Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > Main Forum
Reload this Page Mosconi's high run and could the previous generation compete today
Reply
Page 3 of 5 123 45
 
Share Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 9 votes, 5.00 average.
Old
  (#31)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,071
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
08-30-2014, 12:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poolplaya9 View Post
... It was his all time best ever run in 74 years of playing. ...
It was his longest run in a public exhibition, but it may have been neither his best nor his longest run.
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#32)
Poolplaya9
Tellin' it like it is...
Poolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond repute
 
Poolplaya9's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,546
vCash: 800
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Join Date: Aug 2005
  Send a message via AIM to Poolplaya9  
08-30-2014, 01:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by alstl View Post
You need to research a few things.

Luther Lassiter's record for most consecutive 9 ball racks run
It is immaterial. I think for some reason you chose not to use good comprehension or logic and missed the point. The point is that Mosconi and Crane don't have the record and are not even close. It would be silly to infer that they are inferior to today's players simply because their high 9 ball runs are not even close to that of today's top players when they rarely played the game, just as it is silly to infer (as you did) that today's top players are inferior to Mosconi and Crane because their high straight pool runs are not as high as Mosconi's and Cranes (and that is conveniently forgetting that some have actually made tougher runs) when they likewise rarely play straight pool or on ten foot tables.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alstl View Post
How long the 2013 DCC 14.1 challenge lasted - hint - it was more than a few hours.
Nobody put in more than a few hours trying for a run. But again, you chose not to comprehend and use logic and missed the point. The point was, whatever amount of time the players spent, whether it was hours, days, weeks, or even months, pales in comparison to the +/- 70 years that Mosconi and Crane had in on their records. Those were the best of their 70 years of playing, so in no way would it be reasonable to say today's players are inferior because they couldn't beat it in the few hours that they each put in. If those were Mosconi and Crane's all time best runs in 70 years, I think we can expect it will take someone else more than a few hours or days or a week to beat it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alstl View Post
The conditions and equipment players faced in the 1930's and 1940's when Crane and Mosconi had their 14.1 300 ball runs on a 10 foot table.
All things considered, today's tables are tougher to make runs on than the tables of that era, and it isn't really even neck and neck. The tougher pocket cuts and sizes of today's tables more than make up for what little advantages (and they are pretty little) they may have in other areas. And Mosconi's record was on a joke of a table in any era.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alstl View Post
What Crane thought of tables with big pockets.
Just because he may have preferred tight pockets for competition or practice doesn't mean that is what his record was on. I'm pretty sure Mosconi didn't prefer 8 ft tables with buckets either. And for that matter, he may have preferred tight pockets all of the time except for when he was trying for his highest run number.

I need to learn how to do those bullet points. I like them.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#33)
Poolplaya9
Tellin' it like it is...
Poolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond repute
 
Poolplaya9's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,546
vCash: 800
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Join Date: Aug 2005
  Send a message via AIM to Poolplaya9  
08-30-2014, 01:44 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtLarge View Post
It was his longest run in a public exhibition, but it may have been neither his best nor his longest run.
Possible, but it was the highest and best run that he claimed, and as proud as Mosconi was and as much as he wanted to be seen as and known as the best etc, I have to believe that if he had run more than 526 he would said so when telling people what his high run was (and in his book). It also seems as if he would have said something along the lines of "but I have a run of 491 on a 4.5 x 9 which is a much better run than the 526" if he felt he had another run of a lower number that was actually a tougher run.

I've already previously said several times that I think it is feasible that he could have broken his own record had he had the incentive to do so, but when the run we have reasonable proof for and his own claims match up I have to go by that.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#34)
Poolplaya9
Tellin' it like it is...
Poolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond reputePoolplaya9 has a reputation beyond repute
 
