117 ball run

Steve:

I'm really sorry about that. But when someone targets me like that -- out of the blue, when I was one of several who made the point he disagrees with -- I will protect myself.

Getting back on topic, although Stu's patterns were definitely NOT classic 14.1 patterns, he leveraged the patterns he does know -- that of snooker and "working the reds" (the pack) -- to get the desired result.

Love watching him play on Big Bertha!
-Sean
 
Is he a snooker player? I know I have never seen him in the U.S. not even an accustats video.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The highest run on a 5x10 in a world 14.1 championship was by Joe Procita. He ran 182 against Willie Mosconi. "On video" is irrelevant.

The highest on a 5x10 in scheduled exhibition was at least 309 (Crane and Mosconi) and may have been higher in that Mosconi had two other runs over 300 in exhibitions in 1953 or so but I don't see a record of the size of the table for either of those runs.
Click to expand...

What is the record on a 4.5x9?? and is there one on a 3.5x7?

I know the 4x8 is the 526 run.. THANKS for the info, if possible
 
nb92 said:
What is the record on a 4.5x9?? and is there one on a 3.5x7?

I know the 4x8 is the 526 run.. THANKS for the info, if possible
Click to expand...
It depends on what sort of run you are talking about. I'm pretty sure Cranfield's practice run of 768 was on a 4.5x9. If you are talking about exhibition runs, Eufemia claims 625 on a 4.5x9 but it is not officially recognized due to inadequate documentation. If you are talking about competition of any kind, I think there was a 200+ at one of the high run contests. In tournament competition, I think Procita still has the record for "4.5x9 or larger" and it was for the world championship.

It's surprising that Mosconi didn't have more than 150 in one of the many challenge matches he had that were for the title. Those were generally played to 1500 or so.
 
Bob Jewett said:
It depends on what sort of run you are talking about. I'm pretty sure Cranfield's practice run of 768 was on a 4.5x9. If you are talking about exhibition runs, Eufemia claims 625 on a 4.5x9 but it is not officially recognized due to inadequate documentation. If you are talking about competition of any kind, I think there was a 200+ at one of the high run contests. In tournament competition, I think Procita still has the record for "4.5x9 or larger" and it was for the world championship.

It's surprising that Mosconi didn't have more than 150 in one of the many challenge matches he had that were for the title. Those were generally played to 1500 or so.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for the reply (I think LOL)... I have always heard 526 was THE standard but it seems that is not the case.
 
I think that on video is relevant. Because a lot of folks make claims of high runs in an age when we do have video. So it's a bit like fish stories, everyone has one about the big one but very few have pictures with the scale and measuring tape to prove it.

Also, I would make a distinction between the golden age of snooker and the modern age. I don't know what the pocket sizes were back in Mosconi's day but I have read between 4.75 and 5.25" was the standard. If true that certainly is a lot different than the 4.25-4.5" pockets played on today.

Although I certainly would not be wanting to attach the title "world record" to any of my accomplishments, on video or not, without someone else to do the officiating.
 
im surprised

Bob Jewett said:
It depends on what sort of run you are talking about. I'm pretty sure Cranfield's practice run of 768 was on a 4.5x9. If you are talking about exhibition runs, Eufemia claims 625 on a 4.5x9 but it is not officially recognized due to inadequate documentation. If you are talking about competition of any kind, I think there was a 200+ at one of the high run contests. In tournament competition, I think Procita still has the record for "4.5x9 or larger" and it was for the world championship.

It's surprising that Mosconi didn't have more than 150 in one of the many challenge matches he had that were for the title. Those were generally played to 1500 or so.
Click to expand...
thats interesting bob. mosconi played several 1500 point games and didnt run over 150. did they start over every 150 points or something.
if guys like harriman,myself,or top euros played games that long i would think the 200 mark would b in danger.
heck ive run 169,171, in matches and just 100 point games. what gives
 
Bob Jewett said:
It's surprising that Mosconi didn't have more than 150 in one of the many challenge matches he had that were for the title. Those were generally played to 1500 or so.
Click to expand...


