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

[ChrisinNC]

Lou,

I suspect that john is in the habit of ignoring minor fouls in practice and since by far the most of his 14.1 play is practice he ignored the foul, it might indeed not have registered at a conscious level.

Another long thread running right now is about calling your own fouls or not. How many people call it on themselves if they get a little too close on the final pause at the cue ball and touch it without moving it? Every time I have came off of a shot for that happening in friendly play or tournament play the other player has been much surprised.

I have the distinct impression that while they might call a more grievous foul on themselves, it never occurs to them to call just touching the cue ball although we all know that according to the rules touching the cue ball carries the same penalty as bumping other balls.

Did john ignore the touch deliberately or was it just business as usual?

Hu

When you are on a mission to break this coveted long held record to the extent that you are video taping all runs, it should go without saying that you should be playing all ball fouls - strict tournament 14.1 rules. I don't feel a referee is necessary, but if you commit any type of foul, you must call it on yourself and start over. If not, it will eventually be discovered and exposed by someone who carefully views the tape, as in this case.

 

[ShootingArts]

I agree

When you are on a mission to break this coveted long held record to the extent that you are video taping all runs, it should go without saying that you should be playing all ball fouls - strict tournament 14.1 rules. I don't feel a referee is necessary, but if you commit any type of foul, you must call it on yourself and start over. If not, it will eventually be exposed by someone who carefully views the tape, as in this case.

I agree since a foul makes any continuation of the run meaningless. No serious player is going to consider anything that happens after a foul to have any meaning in terms of a record.

Hu

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou,

I suspect that john is in the habit of ignoring minor fouls in practice and since by far the most of his 14.1 play is practice he ignored the foul, it might indeed not have registered at a conscious level.

Another long thread running right now is about calling your own fouls or not. How many people call it on themselves if they get a little too close on the final pause at the cue ball and touch it without moving it? Every time I have came off of a shot for that happening in friendly play or tournament play the other player has been much surprised.

I have the distinct impression that while they might call a more grievous foul on themselves, it never occurs to them to call just touching the cue ball although we all know that according to the rules touching the cue ball carries the same penalty as bumping other balls.

Did john ignore the touch deliberately or was it just business as usual?

Hu

Hu, I basically agree with you about his loosie goosie approach.

But if he’s going to the trouble of setting up a table and video taping and announcing a run at “the record” you’d think he’d want any claimed and posted run to be squeaky clean, no?

Lou Figueroa

 

[alstl]

I said it before and I'll say it again - slightly touching a ball or marking the cue ball with a piece of chalk when you pick it up to clean it instead of a snooker type marker can't disqualify the run compared to Mosconi's 526 because we don't know how many balls Mosconi touched or how he marked his cue ball. There is no video of Mosconi's run.

The ball he touched didn't change the rack.

 

[gxman]

Under the circumstances and table conditions, I will say Filler's 285 at DCC is more impressive than this 434.

Unless we have video of Filler fouling.

 

[jviss]

I said it before and I'll say it again - slightly touching a ball or marking the cue ball with a piece of chalk when you pick it up to clean it instead of a snooker type marker can't disqualify the run compared to Mosconi's 526 because we don't know how many balls Mosconi touched or how he marked his cue ball. There is no video of Mosconi's run.

The ball he touched didn't change the rack.

That's not logical, because according to what you are saying we can't be sure of anything Mosconi did, or didn't do; we can assume he moved the cue ball on every shot to his advantage, because there wasn't video.

Bogus! There were a large number of witnesses at Mosconi's run, and a lawyer who drafted an affidavit that people swore to. We can only, in good faith, assume he committed no fouls.

Perhaps we should recognize "mid-century" and "modern era" records; modern era being video-recorded runs. But to say that because there's no video record that Mosconi could have fouled, too, is not valid.

 

[wrldpro]

I said it before and I'll say it again - slightly touching a ball or marking the cue ball with a piece of chalk when you pick it up to clean it instead of a snooker type marker can't disqualify the run compared to Mosconi's 526 because we don't know how many balls Mosconi touched or how he marked his cue ball. There is no video of Mosconi's run.

The ball he touched didn't change the rack.

Did you ever think that they didn't have technology back then and the only cameras were from major news stations. If they did and Mosconi continued just 10% of his 150 and outs which he did everyday for years he would have numerous runs over 800 and maybe 1,000. Also nobody back then and almost nobody in todays world video records themselves playing pool as its not worth the headache to set up and take down equipment in poolhalls. Been there tried that myself a few times.
Also to note I agree with the many posts by many people that ALL BALL FOULS are a foul it doesn't matter if a moved ball affects a rack simply put it moved and a foul occurred end of run and end of story.