Poolplaya9's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,546
vCash: 800
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Join Date: Aug 2005
  Send a message via AIM to Poolplaya9  
08-30-2014, 01:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingArts View Post
Willie ran 34 consecutive fifteen ball racks without a scratch, without getting an unplayable shot, without a miss. That eight foot table made the first two things tougher, not easier.
Everybody I know including me that has played straight pool on an 8 ft and a 9 ft all agree that the 8 ft is overall much easier. John Schmidt says they are not even in the same universe and the 8 ft is shockingly easier. Add bucket pockets onto that and Mosconi had it as good as it gets by many miles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingArts View Post
I strongly suspect that had everything else been the same except that Willie was shooting on the table used in today's challenge, with today's balls, air conditioning, and all the other amenities, his record run would be much higher than it was on the eight footer.
Sir, please put the pipe down and step away from the pipe... Seriously though, you got a hold of some good stuff if you think Mosconi would run more than 526 on the ten foot table at the Derby challenge (or even a 9 ft Diamond for that matter).
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#35)
sjm
Stu with the Ko brothers
sjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond repute
 
sjm's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 16,078
vCash: 525
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: May 2003
Location: New York, NY
   
08-30-2014, 05:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bond View Post
Well, yes and no.
4.5" corner pockets had been in use since at least 1887 or so, from the time of the first professional continuous pool matches, and were still in use well into the 10s, 20s and 30s during Greenleaf's heyday and Mosconi's upbringing.

I do, however, believe that common bar tables, just like today, had lesser tight pockets than pro tournament tables, nonetheless, Brunswick made sure they were standardized for pro tourneys.




In the 1910s and 1920s:

" all games shall be played with 2-5/16 Empire compo-ivory balls, upon a 5x10 Brunswick-Balke-Collender company table, with 4-1/2 inch pocket openings at the corners and 4-3/4 inch pocket openings on the side. Same shall be furnished with 1845 match cushions and Brunswick special imported tournament cloth. "

It seems like if Mosconi or anyone else set a record during a major tourney pre 1949, there's a good chance it was on a 10ft table with 4.5" pockets.
I've played on a couple of the old tables used in tournament play in the ten foot era and they were not that tight.

Here's another thing worth considering. Balls per inning counts rose about 20% once they switched to 9 footers. That corresponded with the change from a race to 125, which was the norm on ten footers, to races to 150.

Comparing the DCC 14.1 challenge of 2013 to that of 2014, it took about 70 to qualify for single elimination in 2013, but this year it took, if memory serves, 108, and the sample size was huge and the players were the same, for the most part, both years. the guys ran almost 60% more on the smaller table with no change in pocket size. Thsi does not correspond to the perceived difficulty difference in my books.

Today's players can definitely break 526,and can also likely beat Cranfield's 768 in practice. Don't sell them short.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#36)
Masayoshi
Fusenshou no Masa
Masayoshi has a reputation beyond reputeMasayoshi has a reputation beyond reputeMasayoshi has a reputation beyond reputeMasayoshi has a reputation beyond reputeMasayoshi has a reputation beyond reputeMasayoshi has a reputation beyond reputeMasayoshi has a reputation beyond reputeMasayoshi has a reputation beyond reputeMasayoshi has a reputation beyond reputeMasayoshi has a reputation beyond reputeMasayoshi has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,658
vCash: 500
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Miyagi Prefecture, formerly CA
   
08-30-2014, 06:06 AM

Today's players may be able to beat Mosconi's record in practice trying multiple times over a long period, but put them in front of an audience, against an opponent in a proper match, with only one try a day, if that, and I doubt the record will be beaten any time soon.

Mosconi is also said to have runs over 600 in practice, but the only one that counts is the one done in an exhibition in an actual match.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#37)
elvicash
AzB Silver Member
elvicash has a reputation beyond reputeelvicash has a reputation beyond reputeelvicash has a reputation beyond reputeelvicash has a reputation beyond reputeelvicash has a reputation beyond reputeelvicash has a reputation beyond reputeelvicash has a reputation beyond reputeelvicash has a reputation beyond reputeelvicash has a reputation beyond reputeelvicash has a reputation beyond reputeelvicash has a reputation beyond repute
 
elvicash's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,433
vCash: 87
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
   
08-30-2014, 06:24 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingArts View Post
Willie ran 34 consecutive fifteen ball racks without a scratch, without getting an unplayable shot, without a miss. That eight foot table made the first two things tougher, not easier.

I strongly suspect that had everything else been the same except that Willie was shooting on the table used in today's challenge, with today's balls, air conditioning, and all the other amenities, his record run would be much higher than it was on the eight footer.

