14.1 World Records on video

[gerryf]

One of the remarkable things from the 14.1 High Run attempts was the high quality play from the "Straight Pool" players who outperformed the "Rotation" players and i guess that's really not surprising. Looking forward to Hohmann etc., giving this a try.

Any one of these five players could run 1000 balls if they devoted enough time to it. Jayson had twice as many attempts as SVB, and SVB had almost twice as many attempts as Schmidt.

Here's a newly-created set of world records from the video 14.1 high-run attempts to date::

Highest number of balls sunk in one inning: Jayson Shaw with 714.

Most consecutive 200 ball runs: Ruslan Chinakhov with 2
Most consecutive 150 ball runs: John Schmidt and Jayson Shaw tied at 4.
Most consecutive 100 ball runs: John Schmidt and Jayson Shaw tied at 5.
Most consecutive 50 ball runs: Jayson Shaw with 7. (Schmidt and SVB tied with 6)

Highest running-average BPI over 10 innings: John Schmidt with 161. (Shaw with 131, Chinakhov with 127, SVB with 123)
Highest daily BPI: John Schmidt with 142.8 on his third day. Chinakhov 127, Shaw's best was 92, and SVB's was 81)
Highest average BPI for a multi-day event. John Schmidt with 88 over four days. (Shaw 74 over 5 days, SVB 63 over 5 days)

Most attempts in one day: Jayson Shaw 54+

Highest daily ball potting success rate: John Schmidt with a 99.3% success rate on 1870 balls attempted in 13 attempts.
Most balls potted in one day: Jayson Shaw with 3924+ balls potted in 54+ attempts.

Highest proportion of centuries in one day: John Schmidt 62% . (Chinakhov 50%, Shaw 33%, and SVB 27%)
Highest proportion of 200 ball runs in one day: Ruslan Chinakhov 30% (Schmidt 23% Shaw 18%, and SVB 13%)
Highest proportion of 300 ball runs in one day. Schmidt with 8%, SVB with 7%, and Shaw with 6%
Highest proportion of 400 ball runs in one day. Shaw with 4%.

 

[straightline]

The continuity requirement of straight pool is definitely the stymie for single rackers. The hit or miss quality that prevails, not too crazy about that...

 

[AtLarge]

Cool stuff, gerryf!

Are you still using software scans of some sort to count the runs? If so, do you still have any problems identifying real short runs? I remember asking if you could give us an explanation of how this software scan works, and you thought you could do a demo video.

 

[SmoothStroke]

One of the remarkable things from the 14.1 High Run attempts was the high quality play from the "Straight Pool" players who outperformed the "Rotation" players and i guess that's really not surprising. Looking forward to Hohmann etc., giving this a try.

Any one of these five players could run 1000 balls if they devoted enough time to it. Jayson had twice as many attempts as SVB, and SVB had almost twice as many attempts as Schmidt.

Here's a newly-created set of world records from the video 14.1 high-run attempts to date::

Highest number of balls sunk in one inning: Jayson Shaw with 714.

Most consecutive 200 ball runs: Ruslan Chinakhov with 2
Most consecutive 150 ball runs: John Schmidt and Jayson Shaw tied at 4.
Most consecutive 100 ball runs: John Schmidt and Jayson Shaw tied at 5.
Most consecutive 50 ball runs: Jayson Shaw with 7. (Schmidt and SVB tied with 6)

Highest running-average BPI over 10 innings: John Schmidt with 161. (Shaw with 131, Chinakhov with 127, SVB with 123)
Highest daily BPI: John Schmidt with 142.8 on his third day. Chinakhov 127, Shaw's best was 92, and SVB's was 81)
Highest average BPI for a multi-day event. John Schmidt with 88 over four days. (Shaw 74 over 5 days, SVB 63 over 5 days)

Most attempts in one day: Jayson Shaw 54+

Highest daily ball potting success rate: John Schmidt with a 99.3% success rate on 1870 balls attempted in 13 attempts.
Most balls potted in one day: Jayson Shaw with 3924+ balls potted in 54+ attempts.