 

[3kushn]

Just replying to your post since it is the last post talking about possible issues with the color differences also being different in other ways. No intention of targeting you personally.

I am sure that they aren't identical however they do seem close enough to be undetectable. I may have accidentally skipped over some posts but I haven't seen any mention of fourteen other balls with three colors on the table and one with two colors besides the cue ball. If you machine one of these balls you discover that the numbers and other markings are different plastics, the markings go through the ball. If there are issues with the cue ball, what are the odds of all of these other more complicated pours being perfect?

Assuming a quality red dot cue ball I think the odds of taller or flatter material in the dots is very unlikely. My $30 measle ball seems to have a thick clear outer coat so that neither the red or white plastic touches the table. However, I have seen clones as cheap as two bucks and six dollars was pretty common last I knew. If a clone was being used I have to admit that all bets are off in my mind. chinese and third world companies make things as cheaply as possible. Of course their buyers, the resellers, often want the cheapest possible product. Hard to get quality when the original cost of the ball might have been fifty cents or so.

Hu

I've seen balls so worn that they do rock after they stop rolling. Good point about the other balls. But do we watch them as close as the CB. OB's hit toward a pocket move a lot faster. On a miss, are we really that intent on it as it settles in.

Don't claim to have the answer but main point is I've seen Aramith balls not want to sit still when you put them on one of the spots. These were pool hall balls. Very well worn. 2mm's under size.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Did you ever think that they didn't have technology back then and the only cameras were from major news stations. If they did and Mosconi continued just 10% of his 150 and outs which he did everyday for years he would have numerous runs over 800 and maybe 1,000. Also nobody back then and almost nobody in todays world video records themselves playing pool as its not worth the headache to set up and take down equipment in poolhalls. Been there tried that myself a few times.
Also to note I agree with the many posts by many people that ALL BALL FOULS are a foul it doesn't matter if a moved ball affects a rack simply put it moved and a foul occurred end of run and end of story.

Obviously all of us here will never agree on this. Since there is no video of Mosconi's run, we can only assume he played by strict tournament rules, but of course that is an unconfirmed assumption. I would think anyone making a serious run at breaking this record would abide by accepted 14.1 tournament rules as far as strict all ball fouls and careful/accurate marking of the cue ball with an accepted ball marking device. If they wish to mark and clean the cue ball regularly, I don't see a problem with that, or even with occasionally wiping down the object balls between racks. These are all just common sense practices, to avoid any controversy that could potentially result if the record is indeed broken by someone, which I'm starting to feel may be inevitable, within the next 5-10 years.

 

[Seth C.]

Hu, I basically agree with you about his loosie goosie approach.

But if he’s going to the trouble of setting up a table and video taping and announcing a run at “the record” you’d think he’d want any claimed and posted run to be squeaky clean, no?

Lou Figueroa

I agree - you’d think that he’d want any run to be squeaky clean. But aren’t you arguing against yourself? If he had wanted it to be squeaky clean, why would he have continued, had he consciously been aware of having touched the 7 ball.

As I said before, I think it is likely that he knew. Maybe it was awareness at a fully conscious level. Maybe it was subconscious awareness, founded on loose goodie manner. But there is a percentage possibility that he wasn’t aware, and all I’m saying is that before someone’s integrity is attacked, all the possibilities should be considered.

 

[alstl]

That's not logical, because according to what you are saying we can't be sure of anything Mosconi did, or didn't do; we can assume he moved the cue ball on every shot to his advantage, because there wasn't video.

Bogus! There were a large number of witnesses at Mosconi's run, and a lawyer who drafted an affidavit that people swore to. We can only, in good faith, assume he committed no fouls.

Perhaps we should recognize "mid-century" and "modern era" records; modern era being video-recorded runs. But to say that because there's no video record that Mosconi could have fouled, too, is not valid.

There is video of Mosconi saying the next time he tried it he ran 609. I don't doubt it but I wouldn't stipulate he never touched a ball or used chalk to mark the cue ball. Mosconi would have easily slightly touched a ball and nobody noticed. It took 15,000 views of Schmidt's video for someone to spot the touched ball.

