626 is it legit?

Tony_in_MD

You want some of this?
Silver Member
This.

Go for it Danny.

https://cdn.ymaws.com/bca-pool.com/resource/resmgr/press_releases/schmidt_new_high_run_record_.pdf

The BCA reviewed the unedited tape before formally announcing that Schmidt broke the record. That gives credibility to the claim.

I’m sure the BCA has its faults, but it is the recognized body for the sport and is generally perceived as a reputable organization. The BCA gains very little from recognizing Schmidt’s run, but has a lot to lose (reputation-wise) if ever it was found that the evidence didn’t support their public statement. The last thing any bureaucratic organization wants is to issue a retraction.

I shoot fairly often at Billiard of Springfield, by the way. The locals are all proud of your accomplishments as a player. Have you considered making your own concerted effort at breaking Schmidt’s record? Many people think you’re one of the few who are capable of doing it. It would probably require the same full-time commitment that it did for Schmidt.

Seems like the sweetest resolution to this debate would be to snatch the record away from him. Just make sure that you don’t make the same mistake he did by failing to post the video on YouTube while it was still newsworthy. Trust me, money will come with more eyeballs.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
As I've said, I believe the run happened, and its validation by the BCA is enough evidence of me.

That said, this is a matter of opinion and I'm trying to get a better handle on why others question whether the run was legit.

For me, the facts don't add up if this was all a hoax and the video was doctored to hide a miss or a foul, because:

1) given how unprepared John's team was for the release of the record setting run were it to occur, one must presume that the run caught them all off guard.

2) if they spent the period immediately following the alleged run doctoring/editing the video, they would have had plenty of time to come up with a marketing plan for release and marketing of the run.

3) given that John's team appears to have had no intention to market the run, what was the motive? Has anybody gained from this run financially? The BCA, which has not used the run in any way in its marketing of pool, certainly had no financial interest in signing off.

A couple of other thoughts.

Who is to say what the rules are governing an exhibition or even what an exhibition is?

All ball fouls?
We have seen Mosconi play an exhibition without using the all-ball fouls rule in a match with Caras. If the kind of foul that wouldn't be a foul unless this rule was in effect were to be found on careful inspection of the video, would it invalidate the run?

Consultation?
Some have commented that shots may have been discussed along the way. If one or more positions were discussed with others who were present, does it invalidate the run?

Was this Really an Exhibition?
Some have taken note that the run began well before the poolroom was open to the general public. A case can, therefore, be made that it wasn't an exhibition run at all. Is a run that was only partially available for view by the general public really an exhibition run?

It's all very confusing. While I'm fully satisfied of the run's legitimacy, I don't want to be dismissive of those who are suspicious, but if it turns out that this was all a hoax and that the BCA endorsed a run that wasn't legitimate, it will be a sad day in our sport's history.

Finally, I don't feel that John's continuing delay of releasing the video to the general public should be viewed as making it more likely that there are issues with the run. The video belongs to John and his team and it is their right to handle its release (or non-release) as they choose.
 
Last edited:

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
The 'BCA' and two of it's staff members are entirely different entities. Only two 'BCA' members have viewed the JS626 video. This is a looonng way from The 'BCA' endorsed/certified the video as meaning much of anything pool related to the masses.

The press release confirming the veracity of the run was from the BCA, not from those who reviewed the run, so yes, the BCA itself has publicly validated it.
 

Cameron Smith

is kind of hungry...
Silver Member
Was this Really an Exhibition?
Some have taken note that the run began well before the poolroom was open to the general public. A case can, therefore, be made that it wasn't an exhibition run at all. Is a run that was only partially available for view by the general public really an exhibition run?

.


This has always been my main concern. The very loose definition of an exhibition. I mean, if any player on this forum go to their pool room at the same time every day or week, and everyone is aware they will be there, is every practice run considered an exhibition run?

That sounds flippant, but the fact is that if any other player isn’t afforded that same consideration then it starts to sound like the definition was stretched. Meanwhile, if I announce an exhibition at 7pm on a certain day, show up for a small crowd, and even when I bungle every shot and fail to make a single trick shot, you can’t argue that it wasn’t an exhibition. A poor one, but still an exhibition.

The whole situation is made certainly more complicated by the fact that most of the run wasn’t even viewable for the public since the room wasn’t open. I just think it’s important that any player has the same opportunity to establish exhibition runs, world records or otherwise, and be able to advertise them as such. If a player came on the forum and said they made a 200+ ball exhibition run in the morning in front of some friends, people would still take issue with the classification. So with that in mind, I felt like the definition was stretched to make accomplishment more achievable.

I don’t doubt the run is legitimate, and I can’t and won’t diminish the accomplishment or it’s importance. We are only aware of a few players who have broken even 500 balls, let alone 600 irrespective of the format or location. And just the numbers John was putting up prior to running 626 (multiple 400s) suggested that a 526+ run was inevitable. In fact I’m convinced that nerves are what ended most of his 400 ball runs.

