100 ball run in Straight Pool on a Bar Table

xradarx

Willie Mosconi had no peers; Willie beats them all
Silver Member
14.1 perspective

The game has moved on along. No one struts around espousing, look at me, I beat ol' so-and-so at 14.1 Straight Pool Continuous anymore. It's now a question of how high do you run? People only want to practice 14.1, so they can pony up a favorite break-shot and see how high can they run. Competition, also produces players, not practice. Practice makes rote players of the game. Rack'em/Lay'em on the table, shoot'em in the hole, save one, rack'em, rote.
 
Last edited:

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
The game has moved on along. No one struts around espousing, look at me, I beat ol'e so-and-so at 14.1 Straight Pool Continuous anymore. It's now a question of how high do you run? People only want to practice 14.1, so they can pony up a favorite break-shot and see how high can they run. Competition, also produces players, not practice. Practice makes rote players of the game. Rack'em/Lay'em on the table, shoot'em in the hole, save one, rack'em, rote.

Agreed. The hard-to-fathom emphasis on the high run has been a significant step backward for straight pool, a game in which winning was the only thing that mattered for a hundred years.

Great respect is due to those that have set and achieved their high run goals, but greatness has, is, and always will be measured in titles. Comparing practice runs to runs made in competition is the same as comparing what happens on the pistol range to what happens in real combat. Though one can shine on the pistol range, medals and other accolades are won solely on the field of battle.

As they say in the military, it's an entirely different matter when someone is firing back.
 

xradarx

Willie Mosconi had no peers; Willie beats them all
Silver Member
14.1

Two older players used to play 14.1 straight pool. One would break the rack and move about two or three balls from the rack. The next player would then change the game and begin to play one pocket pool with those three balls and then after they had made two balls, they would use the third ball to break another couple of balls from the rack and proceed back to playing one pocket, same as before until they finished their session.
 
Last edited:

Tall-Bob

Registered
Easier on a bar table. Like other games, congestion on a 7-footer is the difficulty. Another is likelyhood of scratching on break shots. On the easier side of the ledger is easier/shorter shots, upper pockets used way more often, more break ball locations, combos/caroms easier.

On his recent trip to Denver, John Schmidt ran 226 on a Diamond 7ft on the first try.
 

xradarx

Willie Mosconi had no peers; Willie beats them all
Silver Member
226

If he spliced three of those video? What, u say?, no video....shucks
 
Last edited:

xradarx

Willie Mosconi had no peers; Willie beats them all
Silver Member
14.1 Table play size

roses are.... oops last poem cause ban!
 
Last edited:

Tin Man

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I just saw this thread. I cannot believe this is a real debate. Bar table is WAY easier.

I have run over 100 balls on a 9 foot a number of times, but never cleared 150.

I can run 100 balls on a bar table almost at will.

In fact, when Jesse Engel and I were at a bar table tournament we decided to warm up with scotch doubles straight pool. We put our cues together and ran 216 on our first inning. I made a secondary breakshot and scratched. No missed balls. We put our cues away and decided we were warmed up.

To be fair, Jesse and I have really good cue ball control. For me most runs end due to a miss, I don't lose my cue ball. Maybe if someone is a total gun slinger and doesn't play shape it might be different, but anyone capable of running 100+ should prefer bar table!
 

xradarx

Willie Mosconi had no peers; Willie beats them all
Silver Member
Decisions_Decisions?

It seems you're implying that you have figured out the reason. If so, could you enlighten the rest of us dummies. Thanx.

Please, provide some relief for yourself with an apology. There are no dummies playing 14.1 Straight Pool Continuous.
 
Last edited:

sparkle84

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Originally Posted by wrldpro View Post
No doubt a 7ft table would be the hardest size to run balls on for sure. ...


Originally Posted by Tin Man View Post
I just saw this thread. I cannot believe this is a real debate. Bar table is WAY easier...



:scratchhead:

Opinions vary. I'd just note that one's mostly a rotation player and the other is a very experienced 14.1 player.

As a side note, because I know xraderx is a huge JS fan, John's opinion is that 8' is easiest.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I said this many times before, but I'd empty out that any level of player would run more balls on a 7' than a 9', assuming both are set up the same. We have that now with Diamond brand.

Get a C, B, A, Open, or Pro to play 100 innings on a 7', and 100 innings on a 9'. Whether you measure by total balls run in all 100 innings, or top 5 highest runs, or highest single run, or whatever metric you come up with, it won't be close.

