100 ball run in Straight Pool on a Bar Table
- Thread starter Texas Carom Club
- Start date
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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:
Best post of the year candidate!
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.
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.
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.
Much easier on a seven footer than a nine footer. Last night, for the heck of it instead of practicing on a 9 or 10 footer as I often do, I chose to give a try on our diamond bar box. I racked them up with an ideal break shot and had a run of 45 in my first inning. I haven’t run 45 on our tight pocket bigger tables in a number of years despite hundreds of sessions, so the answer to this question is a no brainer for me.
I have no desire to accomplish it on a 7 footer, as a 100 ball run on a seven footer would mean little to me, as a player who has had a lifetime goal of running 100 on a big table, although it’s looking like that will never happen.
You want to call me Sparky but have a problem if I call you radar?
DH is the only other person to call me Sparky on here. You sure he's
not your next door neighbor?
I'd love to read the rest of the story but nothing came up when I searched
xradarx/rest of story.
Sorry if I misinterpret things but you make it difficult with all the additions
and subtractions on your posts, speaking in riddles, etc. Suspiciously
like Harriman, dare I say. Although I have to admit your spelling and
grammar is a bit better.
Well, nice talking to you Radar
Yup, looks like we're on the same page after all, and you're right that with almost no data available back in the day to size up players within a single poolroom scene, high run was often of great interest as a possible parameter to measure playing speed.
For the pros who competed at the top level, though, competitive record mattered far more. Mike Zuglan, surely one of the five best straight poolers of the 1990s, never ran 200, but everyone knew it was simply because high runs meant nothing to him. Everyone knew he was a stone cold killer in competition.
Like you, I don't see a clear path to reversing the trend, but in Europe, where there is a formal European Straight Pool Championship with a large field as part of the European Pool Championships, they've got the right idea. I also like what Peter Burrows is gradually building at the American 14.1 Event. We could do with a few more events like these.
From a skills standpoint, Zuglan probably had what it took to run 400. Some just didn't care what their high run was. Yes, Babe Cranfield and John Schmidt were both obsessed with it, but at the the other end of the spectrum was Jose Parica.
When I asked Jose Parica (in about 1997) what his high run was, he said 200, to which I replied "Exactly 200?" He said, "yes, the game was over." He'd run 200 and out in a gambling match and, even though it was his personal high run, his thoughts turned to the next game, not to seeing how high he could go.
That reminds me of a few other players. I think I read that Archer was the same as Parica. His high run is apparently 200 because he ran 200 and out once. And I think Mika's run is 'low' too because of a lack of interest in high runs. I could be wrong about both, it's been a long time since I read either of those things.
Yep, that's the way it was. When I 1st started playing Shorty my high run was only 93 I think.
I ran something in the high seventies and out on him and thought maybe I'd continue and possibly up my high run.
Two seconds later he had grabbed the balls and started racking them for another game. That stuff didn't fly with Larry.
Zuglan was a great player alright. Very classic and elegant game, beautiful to watch.
People today associate him with his Joss Tour having no idea 14.1 was his best game.
Yeah, that was Boston Shorty, whose company I always enjoyed. Like Parica, he was all business.
Did you know that Grady Matthews, prior to the onset of the 1992 US Open 14.1 event in NY, predicted that Mike Zuglan would win the event. As we know, Sigel put him Mike in the loser's bracket with a 150 and out game and Dallas West eliminated Mike in the loser's bracket final in two innings. Mike was in dead stroke, but sometimes even that's not enough!
Ah, those were the days.
Yeah, there are some similarities. As incredible as this will sound, I think Gorst shoots a hair straighter than Jose did at his best, but Jose's patterns were more classic. Guess I'm buying that when it comes to offensive play and running the table, they both make great decisions. However, Gorst's tactical decisions in defense, kicking and general strategy are not yet first rate and Parica was a master in all of these.
Yes, he was coached (and still is) by legendary instructor and Mosconi Cup coach Johan Ruijsink. Johan's other top student, Ruslan Chinakhov, is also known as one of the world's straightest shooters. Johan's students seem to have near perfect fundamentals. Skyler Woodward has also taken note that Johan helped him take his gamer to the next level.
Gorst was an early bloomer. At the 2015 Derby City Classic, as a fourteen year old, he came within a whisker of beating Alex Pagulayan in the nine ball event, falling 9-8 after playing near perfect pool. Of course, this year, at nineteen, Fedor was too young to participate!
Last edited: