14.1 Stats -- John Schmidt's Run of 434 on Video, December 2018

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
In November and December, 2018, John Schmidt spent a few weeks on 14.1 high-run attempts, with all the attempts being videoed. The highest he achieved was 434. Since this is apparently the highest run on any video, I felt some documentation and stats on the run might be appropriate.

The video can be seen here:

■ Date of run -- December 3, 2018

■ Location -- Easy Street Billiards, Monterey, CA.

■ Equipment (If anyone has different or additional information on this, please let me know)
- A drop-pocket Rebco 9-foot table with corner-pocket mouths of approximately 5"​
- Simonis 760 cloth (green), with a heater under the table at least part of the time​
- Super Aramith Pro balls with a measles cue ball​
- Wooden triangle rack (with a designated racker)​
- Predator P3 Red cue with a 12.4mm REVO shaft (per poster of the video)​

Note -- It appeared to me that the balls were racked for this run at the opposite end of the table from what is normally the foot of that table. When I refer below to head or foot, it means in the table orientation used for the run. References to "left" and "right" sides of the table are as the player looks from the head of the table to the foot.

Start of run -- With his choice of starting shots, John placed the OB to the left of the rack and the CB about a diamond above it.

End of run -- On the break shot for the 32nd rack, John made the OB to the left of the rack, but the CB scratched in the left head pocket. It did this by making a strange massé-like turn as it neared the pocket. John reported later that the turn was caused or helped by a small piece of chalk on the table.

Number of balls pocketed in each pocket
Foot pockets​
- Left -- 141 (32.5%)​
- Right -- 185 (42.6%)​
- Total -- 326 (75.1%)​
Side pockets​
- Left -- 30 (6.9%)​
- Right -- 34 (7.8%)​
- Total -- 64 (14.7%)​
Head pockets​
- Left -- 22 (5.1%)​
- Right -- 22 (5.1%)​
- Total -- 44 (10.1%)​

• The most balls pocketed in the foot pockets in one rack was 13 (twice); the fewest was 7 (once).​
• The most balls pocketed in the side pockets in one rack was 4 (twice); the fewest was 0 (twice).​
• The most balls pocketed in the head pockets in one rack was 5 (twice); the fewest was 0 (7 times).​
• The average number of balls per rack (for the 31 completed racks) pocketed in the foot, side, and head pockets was, respectively, 10.5, 2.1, and 1.4.​

Break shots -- For the initial break shot in each rack, the OB was to the left of the rack area 15 times (including the final fouled break), to the right 15 times, and behind the rack twice. All 32 break shots were into foot pockets. For all but two of the break shots, the CB went directly into the rack of balls from the OB; for the other two break shots, it hit the side rail before going into the pack. One of the break shots was with cue ball in hand behind the head string, as John had left it in the rack area intentionally.

Number of shots -- The 434 balls were made on 425 shots. Two balls were made on a break shot 7 times and 2 balls were made on each of 2 other shots.

Combos, caroms, banks -- 11 balls were made on combination shots, 1 ball was made on a combination into a carom, and no balls were made on bank shots.

Bridges, extensions, alternate hand -- John played a few shots (3?, thanks, wigglybridge) with a cue extension and two shots left handed. I don't remember any shots with a bridge (let me know if you see any).

Pace of play -- From striking the first break shot to pocketing the 434th ball (i.e., excluding racking for Rack 32 and the final failed break shot), the elapsed time was about 2 hours 5½ minutes. This is just over 4 minutes per rack, or 3½ balls per minute or 17.3 sec. per ball. The first 14 racks averaged 3.0 minutes per rack; the last 17 racks averaged 4.9 minutes per rack. The elapsed time included racking and one timeout of about 2¼ minutes in Rack 31.
 
Last edited:

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... The first 14 racks averaged 3.0 minutes per rack; the last 17 racks averaged 4.9 minutes per rack. The elapsed time included racking and one timeout of about 2¼ minutes in Rack 31.
I watched some of his later attempts. John commented that he free-wheels the first 200 or so of a run and then gets serious.:eek: That's to save on mental energy.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I watched some of his later attempts. John commented that he free-wheels the first 200 or so of a run and then gets serious.:eek: That's to save on mental energy.

He also had some difficult racks in the second half requiring some extended thought. Two of them took about 7 minutes each -- real turtle time. :grin:
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
He also had some difficult racks in the second half requiring some extended thought. Two of them took about 7 minutes each -- real turtle time. :grin:
At the other end of the spectrum.... I saw Frank McGown take eight minutes on one shot at 14.1.
 

u12armresl

One Pocket back cutter
Silver Member
Love his runs, not a fan of picking up the cue ball.

