Mika is in and was the best player in the 2000s.
If I had a magic wand, they would all be in now except Thorsten, who isn’t eligible until next year.
Freddie <~~~ have wand, no magic
Last edited:
Does John Schmidt Get into the Hall of Fame After 626?
- Thread starter Cardigan Kid
- Start date
Mika is in and was the best player in the 2000s.
If I had a magic wand, they would all be in now except Thorsten, who isn’t eligible until next year.
Freddie <~~~ have wand, no magic
From the NY Times (published on May 28 and again on May 29, 2019)
After Much Effort, an ‘Unbreakable’ Record in Straight Pool Is Topped
John Schmidt dedicated much of the last year to trying to top Willie Mosconi’s record.
By Victor Mather
May 28, 2019
Every game has its so-called unbreakable records, like Wilt Chamberlain’s 100 points in a single N.B.A. game or Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak.
In pool, one of those records is the run of 526 balls pocketed without a miss by one of the most famous players of all, Willie Mosconi, in 1954.
That total was surpassed on Monday by John Schmidt, a professional player who dedicated much of the last year to trying to top the mark.
Playing a game known as “straight pool” in Monterey, Calif., Schmidt, 46, started pocketing balls and did not miss for nearly four hours. He sailed by Mosconi’s 526 total, finally reaching 626.
“It’s something I’ve been trying for over 20 years,” he told KSBW. “I had my doubts on breaking it.”
He added: “I’ve tried thousands and thousands — probably I would estimate 10,000 innings, which is a single attempt. The 10,000th inning finally came together."
Straight pool has lost some popularity, as faster games like nine-ball emerged, although it is enjoying a minor renaissance. In the game, the 15 pool balls are racked, and a player sinks them until one is left; then the 14 sunk balls are put back on the table, and the player keeps going, as long as there is no miss. All shots must be called.
Sinking that last ball, and at the same time breaking the newly racked balls, is the most challenging shot in the game.
Schmidt, the 2012 straight pool world champion, had made a run of 403 balls in 2007. A year ago, though, he began a concerted, dedicated effort to top Mosconi’s 526.
For a month at a time he would shoot six to eight hours a day, filming the sessions for verification. His latest monthlong attempt, beginning May 8, was his fourth.
The tally sheet for his effort shows a load of 112s and 171s and 289s, with an occasional score over 400. On May 15, he set a personal best of 490, still 36 short of Mosconi. Finally, on Monday, he opened with a 126, then recorded his big 626.
Mike Panozzo, the publisher of Billiards Digest, praised Schmidt’s “focus and the perseverance to run 380, and then you miss and start over again.”
Mosconi was one of the greatest to play the game.
“There will never be another one like him,” said his wife, Flora, at the time of his death in 1993. “He reminded me of a ballet dancer going around the table. He was so quick, so smooth.” His rival over the years was Minnesota Fats, perhaps the only pool player with more name recognition, even today.
Mosconi’s 526 happened under circumstances somewhat different from those that Schmidt faced on Monday. Mosconi, then 40, was playing in an exhibition match with a man named Earl Bruney in Springfield, Ohio. After defeating Bruney, he just kept shooting until he reached 526. In contrast, Schmidt was purely playing for the record, with no opponent, starting anew each time he fell short.
Mosconi also played on a smaller table, 4 feet by 8 feet, like a typical home table. Schmidt’s run came on a 4½-by-9-foot “professional table.” That made his performance “a lot more challenging,” said Doug Desmond, an organizer of the record attempt, because of the longer shots that had to be converted. (Desmond, who racked the balls for Schmidt throughout his record bids, was also a link to history; he played Mosconi in 1967, losing, 150-17.)
Panozzo of Billiards Digest agreed that a long run would have been “a little easier” for Mosconi on the 4x8 table. Still, that opinion is not unanimous in the pool world, and there is debate over which table leaves players more challenging angles.
Another complication is that the Billiard Congress of America normally validates only records that come in tournament play, not on a repeated record attempt like Schmidt’s. But Shane Tyree, the organization’s communications manager, said that Schmidt’s 626 “was absolutely amazing” and that he expected the governing body to approve the record after vetting the video.
A version of this article appears in print on May 29, 2019, on Page B10 of the New York edition with the headline: Pool Player Sinks 626 Balls in Record Run.
After Much Effort, an ‘Unbreakable’ Record in Straight Pool Is Topped
John Schmidt dedicated much of the last year to trying to top Willie Mosconi’s record.
By Victor Mather
May 28, 2019
Every game has its so-called unbreakable records, like Wilt Chamberlain’s 100 points in a single N.B.A. game or Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak.
In pool, one of those records is the run of 526 balls pocketed without a miss by one of the most famous players of all, Willie Mosconi, in 1954.