Anyhow, it’s not up to me to determine whether it is a record that supplants Mosconi’s 526. But if it were, I’d probably put it in it’s own category. There should be categories for filmed practice runs, exhibition runs (with clear definitions) and competition/match runs.
 

DynoDan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Some interesting points brought up in these recent posts:
1. All fouls: While players of Willie’s generation always played that way, if during an exhibition (and on a record-setting # run), if he HAD inadvertently touched an OB, would he likely have called a foul on himself and stopped the run?
2. Both competition AND public exhibition generally involves an audience. Whether encouraging extraordinary accomplishment, or inhibiting it (nerves), should that be a specific category of achievement?
3. Public tables that are not freshly re-clothed generally have divots where the balls are racked. My experience is, that situation tends to keep the balls from spreading well after the breakshot. Were the balls racked at the foot on that 8’ table Willie played on? I notice John often racked his at the head, where the cloth was smoother.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... I notice John often racked his at the head, where the cloth was smoother.
For his fourth set of tries, John was racking at the foot of the table. The camera was at the head end. In the previous tries at Easy Street, John had been racking at the head since it was a better position for the camera.

Personally, I think it makes no difference as long as it isn't switched during the run. The table had no ball return, so only the name plate made one end the head end.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
... someone felt the need to invent a hi-run contest ... This opened the game up to all kinds of processes to extend the possibility of higher and higher runs. The game is paying the consequences.

I'm inclined to agree with the spirit of this post. When some tried to bring the focus in 14.1 to high runs rather than excellence in competition, it was the beginning of the end of the game's popularity among those who came from the straight pool era.

I found it particularly offensive when a rule was added in the Dragon 14.1 events allowing players on a run to continue shooting despite having reached the finish line in a match, as it was emblematic of the reduced focus on winning.

The event that, more than any other, respected high run and competitive excellence objectives equally was the Derby City 14.1 Challenge, which sadly no longer exists. High runs were required to qualify for the main single elimination tournament, and most of the money awarded in the event went to those who did well in the single elimination.

Yes, straight pool and so many of its followers lost focus.
 

Mick

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
626 is 626. I don't care is it official or not. It is still 626.

It is a great achievement and I just do not understand. All. The. Hate.

You people make me sad for humanity. This is a beacon to be celebrated, and most of you just want to tear it down. I don't get it, I am honestly baffled and deeply disappointed.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
It is a great achievement and I just do not understand. All. The. Hate.

You people make me sad for humanity. This is a beacon to be celebrated, and most of you just want to tear it down. I don't get it, I am honestly baffled and deeply disappointed.

I believe the run happened and accept the BCA's signoff on it, but your dismissing those that want to see the evidence first hand before believing it as "making you sad for humanity" makes me sad for you.

In this age, unlike that of Mosconi, significant world records attained are, with very rare exception, available to the public for viewing. Not a single member of the general public saw the run from beginning to end when it happened, as a significant portion of it occurred before the poolroom was even open. The only witnesses of the entire run were members of John's team, and eight months after the run occurred, it hasn't been released for general viewing.

The fact that this run remains shrouded in secrecy and mystery makes it far less of a cause for the celebration you suggest is fitting than it could have and should have been.

It would be very hard to argue that the sport of pool has gained in any way from this undeniably remarkable achievement.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What is the high-run in competition?? IMO that's the only one that really matters. Knowing that if you miss you may be done is far tougher than doing it for shits-n-giggles. Just my .$02, nothing more.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
What is the high-run in competition?? IMO that's the only one that really matters. Knowing that if you miss you may be done is far tougher than doing it for shits-n-giggles. Just my .$02, nothing more.
There's is a difference between "official" competition and a match-up.

The high run in an officated (but probably not sanctioned) match was Appleton's 200-and-out against Bustamante.

Hopkins claims a run of 300+ in a match, but it was probably a money match or an exhibition match. I don't know whether there was a ref.

Filler's 285 at the DCC in the qualifying phase was officiated with "all fouls" but it was not a match.
 

Dan Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
official,exhibition = nonsense

Too many posters are getting hemmed up on semantics, I have said this many times already and I don't like to sound like a 'broken record here'.:wink: With today's advancement in recording technology (not available in Mosconi's era) there is no reason for bca or team schmidt/predator to make such a claim and then not offer the video to the general public - other than maybe a problem with the video. I do understand about hype and or foreshadowing a story/ 'Western' but this goes beyond all that, so my only concern at this juncture is why we are not allowed to see the evidence or unedited footage? We ' the people' i.e. general public - have been asking to see proof for almost a year? The hidden mystery tape will answer most of my questions, we will be able to see the possible sanded slate pockets and or possible larceny with video splicing. Keep in mind folks - if there is no visible triangle line drawn - for the viewers to see what ball is in or out of the rack - this would eliminate any legitimacy of the video for me - as it should - there will almost certainly be break shots where the object ball resides very near the triangle. I would b willing to bet ya'll sight unseen that there will not be a line drawn (vintage schmidt).

