And I take yours.
14.1 Stats -- John Schmidt's Run of 434 on Video, December 2018
- Thread starter AtLarge
- Start date
And I take yours.
For an exhibition, or an attempt at an exhibition record, I personally think "CB fouls only" and "clean the CB if it is full of chalk marks" are quite acceptable rules; although, this should be clearly stated at the beginning of the record attempt so people won't react so strongly when they see an "infraction."
I'm personally pulling for John, and I hope he breaks the exhibition record, and I think the record will be legitimate, even under these "relaxed" rules.
Regards,
Dave
I'm personally pulling for John, and I hope he breaks the exhibition record, and I think the record will be legitimate, even under these "relaxed" rules.
Regards,
Dave
I couldn't disagree more strongly. If you are going to change the rules for a 14.1 record, then it's not a 14.1 record anymore; it's a record according to some other set of rules. Maybe you want to come up with some kind of record called "14.1 run exhibition" that changes the rules regarding fouls, and so on; but it's not 14.1, "the game," anymore.
All ball fouls -- full WPA rules. Unlike the other DCC events, they are allowed to hit the cue ball only once when it is close to an object ball.
Willie's Run
The fact that over thirty people signed the affidavit that they saw Willie's run in it's entirety, including a referee, pretty much precludes any irregularities. This affidavit signed by many witnesses is the primary reason that Willie's run is recognized as the highest official run. He had many witnesses and a lawyer there that recognized the value of getting proof of the run on paper.
Hu
https://www.flickr.com/photos/48600084074@N01/56580342/in/photostream/
The fact that over thirty people signed the affidavit that they saw Willie's run in it's entirety, including a referee, pretty much precludes any irregularities. This affidavit signed by many witnesses is the primary reason that Willie's run is recognized as the highest official run. He had many witnesses and a lawyer there that recognized the value of getting proof of the run on paper.
Hu
https://www.flickr.com/photos/48600084074@N01/56580342/in/photostream/
All good points. It might be considered the highest official run however Babe Cranfield ran a 768 which is 242 more balls and Mosconi himself has broke 600. In case anyone missed this audio here is the link talking about the 526 run and a run of 589 run by Mosconi witnessed by many including Charlie Ursitti and Pete Margo. So what would make official runs?
Certainly Mosconi played on different tables everyday and certainly didn't set up a loosey goosey table to make anything easier to run higher runs and he quit at 150 everytime almost every time anyways.
Just imagine if every pro that has ever ran 200 balls had a loosey goosey table for a couple weeks I believe 600-700 would happen very quickly but certainly could not be considered any record by BCA or Guiness book of records.
https://www.facebook.com/mr3cushion...f_t=video_processed¬if_id=1542760693483993
All fouls should count in my opinion.
Having watched some videos of Willie over the years, I have seen him foul a few times and not stop shooting, don't know if anything like that happened during the 526, but he sure seemed nonchalant about it.
An example here at 14:22
Willie Fouling
Having watched some videos of Willie over the years, I have seen him foul a few times and not stop shooting, don't know if anything like that happened during the 526, but he sure seemed nonchalant about it.
An example here at 14:22
Willie Fouling
Did it occur to you that Willie and Fats might have agreed to a CB fouls only format?
They are *two old guys* way past their prime and Willie committed a belly foul. If I recall correctly, later on just a couple of years before his death from complications from Alzheimers, there's video of Willie putting a hand on an OB for support of his bridge hand.
Lou Figueroa
every moment or video
The claim was that every one of the witnesses on that affidavit saw every moment of the run. I am a bit dubious that every one of those people were there every second, didn't hit the bathroom or step out of the room for anything but that is what the claim is. That is where the other high runs break down, not single witnesses to every moment on a sworn statement although I believe some of the runs higher than 526 were witnessed in their entirety, just not by a single person or persons willing to give a sworn statement.
For someone to be recognized as breaking that record they are going to need a room full of witnesses too, or video. They are also going to have to conform to a recognized set of rules.
There have been some pretty substantial incentives offered up over the years to break Willie's record. I don't think it would fall as easily as you believe. I have set a few records in other activities and also had some victories that meant a lot to me. Came within three balls of a perfect on a snooker table when I fired a five ball straight into a side pocket from the center spot it normally sits on and had it pop out of the pocket.
The pressure is immense when you get in striking distance of something like Willie's record. 434 is nowhere close, five hundred is still miles away the pressure is getting huge by now though, five-twenty is getting close enough that the blood will be pounding in someone's ears and they will feel their hearts tight in their chests. If they manage to pocket that magic 527th ball the letdown afterwards will probably mean they don't run another rack.
I don't really think we will see Willie's record broken. On the other hand, if it is broken I wouldn't be surprised to see the record fall a half-dozen times in the first two years afterwards. Records are funny things.
