Jackie Gleson high run
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
At least 101
buttnkdwonder
Registered
I know one thing--he could never run 100 on a modern day 9ft table. Those tables they played on back then had buckets for pockets!
99, maybe.
99, maybe.
From what i've read Gleason's hi-run is around 40-50 balls. https://forums.azbilliards.com/archive/index.php/t-75385.html
This story has no basis in reality.
Mosconi, who was the technical advisor for The Hustler, said that Gleason was at best a "30 or 40 ball runner", but he looked good enough at the table so Jackie didn't need much coaching.
The rumors of Gleason and other actors being "great" at pool are all over-hyped.
The only real celebrity hundred-ball runner that I know of was Leo Durocher.
Leo gained notoriety as manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers; he was suspended from managing for the entire 1947 season for “conduct detrimental to baseball.”
He admitted to hustling pool and cards.
He coined the phrase "Nice guys finish last."
The "modern tables are so tough" claim ought to be weighed against the fact that they used mud balls with nowhere near the bounce or the consistence of weight and roundness of modern balls, short, high deflection cues and shag carpet for cloth.
I believe a top tier player from the 30's or 40's would be a top tier player today. Ditto the 50's and 60's, 70's & 80's etc...
It would be interesting to put our current top straight pool players on one of those easy 8' tables along with the old cloth, balls and cues. They would all run 526 without a problem, right?
Last edited:
^^^^^^^^^^^^Good post joe. Many belittle the accomplishments of past generations by always saying the pockets were huge without adding the other parts of the formula that actually made it tougher. I always chuckle when I read those opinions … it's like any shortstop of today could probably beat Greenleaf or Mosconi.
The late Jerry Orbach of Law and Order was also a very fine straight pooler. I played against him briefly in 1992 and the guy was a very fine player, easily capable of a 100 ball run.
I have heard Gleason referred to as a "B" player, so the claim of 100 seems improbable.
buttnkdwonder
Registered
My intention was for that post to be read tongue-in-cheek. This argument has only been rehashed a thousand times on this forum.
I tend to agree with you except to say that I think in all sports and hobbies, individuals naturally improve and build off the experience of the past to improve their game. You see it in all sports--we have the benefit of looking to the past, as well as improvements and technological advances, that there's no reason pool players today wouldn't be generally stronger than players from 60 years ago. The issue with pool is that the player base has dwindled so much that there's a smaller talent pool to pull from, less people are exposed to the game at a young age, etc. These factors may have stymied the kind of skill growth we'd expect from a sport with an upwards trajectory. Maybe these factors balance out the evolutionary factors to the point where players from the past are equally skilled today--but pool would certainly be out of the norm in that regard.
Jerry Orbach was never a hundred ball runner.
I saw him play many times in McGirr's on 8th Avenue during the 1960's and 1970's.
Abe Rosen was the "house pro" during that era.
Peter Falk, John Cassavetes, Ben Gazzara, and Northern Calloway (Sesame Steet) all played pool at McGirr's.
Calloway was the best of that group.
But none of them could even come close to running 100 balls.
These "stories" about celebrity 100-ball runners have no basis in fact.
Yes all great points and I agree completely- some people who claim the older tables were easier should see how much of a stroke one needed to move the cue ball around the table on multiple rail position shots - back then you had to hit the cue ball with greater speed- which made pocketing the object ball a greater threat. The cloth, rails, balls, and cue used today all actually make the game easier IMO, once you are used to the equipment. Same with golf, tennis, bowling, etc.I remember plenty of "house tables" that had 41/2 inch pockets with slow cloth- try THAT one day and see what kind of stroke is required to play top flite pool.
The way I see it is either these players of yesteryear are over-rated or the importance of sound mechanics is; because, those guys seemed to be doing some wonky-ass stuff.
Was Greenleaf shooting pool or dancing the Charleston?
Willie Hoppe: Billiard player or chicken dancer?
Maybe I'm just ignorant and biased, but present-day Euro and Asian players chew them up and spit them out.
We all hear stories about 100 ball runners playing on every street corner "back in the day" and this is all hype. I define a "100 ball runner" in 14.1 as someone who can do that on a regular basis- meaning somewhere near once every 10-20 attempts. There never was in history of this game thousands of guys in a given 10 year period that could be labeled legit 100 ball runners. I would venture to estimate that in any given10 year period from 1930 to 1970 there were maybe, and I mean maybe 1000 guys in the U.S. who were legit 100 ball runners. That would be 20 guys in every state who fit in that category during a 10 year period Keep in mind that any legit 100 ball runner on a regular basis could have competed for the national 14.1 title and been competitive- so there is certainly a lot of hype in 100 ball runner legit numbers.
Mike, you are correct.
As the years go by, the stories of 100-ball runners begin to multiply.
Pool fans like to romanticize the past, which is fun, but not fact.
I have first hand knowledge of Jerry running in the sixties, so I speculated that he might have run 100. I'll take your word on this that he didn't.
^^^ this...…………………..
As for Jackie Gleason, his eyes betray him.
Those aren't the eyes of a hundred-ball runner.
Those aren't the eyes of a hundred-ball runner.
The interesting question isn't whether the best players of today play better than the best players played 60 years ago, it's how well the best players of 60 years ago would play today, given all the benefits today's players have.
I've always contended that great players would be great in any era.