Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

Dan Harriman · Feb 21, 2020

9' vs 8'

justadub said:
Herein lies an issue with professional pool, and pool in general. There is no standardization. The only requirements to equipment will be set by whichever body is governing the particular event at hand. At least to my observation....perhaps Bob Jewett will clarify this at some point.

I can assure you that if there is any kind of "set standard" for claiming to surpass Mosconi's run it would certainly have to start with actual size of the table he employed to accomplish the 526 - even Bob I think would agree that besides there not being any viewing audience (as there was with Mosconi's 526) it would be paramount if attempting to "compare" or surpass Willie's official record - that the attempts be on a table with the same dimensions for example - 8 ft table. Also I am a not 'going after john as you stated in yer prior post' - I have gone into battle with him before - i am still winner.
So again this is not a bully pulpit for me - nor do I enjoy watching them attempt to taint a well established Sports History record in 14.1. News about 14.1 does not have to be some hustle that only the privy are allowed to see i.e. hide the evidence, I was the last American standing in a respectable field of top 14.1 players (international competition) So I did not Win 1st - a measly bronze medal - if some hidden group says they have caught a six hundred + run on camera - I have earned the right to sweat red the tape. I know U really do not know the hrs I have sacrificed practicing Straight Pool - maybe u don't care - fine wit me but take a look at the list of accomplishments (tournament wins) I have in 14.1 and tell me I have not earned the right to see proof of their claim. The 2nd and most crucial standard would be having legit evidence that you had done so - this way we know it ain't just some new cue sponsorship deal that needed 1 more accolade before they offered a sponsorship. Also much easier to run out 14.1 on any 9' than it is on any 8ft. So it looks to me like their original plan was to blur the lines of standardization with a broad brush and then blur them again by not providing unedited video proof to the American public?an Undehanded and or corrupt business plan - yes. I would like to think John did create a new 9' record of 626 - but again the hiding of evidence from the people is why this thread has received almost 30,000 views - as I have been sayin' now for 10 months - there could be a problem with their tape - i would bet that 15,000 of these viewers have a similar opinion or suspicion bout this elusive 626 claim.

JazzyJeff87 · Feb 21, 2020

Go see it then dude. There is still no one stopping you from attending one of these things. If you think the world needs to cater to you because you’re... then whatever.

You seem to have a lot mixed in with the whole Mosconi’s record part of this. I’ll leave that to you. I don’t care what they call it, it’s a tougher run in some ways and easier in others. It’s the hours of concentration and cue ball control that are impressive.

Snooker Theory · Feb 21, 2020

Bob Jewett said:
I don't know of any written document from the BCA that sets out the exact requirements for an exhibition run at 14.1. Items I recall having been mentioned in the past are that it is pre-announced and open to the public. In the case of Eufemia's 625 there was evidently a lack of evidence, such as an affidavit.

There is a relevant previous example of an exhibition run that some rejected....

English billiards is played on what we would call a 6x12 snooker table. You score in several ways including making a simple two-ball carom. About 1905 they finally figured out that if you got two balls against the jaws of a corner pocket you could score indefinitely. Here is a diagram from Clive Everton's "A History of Billiards":

View attachment 541831

Five weeks without a miss by Tom Reece. On a 6x12 table. You could win bar bets with that.

It turns out that the crusty old men who ran the game at the time decided that the run of nearly half a million points should not count because the press and public were not present for the entire run. I don't think you could have kept the audience awake for five weeks (in sessions) without throwing cold water on them occasionally. The referee was present for the whole thing. The fact of the run having occurred was not really disputed. The rules were quickly changed to disallow the repetitive shot.

One spectator watched for a while and reported that the first ball struck rotated in position and made a full rotation in something like 200 shots. Reece is reported to have made comments to Chapman during the run like, "How do you like the table tonight?" and "What kind of chalk do you use?" (Of course Chapman was in on the deal from the start.) Each session was concluded by Reece and Chapman playing some other games.

What an interesting piece of history, the first Corey Duel in some ways, lol

Meucciplayer · Feb 21, 2020

Danny Harriman said:
I have gone into battle with him before - i am still winner.

Sure. You're the greatest ever.

