the table Mosconi ran 526 on? Surly nobody at the time thought that that would be the last record run for decades or that 14.1 would be surpassed by most other pool games. Are you saying that for any record 14.1 attempt that the table must be a slow Pro 8 with buckets for pockets?? The player must use a high deflection wood shaft with a single layer tip? Chalk would have to probably be limited to Master?? Even if all of those were met people would still complain about weather conditions, was it hot and humid with A/C on, dry and cold with heat on?? It would seem fair that any attempt at a record would be with current common equipment, no special preparation. That raises another question, was there any special or unique prep for Mosconi's record??
Click to expand...
I thought some guy on YouTube said and showed that he owned the table. Maybe he meant that it was a similar table.
 
justnum said:
NYTIMES is a known pay to print newspaper.

I stand by Dan. NYTIMES are inconsistent. The BCA lies and the NYTIMES swears by it.

Here is a list of more stories the NYTIMES has had controversy due poor reporting or poor authentication standards.

List of The New York Times controversies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

I have a young nephew that can think with more logic than this.

Only the Pope claims infallibility, certainly not newspapers. Newspapers, and any news outlet you'd care to name, make mistakes. I've worked with reporters -- both print and electronic -- for years and they'll all tell you the same thing: we try our best to get it right but sometimes we don't.

Lou Figueroa
 
arnaldo said:
To clarify: Amongst the three referenced runs is Mosconi's 526; are you calling BS on that?

Arnaldo
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Click to expand...

Yes
 
lfigueroa said:
Based upon what?

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

If a sports achievement is possible or a high standard then subsequent generations should be able to match or beat.

In basketball, players jump higher and for longer amounts of time.
In baseball, players throw faster and hit farther.

In pool, players are still bounded by an unknown law that can't allow for a high run at the BCA quoted value. There is a lot of math involved that boils down to if its too good to be true than it isn't.

Statistically there have been enough 14.1 attempts to show the record is baloney.
 
justnum said:
If a sports achievement is possible or a high standard then subsequent generations should be able to match or beat.

In basketball, players jump higher and for longer amounts of time.
In baseball, players throw faster and hit farther.

In pool, players are still bounded by an unknown law that can't allow for a high run at the BCA quoted value. There is a lot of math involved that boils down to if its too good to be true than it isn't.

Statistically there have been enough 14.1 attempts to show the record is baloney.
Click to expand...

Says who?

Lou Figueroa
 
Lou, as you'll already know, compulsive iconoclasticism (on display here with JN idly calling the 526 BS-- with zero foundation) is a not-uncommon form of untreatable neurosis.

Arnaldo
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Lou my initial internet search on you returned you have been banned for trolling about CTE. Is this true have you been banned for talking trash about CTE elsewhere?
 
arnaldo said:
Lou, as you'll already know, compulsive iconoclasticism (on display here with JN idly calling the 526 BS-- with zero foundation) is a not-uncommon form of untreatable neurosis.

Arnaldo
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Click to expand...
You are not wrong.
This guy just so happens to believe 45 and his election lie nonsense.
What are the odds eh, that someone keeps believing things without evidence and promotes it as truth.
There is another name for these people.
Delusional cultists.
 
justnum said:
Lou my initial internet search on you returned you have been banned for trolling about CTE. Is this true have you been banned for talking trash about CTE elsewhere?
Click to expand...

Shoot, I've been banned for all kinds of stuff.

If you want to talk about CTE there is the Aiming Forum, though I don't understand what CTE trashing has to do with our current discussion. I''m guessing you can't logically defend your position so digging up old stuff on me is your fallback position. Hey and BTW: that wasn't you that just tried to hack into my FB account a few minutes ago was it?

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top