Highest proportion of centuries in one day: John Schmidt 62% . (Chinakhov 50%, Shaw 33%, and SVB 27%)
Highest proportion of 200 ball runs in one day: Ruslan Chinakhov 30% (Schmidt 23% Shaw 18%, and SVB 13%)
Highest proportion of 300 ball runs in one day. Schmidt with 8%, SVB with 7%, and Shaw with 6%
Highest proportion of 400 ball runs in one day. Shaw with 4%.

I think this is remarkable,,,a rotation player owning the Straight Pool World Record.
Mr. rotation player outperforming Mr. straight pool player.
Even more remarkable is a rotation players ability to remain mentally strong.
Isn't their attention span only good for 9 balls, 10 balls at best?

Straight pool players are supposed to run a 1000, they've been playing the game forever, their head is there.
Jayson should have 100 x the attempts as Schmidt or any top 14.1 player. He doesn't know the game and it was obvious during his early attempts. The pool world was watching, the comments were negative to say the least.
" WHAT THE HECK IS HE DOING ? HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO PLAY STRAIGHT POOL" HE CAN'T RUN 200.

Jayson learned a lot in 5 days. What he accomplished in 5 days is far more impressive to me if Schmidt ran 10,000.
He was moving and bumping balls around like he owned them, more accurate then any 14.1 player today.
If Jayson had a lifetime of experience as the great 14.1 players he would run 2000. His level of talent is that high.

You can put together all the stats and numbers you want. To say Straight Pool players outperformed Rotation Players is like saying Tom Brady threw more touchdowns than my 12 year old nephew.

Any high level straight pool player with a clear head has to be thinking to themselves. Here comes a rotation player with the amount of straight pool knowledge you can fit it on the head of a pin and owns the record. A Reality Check.
Thorsten is the best Straight Pool Player and has been for a long time.
I'm not cheering for a rotation player. I play all games, I prefer Straight Pool and 3 Cushion, rotation gets boring.

 

[gerryf]

I think this is remarkable,,,a rotation player owning the Straight Pool World Record.
Mr. rotation player outperforming Mr. straight pool player.
Even more remarkable is a rotation players ability to remain mentally strong.
Isn't their attention span only good for 9 balls, 10 balls at best?

Straight pool players are supposed to run a 1000, they've been playing the game forever, their head is there.
Jayson should have 100 x the attempts as Schmidt or any top 14.1 player. He doesn't know the game and it was obvious during his early attempts. The pool world was watching, the comments were negative to say the least.
" WHAT THE HECK IS HE DOING ? HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO PLAY STRAIGHT POOL" HE CAN'T RUN 200.

Jayson learned lot in 5 days. What he accomplished in 5 days is far more impressive to me if Schmidt ran 10,000.
He was moving and bumping balls around like he owned them, more accurate then any 14.1 player today.
If Jayson had a lifetime of experience as the great 14.1 players he would run 2000. His level of talent is that high.

You can put together all the stats and numbers you want. To say Straight Pool players outperformed Rotation Players is like saying Tom Brady threw more touchdowns than my 12 year old nephew.

Any high level straight pool player with a clear head has to be thinking to themselves. Here comes a rotation player with the amount of straight pool knowledge you can fit it on the head of a pin and owns the record. A Reality Check.
Thorsten is the best Straight Pool Player and has been for a long time.
I'm not cheering for a rotation player. I play all games, I prefer Straight Pool and 3 Cushion, rotation gets boring.

Yes, I agree that it is remarkable that Shaw ran the most balls. He's a great player and a straight shooter. Shaw is one of the top players in the world, and John Schmidt isn't in the top 100. You'd expect Shaw to do well, but it's the technique that interests me most. What will be interesting to see is if Filler, Gorst, Chinakhov, Corteza, Biado, etc., can be persuaded to try. So far, the 714 hasn't generated any interest by the top players.

Highest run is a good record but it doesn't reflect the same skills. Shaw had a 714 and a 407, but nothing in between, and that tells you something. On Shaw's first day, his 'median' run was 57. On the last day after he ran 714, his median run was 31.

Shaw was erratic. He had a record of nine consecutive innings with a run of less than 15. He had six consecutive runs of less than 6. Shaw had ten runs of zero. Schmidt had none.