Hu
Hu he ran 37.5 racks of 14 balls. I do not know that he had even one rack of 15 balls. There is no real record of what actually occurred in the official 526 run. We do not know if he ever had to make a ball out of a full rack as you would when the 14th ands 15th ball both drop at the end of a rack. We do not know if he called a ball and missed it and it still went perhaps going across the table and then coming back and going into the correct hole, I doubt that happened but if had his run would have been able to be continued. We do not know if he had a perfect of run with mostly stop shots playing from ball to ball with a nudge here or there. I reckon in 37+ racks he had mostly great 14.1 racks the balls were probably opening well and not bunching up.

I personally do not think you are right about the difference in equipment making it easier. The table we use at the DCC 14.1 straight pool challenge have sub 4.5" corners with a fairly deep shelf. I was George Rood's HOF induction ceremony, he later owned the table in his pool room that was used by Mosconi in the 526 run and he said the pockets were very generous.That being said Mosconi still made the balls. Mosconi would have loved the modern equipment perhaps he would have ran a 1,000 on it who will ever know. Mosconi would have been a killer in any generation.


Hi Runs 14.1-52 (age+3) 9B-5 8B-3
Straight Lock / Five Cents / Kingfish / Fontaine

True Racks Available Now -- www.thetruerack.com
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#38)
naji
AzB Silver Member
naji has a reputation beyond reputenaji has a reputation beyond reputenaji has a reputation beyond reputenaji has a reputation beyond reputenaji has a reputation beyond reputenaji has a reputation beyond reputenaji has a reputation beyond reputenaji has a reputation beyond reputenaji has a reputation beyond reputenaji has a reputation beyond reputenaji has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,802
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: N. Virginia
   
08-30-2014, 06:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by alstl View Post
The best evidence of this is what happened when they put today's top players on a 10 foot table at the 2013 Derby City Challenge. Each player gets 16 chances for $100 dollars.

The "old timers" originally played the game on a 10 foot table. I'm not sure what Mosconi's high run on a 10 foot table was but Crane ran 300.

For the week, with the world's top players taking a run at it, only one player got to 100 balls on a 10 foot table and that was snooker player Stuart Pettman with a run of 117.

The world's best couldn't get to half of Crane's high run, in fact only one guy got to 1/3 of Crane's 300.

If you thought Mosconi's 526 on an 8 foot wasn't legitimate because the table was too small, get on a 10 foot and run 300.
IMO you are comparing apples and oranges, unless you can prove that the table Crane or Mosconi played on has same size pockets as today's pockets or cut style? big difference, many pool players weaknesses gets exposed when they are at snooker table due to pocket size and shap, not how big the table is.. in reality 14.1 , 95% of the times uses half of the pool table, any more then player is not playing the game right, or break too hard!
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#39)
leto1776
AzB Silver Member
leto1776 has a reputation beyond reputeleto1776 has a reputation beyond reputeleto1776 has a reputation beyond reputeleto1776 has a reputation beyond reputeleto1776 has a reputation beyond reputeleto1776 has a reputation beyond reputeleto1776 has a reputation beyond reputeleto1776 has a reputation beyond reputeleto1776 has a reputation beyond reputeleto1776 has a reputation beyond reputeleto1776 has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,502
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2013
   
08-30-2014, 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poolplaya9 View Post
There is nobody that is above a C level player that has ever played a game of straight pool and who has an IQ above 30 who could argue that a 526 on an 8 ft table with bucket pockets is as hard of a run as a 491 run made on a 9 ft table.

Anybody that can run a 491 on a 9 ft can certainly get a run of 36 more balls on smaller, easier equipment with bigger pockets. Tougher runs (the 491 being one example) than Mosconi's record have already been made. If they can make a tougher run then they can certainly make an easier run. That today's top players can break the record is not even intelligently debatable (again, they have already made tougher runs!). The only thing that can even be debated is how long it would take.

A weak argument could be made for a 309 on a generous 10 ft table being a better run than a 491 on a 9 ft table, but I think it's still pretty obvious that the 491 is a better run all things considered.
Wow, you love trying to belittle people just to prove your point.

Not sure why you're saying the 10ft Crane and Willie ran the 309s on was generous. Evidence on the previous page of this thread would show otherwise.


