Mosconi's 526 run POOL TABLE questions

realkingcobra · Feb 11, 2015

hang-the-9 said:
That does not prevent you or anyone else from being wrong.

I know a player that has been playing for many years, has his own table, pockets balls well. He absolutely refuses to belive that slow rolling a ball makes it harder to pocket it in most cases, and we can't for the life of us get him to play position when you have to go a rail or two to get a lot better shape. He was just arguing with someone about when two frozen are hit you can stroke straight through and it not being a foul. Even after he was shown the rules. His stance is that even if 1,000 people say something to him, or he is shown the rule, it's all wrong. I said about him "if his head was cut off, he'd argue that he is not dead for another 10 minutes" to a friend in a text when he was telling me that he was refusing to belive the rules where what they were.

If the professional play was dictated to be on 4.5" pockets, why would a huge company like Brunswick not produce tables for that standard? It's like someone saying that 90 sq inches was to be the official standard for pro tennis and Prince just made 100.

Then why don't you help out Mr. Bond 2 hen it comes to finding them original Brunswick pool tables with 4 1/2" corner pockets seeing how you seem to think you know so much. My life 9ft working on pool tables exceeds Mr. Bonds time frame in this industry as well, and I'm sure yours too. Your friends pool playing habits have nothing to do with my expertise when it comes to my knowledge of pool tables, and how to build them, as well as how to rebuild them. So, it should be simple to produce the proof needed to back up his claim, maybe he just needs your help:thumbup: Who knows, maybe Brunswick did build a pocket table with tight pockets, maybe I'll learn something new, but I just want to see the proof....not hear....because I just know they did....as proof without backing it up with real proof....know what I mean

Mr. Bond · Feb 11, 2015

realkingcobra said:
So in other words, you don't have anything from Brunswick to back up your claim?

Holy cow Glen read the words right in front of your nose.

See that word " manufactured "? Do you know what that means?

And this info IS directly from Brunswick.

If you really need me to dig up something more, you'll need to place that wager Glenda.
How much is it worth to be right ?

CJ Wiley · Feb 11, 2015

I know it wouldn't be any fun to gamble on a table like that, you'd have to run 5's

K2Kraze said:
Hello, everyone.

After turning to a few sources that ultimately had no answers to my questions, I'd like to see if there are any AZB'ers that may be able to help in my quest for a few elusive facts regarding Willie Mosconi's run of 526 on the evening of March 19th, 1954 and more specifically the table specs.

The well documented and record-setting run at the East High Billiard Club in Springfield, OH is complete with the affidavit signed by 37 witnesses including his opponent Earl "Jack" Bruney, but is missing details on the POOL TABLE they played on.

What was recorded and written about back then points to the table being "a Brunswick 4'x8' with 5.25 inch pockets" but that seems to be the end of the media coverage - historical or otherwise - regarding the equipment.

What if we were to replicate that same pool table today? What was the true size? What were the pocket openings? If it was indeed a Brunswick table, which model of Brunswick table? Drop pocket or ball return? What color of cloth did it have? And so on.

The Brunswick billiard historian I asked could find no information since many records were destroyed years ago.

There are many other details surrounding that evening regarding all of the equipment in play that would be helpful if not extremely interesting (like the balls used) - so anything that anyone has to contribute in this thread will be greatly appreciated!

Thank you all!

LIVFST

I saw the table many years ago, and was surprised by how large the pockets were. They were at least 5" and probably a bit over. I know it wouldn't be any fun to gamble on a table like that, you'd have to run 5's and 6's (playing 9-Ball) just to keep up with a "short-stop".

The table had a sign declaring Willie's incredible run, even though it's comparable to running far less balls on a 9' table with 4.5 inch pockets.

Does anyone remember what city this was in?

The table was in a room that was below street level, I remember having to walk down stairs and the place wasn't exactly upscale (on that end of the building anyway).

This has been almost 30 years ago so the only thing that stands out in my mind is the pocket size (these things were important on the road, especially giving up big spots).

realkingcobra · Feb 11, 2015

Mr. Bond said:
Holy cow Glen read the words right in front of your nose.

See that word " manufactured "? Do you know what that means?

And this info IS directly from Brunswick.

If you really need me to dig up something more, you'll need to place that wager Glenda.
How much is it worth to be right ?