Mosconi was proud of his record for 'highest average BPI'. It's a much better indicator.

I had hoped there might be some indicators of the different styles, and I'm still talking with players who have some ideas to look at. For example, the runs most commonly end on the break shot, and the first shot after. On the break shot, SVB had the most difficulty and Earl had the least (by far), followed by Schmidt. For the shot after the break, Shaw had the most problems, and Schmidt had the least. The person most likely to end his run on balls 2 to 14 was Earl followed by Schmidt. The person least likely to end his run on balls 2 to 14: SVB.

 

[gerryf]

Cool stuff, gerryf!

Are you still using software scans of some sort to count the runs? If so, do you still have any problems identifying real short runs? I remember asking if you could give us an explanation of how this software scan works, and you thought you could do a demo video.

Yeah i didn't get around to setting up a demo. But I still use software scans, and have gotten around the problem with short runs. Scanning a video is straightforward for the basics, but it's the last 10% or so that gets messy, so i had to develop some tweaky procedures to get around it.

I'll put a demo video back on my list!

My original interest had been to see how a player like SVB or Shaw would develop their skill. Would they continually improve, or peak out? I had a database of all the shots, and computed a shot-difficulty measure based on an idea developed by Bob Jewett. Is it true that straight pool players have easier shots than rotation players? Yeah, looks like it. I also had a database of the last six shots of each rack thinking that the pattern sequence might show something of the different approaches by a rotation/straight player, but haven't pursued that but did notice that Earl had some innovative ideas!!

 

[alstl]

One of the remarkable things from the 14.1 High Run attempts was the high quality play from the "Straight Pool" players who outperformed the "Rotation" players and i guess that's really not surprising. Looking forward to Hohmann etc., giving this a try.

Any one of these five players could run 1000 balls if they devoted enough time to it. Jayson had twice as many attempts as SVB, and SVB had almost twice as many attempts as Schmidt.

Here's a newly-created set of world records from the video 14.1 high-run attempts to date::

Highest number of balls sunk in one inning: Jayson Shaw with 714.

Most consecutive 200 ball runs: Ruslan Chinakhov with 2
Most consecutive 150 ball runs: John Schmidt and Jayson Shaw tied at 4.
Most consecutive 100 ball runs: John Schmidt and Jayson Shaw tied at 5.
Most consecutive 50 ball runs: Jayson Shaw with 7. (Schmidt and SVB tied with 6)

Highest running-average BPI over 10 innings: John Schmidt with 161. (Shaw with 131, Chinakhov with 127, SVB with 123)
Highest daily BPI: John Schmidt with 142.8 on his third day. Chinakhov 127, Shaw's best was 92, and SVB's was 81)
Highest average BPI for a multi-day event. John Schmidt with 88 over four days. (Shaw 74 over 5 days, SVB 63 over 5 days)

Most attempts in one day: Jayson Shaw 54+

Highest daily ball potting success rate: John Schmidt with a 99.3% success rate on 1870 balls attempted in 13 attempts.
Most balls potted in one day: Jayson Shaw with 3924+ balls potted in 54+ attempts.

Highest proportion of centuries in one day: John Schmidt 62% . (Chinakhov 50%, Shaw 33%, and SVB 27%)
Highest proportion of 200 ball runs in one day: Ruslan Chinakhov 30% (Schmidt 23% Shaw 18%, and SVB 13%)
Highest proportion of 300 ball runs in one day. Schmidt with 8%, SVB with 7%, and Shaw with 6%
Highest proportion of 400 ball runs in one day. Shaw with 4%.

You left out what I consider the most impressive. Appleton's 200 and out vs Bustamante in competition and Crane's 150 vs Balsis for the world title.

 

[JB Cases]

Yes, I agree that it is remarkable that Shaw ran the most balls. He's a great player and a straight shooter. Shaw is one of the top players in the world, and John Schmidt isn't in the top 100. You'd expect Shaw to do well, but it's the technique that interests me most. What will be interesting to see is if Filler, Gorst, Chinakhov, Corteza, Biado, etc., can be persuaded to try. So far, the 714 hasn't generated any interest by the top players.

