626 is it legit?

Get_A_Grip

Truth Will Set You Free
Silver Member
The unedited video exists, per js team, and it will speak for itself.
IT IS WHAT IT IS!
The only one in question is, John Schmidt. That is where all of the problems reside.
He must exhibit the actual unedited video.
TIME waits for no one! May 28, 2019 was not too soon.
Actually, he doesn't need to exhibit the unedited video to the public. The 626 high run record was already accepted by the BCA, Predator, and the pool community at large (quite a few pros have already congratulated JS). It's only a few doubters that think that there is no record unless they themselves see the unedited video. From what I know of JS, I bet that he is laughing his @ss off about these threads and how bent out of shape Danny and a few others are about his record and them not being able to scrutinize it.
 

haystj

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
From what I know of JS, I bet that he is laughing his @ss off about these threads and how bent out of shape Danny and a few others are about his record and them not being able to scrutinize it.
Definitely.

Many on here too.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Care to share why?

You listed HOF players earlier.

Is that the bar?

No, I do not care to share.

I did mention HOF players. I think a couple of those guys reviewing the video would have greatly enhanced the credibility of the BCA’s certification. As it sits right now it kinda ranks up there with the “Certificate of Authenticity” they give you if you buy a painting at a cruise ship auction.

Lou Figueroa
 

haystj

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thanks for the reply, Lou.
I respect all opinions (except crazy nut bags and you’re not one of them)
 

haystj

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Too late hasteytj, the nuts already out of the bag. U may be right, we might be crazy, but it keeps us from going where ur headed(insane). Yeah, I’ll go anywhere I want to go. radar
Finally!

He makes a semi age appropriate analogy.

I guess there is value in the second kick of a mule!

Thanks Jimmie
 

Danny Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
No, I do not care to share.

I did mention HOF players. I think a couple of those guys reviewing the video would have greatly enhanced the credibility of the BCA’s certification. As it sits right now it kinda ranks up there with the “Certificate of Authenticity” they give you if you buy a painting at a cruise ship auction.

Lou Figueroa
Howdy Lou, I read bca's mission on their webseat' - could not help notice over the yrs. bca change their definition of 'Pocket Billiards' to 'pool'? When ever it was - that was the beginning of the end for the corrupt bca/hollywood crowd in my view. The term pool does blur the lines of what Mosconi called Pocket Billiards. I am solid at seeing details (blessing and curse) - I appreciate your input on the bca's decision to change the Pocket Billiard nomenclature to that of 'pool' (I believe your a warrior for truth) so thanks in advance. The term 'pool' does not receive MY blessing :-/ so that is why I'm asking.
 
Last edited:

haystj

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Howdy Lou, I read bca's mission on their webseat' - could not help notice over the yrs. bca change their definition of 'Pocket Billiards' to 'pool'? When ever it was - that was the beginning of the end for the corrupt bca/hollywood crowd in my view. The term pool does blur the lines of what Mosconi called Pocket Billiards. I am solid at seeing details (blessing and curse) - I appreciate your input on the bca's decision to change the Pocket Billiard nomenclature to pool (I believe your a warrior for truth) so thanks in advance. The term pool does not receive MY blessing :-/ so that is why I'm asking.
A curse? Not so much.

You clearly miss some details.

Read the bolded text in the quote.
 
Last edited:

haystj

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It appears that some need no details.
STINK STANK STUNK
IF IT isn’t stinking
Stir IT up
IF IT is still not stinking
CHUG IT while stirring
Matters not to whom anyone writes here, ur 2 cents are just as important info as theirs is.
So, have at IT
NOTHING TO LOSE

Bro- why you so mad?

My comment wasn’t directed at the radar account.

Chill and relax- you’re getting really worked up and I’m starting to worry about you my friend.
 

xXGEARXx

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It appears that some need no details.
STINK STANK STUNK
IF IT isn’t stinking
Stir IT up
IF IT is still not stinking
CHUG IT while stirring
Matters not to whom anyone writes here, ur 2 cents are just as important info as theirs is.
So, have at IT
NOTHING TO LOSE
You do have a way with words. Like, "STINK STANK STUNK" and "IF IT is still not stinking". Also, let's not forget this one: "ur 2 cents". Simply beautiful grammar and it REALLY touches me deep inside - somewhere? Are you related to Justnum?
 

Danny Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
I choose to wait for review of the run by someone else.

Lou Figueroa
I choose also to wait as well, but as long as the bca and j.s. continue to hide the evidence - (no copies for sale to open public in unedited disc form) their journalistic integrity will be seriously questioned.
 
Last edited:

haystj

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I did mention HOF players. I think a couple of those guys reviewing the video would have greatly enhanced the credibility of the BCA’s certification. As it sits right now it kinda ranks up there with the “Certificate of Authenticity” they give you if you buy a painting at a cruise ship auction.

Lou Figueroa
This is one of the posts that led me to believe Lou would respect Varner’s opinion.

Maybe this was a confusing post?
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This is one of the posts that led me to believe Lou would respect Varner’s opinion.

Maybe this was a confusing post?

The post is not confusing and speaks for itself -- if, way back when, the BCA had had a couple of HOF 14.1 players review unedited video of the run it would have made their certification more credible.