I guess you still don't understand what I'm saying. That tournament you like to quote is simply saying that they are running the tournament on Brunswick pool tables, and that they are requiring the tables to have 4 1/2" corner pockets. No where in there did it specifically quote Brunswick as having built the pockets to those dimensions, only that 5 he tables had to be manufactured by Brunswick. No different than the APA stating that their national playoffs will played on coin operated pool tables manufactured by the Valley company and that the corner pockets will be 4 1/4"....Valley don't build rail blocks that make the corner pockets 4 1/4" but nothing is stopping the APA from having Ridgeback rails build rails to those pocket dimensions and having them installed in place of the factory rails....now does it? Anyone could have taken the tournament required Brunswick pool tables and double or triple shimmed the pockets to make them smaller, but that don't mean Brunswick did that. I asked you what tables did Brunswick manufacturer with stock 4 1/2" corner pockets, and still you don't produce any model name or years of production, yet you provide some kind of information that if read to the letter, states ALL 5'x10's came only with 4 1/2" corner pockets which is just plain BS, because I know of several Klings I've worked on that had huge factory built pockets and as I stated, I've never came across a Brunswick factory built pocket table with tight pockets....and I'm the person that also moved the 211 Club in Seattle from Union street up town to the second floor on Bell street, and all those Antique Brunswick pool tables and snooker tables were all built in the 1920s'.

Mr. Bond · Feb 14, 2015

realkingcobra said:
I guess you still don't understand what I'm saying.

ditto

realkingcobra said:
That tournament you like to quote is simply saying that they are running the tournament on Brunswick pool tables, and that they are requiring the tables to have 4 1/2" corner pockets.

"That tournament" wasn't just a tournament Glen.
The example I provided was to illustrate the fact that the standard for ALL professional pocket billiards was a 10ft table with 4.5" pockets. In other words, it was not a one-time gimmick or an isolated incident - every championship level match was played under those conditions for decades.

realkingcobra said:
No where in there did it specifically quote Brunswick as having built the pockets to those dimensions, only that 5 he tables had to be manufactured by Brunswick.

No it doesn't, because that would be redundant.
Brunswick - the biggest and most sophisticated billiard table factory on earth, capable of producing any table, in any size, with any design, of any material, with the quality of a swiss watch, is going to subcontract some mechanic to shim pockets for their premier events?? Come on Glen, you know that's not even reasonable.

If you look back thru the Brunswick catalogs and brochures you will notice the conspicuous absence of pocket sizes available on the tables. Everything else is mentioned except for that. Brunswick even describes the size, width and girth of their support beams and the 3-wood construction method of building their rails. Everything is given in much detail except for pocket sizes.

Why Glen?

Because the pocket sizes were determined by the customer. And if the customer happens to be themselves, or any other billiard hall, player, or promoter in need of a tournament spec table, guess how that table is going to leave the factory? With 4.5" pocket openings.
Shimmed, gaffed, purple cloth with rails made of marshmallows, if you ordered it, Brunswick would produce it, no questions asked. And I'm quite sure they were very familiar with the production of tournament spec tables, having done it for so many years.

Why haven't you seen any antiques with 4.5" pockets? Very simply because the vast vast vast overwhelming majority of tables sold then, and now, are home tables, and the vast vast vast overwhelming majority of customers did not and do not ask for tables with 4.5" pockets. The chances of finding an original pro-cut table are indeed very slim.

Somewhere I have some documentation that will make you grin, but I really don't feel like digging for it right now. Keep in mind that just because you haven't seen something, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

realkingcobra · Feb 15, 2015

Mr. Bond said:
ditto

"That tournament" wasn't just a tournament Glen.
The example I provided was to illustrate the fact that the standard for ALL professional pocket billiards was a 10ft table with 4.5" pockets. In other words, it was not a one-time gimmick or an isolated incident - every championship level match was played under those conditions for decades.

No it doesn't, because that would be redundant.
Brunswick - the biggest and most sophisticated billiard table factory on earth, capable of producing any table, in any size, with any design, of any material, with the quality of a swiss watch, is going to subcontract some mechanic to shim pockets for their premier events?? Come on Glen, you know that's not even reasonable.