Highest run is a good record but it doesn't reflect the same skills. Shaw had a 714 and a 407, but nothing in between, and that tells you something. On Shaw's first day, his 'median' run was 57. On the last day after he ran 714, his median run was 31.

Shaw was erratic. He had a record of nine consecutive innings with a run of less than 15. He had six consecutive runs of less than 6. Shaw had ten runs of zero. Schmidt had none.

Mosconi was proud of his record for 'highest average BPI'. It's a much better indicator.

I had hoped there might be some indicators of the different styles, and I'm still talking with players who have some ideas to look at. For example, the runs most commonly end on the break shot, and the first shot after. On the break shot, SVB had the most difficulty and Earl had the least (by far), followed by Schmidt. For the shot after the break, Shaw had the most problems, and Schmidt had the least. The person most likely to end his run on balls 2 to 14 was Earl followed by Schmidt. The person least likely to end his run on balls 2 to 14: SVB.

This is so awesome.

 

[measureman]

You left out what I consider the most impressive. Appleton's 200 and out vs Bustamante in competition and Crane's 150 vs Balsis for the world title.

Big deference between a "fun" run and a competition run and that's not to take anything away from the huge runs we have seen lately.

 

[sparkle84]

This comparison is flawed due to the fact that JS was playing on a more difficult table than the rest of them.

 

[alstl]

Big deference between a "fun" run and a competition run and that's not to take anything away from the huge runs we have seen lately.

OP referenced video. 200 and out in competition.

 

[telinoz]

Great Stat thread.

 

[wrldpro]

Yes, I agree that it is remarkable that Shaw ran the most balls. He's a great player and a straight shooter. Shaw is one of the top players in the world, and John Schmidt isn't in the top 100. You'd expect Shaw to do well, but it's the technique that interests me most. What will be interesting to see is if Filler, Gorst, Chinakhov, Corteza, Biado, etc., can be persuaded to try. So far, the 714 hasn't generated any interest by the top players.

Highest run is a good record but it doesn't reflect the same skills. Shaw had a 714 and a 407, but nothing in between, and that tells you something. On Shaw's first day, his 'median' run was 57. On the last day after he ran 714, his median run was 31.

Shaw was erratic. He had a record of nine consecutive innings with a run of less than 15. He had six consecutive runs of less than 6. Shaw had ten runs of zero. Schmidt had none.

Mosconi was proud of his record for 'highest average BPI'. It's a much better indicator.

I had hoped there might be some indicators of the different styles, and I'm still talking with players who have some ideas to look at. For example, the runs most commonly end on the break shot, and the first shot after. On the break shot, SVB had the most difficulty and Earl had the least (by far), followed by Schmidt. For the shot after the break, Shaw had the most problems, and Schmidt had the least. The person most likely to end his run on balls 2 to 14 was Earl followed by Schmidt. The person least likely to end his run on balls 2 to 14: SVB.

Your stats are off but that's ok. There are more players participating soon and Jayson will be going at his World Record again in just a few days. Make the stats on this clip to see how many time the balls were racked the same and then look at rack 22 where John clearly high racks to make room to see the break shot on the bottom rail. Just curious what do you have to say about this Gerry?
https://forums.azbilliards.com/attachments/racks-2-gif.642979/

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Crane's 150 vs Balsis for the world title.

A small nit.... The Crane-Balsis match was the finals of the 1st BCA US Open 14.1 Championship in 1966. That event was a double elimination tournament, so there was "a finals".

At about the same time (mid 1960s) the BRPAA (New York) was running the World Championship and it was done as a round robin but there were also challenge matches where the runner-up could challenge the champion to a long match. Balsis had won one of each in 1965. Also, Fred Whalen had a World Championship in Burbank in 1966 that Balsis won with Mosconi finishing second.

 

[gerryf]

Your stats are off but that's ok. There are more players participating soon and Jayson will be going at his World Record again in just a few days. Make the stats on this clip to see how many time the balls were racked the same and then look at rack 22 where John clearly high racks to make room to see the break shot on the bottom rail. Just curious what do you have to say about this Gerry?
https://forums.azbilliards.com/attachments/racks-2-gif.642979/

I think what you refer to as rack 22 is what I would refer to as rack 24. 23 racks = 322, and the next rack is rack 24. The screen counter is showing 'racks completed', and the current rack number is one number higher.