Bob: Weren't those challenge matches played in blocks of 125 or 150?

I was looking through Ursitti's records a little and I did not see any long matches that were not chopped into blocks. I did not look through all the years but I did scan through a few decades.

http://charlesursitti.com/?page_id=204

It was interesting to note, however, that in some of the matches the winner may have only had a high run in the 50s or even less.
 

Attachments

  • straightpoolblock.jpg
    straightpoolblock.jpg
    44.7 KB · Views: 149
Last edited:
john schmidt said:
thats interesting bob. mosconi played several 1500 point games and didnt run over 150. did they start over every 150 points or something.
if guys like harriman,myself,or top euros played games that long i would think the 200 mark would b in danger.
heck ive run 169,171, in matches and just 100 point games. what gives
Click to expand...
My understanding with block-based competition is that they would play until someone had 150, then run to the next break shot, mark the balls and come back the next session and restart. Since I never saw one of those competitions, I'm going by written accounts. On the other hand, back in that day the matches were played on 5x10s.

I think that if the score was 600-280 at the end of the fourth block, the fifth block would be played until a player had 750, which means it could be a long night if the guy who was trailing got hot.
 
Related to which, in the latest issue of Billiards Digest I have book review of Clive Everton's history of English Billiards. A century ago the championships there were played as matches over more than a week. The accounts often have remarks like, "Roberts ended the first Thursday session with 652 unfinished and continued to 893 before missing an easy red in the evening session."
 
dmgwalsh said:
Bob: Weren't those challenge matches played in blocks of 125 or 150?

I was looking through Ursitti's records a little and I did not see any long matches that were not chopped into blocks. I did not look through all the years but I did scan through a few decades.

http://charlesursitti.com/?page_id=204

It was interesting to note, however, that in some of the matches the winner may have only had a high run in the 50s or even less.
Click to expand...

Mosconi's nickname was "Wee Willie"?

You know if you think about it Mosconi is never referenced with a nickname. Arthur "Babe" Cranfield, Irving, "The Deacon" Crane, but Willie didn't seem to have a professional nickname. And I can see why he wouldn't have wanted to promote one like Wee Willie.
 
written account vs todays full-proof video

sfleinen said:
Steve:

I'm really sorry about that. But when someone targets me like that -- out of the blue, when I was one of several who made the point he disagrees with -- I will protect myself.

Getting back on topic, although Stu's patterns were definitely NOT classic 14.1 patterns, he leveraged the patterns he does know -- that of snooker and "working the reds" (the pack) -- to get the desired result.

Love watching him play on Big Bertha!
-Sean
Click to expand...
I did not think you could answer my question, is it because there is no value in being politically correct. I would rather take technologies word for a high run rather than a written account, I have learned that people and like minded individuals who are capable of forming a group will do anything in order to prove themselves that they are right or more intelligent. Blackjack and a few others have a computer that can weed out the people who have tried to cheat and re-spot a ball after missing while recording the run. The Diamond pockets are much more difficult than the shallow pockets hey used before my time, that having been said there is no reason why a player should not be allowed to claim a 99 ball run as the high run. This is relative to the discussion they were having about the "World Championships" and what is considered to be the World Championships. I am not trying to target anyone, Max is a friend of mine and a great player. If Jewett and others like you Sean enjoy living in the past then try out the musical artist - Jethro Tull (living in the past). Untill then as far as I know there is both a written account and a video that Stuart has the top run on the ten foot and Max is in second with the 99 ball run - this is on a Diamond table with pro spec pockets which is relative also to there claim that Max's 99 ball run is not legit.