Hu
The claim was that every one of the witnesses on that affidavit saw every moment of the run. I am a bit dubious that every one of those people were there every second, didn't hit the bathroom or step out of the room for anything but that is what the claim is. That is where the other high runs break down, not single witnesses to every moment on a sworn statement although I believe some of the runs higher than 526 were witnessed in their entirety, just not by a single person or persons willing to give a sworn statement.
For someone to be recognized as breaking that record they are going to need a room full of witnesses too, or video. They are also going to have to conform to a recognized set of rules.
There have been some pretty substantial incentives offered up over the years to break Willie's record. I don't think it would fall as easily as you believe. I have set a few records in other activities and also had some victories that meant a lot to me. Came within three balls of a perfect on a snooker table when I fired a five ball straight into a side pocket from the center spot it normally sits on and had it pop out of the pocket.
The pressure is immense when you get in striking distance of something like Willie's record. 434 is nowhere close, five hundred is still miles away the pressure is getting huge by now though, five-twenty is getting close enough that the blood will be pounding in someone's ears and they will feel their hearts tight in their chests. If they manage to pocket that magic 527th ball the letdown afterwards will probably mean they don't run another rack.
I don't really think we will see Willie's record broken. On the other hand, if it is broken I wouldn't be surprised to see the record fall a half-dozen times in the first two years afterwards. Records are funny things.
Hu
I share this “couldn’t disagree more strongly” point of view. The increase in stress level, and the greater potential for misses in difficult bridging circumstances - when having to ensure that every shot is without a foul - are very real factors. John Schmidt himself has talked openly about how shooting quickly and with flow is key to long runs (at least for him). It seems pretty evident that if John had to slow down and focus hard on avoiding fouling, he would have less success.
Well, no, ignoring fouls makes no sense to me, maybe for a little child that doesn't know how to play.
I believe I have seen a few videos that it happened, and some from a younger period, maybe I am wrong.
Certainly him and fats could be playing that way.
I'v heard some hillbilly rules like if the cueball is against the rail, move it out the width of the butt.
Although, in all my years of playing I have never played or heard of only fouls on the cueball counting and you get to ignore the other fouls. That's crazy to me, maybe that was common with the older guys?
Again, I never even heard of getting to ignore fouls until this thread, although you guys are all casually talking about, so it must be somewhat common.
CB fouls only was pretty common, and it may still be in some areas. Typically, if you move an object ball by mistake when playing CB fouls only, it's okay, as long as it doesn't interfere with the path of another ball.
In Willie's case (assuming they were playing CB fouls only), moving the 4 is not a foul, but he should have at least made an effort to get it close to where it was originally.
Was that an official rule at one time? So bizarre to me this is/was a thing.
If Willie moved the cueball away from the rail a butt width, would anyone have thought anything about it?
I would like to retract this statement after giving it some more thought. Yes, 14.1 is typically played with all ball fouls. However, as mentioned by a few others, the slight movement of the 7 had zero affect on the outcome of the rack.
It's not as if he "accidentally" moved a ball into a better break ball location.
I have never played 14.1 where touching any ball wasn't a foul.
I've never heard of playing 14.1 with cue ball fouls only.
If it is up to me, I'd play all ball fouls on every game.
I've never heard of playing 14.1 with cue ball fouls only.
If it is up to me, I'd play all ball fouls on every game.
Does it, though?
What if 100 people watched the exhibition, 70 refused to sign due to objections, and 30 signed it? LOL
I have serious doubts that Mosconi was somehow magically superior to all current players who happen to be doing it now with the cameras rolling.
It's amazing how many fuzzy "UFO" photos were captured by dumb luck by the few, rare photographers who happened to be carrying their cameras way back in the day... Compared to there being close to zero photos captured now, despite the entire population carrying cell phones 24/7 with 8 megapixel cameras.
(I guess the aliens were waiting until the iPhone came out and then started exploring other planets)
You might need to read up on who Mosconi was.
Also, "cue ball fouls only" was common, I thought. Maybe it is just an east coast thing? If you bump or brush a ball by mistake you have to tell your opponent. You have to ask him whether he wants the moved ball to be left where it is or if it should be returned as close as possible to the original point. Moving the ball without doing this, or ignoring that you moved the ball and continuing to shoot, are then fouls.
You ever play professional 9 ball, cue ball fouls only.
Look up Texas Express Rules, or attend the US Open 9 ball. WPA rules state CB fouls only as well.
I play in a league with all ball fouls, with no referee, which must be called by the players. IMHO it leads to disputes, especially when a foul is called because someones shirt touches a ball.
I also play in a straight pool league where it is only CB fouls. I agree to have all ball fouls unless there is a referee observing the match.
p.s. we talking about straight pool or all other pool games?
Look up Texas Express Rules, or attend the US Open 9 ball. WPA rules state CB fouls only as well.
I play in a league with all ball fouls, with no referee, which must be called by the players. IMHO it leads to disputes, especially when a foul is called because someones shirt touches a ball.
I also play in a straight pool league where it is only CB fouls. I agree to have all ball fouls unless there is a referee observing the match.
p.s. we talking about straight pool or all other pool games?
Last edited: