I believe it is bogus. The circumstances are just too convenient and suspicious. He had been live streaming for weeks, then he announces he found some straight pool secret and bam the record is set without witnesses or streaming but on video. He is capable of it, but I think the circumstances are too fishy IMO, and the way it has been handled since then only furthers that convenience. I also REALLY am skeptical of the number. When researchers fake test results they use numbers that are not random have certain patterns and are relatable. We are supposed to believe he just happened to beat the run by a 100 balls. Dont think so.
is the schmidt record legit or not
- Thread starter deanoc
- Start date
I believe it is bogus. The circumstances are just too convenient and suspicious. He had been live streaming for weeks, then he announces he found some straight pool secret and bam the record is set without witnesses or streaming but on video. He is capable of it, but I think the circumstances are too fishy IMO, and the way it has been handled since then only furthers that convenience. I also REALLY am skeptical of the number. When researchers fake test results they use numbers that are not random have certain patterns and are relatable. We are supposed to believe he just happened to beat the run by a 100 balls. Dont think so.
What size were the pockets on the table used by Mosconi? (I know the answer, do you?)
Sent from the future.
100 is statistically no more or less likely than 97, 98, 101 or 103. It is 100% in your head that it has any significance.
Sent from the future.
Um 4x8 w/buckets I've read. I wasn't there. Why does this matter?
The record stands, it will always stand and yes, I have my own bias as to why I want him to have the record.
Back in 2016 when he played Pagulayan, it was streamed with two announcers. During the game, one announcer asks the other announcer what cue he plays with, my name was mentioned very respectfully, as was Davey Jones. It was even noted that back in 16 there was already 20 cues of mine in one Pool Hall in California.
I know, it didn't happen without pictures so here you go, (plug at 1 hour 38 minutes in.)
https://youtu.be/lPt-P0xWODw
It was an 8 1/2 footer. It matters because you made a post related to the record almost entirely focused on pocket size.
I still don't get it. Enlighten me.
Pangit
Banned
.
So why should he settle for 626?
Why isn't he back at it trying to do it again?
I'm not a fan but he does play good.
He's the fastest guy I know to block someone on Facebook.
He likes to belittle people and call them names but he can't take it back.
Blocks people like a coward. .He's certainly no John Barton that will debate to death.
As far as the truth, I really don't care. .I'm just an eight ball bar box banger.
.
.
So why should he settle for 626?
Why isn't he back at it trying to do it again?
I'm not a fan but he does play good.
He's the fastest guy I know to block someone on Facebook.
He likes to belittle people and call them names but he can't take it back.
Blocks people like a coward. .He's certainly no John Barton that will debate to death.
As far as the truth, I really don't care. .I'm just an eight ball bar box banger.
.
.
He did what he set out to do. I bet if someone ran 700 on film he would then try to break that record. He dedicated his life for months to break 526 on film. Now he can just focus on other things. Congrats to him over the weekend winning the one pocket and splitting the 9 ball with Oscar.
John breaking a record with larger than regulation pockets is no different than someone breaking a free throw record with an enlarged hoop circumference. It wouldn't be recognized.
Is Dean-o Danny's third account on here?
:rotflmao1:
:rotflmao1:
Please review 526 table specs and get back to us.
Just two
WPA: Corner Pocket Mouth: between 4.5 [11.43 cm] and 4.625 inches [11.75 cm]
BCA: Mouth: 4 7/8” minimum to 5 1/8” maximum
I see why he went with BCA, what a total joke.
All the obfuscation isn't incompetence, its plausible deniability. Well, I, I, I, I just couldn't get the tape out. Come on man.
He was talking about the specs of the table Mosconi ran 526 on...…
Far cry from regulation standards today.
possible issues
The main issues for me are that it is being called an exhibition record and that there was zero oversight. The business was closed for much of the run and if there were any witnesses to the complete run they were far from impartial.
