the greatest verifiable account of 14.1 should have absolutely no connection to the game of 14.1???
and he calls me a comedian
and he calls me a comedian
Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit
- Thread starter Dan Harriman
- Start date
- Status
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6320675&postcount=289
Note: the above linked post, and the thread it is in, relate to John's attempts in December, 2018. Whether the heater was still in use at the time of the 626 in May of 2019, I do not know.
Last edited:
OK, I'll address the thing about people having seen the video.
There are several problems with public showings. First off, there's Ugly Baby Syndrome. You know: someone shows you a picture of their baby and even if you think it looks like a wad of phlegm someone coughed up you're gonna gush, "Oh, how cute!" Same with people seeing the video and wanting to stay on good terms with JS. IOWs they're likely to say it was great no matter what.
Second off, who is really sitting through this thing watching all the shots. Hell, I didn't even make it through "The Irishman" in one swell poop. So guys are getting up to go to the bathroom, get a drink, talk to buddy, take a phone call, text someone, etc. No one really "watching" the whole enchilada.
Third, at a public showing (besides not knowing what kind of image resolution we're talking about), it would be difficult if not impossible to tell if the video had been edited. It would also be extremely easy to distract the audience during any "questionable" moments.
I think if you *really* want to know if the run is legit you have to be able to watch it on your own, from start to finish, on a good screen, at whatever pace allows the viewer to actually watch the whole run.
Lou Figueroa
No need for proof when you're just "raising questions"
I mean, my goodness, why have proof, just make an unsubstantiated accusation to make "your" side look good and then just "I was just asking questions". Yeah, it was not a question
John Schmidts run is a great achievement. I'm in awe of his talent and shotmaking prowess. That being said, I no longer consider the run a record, other than highest videotaped run. And no, I'm not talking about table heaters, Simonis 760 (which I've played on pretty much my whole pool playing life) or other table or condition factors. Though if there was some slate modifications (for which zero evidence has been provided) that to me would nullify the run. Until I see such evidence, I don't believe that to be the case.
The number one reason why it's not a record, is that it's not an exhibition. Examine the facts and explain why it is, if you think it's the case. Some guy running balls before opening hours in front of his friends and some employees does not an exhibition make. In my eyes, an exhibition is an event for which the performer is paid by the audience, or by a proprietor of some sort which then invites the audience. There needs to be at least some sort of contract or agreement, even if it's for free, tax forms of some sort should exist if it's a pro bono, if it takes place in a closed establishment. The audience then, are not mainly friends, employees or employers of the performer. It should take place at a scheduled time and place.
A case could be made for someone doing something in a public place for free as an exhibition, even if it's not scheduled or paid for per se. But IMO it has to be either/or. I can set up a pool table in Times Square or another public place and run some balls in front of a crowd, that would be an exhibition and a legitimate record if I got signatures from witnesses. But I can't run 200 in a pool hall behind closed doors, then invite people over to run the rest. While it's true that it is an exhibition after the crowd arrived, I can't legitimately claim the whole run as an exhibition run.
Therefore, I think this run is not the exhibition record. It's a very fine WITNESSED RUN, of the very highest (if legit), but not the record in that category, as that belongs to Babe Cranfield (768). It is the highest video taped run, though. Not a small thing.
The number one reason why it's not a record, is that it's not an exhibition. Examine the facts and explain why it is, if you think it's the case. Some guy running balls before opening hours in front of his friends and some employees does not an exhibition make. In my eyes, an exhibition is an event for which the performer is paid by the audience, or by a proprietor of some sort which then invites the audience. There needs to be at least some sort of contract or agreement, even if it's for free, tax forms of some sort should exist if it's a pro bono, if it takes place in a closed establishment. The audience then, are not mainly friends, employees or employers of the performer. It should take place at a scheduled time and place.
A case could be made for someone doing something in a public place for free as an exhibition, even if it's not scheduled or paid for per se. But IMO it has to be either/or. I can set up a pool table in Times Square or another public place and run some balls in front of a crowd, that would be an exhibition and a legitimate record if I got signatures from witnesses. But I can't run 200 in a pool hall behind closed doors, then invite people over to run the rest. While it's true that it is an exhibition after the crowd arrived, I can't legitimately claim the whole run as an exhibition run.
Therefore, I think this run is not the exhibition record. It's a very fine WITNESSED RUN, of the very highest (if legit), but not the record in that category, as that belongs to Babe Cranfield (768). It is the highest video taped run, though. Not a small thing.
Last edited:
That's all fine and good but you just made those rules up out of thin air.
People early on said Mosconi did 526 in a match, but wait wasn't the match over when he hit 150ish for a 200 total to end the match. Then he decided to keep playing but what the heck he'll just count the string in the match and tack on some practice or exhibition. So now it's about whether the spectators paid or not to watch. This is just one more "a 9 foot is harder than an 8.5 foot" arguement.
Sent from the future.
I do consider it the highest video taped run (I modified my post to reflect that). The whole "exhibition" thing is very complicated. I'm sure that a lawyer would shoot holes in all my arguments that it's not one. If the "exhibition" thing is so hard to define, then why even have that category? Why not just "witnessed run" and that is it? That would in fact still mean it's not a record exhibition run. It's over 100 balls below the record for witnessed runs.
