Best 14:1 Player Ever-John Schmidt or Willie Mosconi?

[cardiac kid]

I am one who thinks Fats was a great player. He was probably never your all around speed, because you are a really great player. Banks and One Pocket were his games and he could play them way up there from what the old timers have told me. Were there better around? Definitely, but he was still a great player.

Spent a week on the road with Ronny Allen several years ago. Asked him for a honest opinion of "Fats" for the "cheese". His evaluation was, maybe 8-7 or 9-8. Coming from one of the best ever at one hole, I guess maybe "Fats" had some game!

Lyn

 

[enzo]

i realize the equipment is different, but how many has john averaged in his last few 14.1 tournaments? what did willie average?

my personal assertion is that high runs in essence are far from what defines the greatness of a player. in fact, i may even go as far as saying high runs are, as bruce lee said "a fools idea of glory." except bruce wasn't talking about high runs of course.

running those crucial balls, at the most crucuial of times would be my personal greatest criteria (in other words, titles and/or winning huge money games).

 

[Craig]

your missing what im saying.

it really is not about whether im as good as him or not.
its the way people say it .
with bold letters like hes not even in the same league so matter of a fact etc etc.

these are the same people i give free advice too.
dvds ,hang out with and go out of my way to be friendly with and encourage when they post their 30 ball runs on video etc.

what irks me is instead of saying i think mosconi would have edged john out because he played 30 years of 14.1 only.
maybe even something like john would have gave him a battle for sure but i would have to give the nod to willie.

instead these people who act like my best friend as soon as they get a chance talk like im a ****ing joke and im sick of it.

you know i walk into a poolroom screw my cue together and run ,157,234,191, in like 5 innings.
the next day 289,167,187. in 6 innings

thats everyday when i play 14.1 which is hardly ever.

anyway my point is i know what im capable of the people at home dont because they see me 4 times a year.and when i do play its on a table way harder then back in the day.so do me a favor and get a clue.thorston and the other top players of today are as good as anybody ever and anybody who dont understand that just come on down and play us for a month,trust me.


in closing im tired of people acting like a buddy and then every chance they get to belittle me ,and my game they take it. ive had enough of this piece of shit forum ,.and understand why none of the other pros deal with some of the idiots on here.

you know the saying say something nice or shut the hell up.well that applies here.

John don't study half of this, opinions are like ass holes every body has one, this can be debated until the end of time. You are a great player and that being said, some people can not stand other people's success in what they love to do. You have worked real hard to get to where you are today feed off of that and you only get better.


Willie may have been one of the best in his time of day but guess what he is he is no longer with us, and one day you won't be either, you have made your statement in the pool world and in 75 yrs people will still be talking about your success in what you accomplished in pool.


In any sport there will always be greatness among different athlete's, there is no way in hell to really compare two people of different time's and primes. Like you said Willie was a great pool player in is time now it's your time so shine................................. I for one really appreciate what you do for pool and contributing to this forum, hope you stick around.

 

[cardiac kid]

If you cannot take that fact then truly maybe forums are not for you. But if you do quit posting you are still going to be discussed because you are in fact a top calibre player that warrants discussion. Sorry man.

Celtic, we had this very discussion many years ago about Keith. One guy PM'ed me asking for the thread to end before Keith quit posting. Your point is well taken. I also understand John's point of view. I am however disappointed in his reaction. My dream was always to play at John's speed. To be even compared to the best ever, I can not imagine that honor!

Lyn

 

[ShootingArts]

my thoughts

Although it could change in the future, I believe that as of today I would have to call Willie the better 14.1 player. One reason is that John is a golfer, a dirt bike rider, a dozen different things, Willie was a 14.1 player. I don't know if he even liked 14.1. It was his living and he made his living by being simply the best in the world at it in his time. John doesn't begin to have that kind of focus on 14.1 in his life.

John's own arguments when he talks about amateurs and pro's fall against John here. Not that John plays 14.1 at an amateur level obviously, but his approach to playing 14.1 is amateurish compared to Mosconi. 14.1 is a small part of John's life, 14.1 was Willie's life. Huge difference.

Back when pool was televised maybe once a year if we were lucky, I saw Willie play. This was years before the Fat's side shows and I don't remember who he was playing. A tall thin gentleman as I recall. I thought I played for shape before watching Willie play. He simply changed my idea of what was possible on a pool table making me a better player because I now knew it was possible to play more pinpoint shape than I had even dreamed possible.

I have John's 245 run DVD and consider it an excellent learning tool. With the live and recorded pool on the internet and TV, I have seen John play many times. I have watched the DVD alone close to ten times. John is a great player, one of the very best, but he hasn't caused me to see the game in a new light.

Because he was almost solely a 14.1 player and because of the huge impact just watching him one time had on my game, I don't consider anyone I have seen in my lifetime Willie's equal playing 14.1.

Hu

Willie's famed high run of 526 balls was on a 4X8 Brunswick with 5 inch pockets, and practically no pocket shelf.

John Schmidt has run a 402 (I think that number's right. John, please correct me if I'm wrong), on a 4 1/2 X 9 Diamond Pro with 4 1/2 inch pockets.

I vote for John Schmidt, as the bigger table and smaller pockets make his accomplishment a lot harder to achieve.

I would almost guarantee that during Willie's run, he wobbled in a few balls that wouldn't have gone on the aforementioned Diamond.

Tight pockets make for a completely different pool game, imo.

Thoughts?

