No doubt a 7ft table would be the hardest size to run balls on for sure. ...
I just saw this thread. I cannot believe this is a real debate. Bar table is WAY easier....
:scratchhead:
No doubt a 7ft table would be the hardest size to run balls on for sure. ...
I just saw this thread. I cannot believe this is a real debate. Bar table is WAY easier....
:scratchhead:
As a side note. Sorry for your delayed response.
I was beginning to consider that some cat had gotten, not only your tongue, but your keyboard, as well. You still make erratic decisions regarding others and their intent.
You may accuse me of being a fan of 14.1 Straight Pool Continuous.
There is not now a game called 14.1 hi-run.
There has never been a game called 14.1 hi-run.
It's a gimmick, same as js626.
There are no rules, regulations or stipulations for that statistic.
Same as arguing about table size complications.
No Mystery, just no viable answer.
Put two players on any table, rack'em up and start a real game.
Then come back and relate the complications.
.
Delayed response to what? I was going to respond to post #29 but you edited out the majority of what you originally posted.
Why? Did you maybe realize that you'd contradicted yourself.
Right or wrong, like it or not; nobody asks someone who they've beat playing 14.1
as a way to determine their proficiency at the game.
They ask what their hi run is. It's that way now and it was that way 50 yrs, ago.
I don't know as people are "arguing" about table sizes here, they're giving their "opinions". If that doesn't have any value or interest you then why are you on this thread, other than as another opportunity to bash JS.
As a matter of fact (just guessing here) probably 95% + of your posts are devoted (directly or indirectly) to bashing John.
What's up with that? Do you even know the man? Did he kick your cat? Is Harriman your best friend or something?
Again, whether you like it or not, JS is the most proficient ball runner of this era.
Is he the best match player? Not in my opinion, but there's only a small handful of players equal or better.
.Right or wrong, like it or not; nobody asks someone who they've beat playing 14.1 as a way to determine their proficiency at the game. They ask what their hi run is. It's that way now and it was that way 50 yrs, ago.
Best post of the year candidate!
This is not accurate. I was around the game 50 years ago and have attended over a dozen world 14.1 championships. I always bought the program, and the player blurbs nearly never mentioned high runs, but instead the players credentials in competition, correctly reflecting that attendees rarely ared what a player's high run was in practice.
Fifty years ago, and this was during the straight pool era, players high runs were barely known, except for Mosconi, Cranfield, Crane and Eufemia. It's also a myth that many of the top players fifty years ago placed much emphasis on producing a high run in practice, though they did care about the high run prize in competition. Agreed, however, that it's that way today for countless people, but it's to the game's detriment that straight pool is no longer about winning in the eyes of so many.
Straight pool is dying, and may die completely unless the emphasis returns to winning titles.
Much easier on a seven footer than a nine footer. Last night, for the heck of it instead of practicing on a 9 or 10 footer as I often do, I chose to give a try on our diamond bar box. I racked them up with an ideal break shot and had a run of 45 in my first inning. I haven’t run 45 on our tight pocket bigger tables in a number of years despite hundreds of sessions, so the answer to this question is a no brainer for me.Thorsten the hitman
100 ball run in Straight Pool on a Bar Table! Took me two solid days to get this done. Do you think it’s easier or harder to run balls on a bar box compared to a 9 footer?
https://www.facebook.com/hitmanhohmann/videos/295484918565765
Just for the record, hah! not in this lifetime.
Schmidt/Harriman, not an iota of a difference. They deserve each other.
I have an Azb log-in. Address me as xradarx, or leave me out of your texts and we will have no reason for contact from me.
Go read the rest of the story if you want to know more detail.
You may be correct that back then the emphasis was more on winning but in the poolrooms I frequented the best players hi run was known, talked about, and primarily used to determine giving or getting weight when gambling.... I think I'm safe when saying that you Stu, like I, lament the decline of the game we grew up with. Though I've thought a lot about it, possible ways of reversing the trend escape me.
Yup, looks like we're on the same page after all, and you're right that with almost no data available back in the day to size up players within a single poolroom scene, high run was often of great interest as a possible parameter to measure playing speed.
For the pros who competed at the top level, though, competitive record mattered far more. Mike Zuglan, surely one of the five best straight poolers of the 1990s, never ran 200, but everyone knew it was simply because high runs meant nothing to him. Everyone knew he was a stone cold killer in competition.
Like you, I don't see a clear path to reversing the trend, but in Europe, where there is a formal European Straight Pool Championship with a large field as part of the European Pool Championships, they've got the right idea. I also like what Peter Burrows is gradually building at the American 14.1 Event. We could do with a few more events like these.
I never would have guessed that Zuglan had never run 200. I always assumed he was a 300 ball runner.
From a skills standpoint, Zuglan probably had what it took to run 400. Some just didn't care what their high run was. Yes, Babe Cranfield and John Schmidt were both obsessed with it, but at the the other end of the spectrum was Jose Parica.
When I asked Jose Parica (in about 1997) what his high run was, he said 200, to which I replied "Exactly 200?" He said, "yes, the game was over." He'd run 200 and out in a gambling match and, even though it was his personal high run, his thoughts turned to the next game, not to seeing how high he could go.
From a skills standpoint, Zuglan probably had what it took to run 400. Some just didn't care what their high run was. Yes, Babe Cranfield and John Schmidt were both obsessed with it, but at the the other end of the spectrum was Jose Parica.
When I asked Jose Parica (in about 1997) what his high run was, he said 200, to which I replied "Exactly 200?" He said, "yes, the game was over." He'd run 200 and out in a gambling match and, even though it was his personal high run, his thoughts turned to the next game, not to seeing how high he could go.
From a skills standpoint, Zuglan probably had what it took to run 400. Some just didn't care what their high run was. Yes, Babe Cranfield and John Schmidt were both obsessed with it, but at the the other end of the spectrum was Jose Parica.
When I asked Jose Parica (in about 1997) what his high run was, he said 200, to which I replied "Exactly 200?" He said, "yes, the game was over." He'd run 200 and out in a gambling match and, even though it was his personal high run, his thoughts turned to the next game, not to seeing how high he could go.
Yep, that's the way it was. When I 1st started playing Shorty my high run was only 93 I think.
I ran something in the high seventies and out on him and thought maybe I'd continue and possibly up my high run.
Two seconds later he had grabbed the balls and started racking them for another game. That stuff didn't fly with Larry.
Zuglan was a great player alright. Very classic and elegant game, beautiful to watch.
People today associate him with his Joss Tour having no idea 14.1 was his best game.
I watched a Fedor Gorst match recently and his game reminds me of Parica. Nothing flashy. Keeps it simple. Makes good decisions.
Yeah, there are some similarities. As incredible as this will sound, I think Gorst shoots a hair straighter than Jose did at his best, but Jose's patterns were more classic. Guess I'm buying that when it comes to offensive play and running the table, they both make great decisions. However, Gorst's tactical decisions in defense, kicking and general strategy are not yet first rate and Parica was a master in all of these.
I suspect Gorst had some good instruction or advice at an early age unless he lived in a pool hall like Efren and learned from watching pool all day.