Lou Figueroa
pretty clear
 

johnnysd

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I will say this: I think he is capable of doing it. But I also believe that there are a ton of red flags and suspicious elements to this claim. First he was live streaming for weeks if I remember but the one where he broke it was not streamed. I also believe like a day or 2 before the run he announced that he had found some "secret". Third the only way to see the video is in private screening where there is a section around 400 that is sped up for "time" purposes

The biggest issue I have is the actual number. He managed to run exactly 100 balls more than Mosconi. That is statistically incredibly unlikely but is fantastic from a marketing standpoint.

In universities they scrutinize data to see if the data is fake in doctoral thesis. People that fake data tend to use certain numbers and patterns that are extremely improbable to occur in a real testing environment and those thesis are thrown out.

To me there is way too many convenient coincidences for me to 100% believe it is real.

Plus everyone gleefully ignores Mosconi did it in an exhibition setting on one of the few if not only time he tried for a high run
 

krupa

The Dream Operator
Silver Member
Mosconi did it in an exhibition setting on one of the few if not only time he tried for a high run
It definitely wasn't the only time. He ran 309, thinking it was a new record only to find out that Irving Crane had already posted a 309.

I'm no expert, but I've read enough books about Mosconi to firmly believe that if someone had come out and run 575, he would have turned around and run 600. However, I don't think he cared enough to ever beat his own record; the only thing that mattered was that he was the record holder.
 

Cameron Smith

is kind of hungry...
Silver Member
I will say this: I think he is capable of doing it. But I also believe that there are a ton of red flags and suspicious elements to this claim. First he was live streaming for weeks if I remember but the one where he broke it was not streamed. I also believe like a day or 2 before the run he announced that he had found some "secret". Third the only way to see the video is in private screening where there is a section around 400 that is sped up for "time" purposes

The biggest issue I have is the actual number. He managed to run exactly 100 balls more than Mosconi. That is statistically incredibly unlikely but is fantastic from a marketing standpoint.

In universities they scrutinize data to see if the data is fake in doctoral thesis. People that fake data tend to use certain numbers and patterns that are extremely improbable to occur in a real testing environment and those thesis are thrown out.

To me there is way too many convenient coincidences for me to 100% believe it is real.

Plus everyone gleefully ignores Mosconi did it in an exhibition setting on one of the few if not only time he tried for a high run
He only live-streamed at bull shooters. He posted a couple of runs in the final month of the challenge, but he didn't live stream at any other time. My guess is that he opted not to live stream because he would immediately lose control of the video if he managed it live. I also don't think the number itself is as suspicious as it seems. Remember that Michael Eufemia ran 625 (an inversion of 526). In the sequence of racks, if my math is right, at 626 John (and Michael) are finishing up their end pattern and trying to get on the break shot. It's not at all uncommon for runs to end either at the break shot, or just before it, as they maneuver and get in trouble trying to navigate a potentially tricky end pattern.
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
I will say this: I think he is capable of doing it. But I also believe that there are a ton of red flags and suspicious elements to this claim. First he was live streaming for weeks if I remember but the one where he broke it was not streamed. I also believe like a day or 2 before the run he announced that he had found some "secret". Third the only way to see the video is in private screening where there is a section around 400 that is sped up for "time" purposes

The biggest issue I have is the actual number. He managed to run exactly 100 balls more than Mosconi. That is statistically incredibly unlikely but is fantastic from a marketing standpoint.

In universities they scrutinize data to see if the data is fake in doctoral thesis. People that fake data tend to use certain numbers and patterns that are extremely improbable to occur in a real testing environment and those thesis are thrown out.

To me there is way too many convenient coincidences for me to 100% believe it is real.

Plus everyone gleefully ignores Mosconi did it in an exhibition setting on one of the few if not only time he tried for a high run
Well, you have certain principles like Bentons law, which adresses leading digits, but it wouldn't apply here. This is a single instance of an event (numerically speaking), and not a data set, as such as a spreadsheet of numbers. You could use each shot as a datum, but then it's still very difficult to use such analysis, as shot selection, technique, even racking is subject to personal preference and I doubt much analysis has been done on this subject previously. A possible method of analysis would be to look at all the attempted runs and use those as a data set. AFAIK those are not availabe as verifiable data, but using those, a probability of the run could be calculated. I think even if the likelyhood of the run being low, conclusively stating that this was fraud would be near impossible from those numbers alone, especially for a top player like JS. If I were the one claiming this run, it would be an entirely different matter.

If one were to analyze the video to look for anomalies, the obvious place to start would be to look for any slight movement of the pack prior to and during breakshots, (to check for possible re-racking and cuts) analyze the audio for breaks or repeating patterns, looking for strange movements by balls other than the cueball and the ball being played etc.

One would then have to have the entire, uncut video with original audio and the ability to rewind, pause, zoom etc. Naturally, one would have to believe the BCA had that kind of access, otherwise it would be very bold to declare the run legit. They didn't stand to gain much, but would be in big trouble if they were found to be fraudulent. There is no doubt in my mind that with a large enough sum of money and amount of time, a run such as this could be faked to such an extent that only a true expert in video manipulation would be able to see it. Does JS have access to that amount of money and expertise, and would it be cost effective? I doubt first and the latter is laughable.

Scientifically speaking, being sceptical of the legitimacy of a run which has been withheld from public view is perfectly defensible. I doubt very much that a scientific mindset is what is motivating the lead antagonists, however.
 
Last edited:
Top