Not sure if Willie did or not.
 

mikemosconi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thanks for the video. My only comment on this, besides giving John his due as the best current U.S. 14.1 player; is that the table has ridiculously large pockets with a very shallow shelf on those pockets. His very first shot of the run misses by a quarter diamond and bounces into the pocket! And also, Look at his shot in the first rack with 5 balls left on the table- he misses the 10 ball on a slow roll by a mile and it still dribbles into the pocket! Also the side pocket openings- that half moon shadow if you will) are VERY visible from the video view, demonstrating the lack of angle into those pockets and larger size of the opening as it protrudes well beyond the side pocket points, even on camera! I do appreciate John's 14.1 abilities, but, come on, what's next in this attempt at 527 in 2019- six inch pockets and smaller pool balls??? I just am not buying this- it has become a circus event; in my own opinion.
 
Last edited:

Icon of Sin

I can't fold, I need gold. I re-up and reload...
Silver Member
Love his runs, not a fan of picking up the cue ball.

Not sure if Willie did or not.

For cleaning or because he left it in the rack? I was curious about the latter.

Saw one of the racks he completed, the break ball was just outside the rack and the cueball ended up in it. He left the break ball and took ball in hand behind the headstring for his next break. I'm not sure of the nuances in in 14.1 and he was already in the 200s at the time and did it without thinking anything of it so I just thought that was what you are supposed to do.
 

Icon of Sin

I can't fold, I need gold. I re-up and reload...
Silver Member
Thanks for the video. My only comment on this, besides saying it is a great run for sure and giving John his due, is that the table has ridiculously large pockets with a very shallow shelf on those pockets. His very first shot of the run misses by a quarter diamond and bounces into the pocket! Also the side pocket openings- that half moon shadow if you will) are VERY visible from the video view, demonstrating the lack of angle into those pockets and size of the opening as it protrudes well beyond the side pocket points, even on camera! I do appreciate John's 14.1 abilities, but, come on, what's next in this attempt at 527in2019- six inch pockets and smaller pool balls??? I just am not buying this- it has become a circus event in my own opinion only.
Ok I'll be the guy.

Mosoni's run was on a big pocket 8 footer. At least this one was a 9 footer. Even with the size of the pockets, I was still impressed.

I will say though, he played a thin cue on a 1 ball that was almost frozen to the rail, it came out close to a damn inch and the pocket still accepted it.
 
Last edited:

ideologist

I don't never exaggerate
Gold Member
Silver Member
Thanks for the video. My only comment on this, besides saying it is a great run for sure and giving John his due, is that the table has ridiculously large pockets with a very shallow shelf on those pockets. His very first shot of the run misses by a quarter diamond and bounces into the pocket! Also the side pocket openings- that half moon shadow if you will) are VERY visible from the video view, demonstrating the lack of angle into those pockets and size of the opening as it protrudes well beyond the side pocket points, even on camera! I do appreciate John's 14.1 abilities, but, come on, what's next in this attempt at 527in2019- six inch pockets and smaller pool balls??? I just am not buying this- it has become a circus event in my own opinion only.

Brunswick was having Willie tour and perform exhibitions to sell their equipment. Do you think their interest was in having a tough table to showcase professional specs, or was it to have balls rain in effortlessly?

If someone runs 527 on a 5" table, there's no way it can be taken away from them because of pockets. Brunswick did not have Willie exhibit 4.25" corners
 

jviss

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Standard Table

What I have quickly learned as I have recently entered this fascinating world is that there is no such thing as a standard table. I'm an engineer and intimately familiar with specifications and standards, testing and test methods, and formal concepts of quality. It's a bit disappointing, but it makes perfect sense, since the availability and popularoty of tables are driven by economics, not science.

That said, I discount exhibition-based records like this for the very reason that people attempting them are free to shop venues, tables, and conditions that are favorable. I am much more interested in records set during official, sanctioned competitions, since the venue and equipment is at least subject to scrutiny, if not argued about. And, there is the element of competition, and the attendant anxiety, that is a significant factor in one's performance. In many sports no one cares about so-called records set during practice or exhibitions, such as in the shooting sports. (There are a very few exceptions, but they are more spectacles: http://www.nylonrifles.com/wp/2013/02/the-most-famous-nylon-66/).

I wonder, now, if there will be controversy about the tables used in Olympic competition. I imagine there will be. Will they come up with and Olympic specification for tables, or will they simply defer to a table sponsor supplying tables? Wil it conform to what's used in regular competition worldwide (and what is that, anyway?), or will it be "designed" for the Olympics, and perhaps made tougher?

I am still impressed, however. Anyone running that many balls on any table has achieved something.
 

StraightPoolIU

Brent
Silver Member
For cleaning or because he left it in the rack? I was curious about the latter.