This was clearly not an exhibition by any stretch of the imagination so the run if accepted needs to be labeled in a different manner. Videoed practice run? I suspect there is an issue with the video that might be an issue for organizations like Guinness. My understanding was that the camera was on a tripod. john's body probably hid some shots. A pool player watching might not care, a certification organization might.
In general practice if you exceed the RDA of supplements by some amount it is considered doping. That may be an issue for people like the Guinness folks too. I believe john entirely accidentally gave himself the mild sedative he needed to get past the yips. Massive doses of B-12 mellow you out short term, only give you energy in the longer term. Three days of massive B-12 supplements may indeed have benefited his performance just not in the way he hoped or expected.
All of the constant cleaning had the balls opening nicely. Can't help wondering if they had a little added help. It would be in keeping with the soft table and such. john himself said he realized time was running out for him to set a record. He might have been feeling a little desperate and have shaved the dice a bit there like the table. I have always felt that he and his buddies using a different set of balls than anyone else in high run competitions was BS.
Calling this an exhibition run or practice run indicates it could be played under any rules or no rules at all. Reminds me of when the billiards players first learned to jam balls in the corner and play the nurse shot. That and plastic balls and all of a sudden they were having runs over five hundred points.
I understand there is some interest on facebook. Some here too. Anybody hear any buzz in a pool hall or at events? I think in general this run is unaccepted or most people, even most pool players, just don't care.
To summarize: I think an exhibition run has to be set in an exhibition. I think there should be some minimal oversight of a record attempt so many of the questions with this run don't come up. While doping isn't illegal in pool, it may affect some organizations willingness to accept a record. I do think john would have been smarter to keep the supplements to himself. john probably ran the balls. Like some other high runs, I think the conditions this one was set under will keep it from being widely admired. Perhaps straight pool has became so irrelevant that people wouldn't care if a record was set in Times Square on New Year's Eve.
Hu
The main issues for me are that it is being called an exhibition record and that there was zero oversight. The business was closed for much of the run and if there were any witnesses to the complete run they were far from impartial.
This was clearly not an exhibition by any stretch of the imagination so the run if accepted needs to be labeled in a different manner. Videoed practice run? I suspect there is an issue with the video that might be an issue for organizations like Guinness. My understanding was that the camera was on a tripod. john's body probably hid some shots. A pool player watching might not care, a certification organization might.
In general practice if you exceed the RDA of supplements by some amount it is considered doping. That may be an issue for people like the Guinness folks too. I believe john entirely accidentally gave himself the mild sedative he needed to get past the yips. Massive doses of B-12 mellow you out short term, only give you energy in the longer term. Three days of massive B-12 supplements may indeed have benefited his performance just not in the way he hoped or expected.
All of the constant cleaning had the balls opening nicely. Can't help wondering if they had a little added help. It would be in keeping with the soft table and such. john himself said he realized time was running out for him to set a record. He might have been feeling a little desperate and have shaved the dice a bit there like the table. I have always felt that he and his buddies using a different set of balls than anyone else in high run competitions was BS.
Calling this an exhibition run or practice run indicates it could be played under any rules or no rules at all. Reminds me of when the billiards players first learned to jam balls in the corner and play the nurse shot. That and plastic balls and all of a sudden they were having runs over five hundred points.
I understand there is some interest on facebook. Some here too. Anybody hear any buzz in a pool hall or at events? I think in general this run is unaccepted or most people, even most pool players, just don't care.
To summarize: I think an exhibition run has to be set in an exhibition. I think there should be some minimal oversight of a record attempt so many of the questions with this run don't come up. While doping isn't illegal in pool, it may affect some organizations willingness to accept a record. I do think john would have been smarter to keep the supplements to himself. john probably ran the balls. Like some other high runs, I think the conditions this one was set under will keep it from being widely admired. Perhaps straight pool has became so irrelevant that people wouldn't care if a record was set in Times Square on New Year's Eve.
Hu