Chuck Stephenson
Joss fan

Those who can, do. Those who can't "teach," or claime to be "the teacher"
  
Reply With Quote
people always seem to disagree on how to count!
Old
  (#40)
ShootingArts
Smorg is giving the 7!
ShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond repute
 
ShootingArts's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,889
vCash: 2900
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South of the Border
   
people always seem to disagree on how to count! - 08-30-2014, 02:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by elvicash View Post
Hu he ran 37.5 racks of 14 balls. I do not know that he had even one rack of 15 balls. There is no real record of what actually occurred in the official 526 run. We do not know if he ever had to make a ball out of a full rack as you would when the 14th ands 15th ball both drop at the end of a rack. We do not know if he called a ball and missed it and it still went perhaps going across the table and then coming back and going into the correct hole, I doubt that happened but if had his run would have been able to be continued. We do not know if he had a perfect of run with mostly stop shots playing from ball to ball with a nudge here or there. I reckon in 37+ racks he had mostly great 14.1 racks the balls were probably opening well and not bunching up.

I personally do not think you are right about the difference in equipment making it easier. The table we use at the DCC 14.1 straight pool challenge have sub 4.5" corners with a fairly deep shelf. I was George Rood's HOF induction ceremony, he later owned the table in his pool room that was used by Mosconi in the 526 run and he said the pockets were very generous.That being said Mosconi still made the balls. Mosconi would have loved the modern equipment perhaps he would have ran a 1,000 on it who will ever know. Mosconi would have been a killer in any generation.



The fourteen plus one thing leads to confusion. If I count it as fourteen ball racks some people say I am counting wrong, if I count it as fifteen ball racks some people disagree. I won't quibble over 34 or 37 racks though, not that important.

As for those that want to talk about crack pipes or such, I strongly suspect that they have never played under the conditions Mosconi routinely played under. Tables varied widely, all other conditions varied widely. I have played on the old tables, eight footers, nine footers, ten footers, and super eight tables, and played on them without climate control. I have played with clay balls and the older plastic balls. I have played on the directional cloth, enough of a change in itself to cripple one of today's players until they adapted to it.

Unlike people who haven't played under similar conditions to Mosconi, I can compare the two. Today's players are hothouse players, the western Europeans and US players at least. That definitely includes me. It is a whole lot easier to make shots and play in general now. Different world.

Willie Mosconi had to almost daily adapt to widely varying conditions and perform regardless of conditions. Just playing very similar equipment all the time gives today's players an advantage playing on that equipment. The ten foot Diamond still has the same pocket angles, the same cushion rubber and profile, the same quality leveling system as the nine footers. Still has nice lighting and nice climate control. I have played on Diamond seven and nine footers. No real changes to make because the pockets, cloth, and cushions play the same. The ten footer may have tight pockets and the longer distance matters but they are essentially playing under the same conditions as playing the Diamonds they play all the time.

As I have said many times, bring yesterday's players to today, and they would very rapidly be playing in their same position in the pool hierarchy. Bring today's players to the past and most of them would regain the same position they hold today but it would take considerably longer.

There was a hell of a lot more to learn when I started playing pool. A typical set of balls had several balls in it that played substantially different, you had to know those balls. the directional cloth made a ball curve one way up table, another down, and affected cross side shots to a lesser degree. Knowing the effects of lighting was important, some of the gaff tables I played on were gaffy just because of the angle of the lighting. Some gaffy just in the morning or afternoon. Shots could go with a door open that didn't go for the best players of the day with the door closed.

A lot more variables could come into play even fifty years ago and the variables had more effect because they were larger. Anyone who hasn't played under those conditions hasn't a clue just how much different it was.

A final note to an already long post: Still a lot of straight pool fans among the pro's. I'm quite sure some have tried runs on eight footers just to try to prove that if they shot on an eight footer then they could break Willie's record. Notice that none seem to have came forward with big numbers after trying on an eight footer? Most straight pool players dislike playing on an eight footer because of congestion and won't even attempt playing on a seven footer for the same reason.

(elvicash, I quoted you but obviously the first paragraph is the only part that is a direct reply to you.)