That total was surpassed on Monday by John Schmidt, a professional player who dedicated much of the last year to trying to top the mark.
Playing a game known as “straight pool” in Monterey, Calif., Schmidt, 46, started pocketing balls and did not miss for nearly four hours. He sailed by Mosconi’s 526 total, finally reaching 626.
“It’s something I’ve been trying for over 20 years,” he told KSBW. “I had my doubts on breaking it.”
He added: “I’ve tried thousands and thousands — probably I would estimate 10,000 innings, which is a single attempt. The 10,000th inning finally came together."
Straight pool has lost some popularity, as faster games like nine-ball emerged, although it is enjoying a minor renaissance. In the game, the 15 pool balls are racked, and a player sinks them until one is left; then the 14 sunk balls are put back on the table, and the player keeps going, as long as there is no miss. All shots must be called.
Sinking that last ball, and at the same time breaking the newly racked balls, is the most challenging shot in the game.
Schmidt, the 2012 straight pool world champion, had made a run of 403 balls in 2007. A year ago, though, he began a concerted, dedicated effort to top Mosconi’s 526.
For a month at a time he would shoot six to eight hours a day, filming the sessions for verification. His latest monthlong attempt, beginning May 8, was his fourth.
The tally sheet for his effort shows a load of 112s and 171s and 289s, with an occasional score over 400. On May 15, he set a personal best of 490, still 36 short of Mosconi. Finally, on Monday, he opened with a 126, then recorded his big 626.
Mike Panozzo, the publisher of Billiards Digest, praised Schmidt’s “focus and the perseverance to run 380, and then you miss and start over again.”
Mosconi was one of the greatest to play the game.
“There will never be another one like him,” said his wife, Flora, at the time of his death in 1993. “He reminded me of a ballet dancer going around the table. He was so quick, so smooth.” His rival over the years was Minnesota Fats, perhaps the only pool player with more name recognition, even today.
Mosconi’s 526 happened under circumstances somewhat different from those that Schmidt faced on Monday. Mosconi, then 40, was playing in an exhibition match with a man named Earl Bruney in Springfield, Ohio. After defeating Bruney, he just kept shooting until he reached 526. In contrast, Schmidt was purely playing for the record, with no opponent, starting anew each time he fell short.
Mosconi also played on a smaller table, 4 feet by 8 feet, like a typical home table. Schmidt’s run came on a 4½-by-9-foot “professional table.” That made his performance “a lot more challenging,” said Doug Desmond, an organizer of the record attempt, because of the longer shots that had to be converted. (Desmond, who racked the balls for Schmidt throughout his record bids, was also a link to history; he played Mosconi in 1967, losing, 150-17.)
Panozzo of Billiards Digest agreed that a long run would have been “a little easier” for Mosconi on the 4x8 table. Still, that opinion is not unanimous in the pool world, and there is debate over which table leaves players more challenging angles.
Another complication is that the Billiard Congress of America normally validates only records that come in tournament play, not on a repeated record attempt like Schmidt’s. But Shane Tyree, the organization’s communications manager, said that Schmidt’s 626 “was absolutely amazing” and that he expected the governing body to approve the record after vetting the video.
A version of this article appears in print on May 29, 2019, on Page B10 of the New York edition with the headline: Pool Player Sinks 626 Balls in Record Run.
Attachments
Last edited:
Excellent article and awesome it is in the NY Times! The only statement I had to question was regarding Mosconi's biggest rival being Minnesota Fats. Clearly those knowledgeable know that Mosconi's biggest rivals over his tournament career were Crane, Lassiter, Caras, etc., as Fats was never known to even have competed in major 14.1 events.
Yes, rivals only in regards who was the most recognizable name in pool over the final third of both of their lives (Mosconi and Fats), after Mosconi's tournament playing career was well behind him.
Yes, rivals only in regards who was the most recognizable name in pool over the final third of both of their lives (Mosconi and Fats), after Mosconi's tournament playing career was well behind him.
Last edited:
Well done, Cornerman!
We need a photo with no copyright issues. I have one of John with Keith, but I would like to find one of John alone to insert in the Wiki article.
There's a lot of them on Google, but they all belong to somebody else, and Wiki won't allow photos that belong to others without express permission.
Anybody have a photo they're willing to donate to John's Wiki article?
I would be happy to donate a photo of John, which I shot at the 2018 World 14.1 Tournament. John is using the Predator shaft, which I believe is the same shaft that he used when he shot the 626. You would have to check that out before you publish this, as I believe Predator was involved in the 626 effort. Also, I have both a color and a black and white version of the photo. I can't publish it here on AZB because the file is too large, but I'll publish it on my Facebook page.
Karl Kantrowitz
Last edited:
This would be great. Thank you. I will go to yuur FB page, look for "Karl Kantrowitz" and see if it is there. Cool!