If you look back thru the Brunswick catalogs and brochures you will notice the conspicuous absence of pocket sizes available on the tables. Everything else is mentioned except for that. Brunswick even describes the size, width and girth of their support beams and the 3-wood construction method of building their rails. Everything is given in much detail except for pocket sizes.

Why Glen?

Because the pocket sizes were determined by the customer. And if the customer happens to be themselves, or any other billiard hall, player, or promoter in need of a tournament spec table, guess how that table is going to leave the factory? With 4.5" pocket openings.
Shimmed, gaffed, purple cloth with rails made of marshmallows, if you ordered it, Brunswick would produce it, no questions asked. And I'm quite sure they were very familiar with the production of tournament spec tables, having done it for so many years.

Why haven't you seen any antiques with 4.5" pockets? Very simply because the vast vast vast overwhelming majority of tables sold then, and now, are home tables, and the vast vast vast overwhelming majority of customers did not and do not ask for tables with 4.5" pockets. The chances of finding an original pro-cut table are indeed very slim.

Somewhere I have some documentation that will make you grin, but I really don't feel like digging for it right now. Keep in mind that just because you haven't seen something, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

What, still no table model or date manufactured?

LWW · Feb 15, 2015

tomatoetom said:
I would also like to no who has the 2nd highest run? I thought it was someone from WA. St.

I have the 1,928,374,655th highest run.

LWW · Feb 15, 2015

ChicagoRJ said:
Fact is Maris holds the record. Who really cares? It matters not, times change, and season got longer, and thus some records get broken.

One could argue had Ruth faced the same level of pitching Maris did, he would never have hit 60 dingers in a season... thus, why it's silly to disount one record and not the other. I'm sure Babe Ruth does not care, since he's probably still the most recoginzed baseball name on the planet.

That and the fact that he's dead.

KRJ · Feb 15, 2015

LWW said:
That and the fact that he's dead.

Well, someone picked up on my sly sarcasm

PoolBoy1 · Feb 15, 2015

realkingcobra said:
What, still no table model or date manufactured?

Pool tables are more like golf courses. At the mercy of the creator and that doesn't include lighting and humidity differences. So the argument of which is tougher to play does not really matter because a touring Pro must adapt to all or any conditions. I am only interested in records: wins/losses, high run, majors won, general weekly tournaments,. I don't care if its straight, rotation games or pill pool.

Pool needs a tournament of tournaments. Say the last 10 of year winner wins part of big pot. If tied a playoff. Need to qualify with at least a win prior to entry. Maybe the World ranking system would suffice for entries. The Sport desperately need $$ behind it.

realkingcobra · Feb 15, 2015

PoolBoy1 said:
Pool tables are more like golf courses. At the mercy of the creator and that doesn't include lighting and humidity differences. So the argument of which is tougher to play does not really matter because a touring Pro must adapt to all or any conditions. I am only interested in records: wins/losses, high run, majors won, general weekly tournaments,. I don't care if its straight, rotation games or pill pool.

Pool needs a tournament of tournaments. Say the last 10 of year winner wins part of big pot. If tied a playoff. Need to qualify with at least a win prior to entry. Maybe the World ranking system would suffice for entries. The Sport desperately need $$ behind it.

Just as I've been saying for years now, Pool is not broken, the tournament system is

PoolBoy1 · Feb 15, 2015

realkingcobra said:
Just as I've been saying for years now, Pool is not broken, the tournament system is

At least the some tournaments now are asking for dress codes. The casual look got a little wretched. Streaming is it's final big hope of luring players into Poolrooms. At least home equipment sets sales will be up because it's a great past time and a fairly cheap one.

Mr. Bond · Feb 15, 2015

realkingcobra said:
What, still no table model or date manufactured?

Take your pick http://antiquetables.brunswickbilliards.com/our_rich_history/antique_tables/gallery_3.html

PoolBoy1 · Feb 15, 2015

ChicagoRJ said:
Fact is Maris holds the record. Who really cares? It matters not, times change, and season got longer, and thus some records get broken.

One could argue had Ruth faced the same level of pitching Maris did, he would never have hit 60 dingers in a season... thus, why it's silly to disount one record and not the other. I'm sure Babe Ruth does not care, since he's probably still the most recoginzed baseball name on the planet.