Hu
  
Reply With Quote
good point!
Old
  (#41)
ShootingArts
Smorg is giving the 7!
ShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond repute
 
ShootingArts's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,889
vCash: 2900
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South of the Border
   
good point! - 08-30-2014, 03:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by naji View Post
IMO you are comparing apples and oranges, unless you can prove that the table Crane or Mosconi played on has same size pockets as today's pockets or cut style? big difference, many pool players weaknesses gets exposed when they are at snooker table due to pocket size and shap, not how big the table is.. in reality 14.1 , 95% of the times uses half of the pool table, any more then player is not playing the game right, or break too hard!


Naji,

Good point about playing a half table game as much as possible in 14.1. Bridge balls keep the shots shorter too. The main difference between the eight and ten foot tables is four feet or five feet, not eight or ten. On the other hand, rough numbers, you have half again the playing area on a ten footer compared to an eight footer. Since the same balls are used either table, you have slightly longer shots, far less congestion.

Hu
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#42)
JB Cases
www.jbcases.com
JB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond repute
 
JB Cases's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 28,050
vCash: 5700
iTrader: 130 / 100%
Blog Entries: 11
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Earth
  Send a message via AIM to JB Cases Send a message via MSN to JB Cases Send a message via Yahoo to JB Cases Send a message via Skype™ to JB Cases 
08-30-2014, 04:19 PM

anyone who thinks an 8ft with buckets isnt way way way easier needs to go spend a week in Dallas. c players look like a players on those tables. if the pocket cuts are generous a good straight pool player might not miss for week. the idea that its tougher because of a smaller area is nonsense because a top straightvpool player manages the balls he leaves very little to chance.


Design Your Own Case. <---click here
The world's first and only online cue case designer brought to you by JB Cases. Try it.


jb@jbcases.com Skype: jbideas

Center To Edge Aiming Works. See it for yourself here.

Stan Shuffet's You Tube Channel. - CTE Demonstrations


"No such thing as a 1/2 ball hit....." - Duckie
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#43)
JB Cases
www.jbcases.com
JB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond reputeJB Cases has a reputation beyond repute
 
JB Cases's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 28,050
vCash: 5700
iTrader: 130 / 100%
Blog Entries: 11
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Earth
  Send a message via AIM to JB Cases Send a message via MSN to JB Cases Send a message via Yahoo to JB Cases Send a message via Skype™ to JB Cases 
08-30-2014, 04:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingArts View Post
The fourteen plus one thing leads to confusion. If I count it as fourteen ball racks some people say I am counting wrong, if I count it as fifteen ball racks some people disagree. I won't quibble over 34 or 37 racks though, not that important.

As for those that want to talk about crack pipes or such, I strongly suspect that they have never played under the conditions Mosconi routinely played under. Tables varied widely, all other conditions varied widely. I have played on the old tables, eight footers, nine footers, ten footers, and super eight tables, and played on them without climate control. I have played with clay balls and the older plastic balls. I have played on the directional cloth, enough of a change in itself to cripple one of today's players until they adapted to it.

Unlike people who haven't played under similar conditions to Mosconi, I can compare the two. Today's players are hothouse players, the western Europeans and US players at least. That definitely includes me. It is a whole lot easier to make shots and play in general now. Different world.

Willie Mosconi had to almost daily adapt to widely varying conditions and perform regardless of conditions. Just playing very similar equipment all the time gives today's players an advantage playing on that equipment. The ten foot Diamond still has the same pocket angles, the same cushion rubber and profile, the same quality leveling system as the nine footers. Still has nice lighting and nice climate control. I have played on Diamond seven and nine footers. No real changes to make because the pockets, cloth, and cushions play the same. The ten footer may have tight pockets and the longer distance matters but they are essentially playing under the same conditions as playing the Diamonds they play all the time.

As I have said many times, bring yesterday's players to today, and they would very rapidly be playing in their same position in the pool hierarchy. Bring today's players to the past and most of them would regain the same position they hold today but it would take considerably longer.

There was a hell of a lot more to learn when I started playing pool. A typical set of balls had several balls in it that played substantially different, you had to know those balls. the directional cloth made a ball curve one way up table, another down, and affected cross side shots to a lesser degree. Knowing the effects of lighting was important, some of the gaff tables I played on were gaffy just because of the angle of the lighting. Some gaffy just in the morning or afternoon. Shots could go with a door open that didn't go for the best players of the day with the door closed.

A lot more variables could come into play even fifty years ago and the variables had more effect because they were larger. Anyone who hasn't played under those conditions hasn't a clue just how much different it was.