Rack 24 does look high to me.

Schmidt didn't rack the balls, the racker did. Whether the racker moved the rack up on purpose or not, he didn't seem to sight from OB to CB to evaluate the space, he just racked. From the video it's hard to measure how much space there was for the cue ball to get by the rack, and whether the CB could get by the full rack properly or not.

If the high rack gave Schmidt a shot when the normal rack wouldn't, my preference would be to end the run at 23 racks (322 balls), but the venue hosting the event let the run go on until it ended on the next rack at 346.

Statistically, using 322 instead of 346 changes Schmidt's average BPI for that day from 142.8 to 141.0.


The side camera used by Leather Pocket does give a view of the racking process that you don't get from a foot rail camera, so it makes it better for confirming if the rack is high or low, but not if it's tilted to one side or the other. The foot rail camera gives you a good view of tilting the rack but not racking high or low. There are some optical techniques you could use to confirm the rack location and orientation in real time, but I doubt that anyone is interested in the time or expense to do that.

I know some people like the side view since you can watch the actual racking process, and some also feel that you get a better view of the shooter's stroke for many of the shots.

I prefer the foot rail view and feel it gives a better view of the position.

What's the normal recourse for an error (or foul) by the racker? If Butera says "Hey, Greenleaf's rack was crooked!!", what do they do? I have no idea? Leather Pocket also had a couple of instances of the racker moving the last ball, and they just put it back.

What's the recourse for an error or foul by the shooter? Legend's didn't end Jayson's 714 run when he fouled at 45, and there have been comments before that Earl, SVB, and Jayson all had 'touching ball' fouls at one time or another.

There will always be these issues with amateur events. The lack of formal table specs, the lack of referees, the lack of formal rules and procedures that apply to all venues. When Shaw showed that SVB was hacking the 10-ball rack, they didn't penalize SVB, so this happens in professional tournaments as well.


For the scoring side, Leather Pocket did a good job. The Legends group didn't. Legends made scoring errors every day, and some of those errors were so large and random that it looked as if the cat was playing with the controller. I think the biggest jump error was 8 racks in the middle of a run. That darn cat!


Where are the stats in error? As far as I can tell, my numbers agree with the ones from Leather Pocket. For the Legend's runs, there were numerous times where my numbers differed from the announced Legend's figures, and if you check those threads you can see where I posted many of the obvious scoring errors that Legend's made, but as far as I can tell, Legends didn't acknowledge the errors or correct their numbers, and were still using incorrect numbers days later. Legends also didn't count all the runs, and posted that they were only interested in the highest runs so the lower runs didn't matter. As well, Legends didn't post video of all the runs, so my numbers only refer to the runs accessible on video. (I did include the 714 even though that video isn't posted either.)

I can see that the Legend's stats might not agree with mine, but I think my numbers are more accurate. I'm happy to recalculate if there are any discrepancies.

Edit: I see Legends said that Shaw made 123 attempts before setting the record?? Their statistician must have missed a day or two. Shaw made far more attempts than that.

 

[wrldpro]

Schmidt didn't rack the balls, the racker did. Whether the racker moved the rack up on purpose or not, he didn't seem to sight from OB to CB to evaluate the space, he just racked. From the video it's hard to measure how much space there was for the cue ball to get by the rack, and whether the CB could get by the full rack properly or not. complete bullshit

If the high rack gave Schmidt a shot when the normal rack wouldn't, my preference would be to end the run at 23 racks (322 balls), but the venue hosting the event let the run go on until it ended on the next rack at 346.

Statistically, using 322 instead of 346 changes Schmidt's average BPI for that day from 142.8 to 141.0.
Its not about what the run would have been its the 100% fact that John cheated with the racker


What's the normal recourse for an error (or foul) by the racker? The error was cheating and it was from the racker directed by John Schmidt

What's the recourse for an error or foul by the shooter? Legend's didn't end Jayson's 714 run when he fouled at 45, and there have been comments before that Earl, SVB, and Jayson all had 'touching ball' fouls at one time or another. Complete bullshit. No one knew there was a foul and it still cant be proved exactly what happened.