Saw one of the racks he completed, the break ball was just outside the rack and the cueball ended up in it. He left the break ball and took ball in hand behind the headstring for his next break. I'm not sure of the nuances in in 14.1 and he was already in the 200s at the time and did it without thinking anything of it so I just thought that was what you are supposed to do.

There is a chart in the 14.1 rules that explains what you are supposed to do in all of those special racking situations. I'm sure someone will post it or post a link to it. That is the correct procedure if the cue ball is left in the rack. Sometimes it can be a strategy to play it that way on purpose depending on the circumstances.
 

Icon of Sin

I can't fold, I need gold. I re-up and reload...
Silver Member
There is a chart in the 14.1 rules that explains what you are supposed to do in all of those special racking situations. I'm sure someone will post it or post a link to it. That is the correct procedure if the cue ball is left in the rack. Sometimes it can be a strategy to play it that way on purpose depending on the circumstances.

Thanks a ton for the clarification. :thumbup:
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Interesting to note that the first 200 balls of the run were done in an average of 3 minutes per rack and the last 234 balls averaged about 5 minutes per rack - nearly twice as long per ball/rack. I assume this was likely due to John's feeling more pressure as the run continued, as well as some possible physical / mental exhaustion during the 2nd hour as opposed to the 1st hour. Such a shame that this run ended on a successful break shot in which the cue ball unexpectedly scratched off the pack - the exact same way my personal high run ended.

Interesting that only 2 of the 31 break shots were in to the back on the pack and none of the 31 break shots involved making a ball in the side pockets. For myself, when there is not a good side-of-the-pack break ball present, I tend to look for both of these options. I plan to but haven't yet watched the 2+ hour video yet, but I assume John often had to bump a ball in to ideal side-of-the-pack break position a number of times in the process of running out a rack. I'm going to try to attempt to learn from that as opposed to settling for a back-of-the-pack break ball or a side pocket break ball - both of which it is very hard to control where the cue ball will end up.
 

gxman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It was a very impressive run. In the other thread I mentioned that there were balls in the first two racks that would've not drop on my Diamond with 4.5" pockets. I later deleted that post bc I didn't want to be such an antagonist.
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Love his runs, not a fan of picking up the cue ball.

Not sure if Willie did or not.
It's not realistic to expect a player to not properly and accurately mark and clean the chalk marks off the cue ball every rack or two during a 34 rack / 434 run, to decrease the chances of an unexpected skid/cling causing a miss. The logical point this normally would be done is at the end of a rack, before the break shot.
 
Last edited:

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Your inability to evaluate john and willie the same way has been noted before.
Thanks for the video. My only comment on this, besides giving John his due as the best current U.S. 14.1 player; is that the table has ridiculously large pockets with a very shallow shelf on those pockets. His very first shot of the run misses by a quarter diamond and bounces into the pocket! And also, Look at his shot in the first rack with 5 balls left on the table- he misses the 10 ball on a slow roll by a mile and it still dribbles into the pocket! Also the side pocket openings- that half moon shadow if you will) are VERY visible from the video view, demonstrating the lack of angle into those pockets and larger size of the opening as it protrudes well beyond the side pocket points, even on camera! I do appreciate John's 14.1 abilities, but, come on, what's next in this attempt at 527 in 2019- six inch pockets and smaller pool balls??? I just am not buying this- it has become a circus event; in my own opinion.
 

Andrew Manning

Aspiring know-it-all
Silver Member
We have a problem with pocket size exaggeration in this game (all pool, not just straight pool). Every table with pockets that are even a little bit tighter than average is reported at 4 1/4", 4 1/8" etc. When in fact 4 3/4" is tighter than your average gold crown. A table that's legitimately 4 1/4" will be reported in the 3's.

5" is probably the same pocket size as the tables at your local pool hall, people. Gold Crowns tend to run about that size. Let's all stop pretending that makes this easy.
 

wigglybridge

14.1 straight pool!
Silver Member
"John played one shot with a cue extension and two shots left handed."

AtLarge, i don't want to minimize your stats in any way, it is a great and appreciated effort, but i have watched up to just over the 300 mark, and John has used his screw-in extension on 3 shots already.
 

Seth C.

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
We have a problem with pocket size exaggeration in this game (all pool, not just straight pool). Every table with pockets that are even a little bit tighter than average is reported at 4 1/4", 4 1/8" etc. When in fact 4 3/4" is tighter than your average gold crown. A table that's legitimately 4 1/4" will be reported in the 3's.

5" is probably the same pocket size as the tables at your local pool hall, people. Gold Crowns tend to run about that size. Let's all stop pretending that makes this easy.

Agree 100%.
 

Seth C.

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If you haven't seen how the run ended, be sure to watch. The table does not appear to be level in the area around one of the head pockets. The cue ball noticeably curves into the hole, ending the run on a scratch. John can't believe it, and I can see why.
 
Top