Didn't they call Crane "Mr. 14"? Mosconi said Crane would have won more had he taken more chances. I must have read that on AZ somewhere. Seems like a more conservative player would have easier shots and not necessarily because their cue ball control was so great. (Although of course his control was great, too).
Frustration is setting in on my attempts to run 100 on a 7-foot table. Stringing 7+ racks in such tight quarters is proving far more difficult than I expected. For me, it seems it’s going to take a run of good luck and/or avoiding any bad luck rolls to reach my goal. I’ve had 4 runs in the mid 50s in the last month, but can’t seem to make it in to the 5th rack.
I'm still convinced that the extra real estate on the 9ft is more of a convenience then detriment. I'm willing to bet you're new found use of the racking template will reap major benefits on the full sized table.
I know the shotmaking is going to be tougher on the big table, but I’m hoping the more exacting positioning required on the small table will pay off on the 9-foot table.
You have to be awfully patient to play that old style 14.1. When I have a chance to blow open the rack, I generally do it, although it often doesn’t pay off and I have no control over where the CB ends up. It just seems like worrying about the angles to set up numerous softer pace breakout shots every rack is beyond my abilities.
It blows my mind guys ran 100s, sometimes multiples thereof, playing the game that way.
Agreed.... Honeslty a completely different and imo a much more difficult game using that methodology
Yes, but they have complete control of the cue ball on every single shot. They seemed to have no concern about creating the correct angles to continue breaking out a few balls at a time.
Not in an effort to pat myself on the back, but I have fairly decent CB control. Brushing a few balls out of the rack at a time just begs for mis-steps and bad rolls. For me, it just seemed counterintuitive to play that ticky tacky game when I have zero concerns about my nonexistent opponent.
When talking about this subject everybody seems to think that it was drastically different back then. They didn't just chip away every single rack.
Interesting thanks for this - I’m not from that era and don’t really have that kind of insight. I’ll have to check those out. I had in mind Cranes 150 & out against Balsis. I’ll watch that run and think to myself “I could never do that.” Whereas Sigels 150, or Rempes 100 ball run demo he did for Accu Stats seems within the realm of possibility.
I'm horribly uneducated in the game, and only know what I have read here. Which generally frowns upon the agressive game as "untraditional", so maybe in this case 2+2 doesn't actually make 4......
When does it ever?
Wait a second, you can't do that. Need to throw a little complication in there to keep it interesting.
I'm really not sure but I think they were still using clay balls when that match happened. That's probably the biggest difference.
Thank you sir - any insight and observations are appreciated. Other than the number, I’m most proud of not caving in to the pressure, especially on the 100th ball.
per John Schmidt about 12 years ago:
Money well spent. Enjoy the commentary.