(I did include the 714 even though that video isn't posted either.) The video is available.

It seems you didnt understand exactly the moves John and his team took and cheated and in no way can it be spun any other way. Look at the video and I think even you can see it and post your opinion of what happened. If you dont consider it cheating like 99% of the other people have than you are just as guilty for approving it and making excuses for it.

 

[gerryf]

It seems you didnt understand exactly the moves John and his team took and cheated and in no way can it be spun any other way. Look at the video and I think even you can see it and post your opinion of what happened. If you dont consider it cheating like 99% of the other people have than you are just as guilty for approving it and making excuses for it.

I can say it again.

Rack 24 looked high. If it was high enough to allow a shot that wouldn't be possible when the rack was in the normal spot, then if I were running the event, I'd only count 322 instead of 346.

When Schmidt made his shot, how much space was there between the cue ball and the 5 ball as it went by? If it was 1/2", then maybe the shot would have gone with a normal rack. If it was 1/16", then maybe the shot wouldn't. Without a better view I can't say.

But this has nothing to do with my opinion - it's an issue for the event organizer, and the event organizer said the rack was 'questionable'. I haven't heard if the organizer is calling the run "unquestionably 322" or "questionably 346". Once I hear I'll note it.

I'm okay with recording 346 for Schmidt, and equally okay with recording 322.
I'm okay with recording 714 for Shaw, and equally okay with recording 669.

They're just numbers, they're easily updated. The analysis flows from the numbers.

Your question reads as if you think my opinion matters, and I don't know why anyone would think that. You've said that you didn't like Schmidt and that he had hurt your feelings in the past. Other people have said that Schmidt is a nice guy. That debate doesn't matter to me either. If you want to generate outrage and indignation, fill your boots. If you don't like Alberta, fill your boots. Even if Home Depot has a stupendous sale on torches, pitchforks, tar, feathers, and rails, I'm not interested in that - I have more interesting things to do.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Cool stuff, gerryf!

Are you still using software scans of some sort to count the runs? If so, do you still have any problems identifying real short runs? I remember asking if you could give us an explanation of how this software scan works, and you thought you could do a demo video.

Yeah i didn't get around to setting up a demo. But I still use software scans, and have gotten around the problem with short runs. Scanning a video is straightforward for the basics, but it's the last 10% or so that gets messy, so i had to develop some tweaky procedures to get around it.

I'll put a demo video back on my list!

I too look forward to seeing your demo and hope that you include more in depth detail and programming stuff than what many would have interest in or understanding of if you aren't opposed to sharing some of the finer details as well.

 

[alstl]

A small nit.... The Crane-Balsis match was the finals of the 1st BCA US Open 14.1 Championship in 1966. That event was a double elimination tournament, so there was "a finals".

At about the same time (mid 1960s) the BRPAA (New York) was running the World Championship and it was done as a round robin but there were also challenge matches where the runner-up could challenge the champion to a long match. Balsis had won one of each in 1965. Also, Fred Whalen had a World Championship in Burbank in 1966 that Balsis won with Mosconi finishing second.

Speaking of Fred Whalen...

Fred Whalen?

Talking about gangsters and pool players. There's been a week long series of articles in the "LA Times" on the Gangster Squad - that secret squad of LAPD detectives that tried to keep out-of-town gangsters from muscling into LA in the late 40s and 50s. They mention Fred Whalen as a child prodigy...

onepocket.org

 

[Bob Jewett]

Speaking of Fred Whalen...

Fred Whalen?

Talking about gangsters and pool players. There's been a week long series of articles in the "LA Times" on the Gangster Squad - that secret squad of LAPD detectives that tried to keep out-of-town gangsters from muscling into LA in the late 40s and 50s. They mention Fred Whalen as a child prodigy...

onepocket.org

Here's a link to part of the series that works:

Noir justice catches up with Mickey Cohen

The Gangster Squad springs a trap set years ago for the mobster, but 'Freddie the Thief' looks for revenge far from the courtroom in the killing of his son, 'the Enforcer.'

web.archive.org

I had no idea at the time of the tournaments that Fred was in that business.