I'll bet high on this one.
 

xradarx

Willie Mosconi had no peers; Willie beats them all
Silver Member
Opinions vary. I'd just note that one's mostly a rotation player and the other is a very experienced 14.1 player.

As a side note, because I know xraderx is a huge JS fan, John's opinion is that 8' is easiest.[/QUOTE]

As a side note. Sorry for your delayed response.
I was beginning to consider that some cat had gotten, not only your tongue, but your keyboard, as well. You still make erratic decisions regarding others and their intent.
You may accuse me of being a fan of 14.1 Straight Pool Continuous.
There is not now a game called 14.1 hi-run.
There has never been a game called 14.1 hi-run.
It's a gimmick, same as js626.
There are no rules, regulations or stipulations for that statistic.
Same as arguing about table size complications.
No Mystery, just no viable answer.
Put two players on any table, rack'em up and start a real game.
Then come back and relate the complications.
 
Last edited:

sparkle84

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
.



As a side note. Sorry for your delayed response.
I was beginning to consider that some cat had gotten, not only your tongue, but your keyboard, as well. You still make erratic decisions regarding others and their intent.
You may accuse me of being a fan of 14.1 Straight Pool Continuous.
There is not now a game called 14.1 hi-run.
There has never been a game called 14.1 hi-run.
It's a gimmick, same as js626.
There are no rules, regulations or stipulations for that statistic.
Same as arguing about table size complications.
No Mystery, just no viable answer.
Put two players on any table, rack'em up and start a real game.
Then come back and relate the complications.

Delayed response to what? I was going to respond to post #29 but you edited out the majority of what you originally posted.
Why? Did you maybe realize that you'd contradicted yourself.
Right or wrong, like it or not; nobody asks someone who they've beat playing 14.1
as a way to determine their proficiency at the game.
They ask what their hi run is. It's that way now and it was that way 50 yrs, ago.
I don't know as people are "arguing" about table sizes here, they're giving their "opinions". If that doesn't have any value or interest you then why are you on this thread, other than as another opportunity to bash JS.
As a matter of fact (just guessing here) probably 95% + of your posts are devoted (directly or indirectly) to bashing John.
What's up with that? Do you even know the man? Did he kick your cat? Is Harriman your best friend or something?
Again, whether you like it or not, JS is the most proficient ball runner of this era.
Is he the best match player? Not in my opinion, but there's only a small handful of players equal or better.
 
Last edited:

xradarx

Willie Mosconi had no peers; Willie beats them all
Silver Member
As a side note, because I know xraderx is a huge JS fan.

Sorry sparky, but you’ve let your cat out of the bag. It would appear that YOU, in fact may be Schmidt’s most huge fan. Keep throwing accolades and misguided credits his way. He really needs them since he doesn’t care to represent himself. He and hairy man seem to be from the same narcissistic mold.
 

Poolmanis

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
.





Delayed response to what? I was going to respond to post #29 but you edited out the majority of what you originally posted.
Why? Did you maybe realize that you'd contradicted yourself.
Right or wrong, like it or not; nobody asks someone who they've beat playing 14.1
as a way to determine their proficiency at the game.
They ask what their hi run is. It's that way now and it was that way 50 yrs, ago.
I don't know as people are "arguing" about table sizes here, they're giving their "opinions". If that doesn't have any value or interest you then why are you on this thread, other than as another opportunity to bash JS.
As a matter of fact (just guessing here) probably 95% + of your posts are devoted (directly or indirectly) to bashing John.
What's up with that? Do you even know the man? Did he kick your cat? Is Harriman your best friend or something?
Again, whether you like it or not, JS is the most proficient ball runner of this era.
Is he the best match player? Not in my opinion, but there's only a small handful of players equal or better.

Best post of the year candidate!
 

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
.Right or wrong, like it or not; nobody asks someone who they've beat playing 14.1 as a way to determine their proficiency at the game. They ask what their hi run is. It's that way now and it was that way 50 yrs, ago.

This is not accurate. I was around the game 50 years ago and have attended over a dozen world 14.1 championships. I always bought the program, and the player blurbs nearly never mentioned high runs, but instead the players credentials in competition, correctly reflecting that attendees rarely ared what a player's high run was in practice.