We can not ask Procita, Willie, or others to try there hand at the Diamond tables just as we cannot ask Max myself or Stuart to travel back in time and compete. But I have heard from several reliable sources that the pockets were indeed more shallow than the Diamond tables of today with pro spec. pockets. This also in my view would support the idea that there is indeed a grey area that history buffs should at least take a gander at so they won't constantly feel the need to cling to their black and white ways of thinking, conditions change sometimes for the better/easier and sometimes for the worse/more difficult. Can you imagine if 100 years from now they changed and made the rim of the basket a half inch smaller - that would really have the basketball historians on tilt.
 
Last edited:
Folks:

In taking a proactive approach to put a stop to the pollution of this thread, I've had to put Danny on Ignore. It's a shame, too, because although a fantastic player in his own right -- and a player whose patterns and playing style I admire -- he's obviously got paranoia and fixation issues.

So, that ends that. I promise to no longer engage Danny's incessant fixative whinings, and his addition to my list ensures that.

Back on track with the original topic!
-Sean
 
Really ?

A 14.1 player suggests that high runs from the past are to be questioned without video to back it up? Maybe he just means from now on? Also the high runs from the past are less significant because of differences in equipment. Wow. Almost worthy of getting banned,LOL. Surely the pool gods have been angered. Any suggestions for a sacrifice??

Well you heard it here first folks. Pretty strange since 14.1 is no longer the standard game of pro pocket billiards.
 
Oh it's still the standard...you don't ever hear someone say " oh don't worry about him, he just plays straight pool"
 
Regarding the differences in equipment I'd like to submit the following test.

If two current players post up a runs of 150 points and one of them does his run on a table with super generous 5" pockets than the other one does his run on a table with 4.25" pro cut pockets don't you all think that there would be massive discussion about which run was harder?

I mean I can see a ton of ways that bigger pockets make it easier. Combinations and caroms come to mind, banks if any have to be played. Reverse cuts. The ability to cheat the pocket on break shots.

I think it's fair to compare equipment.
 
Harder and easier

JB Cases said:
Regarding the differences in equipment I'd like to submit the following test.

If two current players post up a runs of 150 points and one of them does his run on a table with super generous 5" pockets than the other one does his run on a table with 4.25" pro cut pockets don't you all think that there would be massive discussion...
Click to expand...
Your point OS accurate and I agree there would be chatter.I have followed some previous threads where most concur that the equipment comparison across generations results in a wash due to advances in balls and cloth.

TommyLee...Yes the standard, the standard that doesn't get played at major tournaments which makes it more difficult, IMO to compare accomplishments across the ages when the cream from each era are playing different games.


Recently a money match was played and the losers camp was talking about bad rolls and changing the cue ball for the rematch, yes there will always be discussions.
 
JB Cases said:
Regarding the differences in equipment I'd like to submit the following test.

If two current players post up a runs of 150 points and one of them does his run on a table with super generous 5" pockets than the other one does his run on a table with 4.25" pro cut pockets don't you all think that there would be massive discussion about which run was harder?

I mean I can see a ton of ways that bigger pockets make it easier. Combinations and caroms come to mind, banks if any have to be played. Reverse cuts. The ability to cheat the pocket on break shots.

I think it's fair to compare equipment.
Click to expand...

That is exactly my point, it is not my intention to belittle the players from the past in any manner. I have much respect for that era - after all 14.1 was more prevalent and now we like nascar and nine ball. If we were to compare track and field records from the past runners to the present runners of today - all weather rubberized surface (much easier) then that would be dis-honoring the great runners from the past. Just as i believe that the Diamond table is more difficult - maybe we should just say world record on the Diamond. It would not be too much of a stretch to say that the Diamond table is the choice of todays professional pool players, that having been said maybe they should not try to compare apples to oranges.For me the main difference in the deep shelf pocket of the Diamond and a shallow 5" pocket is the ability to cheat the pocket more - so that is a huge factor to consider. Congratulation to Max, Stuart and all the particapents in the Straight pool challenge. I hope that one day the critics/players of the game will focus their energy on being a student of the game and not worry so much about records from today or the past for that matter. The better you play the easier it is to forget about how many racks you have run and just get lost in playing Straight Pool.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top