Jackie Gleson high run

PoolBum said:

The interesting question isn't whether the best players of today play better than the best players played 60 years ago, it's how well the best players of 60 years ago would play today, given all the benefits today's players have.

I've always contended that great players would be great in any era.

Click to expand...

It's not just a question of "quality." You also have to consider the "quantity" of true champion-caliber players.

The world is a much bigger place today.

Sure, Mosconi won what he won against the same handful of guys... Could he do it against hundreds?

sjm said:

The late Jerry Orbach of Law and Order was also a very fine straight pooler. I played against him briefly in 1992 and the guy was a very fine player, easily capable of a 100 ball run.

I have heard Gleason referred to as a "B" player, so the claim of 100 seems improbable.

Click to expand...

I find it hard to fathom an actor at the very top of their professions like Gleason or Orbach could be a 100+ ball runner in 14.1. It just takes too much time spent in poolrooms since their youth to ever have a chance to get to that level, in my opinion. I can't imagine top tier professional actors playing pool at that level. I guess there are exceptions of extremely naturally talented individuals, and maybe those two were, but I doubt it.

I seem to remember hearing Gleason could run 50 on a good day. That was in the '80s when I heard that, I believe.

I'll never understand the fascination pool people have with Rogan. David Brenner loved the game so much he opened a pool room and sponsored tournaments. Rogan hasn't lifted one finger to advance this game yet so many fall all over themselves to love the guy. "oooh! He plays!" Yippee, so do lots of people.

sjm said:

The late Jerry Orbach of Law and Order was also a very fine straight pooler. I played against him briefly in 1992 and the guy was a very fine player, easily capable of a 100 ball run.

Click to expand...

sjm said:

I have first hand knowledge of Jerry running in the sixties, so I speculated that he might have run 100. I'll take your word on this that he didn't.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, your two statements are huge contradictions. I dunno if I would assume someone is easily a 100 ball runner based on watching only a 60ish ball run. You know what they say, when you assume, right?


Eric

I have no idea what his high run was but one thing I remember about his tv shows was people said he didn't rehearse the show ahead of time. He stayed busy.

ChrisinNC said:

I find it hard to fathom an actor at the very top of their professions like Gleason or Orbach could be a 100+ ball runner in 14.1. It just takes too much time spent in poolrooms since their youth to ever have a chance to get to that level, in my opinion. I can't imagine top tier professional actors playing pool at that level. I guess there are exceptions of extremely naturally talented individuals, and maybe those two were, but I doubt it.

Click to expand...

I remember jay saying that actors awaiting callbacks and between auditions would often hang about the pool room between gigs...so it isn't impossible one might learn to play pretty goodly.

It is easy money.

PhilosopherKing said:

It's not just a question of "quality." You also have to consider the "quantity" of true champion-caliber players.

The world is a much bigger place today.

Sure, Mosconi won what he won against the same handful of guys... Could he do it against hundreds?

Click to expand...

He could if the quality of his play was high enough.

alstl said:

I have no idea what his high run was but one thing I remember about his tv shows was people said he didn't rehearse the show ahead of time. He stayed busy.

Click to expand...

Jackie had a photographic memory.
The Honeymooners was not rehearsed as he insisted comedy should spontaneous .
Audrey Meadows and the rest of the cast were radio veterans. They wanted rehearsals but Jackie got his way.
It worked out for the best , of course.
It was the funniest show ever.


Joey~My high run was a Dufferin stick~

Eric. said:

With all due respect, your two statements are huge contradictions. I dunno if I would assume someone is easily a 100 ball runner based on watching only a 60ish ball run. You know what they say, when you assume, right?


Eric

Click to expand...

Yup, can't make that assumption. My bad Eric.

Did you ask "How many?"

or

Homina, homina, homina

Can we at least spell his name correctly? It's Gleason.

And, to keep the thread relevant, I suspect he had some decent runs, probably in the 40s. 100? No.

All the best,
WW

WildWing said:

Can we at least spell his name correctly? It's Gleason.

And, to keep the thread relevant, I suspect he had some decent runs, probably in the 40s. 100? No.

All the best,
WW

Click to expand...

He was born in 1916, so I'd say some of his best runs were definitely in the 40's.

the guy from pool hall junkies ran a 1000

Jackie played Harry on 60 minutes

James Garner was supposed to be an excellent shot.

joelpope said:

The "modern tables are so tough" claim ought to be weighed against the fact that they used mud balls with nowhere near the bounce or the consistence of weight and roundness of modern balls, short, high deflection cues and shag carpet for cloth.

I believe a top tier player from the 30's or 40's would be a top tier player today. Ditto the 50's and 60's, 70's & 80's etc...

It would be interesting to put our current top straight pool players on one of those easy 8' tables along with the old cloth, balls and cues. They would all run 526 without a problem, right?

Click to expand...

No but I bet Schmitt would have already done it with his current effort.

I don’t even understand how some on can argue that tables with bigger pockets isn’t easier lol

kkdanamatt said:

This story has no basis in reality.
Mosconi, who was the technical advisor for The Hustler, said that Gleason was at best a "30 or 40 ball runner", but he looked good enough at the table so Jackie didn't need much coaching.
The rumors of Gleason and other actors being "great" at pool are all over-hyped.

The only real celebrity hundred-ball runner that I know of was Leo Durocher.
Leo gained notoriety as manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers; he was suspended from managing for the entire 1947 season for “conduct detrimental to baseball.”
He admitted to hustling pool and cards.
He coined the phrase "Nice guys finish last."

Click to expand...

True that. Durocher had to chose between pool and baseball as a young man, and pool was a respected sport back then. Obviously, he made the right choice for him.

Fred Astaire and Dodger manager Walter Alston were both excellent pool players, far better than Gleason. It is well authenticated they could and did run over 100 balls and more than once.

On another note, I played and gambled with Jerry Orbach as young men in the 60's. Always at 9-Ball and always at Guys and Dolls on 50th and Broadway. He never beat me and I seriously doubt he could run 100 balls ever, unless he improved substantially in later years. He looked like a guy who could run maybe two or three racks.

some on here

trob said:

No but I bet Schmitt would have already done it with his current effort.

I don’t even understand how some on can argue that tables with bigger pockets isn’t easier lol

Click to expand...

Some on here have played on the old tables with deep directional cloth. Clay balls. No climate control. The "roll off" that modern players cry about when it happens happened on every moderate speed or slow shot. For the cue ball, every shot. Shooting up table or down the roll out was reversed. Shooting across the table slowly you still had to allow for the affects of cloth.

Clay balls were not as round and it would be very rare that there weren't some very bad balls in a set.

With today's cloth and cushions, no stroke required. Those old tables and conditions required a much more powerful stroke or the object ball wouldn't reach the hole even if you had adjusted for the directional quirks of the cloth.

Even with tables in pretty decent condition you had to deal with much poorer cushion alignment and much less consistency in how individual pockets on a table accepted balls.

As a general rule lighting is better today too. Reminds me, without air conditioning far more bugs in those old halls too. A june bug has ended countless runs!

Just a partial listing of differences. I would prefer the typical nine foot table of today over the typical nine foot table of fifty to seventy-five years ago to try to run racks without a second thought. The game is less demanding today, no question. One reason for the flattening of skill levels.

Hu