I put one photo in his Wiki page, but it is just a cut-out of a photo I had with John and Keith. It is only his head shot, a cut-out of the photo. I would rather have a better, more professional one there.
The record is more than enough. The record plus the US Open makes it a no-brainer.
Anyone who thinks that 626 doesn't gain him automatic entry hasn't given proper thought to the overall significance of the occasion: The game can finally stop clinging to the past and start looking to the future... A new chapter began Monday.
Pool's story would be hugely incomplete without John in the HOF.
Anyone who thinks that 626 doesn't gain him automatic entry hasn't given proper thought to the overall significance of the occasion: The game can finally stop clinging to the past and start looking to the future... A new chapter began Monday.
Pool's story would be hugely incomplete without John in the HOF.
Last edited:
Was it more difficult?
I haven't read through all the threads and posts concerning this, but ....
I think I read somewhere that Mosconi made his high run on an 8-ft. table with regular sized pockets? .....and I think Schmidt did his on a 9-ft. table with ? sized pockets? Just seems to me that it was harder on the 9-ft. table?
Am I wrong about this?
I haven't read through all the threads and posts concerning this, but ....
I think I read somewhere that Mosconi made his high run on an 8-ft. table with regular sized pockets? .....and I think Schmidt did his on a 9-ft. table with ? sized pockets? Just seems to me that it was harder on the 9-ft. table?
Am I wrong about this?
Don't want to say you're wrong, but some facts worth considering are these.
John played on 5" pockets, so both runs were accomplished in easy conditions that were not up to typical specifications of the pro equipment of their respective eras.
John made his run on a 9 footer, Mosconi on an 8-footer.
John had simonis cloth for his run, Mosconi made his run an an old nappy cloth.
The balls of Mosconi's era were composition balls and were of much poorer quality than those used in John's run.
The rails on the tables of yesteryear were less predictable and of lower quality than those of today.
Best to just say that Mosconi had the highest exhibition run of his era and John the highest exhibition run of his era. Even for guys like me that grew up on the old nappy cloth and composition balls and then played for years with Simonis 860 cloth and Brunswick centennial balls, the comparison is near impossible, so let's give both of them their due.
Last edited:
Not to argue, or pick on anyone, but the old Brunsco or Stevens cloth that was napped, and well-worn, I found was actually the easiest to play on. It was pretty close to Simonis if it was well-worn, nap gone. Do you really know the condition of the cloth on the table which Mosconi played? Old worn cloth played very good.
As far as the balls go, I've heard opinions from both Grady Matthews (taped), and Irving Crane (live) that the older balls separated a bit tougher, but hit more true for both regular and bank shots, and didn't skid as much than later balls, i.e., modern phenolic.
And I think the ghost of Babe Cranfield would say the old rails were just fine for high runs.
I've heard a lot over the past couple days, but isn't it time to accept that John set a better record?
All the best,
WW
The balls of yesteryear, as our own Bob Jewett has noted on occasion, were less round back in the day. They wore down quickly and even tended to chip from time to time.
I knew Crane very well, and yes he noted that the balls didn't separate nearly as well on the break shots back in his day. I'm a veteran, having watched lots of pro 14.1 on both sets of equipment over a period of 53 years. Far more runs ended because there was no shot after the break shot back then. In addition, because the break shot had to be hit harder back then, more break shots were missed than today.
John has the record, plain and simple, but that's not the discussion topic here.
Cloth, balls, and rails, are not the discussion topic, agree. It was you who brought them up. And by the way, do you know that Mosconi's run was done with balls that were worn, and chipped? I never heard that. I don't know what their condition was.
Again, not making up anything, just going by what you say.
All the best,
WW
The old equipment required a different technique.
Players had to work the rack because those balls on that cloth with those rails were not going to open up willingly. You had to pick and peel the rack open. With the newer equipment it has become much more of a smash and grab affair.
Lou Figueroa
Mosconi's run was not done with chipped balls for certain.
As Lou Figueroa just noted, though, the game was a bit different back then.
For me, personally, I prefer it the new way, with today's better equipment and faster cloth. Just underscoring the difficulty of making the comparison.
As you say, though, John holds the exhibition run record now and that's not up for debate.
lol they never played with the balls of today highly polished and cleaned by a machine during a match so I don't put much stock in that ,
The fact is there are many conditions involved like in golf they simply don't mean much to the average person if a player shoots the record low 4 day round on a chip and putt track it will go into the books as the lowest total of all time certainly would go into the record books but unless it's backed up by several other accomplishments, he's not going into the hall of fame ,
1
99 yes
10 no
That's a pretty good declaration of approval by AZ. Any more votes out there?
10 no
That's a pretty good declaration of approval by AZ. Any more votes out there?