Last edited:
Nevermind the fact that video could certainly meet the definition of 'exhibition':
Definition of exhibition
1: an act or instance of exhibiting
2British : a grant drawn from the funds of a school or university to help maintain a student
3: a public showing (as of works of art, objects of manufacture, or athletic skill)
Definition of exhibition
1: an act or instance of exhibiting
2British : a grant drawn from the funds of a school or university to help maintain a student
3: a public showing (as of works of art, objects of manufacture, or athletic skill)
So I can run balls in my garage and then show a video, and that too would be an exhibition? That begs the question of why "exhibition" is needed or useful as a category? Witness runs should be enough, then.
As I recall, the exhibition distinction was introduced into 626 by a party that sought to discredit 626.
I am not sure why we are entertaining the topic.
I'll agree there is a difference between formal competitions and other types, but no such footnote was attached to 526.
I am not sure why we are entertaining the topic.
I'll agree there is a difference between formal competitions and other types, but no such footnote was attached to 526.
I get why you say that. My reasoning is that there is an added bit of pressure from having a crowd watching you do something. That impacts the performance. The fact that it is a "formal" thing withnessed by people, who may not necessarily be friends or even friendly, to me helps add legitimacy. That is why I made up these "rules" which is more or less is what I believe most lay people would think of if asked to define an exhibition run. A guy playing in his garage or a closed pool hall is not what I'd think most people would think of first. But then again, who cares? The hot tub association of America has allready declared it a legit record so...
The sun will rise and set even if this is or is not a record of sorts.
But it is hilarious when stuff like heating, ball polishing differences, cloth and so on gets dragged out and really stupid stuff is questioned.
If you do that you can never ever have a new record. Because the ball sets from Mosconi's era don't exist any more. Try to find that cloth he used - if you can find out the exact make. Oh, and then someone comes along and goes: His cloth was heavily used/brand new/wet/dry/whatever bs they can come up with to discredit the attempt.
So, a Straight Pool record can't ever be broken because after a few years it is totally impossible to EXACTLY match the equipment used?
BTW, I don't really give a damn if that is some record or not. Certainly won't change my little world. I just smell some not so nice negative personal feelings towards JS forcefully driving some arguments. And I am very sure that another player's record would be accepted the way it is presented here, if he were a buddy of one of the nay-sayers.
Some arguments could be made that the record is slightly fishy because of the secrecy around the video. But with so many people having seen the documentation you can take it for granted that there were at least a couple of people in the audience who were doubtful or even desparately searching for some way to discredit it. More so since my understanding is that they had to pay to see it.
But it is hilarious when stuff like heating, ball polishing differences, cloth and so on gets dragged out and really stupid stuff is questioned.
If you do that you can never ever have a new record. Because the ball sets from Mosconi's era don't exist any more. Try to find that cloth he used - if you can find out the exact make. Oh, and then someone comes along and goes: His cloth was heavily used/brand new/wet/dry/whatever bs they can come up with to discredit the attempt.
So, a Straight Pool record can't ever be broken because after a few years it is totally impossible to EXACTLY match the equipment used?
BTW, I don't really give a damn if that is some record or not. Certainly won't change my little world. I just smell some not so nice negative personal feelings towards JS forcefully driving some arguments. And I am very sure that another player's record would be accepted the way it is presented here, if he were a buddy of one of the nay-sayers.
Some arguments could be made that the record is slightly fishy because of the secrecy around the video. But with so many people having seen the documentation you can take it for granted that there were at least a couple of people in the audience who were doubtful or even desparately searching for some way to discredit it. More so since my understanding is that they had to pay to see it.
There's a huge difference between using the generally accepted equipment of your day -- table, cloth, balls -- and going beyond all that, to extraordinary lengths, to create favorable conditions for a high run.
Lou Figueroa
Lou do you really see anything wrong here with all the variables.
760 Simonis ( what 14.1 tournament or any event has ever been played on 760 except snooker)
Heated slates ( only on 3 cushion Billiard tables)
Removal and polishing of the balls ( not in any tournament ever but at the beginning of the match so the players would have to compensate and adjust to the condition as the match went along)
video and live stream for every run John has ever had but no unedited video of the 626
exactly 100 balls over Mosconis 526
Claim of highest exhibition run. Whats considered and Exhibition
Cranfields Exhibition run was 768 whats the difference
Bobby, well of course it all stinks more than Seattle's Pike's Place Fish Market.
But the only guys that can smell it are the guys that have actually studied and played and run balls at 14.1.
Lou Figueroa
Lou I really want to believe John did run 626 but even if he did its not a record of ANY kind except for his personal record which is quite an accomplishment and I even contacted his wife to let her know that.Yes there is no doubt We don't care for eeach other but John does have a lot of talent but he always has an angle to destroy everything with his ego. Why couldn't he just jump on any table and put regular cloth or 860 simonis on it and not cheat? simply put he cant do it. John stated he wanted to help pool and always complains about everything but he hasn't helped anything concerning this and that's bothersome to many people.
This is a bunch of caca BS for sure. John has tried on a oversized 8 ft. and couldn't get anywhere with it. If he could have he would have. I don't know of or ever heard of any run on an 8ft. table over 300 ever. If its that easy go ahead and have John try. The reason John says its easier because his ego has to do that. As a person that has run over 300 its much harder. who is Shane Tyree anyways? The BCA is nothing now
- Status