 

[BeiberLvr]

I agree - you’d think that he’d want any run to be squeaky clean. But aren’t you arguing against yourself? If he had wanted it to be squeaky clean, why would he have continued, had he consciously been aware of having touched the 7 ball.

As I said before, I think it is likely that he knew. Maybe it was awareness at a fully conscious level. Maybe it was subconscious awareness, founded on loose goodie manner. But there is a percentage possibility that he wasn’t aware, and all I’m saying is that before someone’s integrity is attacked, all the possibilities should be considered.

Lou doesn’t care. Lou hates John because John plays better than Willie.

 

[skip100]

Lou doesn’t care. Lou hates John because John plays better than Willie.

If it wasn't this, people would come up with some other reason why the eventual record-breaking run is invalid. Cleaning the cue ball is no big deal in the one cue sport that actually gets money and viewers, but it has been turned into a grave misdeed in discussions here... dumb.

That said, a foul is a foul. We're seeing this in all sports - with more video comes more attention paid to small errors. Schmidt will need to be less fast and loose in future runs.

 

[lfigueroa]

I agree - you’d think that he’d want any run to be squeaky clean. But aren’t you arguing against yourself? If he had wanted it to be squeaky clean, why would he have continued, had he consciously been aware of having touched the 7 ball.

As I said before, I think it is likely that he knew. Maybe it was awareness at a fully conscious level. Maybe it was subconscious awareness, founded on loose goodie manner. But there is a percentage possibility that he wasn’t aware, and all I’m saying is that before someone’s integrity is attacked, all the possibilities should be considered.

I take your point but when I said “you’d think” I was suggesting that as a logical but not necessary implemented attitude.

Regardless, if it there was no awareness of the foul at the moment it happen the video certainly should have brought some of that about.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

If it wasn't this, people would come up with some other reason why the eventual record-breaking run is invalid. Cleaning the cue ball is no big deal in the one cue sport that actually gets money and viewers, but it has been turned into a grave misdeed in discussions here... dumb.

That said, a foul is a foul. We're seeing this in all sports - with more video comes more attention paid to small errors. Schmidt will need to be less fast and loose in future runs.

Well shoot then, maybe he should have just picked up that spinning, curving CB because it shouldn’t of happen in real life and whaddahey let’s not be too picky, lol.

Lou Figueroa

 

[skip100]

Well shoot then, maybe he should have just picked up that spinning, curving CB because it shouldn’t of happen in real life and whaddahey let’s not be too picky, lol.

Lou Figueroa

Being willfully obtuse doesn't seem like the best posting strategy but you be you, Lou!

 

[Texas Carom Club]

I said it before and I'll say it again - slightly touching a ball or marking the cue ball with a piece of chalk when you pick it up to clean it instead of a snooker type marker can't disqualify the run compared to Mosconi's 526 because we don't know how many balls Mosconi touched or how he marked his cue ball. There is no video of Mosconi's run.

The ball he touched didn't change the rack.

I agree with you

 

[ShootingArts]

some folks have interesting ideas of squeaky clean!

Hu, I basically agree with you about his loosie goosie approach.

But if he’s going to the trouble of setting up a table and video taping and announcing a run at “the record” you’d think he’d want any claimed and posted run to be squeaky clean, no?

Lou Figueroa

Lou,

Some people have interesting ideas of squeaky clean! In past years I recall a player bringing his own set of balls for the 14.1. He used his own set of pool balls and then let his buddies use them. Can't remember his name but my magic eight ball tells me the initials were JS.

Would a shooter who seeks out a very soft table, puts special cloth on that table and a heater under it; would such a shooter bend things other places?

Changing technology makes setting a record easier in many respects, video instead of witnesses for example. One thing a world record in any sport pretty much demands these days is a drug test if not before immediately after to indicate no PED's were used. That could increase the difficulty level quite a bit for some pool players I suspect!

Hu

 

[ChrisinNC]

I said it before and I'll say it again - slightly touching a ball or marking the cue ball with a piece of chalk when you pick it up to clean it instead of a snooker type marker can't disqualify the run compared to Mosconi's 526 because we don't know how many balls Mosconi touched or how he marked his cue ball. There is no video of Mosconi's run.

The ball he touched didn't change the rack.

In 14.1, a foul is a foul - it matters not whether it changes anything. You either have integrity and respect for the game and call it on yourself, or you don't.

 

[skogstokig]

cloth movement when bridging can cause a ball to wobble, as can body weight when stretching over the table. i would like to see an additional camera if he goes for another run for the record