A final note to an already long post: Still a lot of straight pool fans among the pro's. I'm quite sure some have tried runs on eight footers just to try to prove that if they shot on an eight footer then they could break Willie's record. Notice that none seem to have came forward with big numbers after trying on an eight footer? Most straight pool players dislike playing on an eight footer because of congestion and won't even attempt playing on a seven footer for the same reason.

(elvicash, I quoted you but obviously the first paragraph is the only part that is a direct reply to you.)

Hu
mosconi almost certainly played most of his exhibition games on brunswick tables with brunswick cushions and the cloth he was familiar with. he spent most of his career on the exhibition circuit working for brunswick and going to rooms outfitted with brunswick tables.

he was also very particular and would likely not have played on crap equipment. as well the room owners would have made sure that the equipment was in the best shape because willie was a star back then and would have been treated as such.

any long run is impressive. but it dims when equipment variables are taken into account.

if this were basketball and I increased the hoop size by 20% and subsequently set a free throw or 3point record using that larger hoop there would be universal condemnation from basketball fans and players.


Design Your Own Case. <---click here
The world's first and only online cue case designer brought to you by JB Cases. Try it.


jb@jbcases.com Skype: jbideas

Center To Edge Aiming Works. See it for yourself here.

Stan Shuffet's You Tube Channel. - CTE Demonstrations


"No such thing as a 1/2 ball hit....." - Duckie
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#44)
ChicagoRJ
EEEEEXCELLENT ;)
ChicagoRJ has a reputation beyond reputeChicagoRJ has a reputation beyond reputeChicagoRJ has a reputation beyond reputeChicagoRJ has a reputation beyond reputeChicagoRJ has a reputation beyond reputeChicagoRJ has a reputation beyond reputeChicagoRJ has a reputation beyond reputeChicagoRJ has a reputation beyond reputeChicagoRJ has a reputation beyond reputeChicagoRJ has a reputation beyond reputeChicagoRJ has a reputation beyond repute
 
ChicagoRJ's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 36,968
vCash: 500
iTrader: 83 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 35 miles West of Chiraq
   
08-30-2014, 04:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Cases View Post
anyone who thinks an 8ft with buckets isnt way way way easier needs to go spend a week in Dallas. c players look like a players on those tables. if the pocket cuts are generous a good straight pool player might not miss for week. the idea that its tougher because of a smaller area is nonsense because a top straightvpool player manages the balls he leaves very little to chance.
Then put the money up, let's find a 8 foot gaffe table, and bring a case full of money.

The pockets are the least of someone's concerns for a big run. A poor break shot, bad position, miscue, focus, bad roll, bad luck, clusters, etc.,etc.etc. They all end runs early.

It's so easy, thus nobody can run 500 on that table... weird.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#45)
one stroke
AzB Silver Member
one stroke has a reputation beyond reputeone stroke has a reputation beyond reputeone stroke has a reputation beyond reputeone stroke has a reputation beyond reputeone stroke has a reputation beyond reputeone stroke has a reputation beyond reputeone stroke has a reputation beyond reputeone stroke has a reputation beyond reputeone stroke has a reputation beyond reputeone stroke has a reputation beyond reputeone stroke has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 6,247
vCash: 500
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chesapeake Beach
   
08-30-2014, 05:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjm View Post
I've played on a couple of the old tables used in tournament play in the ten foot era and they were not that tight.

Here's another thing worth considering. Balls per inning counts rose about 20% once they switched to 9 footers. That corresponded with the change from a race to 125, which was the norm on ten footers, to races to 150.

Comparing the DCC 14.1 challenge of 2013 to that of 2014, it took about 70 to qualify for single elimination in 2013, but this year it took, if memory serves, 108, and the sample size was huge and the players were the same, for the most part, both years. the guys ran almost 60% more on the smaller table with no change in pocket size. Thsi does not correspond to the perceived difficulty difference in my books.

Today's players can definitely break 526,and can also likely beat Cranfield's 768 in practice. Don't sell them short.
I keep hearing today's players can do it for 30 yrs yet it still hasn't been done ,,let's put them in a suit n tie ,,a old cue open up the pockets turn down the lights add smoke and turn off the A/C and have at it and see how it works out for them


1
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 3 of 5 123 45

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.