Not showing the video to the public after almost a year is just another way of not showing a rack line - as to blur the lines of judgement. I saw one of his earlier runs where the fellow threw the rack down when cue ball was (in my view) clearly NOT in the rack, poor schmidt just has not changed a bit as he just smacks the cue ball with his cue and has a look of disgust, he knew the cue ball was outside the rack - since they had no visible line drawn - he continues his run?. I too am not happy that there are not any organized 14.1 professional competition tournaments (I won't call myself a pro on avatar till there is fyi) bout the only thing schmidt and myself have in common is we both love 14.1. Taking frustrations out on the game (smacking cue ball that is out of triangle - no line drawn) is not a good way to release the fact that 14.1 is not being marketed in a proper way. There should be a structured format for the aspiring 14.1 player to attain pro status - maybe the bca does not want any competition for their petty bar leegs? All I know is that if I do again try to capture some good runs on camera there will not be any 'hidden pockets' - you will be able to see a rack line and i won't need 5" pockets to get 'r' done - I will not hide the tape from the public's eye either - 'it will be out in sight' and not behind closed doors i.e. walls of corruption. There will not b any weird members only club that is only allowed to view the footage - there is no semi public we are all equal. oh and hey Mark Griffin - if u read this Harriman said hurry up with their tape man.
 
Last edited:

tc in l a

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
search john scmidt on you tube

the 626 isn't there but there are a couple of his 400+ runs
 

elvicash

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
First thing I want to say great job John I think you ran the 626. That said I have seen a lot of high runs myself as I was part of the DCC 14.1 event for a number of years. I saw nothing but improvement from year to year (Big Foot year being the exception) due to the focus on the event and it was looked forward to as a destination event. Players wanted to run balls under the gun and get into the tourney. The event had money available to pay for their excellence and it made the game more relevant and yes the runs were qualifiers but they were performed in front of people/players and there was pressure. It was good for the game and more 14.1 was played from coast to coast and around the world because of the format and the visibility of the game on Youtube, lot of high runs free and easily viewable by any who wanted to see. excellence performed on great equipment at a great event. The people running the DCC 14.1 had some good sponsors (Greg/Diamond/Simonis/Araimith./Bob Jewett many others and many hard working volunteers along led by Bill and Dennis) so there was ready money available if you had the game and could put up high runs you could get paid and the runs got higher and higher. We initially thought there would never be a 200 on a tight Diamond and there were and then they came in multiples per year. Great runs great players great event and great game. The money got the players playing hard and our sponsor got a lot of bang for their bucks.

That said there was no money put up really to sponsor Johns effort. He did it in the hopes of running balls so as to break the 526 run of Mosconi. I have not seen the video, I think he ran the balls but I do not think he had a plan to monetize the accomplishment. Now whether it was a video'd practice run or an exhibition or in competition that is all semantics, John made a concerted effort to run 526+ and capture it on video whatever it was he did it, he got some support from a couple of rooms and when it was happening there was a lot more straight pool talked in their rooms and on FB/AZ and I think it was good for the game and I think John hopes it pays off for John. He definitely does not have the sort of deal that Mosconi had, those days are gone.

It is pretty obvious that the details are lost of exactly what happened to end Mosconi's run (He himself stated he missed at one point and later he said he got tired and stopped.) The affidavit was an afterthought without the details on the ending of the run. Great job Willie 526 run was recognized by the BCA and was the high run for a long time, a very long time.

When the video is shown publicly I hope it is accepted, I am sure it will be inspected as closely as the Zapruder video maybe closer. I do not think John will play the cheat game. If there were edgy slates then more scratches would also occur so that would not be a winning strategy. I think John ran his run and he ran it on a 9' table and told people what he was trying to do, it was what it was a public, long term, concerted effort to run a big number. Good job John, 626 is a big number.

I look forward to seeing the 626 video when it is available. Danny put up your own big number run, capture it on video and release it immediately have a marketing plan get it out on ESPN. Make 14.1 Great Again.
 

arnaldo

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
. . . . If there were edgy slates then more scratches would also occur so that would not be a winning strategy.
This is a very sharp observation which to my knowledge hasn't been previously mentioned in the many discussions. And it is quite relevant, because in any ultra-high runs I've ever seen -- in-person and on video -- there were generally one or more near-scratches. Happened perilously close to almost ending Crane's1966 runout against Balsis, and also the one that almost ended Sigel's NYC 1992 cue ball-on-a-string 150-and-out against Zuglan.

Arnaldo
 

johnnysd

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Not a chance in hell it is legit. He is capable of doing it, but the way he has treated this, there is zero chance it is real.What makes Mosconi's real is that it was an exhibition in front of many fans, and done on one of the few occassisons in exhibitions where he went for a high run. Practice runs with secret video do not cut it.
 
Top