Facts are facts. Maris did not break Babe's record as it stands. If the pitching was so poor why didn't more hit 60? Also there were no check swing homers back then. The ball is juiced now like the golf ball. I refer you to:

WIKI:
Roger Eugene Maris (September 10, 1934 – December 14, 1985) was an American professional baseball player. He was a Major League Baseball (MLB) right fielder for 12 seasons and on four teams, from 1957 through 1968. Maris set an MLB record by hitting 61 home runs during the 1961 season for the New York Yankees, breaking Babe Ruth's single-season record of 60 home runs in 1927. This record was challenged by then baseball commissioner Ford Frick, who said that Maris needed to break the record in 154 games instead of the current schedule of 162 games.

In closing: he did not break Ruth's record. He did break the Season record. Words have meanings and folks should understand what they are reading. And we haven't even mentioned the short right field porch in Yankee Stadium. Yet! Just to stir the pot some Williams may have hit 100 in that Stadium with his poetry in motion swing.

realkingcobra · Feb 15, 2015

Mr. Bond said:
Take your pick http://antiquetables.brunswickbilliards.com/our_rich_history/antique_tables/gallery_3.html

So, what you're trying to say is, that anyone that owns a Kling 5'x10' pocket table today can post pictures of the pockets....and they'll be 4 1/2" and 4 3/4" factory built right?

Mr. Bond · Feb 15, 2015

realkingcobra said:
So, what you're trying to say is, that anyone who requested a Kling 5'x10' , 4.5" pocket table, would in fact receive a kling 5'x10', 4 1/2" pocket table, factory built right?

Yup, that about sums it up

realkingcobra · Feb 15, 2015

Mr. Bond said:
Yup, that about sums it up

So then, it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with some pictures to back that up then right?....plenty of Klings around

realkingcobra · Feb 15, 2015

Mr. Bond said:
Yup, that about sums it up

And if you're going to quote what I posted....don't change the wording to make it read the way you want it to, ok

ImaPoolnut · Apr 16, 2019

Mosconi 526 ball run???

I guess I'm going out on a limb here because in all the research I have done on this topic, I have to rely on my close friend Danny Diliberto who claims to have witnessed the event and states in no short words "it was a fixed exhibition".

The owner of the club intended on the exhibition being played on a standard 4x1/2 by 9 but because the table was made by another manufacturer other than Brunswick that table was scrapped for the 4x8 Brunswick, with drop pockets and extremely slow cloth and mammoth 5 1/4 pockets.

Now the part that really drives me nuts about this is Danny said to me and many others on numerous occasions that during Mosconi's 526 ball run several times a ball hung up in the pocket and it effectively was given to him to continue his run. He may have been well into the 3-400's when it happened but if in fact what Danny says is true than we've all been misled into believing this was possible and with the witness affidavit who'd question it. How about someone else that was there and seen what really happened. Charlie Ursitti would also be a great resource for the truth.

I honestly think that John Schmidt is a much better straight pool player than many of the guys from that era. We've been watching John all month at Bullshooters try and break Mosconi's record only to fall victim to the hanger at one point on ball 398. Here's a guy running 1000+ balls a day for a month with only a handful of misses in between. If you're not the best candidate for having the highest recorded run I don't know who is but I think in a match of Mosconi versus Schmidt, I put my coin on Schmidt. Stronger more consistent player on tougher conditions. Just my $0.02 though.

skip100 · Apr 16, 2019

ImaPoolnut said:
Now the part that really drives me nuts about this is Danny said to me and many others on numerous occasions that during Mosconi's 526 ball run several times a ball hung up in the pocket and it effectively was given to him to continue his run. He may have been well into the 3-400's when it happened but if in fact what Danny says is true than we've all been misled into believing this was possible and with the witness affidavit who'd question it.

This should turn the discussion in a fun direction

:grin-square:

Mosconi's 526 run POOL TABLE questions

Well-known member

Orbis Non Sufficit

ESPN WORLD OPEN CHAMPION

Well-known member

Orbis Non Sufficit

Well-known member

MEMGO5

MEMGO5

Support UKRAINE

AzB Silver Member

Well-known member

AzB Silver Member

Orbis Non Sufficit

AzB Silver Member

Well-known member

Orbis Non Sufficit

Well-known member

Well-known member

I'm just a PoolNut

AzB Silver Member