A Question for 14.1 Historians

I think Freddie The Beard said that Sailor Barge had run 356 or 365 on a 10 foot table once. Its definately not a record with a number of witnesses attesting to it, but it seems to have the the same ring of truth that stories of Babe Cranfield running over 600 on a nine footer have.

I think most people agree that Mosconi's run of 526 would be beaten if a large enough incentive was given.

If Willie was given the chance to win a million bucks (modern day equivalent) by running 1000 balls on a nine footer back in his prime, and a bit of time to do it, I have a feeling he probably could of gotten it done. He used to just quit after running 100, 150, 200 balls all the time... it just was kind of pointless to keep going.
 
Willie actually did the same thing, when he ran the 526, he had been running balls for like 3 and a half hours, making that run, and was set to at least run another rack, and he just quit :) lol, and so, it's highly possible that he could've easily kept going and ran another 200 or 300 balls or so, oh well :), fair play to him for making such a great run in the first place :)

Willie
 
TheWizard said:
Willie actually did the same thing, when he ran the 526, he had been running balls for like 3 and a half hours, making that run, and was set to at least run another rack, and he just quit
Willie
Click to expand...

Wiz,
At the Valley Forge match with Jimmy Caras, Willie Mosconi himself described it (as you did) as an unfinished run. Unfortunately all of the spectators present are positive that he DID miss to end the run (??2 ball??). I think Willie's memory was significantly impaired near the end of his life - he died shortly after that video was recorded.

P.S. - I can't recall how he describes it in his biography; but I think he admits to missing it in the book (don't hold me to that; but someone with more time can look it up).
 
I see what you mean buddy, and it's understandable that his memory wouldn't have been as good, as it is natural with age.

Unfortunately, I haven't got a copy of the book, otherwise I would look it up, but requardless of whether he missed the 527th ball or not, it's still a damn good achievement to run 526 :)

Willie
 
TheWizard said:
I see what you mean buddy, and it's understandable that his memory wouldn't have been as good, as it is natural with age.

Unfortunately, I haven't got a copy of the book, otherwise I would look it up, but requardless of whether he missed the 527th ball or not, it's still a damn good achievement to run 526 :)

Willie
Click to expand...

Willie or won'tHe or "A miss is as good as a Millimeter"

Wiz and WbetM,

Short version - he missed.

On pg 167 of "Willie's Game" he describes the shot he missed as a
difficult cut shot, adding, by that time he was weary.

Why he claimed to have just quit, for so many years,
has long puzzled me. My own best guess, and this is just speculation,
is that it had something to do with the intense annimosity between
Mosconi and the more "colorfull" gambling players, like the guys who
participated at Johnston City.

Mosconi was very adament, and public in his disdain for 'pool sharks'
or 'hustlers'. They, in turn, lost no love for him - missing no opoptunity
to minimize his accomplishments or critize his character.

Back to the confussion. As late as 1984, in his Willie's World
instructional tape, he was still saying he didn't miss, just quit because
he was tired. "Willie's Game" was published in 1993. Perhaps by then
he was aware that "the miss" was documented in the Springfield
newspaper article about the event.

IMHO - all these years of bickering is truly sad - sort of as if
baseball players were to question the talent of Babe Ruth. It also has
lead to many well informed fans believing and repeating
the...umm, mis-information

Dale Pierce<setting the record straight for more than 1/10th of a century>
 
Hey Dale :), many thanks buddy for clearing that up :)

Lmao, I've heard that phrase many times as a kid and it kinda brings back memories of when I first started playing pool :) lol

I agree with you about the bickering, because after all, pool is pool and any record or achievement is something to be respected, but also to be surpassed :)

Thank you once again for clearing this up :)

Willie
 
My understanding of the downsizing of tables from 5x10 to 4.5x9 was due to a number of reasons.

The economy of Italy after WWII was destroyed due to the war. Italy being the home of most slate production in the world. It took a few years to bring production back up to pre war levels. With the return of the soldiers from overseas, the call for home recreational tables was in demand and the slate producers in Italy started making more 4x8 and 4.5x9 beds to meet the demand for home use. One other factor with the smaller tables for home use was the opening of the pocket facing making it easier for the recreational player to make more balls.

Billiard and pool room owners liked the transition to the smaller tables and larger pockets as they were able to fit more tables into the same footage. Larger pockets meant more happy customers.

From the time I was sixteen until nineteen, I played straight pool on a 5x10 with small pockets until the pool room went under. It really was like playing on a golf course. Seemed like Acres of felt!

One of the worst days for pool was the day they invented the bar box or coin operated table. It's a pool table is about the best I can say. I guess I'm spoiled in my old age.

Stones
 
5x10's

I have been playing pool in NYC for 30 years and the biggest difference is the break shot. Since the advent of 9 foot tables, players are not afraid to smash the rack wide open at 100mph... sending balls up table. This was a no no on an 5x10. On an 4.5 x 9 it is much much easier to clean up balls in bad places ie on the rail by the side or near the "brunswick" which is a real headache on a 5x10.
Jonathan Smith
 
StraightPoolIU said:
Since I consider myself a little bit of a pool history buff here is a question for all of you straight pool historians out there. What brought about the end of the standard 5'x10' table? I remember when I read Willie's Game that he talked about the standard race being to 125, and when the table size changed that's when the standard became 150. I just don't remember when the change occured or why. I've had the pleasure of playing 14.1 on a converted 5x10 snooker table...an interesting experience to say the least.
Click to expand...

According to what Willie told me, many years ago, the switch to 9' was to even the playing field for Southern players who almost always played on 9's. Apparently 10' were in vogue in the North East, but almost non existant down South, therefor tournaments were rarely if ever held in the South prior to 1949.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top