Fifty years ago, and this was during the straight pool era, players high runs were barely known, except for Mosconi, Cranfield, Crane and Eufemia. It's also a myth that many of the top players fifty years ago placed much emphasis on producing a high run in practice, though they did care about the high run prize in competition. Agreed, however, that it's that way today for countless people, but it's to the game's detriment that straight pool is no longer about winning in the eyes of so many.

Straight pool is dying, and may die completely unless the emphasis returns to winning titles.
 

sparkle84

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Best post of the year candidate!

Well thanks my man. I didn't think the post was anything special. Just rather tired of this guy denigrating John over and over again. You don't believe the 626 is legit, fine, voice your opinion and move on.
Just for the record, I've played John in tournaments. Consider him more an acquaintance than a friend. Have seen and heard his interactions with both fans and other pro players numerous times and they've always been cordial.
He has history with Harriman so the animosity there is somewhat understandable but this Radar guy popped up out of nowhere and started beating him like a drum.
I haven't read every post on all these threads so maybe he stated a reason at some point but I don't know, seems like overkill to me.
 

sparkle84

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This is not accurate. I was around the game 50 years ago and have attended over a dozen world 14.1 championships. I always bought the program, and the player blurbs nearly never mentioned high runs, but instead the players credentials in competition, correctly reflecting that attendees rarely ared what a player's high run was in practice.

Fifty years ago, and this was during the straight pool era, players high runs were barely known, except for Mosconi, Cranfield, Crane and Eufemia. It's also a myth that many of the top players fifty years ago placed much emphasis on producing a high run in practice, though they did care about the high run prize in competition. Agreed, however, that it's that way today for countless people, but it's to the game's detriment that straight pool is no longer about winning in the eyes of so many.

Straight pool is dying, and may die completely unless the emphasis returns to winning titles.

You may be correct that back then the emphasis was more on winning but in the poolrooms I frequented the best players hi run was known, talked about, and primarily used to determine giving or getting weight when gambling.
If there was someone you didn't know looking for action it was common practice to ask around to try and find out how many balls the guy could run.
**Fargo didn't exist. Even the A,B,C,D method for gauging players strength didn't exist yet. Nor the internet.
So other than watching someone the only way to get a (somewhat) accurate idea of their skill was by hi run.
I'd also note that one of the main attractions and topics of conversation when attending many Mosconi exhibitions
was the opportunity to see a 100+ ball run.
Granted, it was nothing special to Willie but to the average player it was noteworthy and something to aspire to.

**Regarding Fargorate, while straight pool results is not one of its parameters it is a fairly accurate method for determining speed. As such, it could be used for matching up providing both players 14.1 experience (or inexperience)
was similar. However, a very experienced 14.1 guy could easily play and beat someone 100 pts. higher if they'd never played the game.
The saying "You don't know what you don't know" is much more applicable to 14.1 than rotation games.

I think I'm safe when saying that you Stu, like I, lament the decline of the game we grew up with.
Though I've thought a lot about it, possible ways of reversing the trend escape me.
 

xradarx

Willie Mosconi had no peers; Willie beats them all
Silver Member
Sparky, come back, Sparky, come bac...

Well thanks my man. I didn't think the post was anything special. Just rather tired of this guy denigrating John over and over again. You don't believe the 626 is legit, fine, voice your opinion and move on.
Just for the record, I've played John in tournaments. Consider him more an acquaintance than a friend. Have seen and heard his interactions with both fans and other pro players numerous times and they've always been cordial.
He has history with Harriman so the animosity there is somewhat understandable but this Radar guy popped up out of nowhere and started beating him like a drum.
I haven't read every post on all these threads so maybe he stated a reason at some point but I don't know, seems like overkill to me.

Just for the record, hah! not in this lifetime.
Schmidt/Harriman, not an iota of a difference. They deserve each other.

I didn't care for another knocker of the game either. You're still confused about the issue without all of the details. I, along with many others, have not denigrated John Schmidt, only the js626 and how it came into existence.

I have notified others that Radar is someone else's log-in on Azb, which has nothing to do with my Azb log-in.

I have an Azb log-in. Address me as xradarx, or leave me out of your texts and we will have no reason for contact from me.

I never popped up out of nowhere.
I have never beat John Schmidt's drum.
I didn't even know he had a drum.
Go read the rest of the story if you want to know more detail.
I don't care to continue repeating myself to a bunch of old wannabe straight pool, pool players.

BUT, I have sent many of you roadies home with broken cues and lighter wallets.
 
Last edited:
Top