Mike Eufemia in Guiness Book of World Records for highest run?!

I did not know that run had offial recognition. Who witnessed the entire run. Guiness takes authentication very seriously

I knew Mike, and according to him, there was not a single fan who saw the run from beginning to end, meaning it did not qualify as a witnessed exhibition. Count me among those who believe the run was authentic, but that the lack of witnesses made it difficult to recognize.

Logan Billiards

Was at the El station at Norwood Avenue. I left $600 on the rail there in 1964. Best life insurance policy I ever purchased.

Bob Jewett said:

From a previous posting:

Mike Eufemia, in his unpublished book on 14.1, is quite adamant about having run 625. He also claims to have run 555. Here is some of what he had to say:

On FEBRUARY 2, 1960. in a scheduled pocket billiard exhibition match between Mr. Eufemia and Mr. Michael Aherne at the Logan Billiard Academy at Logan and Fulton Sts. Brooklyn N.Y. Mr. Eufemia won the lag, forcing his opponent to make the opening break. Mr. Eufemia made the first shot and continued shooting without missing until he had pocketed six hundred and twenty five (625) balls. This feat was accomplished on a world tournament size 4 1/2' x9' table before a standing-room only audience. They were as vocal as they were appreciative of this historic feat.
This run still stands as the world high run record.​

On a related note, I just moved into new digs the street number of which is the anagram of both Mosconi's run and Eufemia's run and is the only such number between them. I probably chose the place subconsciously based on this amazing fact.

Click to expand...

Yes, and your address is also of the form "x-squared minus 14" where x is an integer, hence your address is exactly one rack of straight pool less than x-squared.

Bob Jewett said:

... I just moved into new digs the street number of which is the anagram of both Mosconi's run and Eufemia's run and is the only such number between them. I probably chose the place subconsciously based on this amazing fact.

Click to expand...

sjm said:

Yes, and your address is also of the form "x-squared minus 14" where x is an integer, hence your address is exactly one rack of straight pool less than x-squared.

Click to expand...

562 = 24 x 24 - 14.

But, Stu, given what Bob quoted from the unpublished book, if it was a "standing-room only audience," how do you reconcile that with Mike telling you that no one else saw the whole run? Seems strange.

AtLarge said:

562 = 24 x 24 - 14.

But, Stu, given what Bob quoted from the unpublished book, if it was a "standing-room only audience," how do you reconcile that with Mike telling you that no one else saw the whole run? Seems strange.

Click to expand...

Supposedly, people weaved in and weave out during the run, without a single person watching the entire run from start to finish. To be honest, I highly doubt I'd have stayed until the end if I'd been there at the beginning run (then again, in 1960, I'd only have been two years old).

sjm said:

Supposedly, people weaved in and weave out during the run, without a single person watching the entire run from start to finish. To be honest, I highly doubt I'd have stayed until the end if I'd been there at the beginning run (then again, in 1960, I'd only have been two years old).

Click to expand...

Still seems strange to me. 14.1 fans love long runs. Surely if Eufemia was in the 200's, or 300's, or ..., some real 14.1 fan would have changed whatever plans he had so he could stay and see the run to its conclusion. And even if no single spectator watched from beginning to end, I don't see why the run couldn't have been authenticated by attestation from more than one spectator. I don't know how long the run took, but let's just say it lasted 5 hours, from 6 PM to 11 PM (hopefully it took less time than that). Maybe Mr. X watched from 6 PM to 9 PM and Mr. Y watched from 8 PM to 11 PM -- so there was no gap. Combined, their attestations should suffice, right? But, clearly, they didn't do any such thing and it's too late now.

seems strange that the houseman wouldn't have been able to verify...

AtLarge said:

... And even if no single spectator watched from beginning to end, I don't see why the run couldn't have been authenticated by attestation from more than one spectator. I don't know how long the run took, but let's just say it lasted 5 hours, from 6 PM to 11 PM (hopefully it took less time than that). Maybe Mr. X watched from 6 PM to 9 PM and Mr. Y watched from 8 PM to 11 PM -- so there was no gap. Combined, their attestations should suffice, right? But, clearly, they didn't do any such thing and it's too late now.

Click to expand...

This frames the debate well. Should a combined attestation suffice here or not? i think it is a pretty tricky question. At the time and also ever since, many have contended that the refusal to recognize the run on that basis was just the powers in pool protecting Mosconi, but who's to say?