I start to wonder where and how hard that chalk hit you back then. You seem to be piqued beyond repair

I would like to think John did create a new 9' record of 626 - but again the hiding of evidence from the people is why this thread has received almost 30,000 views - as I have been sayin' now for 10 months - there could be a problem with their tape - i would bet that 15,000 of these posters have a similar opinion or suspicion bout this elusive 626 claim.

No, it's like a 3rd rate soap opera. Or something like Al Bundy on tv, just not nearly quite as funny. What do they call it nowadays? Real life soap or something ...

It is entertaining only because you can choose boring moments in your life to read on ..

But hey, I'll enjoy my Ferguson 1000 now, the right place to be after consumption of this thread, every time

Cameron Smith · Feb 21, 2020

Snooker Theory said:
What an interesting piece of history, the first Corey Duel in some ways, lol

English Billiard history is interesting because, although this is the most extreme case, the early history of the game was characterized by specialty shots and adjusting the rules to avoid repetitious shots.

The first example was players who specialized in just potting the red off the spot endlessly. This was prior to the rule that required red to be moved to the blue after two consecutive pots. Top players could make a break that included 200-300 pots of the spot.

Others were very good at centre pocket in-offs and would just send the object red up and down the table for another centre pocket in-off. And then later players like Lindrum, Davis and Newman were great canon players and could just do nursery canons around the table, making 1000 breaks a regular occurrence.

All of this resulted in the relatively strict scoring limitations the game has now at the top level. I'm not familiar with all of them because I'm not nearly good enough for it to matter. Except for the two pots off the spot. I can get those often enough.

Black-Balled · Feb 21, 2020

JazzyJeff87 said:
Go see it then dude. There is still no one stopping you from attending one of these things. If you think the world needs to cater to you because you’re... then whatever.

You seem to have a lot mixed in with the whole Mosconi’s record part of this. I’ll leave that to you. I don’t care what they call it, it’s a tougher run in some ways and easier in others. It’s the hours of concentration and cue ball control that are impressive.

We're sorry. The number you're trying to reach is not valid or has been disconnected. Good-bye.

Haha. You got blocked pages ago...

Meucciplayer · Feb 21, 2020

Black-Balled said:
We're sorry. The number you're trying to reach is not valid or has been disconnected. Good-bye.

Haha. You got blocked pages ago...

We're all in the same boat. There is a thread for DH with 5 other posters and then there is one for 99% of all of the blocked ones

Bob Jewett · Feb 21, 2020

Snooker Theory said:
What an interesting piece of history, the first Corey Deuel in some ways, lol

Not exactly. The Everton book mentioned that someone else had already scored a recognized break (run) of over 40,000 points with the shot. Also, I've heard the English Billiards players had learned the technique from a visiting American who knew the "score forever" position from the American no-pocket game.

So, Tom Reece contributed tremendous basic skill at the game (to get the balls into that position, which isn't easy) and the endurance to keep at it for five weeks. In that, I'd say he was more like John Schmidt.

Bob Jewett · Feb 21, 2020

Cameron Smith said:
... The first example was players who specialized in just potting the red off the spot endlessly. This was prior to the rule that required red to be moved to the blue after two consecutive pots. Top players could make a break that included 200-300 pots of the spot. ....

I believe the record run with that technique was by William Peall in 1895 who pocketed 634 consecutive red balls in a match. Some might still consider this the longest run (of pocketed balls) at a cue sport. I suppose this is another bar-bet winner. And it was done on a 12-foot table.

Peall stood all of 5'1". Once he had to appear in court for exceeding the 12 MPH speed limit. The judge was irritated by his apparent disrespect of the court and told him to stand up. Peall's response was, "I am standing up, sir."

Snooker Theory · Feb 21, 2020

Bob Jewett said:
Not exactly. The Everton book mentioned that someone else had already scored a recognized break (run) of over 40,000 points with the shot. Also, I've heard the English Billiards players had learned the technique from a visiting American who knew the "score forever" position from the American no-pocket game.

So, Tom Reece contributed tremendous basic skill at the game (to get the balls into that position, which isn't easy) and the endurance to keep at it for five weeks. In that, I'd say he was more like John Schmidt.

You really are a blessing to this forum Bob, thank you for all your contributions.

Cameron Smith · Feb 21, 2020

Bob Jewett said:
I believe the record run with that technique was by William Peall in 1895 who pocketed 634 consecutive red balls in a match. Some might still consider this the longest run (of pocketed balls) at a cue sport. I suppose this is another bar-bet winner. And it was done on a 12-foot table.

Peall stood all of 5'1". Once he had to appear in court for exceeding the 12 MPH speed limit. The judge was irritated by his apparent disrespect of the court and told him to stand up. Peall's response was, "I am standing up, sir."

I think that might be tough even for today’s players. But Peall also was playing on slower cloth and less responsive cushions. Recovery shots must have much tougher. I just love the early history of the game, it just seemed like someone was always on the cusp of breaking the game!

Bob Jewett · Feb 21, 2020

Cameron Smith said:
I think that might be tough even for today’s players. But Peall also was playing on slower cloth and less responsive cushions. Recovery shots must have much tougher. I just love the early history of the game, it just seemed like someone was always on the cusp of breaking the game!

Having practiced the red off the (billiard) spot (103 reds), I think slow cloth and cushions may have actually helped. Usually the break ender is when you get too much angle and you end up taking the cue ball even farther away from the red.

Cameron Smith · Feb 21, 2020

Bob Jewett said:
Having practiced the red off the (billiard) spot (103 reds), I think slow cloth and cushions may have actually helped. Usually the break ender is when you get too much angle and you end up taking the cue ball even farther away from the red.

Yes I can see that advantage. I’ve spent quite a bit of time on the routine too and my runs tend to end by getting too low or too high. But I’m thinking of the angle where you need to follow off two cushions or even just a normal thick half ball pot might require a bit more power than we would need to today. Having never tried that equipment though I can’t speak to it’s difficulty.

Dan Harriman · Feb 23, 2020

me hungry too

Cameron Smith said:
Yes I can see that advantage. I’ve spent quite a bit of time on the routine too and my runs tend to end by getting too low or too high. But I’m thinking of the angle where you need to follow off two cushions or even just a normal thick half ball pot might require a bit more power than we would need to today. Having never tried that equipment though I can’t speak to it’s difficulty.

I noticed on yer avatar Cameron - that you were kinda hungry. i am kinda hungry for the truth. Englishmen - yes. I can speak for the difficulty of the table at q-masters, dead facings and shaved slate in corners - kinda good conditions for super high runs. Keep potting the caroms. So we do have a bit of a news cluster, I can speak for the difficulty of claiming to surpass Mosconi's record and then hiding the evidence from public eye. I'm thinking of the angle that rebounds into the truth being told about making such a claim and hiding the evidence - I see zero definitive evidence of there being any solid proof that john even accomplished what he said he did - and then to tie his new record into Mosconi's was for sure a political stunt. I think this thread shows that many feel the same as I do bout charlie and or bca's fake news effort to dismantle Mosconi's record.

better future day's for Sports History news accountability.

Dan Harriman · Feb 24, 2020

yep

Bob Jewett said:
Not exactly. The Everton book mentioned that someone else had already scored a recognized break (run) of over 40,000 points with the shot. Also, I've heard the English Billiards players had learned the technique from a visiting American who knew the "score forever" position from the American no-pocket game.

So, Tom Reece contributed tremendous basic skill at the game (to get the balls into that position, which isn't easy) and the endurance to keep at it for five weeks. In that, I'd say he was more like John Schmidt.

I figured there was probly going to be a schmidtty analogy in there from ya before not too long. Yall sure try fervently to make him the next Mosconi - he will never be in the same conversation but yea he is a bit of a con. The people know the truth Bob - and again at this juncture - I really don't care if they ever show un edited proof of their claim. Its been a marketing disaster for them so far - to say the least. He wanted the world to see his accomplishment of this elusive 626 ha ha - what a crock of b.s. that was - when schmidt mouth is moving - he is usually fibbing. He talks alot - as if he is nervous bout something all the time? I guess he knows he's fixin to pull a move and hopes everyone is asleep, sent from a non crooked Billiard player.

Texas Carom Club · Feb 24, 2020

Danny Harriman said:
I really don't care if they ever show un edited proof of their claim.

really????