AtLarge said:

Still seems strange to me. 14.1 fans love long runs. Surely if Eufemia was in the 200's, or 300's, or ..., some real 14.1 fan would have changed whatever plans he had so he could stay and see the run to its conclusion. And even if no single spectator watched from beginning to end, I don't see why the run couldn't have been authenticated by attestation from more than one spectator. I don't know how long the run took, but let's just say it lasted 5 hours, from 6 PM to 11 PM (hopefully it took less time than that). Maybe Mr. X watched from 6 PM to 9 PM and Mr. Y watched from 8 PM to 11 PM -- so there was no gap. Combined, their attestations should suffice, right? But, clearly, they didn't do any such thing and it's too late now.

Click to expand...

There are so many things I wished I had paid more attention to when younger, at say places like The Palace and Cochran's. In real life you most often don't know something special is happening when it is.

Lou Figueroa

Protecting Mosconi sounds right to me!
Brunswick had a very powerful voice in pool in those days, no?

The 625 stands

I heard from an excellent source that Mike's run was an is legit. My source is a world champion - while that does not make his story true - I also believe that Mike did accomplish this run. I saw his picture in Mcgoorty's book and he just looked as if he really loved the game, I only wish I could have seen him play. I heard he was a pleasent fellow to be around and also that he was a man of his word. Drop pockets make a big difference as far as table conditions go but I say Mike's run is legit. Correction that was Gene Nagy that I saw in McGoorty's book, I think he was also a champion student of straight pool.

Danny Harriman said:

... Drop pockets make a big difference as far as table conditions go but I say Mike's run is legit.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by this, Danny? To me, the term "drop pockets" simply means the table has no ball return or "gully" system; the term has nothing to do with how easy or difficult the table plays. Please explain.

meanings of the term "drop pockets"

When I first moved to the big city of Nashville in 1962, I saw my first 9’ pool table. In a PR called 20 century there were about a dozen 9’ tables. All but 2 were amazingly easy. The players used the normal tables and the college crowd was steered to the “drop pocket” tables by the rackmen. It was not the pocket width, which did not seem different from what I was used to, that mqde them so easy. What was clearly different was that when a ball rolled on to the shelf it just kept going, aided by gravity and a little extra slope of the slate. Someone explained to me that since it was pay per rack, room owners would bevel off the slate at the mouth of the pocket so more balls would fall and fewer would hang, decreasing time between racks and increased revenue. The term used then & there was “drop pockets”. I was surprised years later to hear the term used for tables without a return system. But the balls eventually drop on all tables….. Tight or loose….. return or not. Has anyone else heard the term “drop pockets” used in reference to a table which was “customized” to be easy.

If you think slate would be too tough to file or sand down I think you would be laboring under a groundless assumption. Isn’t slate is tougher than sandstone but a lot softer than granite or marble.

nashville14:1 said:

... Someone explained to me that since it was pay per rack, room owners would bevel off the slate at the mouth of the pocket so more balls would fall and fewer would hang, decreasing time between racks and increased revenue. The term used then & there was “drop pockets”. ...

Click to expand...

Aha! Maybe that's what Danny H. was talking about.

Correct ohh mondo

AtLarge said:

Aha! Maybe that's what Danny H. was talking about.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was referring to, although 400 balls is an incredible run on most any table, the fact remains that the table at Q-masters in Virginia should be reserved for beginners as a ball will never reside deep in the pocket it can't. This in essence allows the pocket to be a vaccum for the any ball approaching, Corey was playing the ghost race to seven 15 ball rotation (even money) on this table not long after Schmidty ran his big run. Give me a couple of years and I might be able to run 600 on a table like that, the Diamond pro spec. pocket will keep the player honest. A two hundred ball run on a pro spec Diamond is more of an accomplishment than a four hundred ball run on a "drop pocket table". Even when you rattle the ball with too much speed the ball will inevitably drop - again in my view this table should be reserved for a player who is learning to make a closed bridge. Many old Brunswick tables had this characteristic (some more of a slope in the slate than others). It would be interesting to me to find out whether or not the table Willie ran 526 on had the downward slope in the slate near the pocket. In a sport such as basketball the rim stays the same size and has for years, pocket billiards needs to figure out a table sponsor, in my view the Diamond table (with pro spec's) was and still is the table for the pro's to compete on - and I am not getting any residual income from Greg Sullivan for the bump - it's just my opinion.