TWOFORPOOL · Feb 24, 2020

Danny Harriman said:
I noticed on yer avatar Cameron - that you were kinda hungry. i am kinda hungry for the truth. Englishmen - yes. I can speak for the difficulty of the table at q-masters, dead facings and shaved slate in corners - kinda good conditions for super high runs. Keep potting the caroms. So we do have a bit of a news cluster, I can speak for the difficulty of claiming to surpass Mosconi's record and then hiding the evidence from public eye. I'm thinking of the angle that rebounds into the truth being told about making such a claim and hiding the evidence - I see zero definitive evidence of there being any solid proof that john even accomplished what he said he did - and then to tie his new record into Mosconi's was for sure a political stunt. I think this thread shows that many feel the same as I do bout charlie and or bca's fake news effort to dismantle Mosconi's record.

better future day's for Sports History news accountability.

I am now wondering about balls being shot down the rails that hit higher up than normal and still go in or balls off the rails that go in hitting a rail that would obviously wouldn't go in on a normal table. I am talking extremes here since we all know balls going down a side rail hitting with proper speed that still go in? Is this why people have to sign a non disclosure to watch the video (assuming this is true)? I have played on tables with over 5" pockets and its very hard to miss especially with dead rails. Again until proven otherwise the record stands.

Black-Balled · Feb 24, 2020

Danny Harriman said:
I noticed on yer avatar Cameron - that you were kinda hungry. i am kinda hungry for the truth. Englishmen - yes. I can speak for the difficulty of the table at q-masters, dead facings and shaved slate in corners - kinda good conditions for super high runs. Keep potting the caroms. So we do have a bit of a news cluster, I can speak for the difficulty of claiming to surpass Mosconi's record and then hiding the evidence from public eye. I'm thinking of the angle that rebounds into the truth being told about making such a claim and hiding the evidence - I see zero definitive evidence of there being any solid proof that john even accomplished what he said he did - and then to tie his new record into Mosconi's was for sure a political stunt. I think this thread shows that many feel the same as I do bout charlie and or bca's fake news effort to dismantle Mosconi's record.

better future day's for Sports History news accountability.

It is incredible what you see when you couple a predisposed position with fervent blocking of any input that disagrees with your position.

skip100 · Feb 24, 2020

Now people are starting to admit that it's not actually about the video, and that even if the video came out showing no hanky-panky they would discount Schmidt's achievement.

- Any record set would need to be on an 8 foot table
- Pockets would need to be buckets (oops, this one doesn't sound helpful for their case)
- The cloth would need to be slow
- The balls would need to be crappy and sticky
- It would need to be part of a one off attempt, not a sustained effort
- It would need to be in a "real game" - is Jack Bruney still around?
- It would need to be watched by dozens of people in person for the whole run

This is a set of conditions that will never happen and makes it impossible to break the record, which I suppose is how some people like it.

The whole "debate" is built on a lie - that people believe a run of 626 somehow takes away from a run of 526. It doesn't.

Black-Balled · Feb 24, 2020

skip100 said:
Now people are starting to admit that it's not actually about the video, and that even if the video came out showing no hanky-panky they would discount Schmidt's achievement.

- Any record set would need to be on an 8 foot table
- Pockets would need to be buckets (oops, this one doesn't sound helpful for their case)
- The cloth would need to be slow
- The balls would need to be crappy and sticky
- It would need to be part of a one off attempt, not a sustained effort
- It would need to be in a "real game" - is Jack Bruney still around?
- It would need to be watched by dozens of people in person for the whole run

This is a set of conditions that will never happen and makes it impossible to break the record, which I suppose is how some people like it.

The whole "debate" is built on a lie - that people believe a run of 626 somehow takes away from a run of 526. It doesn't.

Yeah, really doesn't seem that hard to understand, does it?

Well, unless one is of a predisposed position.

Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

One of the best in 14.1

AzB Plutonium Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

is kind of hungry...

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AZB Osmium Member

AZB Osmium Member

AzB Silver Member

is kind of hungry...

AZB Osmium Member

is kind of hungry...

One of the best in 14.1

One of the best in 14.1

9ball did to billiards what hiphop did to america

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member