 

[philw]

You've got to be kidding !!!!!!!!!!!

You took the words right out of my mouth!

 

[JPB]

"i swear if i wreck and land on a cactus doing 60 it would be less aggravating than reading some of the insulting crap on here"


So I take it the scale of aggravation from least aggravating to most aggravating goes

1. Wrecking a dirt bike at 60 and landing on cactus.
2. Reading insulting crap here.
3. Ate by goat and shit off a cliff.

:thumbup:

You have a way of expressing frustration I like.

 

[philw]

i play in 64 man tourneys.
he played 8man round robins and one on one world title.

ive played like 5 14.1 tourneys in my whole life and we have 50 guys who play great so im sorry i havent won 50 world titles lol.

i havent run over 526 because ive play pool part time and part of that time i play 14.1 and only part of that time is on a loose enough table to run 500.

anyway its a shame that willie could not come back in his prime and play me 10ball,14.1 and onehole .

anyway i could run 769 tommorrow and win the next 10 straight pool tourneys and most
people will say hes the best and the rest of us couldnt carry his jock strap .

i understand its more fun to remember yesteryear that way. i have no hard feelings its human nature.


by the way willie could have had the rest of his life to run the 224 i ran on a diamond 9ft with year old cloth.


something to remember no sport ever that i can think of are the players from the past better than the players from the present.


the guys now days master several games we dont just play 14.1 . in fact i play it a couple times a year and on a good table im going to run 200 plus nearly everyday .

in closing willie by the fact that all he played was 14.1 in tiny fields of course he won more.

but anyone who thinks harriman,thorston, engert ,myself etc wouldnt have givin him all he could stand is dillusional .

I would have bet money that you would not respond to this thread or if you did you would be humble and show your respect to a deceased legend.
Man, I would have lost some money.

 

[john schmidt]

hi

look im not saying im as good as mosconi.

what im saying is you guys are not saying he would edge me out.

or he would be the favorite in the long run.

or i would bet on willie but it would be tough.

you say i should be flattered that your comparing me to mosconi.

thing is people saying there is no comparison,we are not even in same league.

he would rob me etc etc all in bold letters.

thats what pisses me off.



actually heres what might happen if he magically showed up at say danny harrimans door tommorrow.

im going to use danny and not myself because alot of people on here have made it clear that i have no chance against someone like mosconi.

so lets use a modern great player like danny.

here in my opinion, is what would happen if danny and him play.



day one banks danny would heist him and willie would be ready to fistfight.


day two harriman would rob him playing 9ball and 10ball. mosconi ready to fight.

day 3 danny steals his money playing onehole because all guys like willie played was 14.1. again willie ready to fight.


day 4 willie is so broke down by now from getting robbed playing the other 3 games that he cant run 70 playing 14.1 and danny wins there too.


then willie gets back in the timemachine and says 1956 pronto before john schmidt asks me to play all around too.lol

 

[pwd72s]

Who's the best ever? No matter the sport, this is the topic of many discussions....it's also a debate that can never be settled.

I remember my dad & I going 'round and 'round...Ali vs. Joe Lewis. Dad's gone now, but one thing we'd both agree on...today's heavyweight matches leave much to be desired.

John Schmidt has nothing to prove about his game...nothing. He's already proven it. His skill level leaves nothing to be desired. Willie Mosconi? Legend...the master of his time. May the memory of his skill remain.

It's all good, right guys?

 

[RiverCity]

your missing what im saying.

it really is not about whether im as good as him or not.
its the way people say it .
with bold letters like hes not even in the same league so matter of a fact etc etc.

these are the same people i give free advice too.
dvds ,hang out with and go out of my way to be friendly with and encourage when they post their 30 ball runs on video etc.

what irks me is instead of saying i think mosconi would have edged john out because he played 30 years of 14.1 only.
maybe even something like john would have gave him a battle for sure but i would have to give the nod to willie.

instead these people who act like my best friend as soon as they get a chance talk like im a ****ing joke and im sick of it.

you know i walk into a poolroom screw my cue together and run ,157,234,191, in like 5 innings.
the next day 289,167,187. in 6 innings

thats everyday when i play 14.1 which is hardly ever.

anyway my point is i know what im capable of the people at home dont because they see me 4 times a year.and when i do play its on a table way harder then back in the day.so do me a favor and get a clue.thorston and the other top players of today are as good as anybody ever and anybody who dont understand that just come on down and play us for a month,trust me.


in closing im tired of people acting like a buddy and then every chance they get to belittle me ,and my game they take it. ive had enough of this piece of shit forum ,.and understand why none of the other pros deal with some of the idiots on here.

you know the saying say something nice or shut the hell up.well that applies here.

John, I havent seen anyone knocking your accomplishments or abilities. People make comparisons of the greats of yesteryear and the greats of today, happens all the time in more realms than just sports. To take offense to this and say that you are sick of it, and basically call people losers because they "cant run 50" etc etc etc is out of line.
You are one of the best players on the planet right now, everybody knows that, you should take pride in the fact that people think highly enough of your skills TO COMPARE you with Mosconi. Its a flattering thing, its not an insult. Some will lean one way and some will lean the other, but you should put yourself above opinion and be the best you can. Your game speaks for itself, you dont need to bite the people who enjoy watching good pool being played. JMO
Chuck

 

[Fatboy]

its impossible to compair the past champs with the curent ones in any sport just as John stated. any theoriest on gamesmanship will tell you that, especially in games where the equipment changed over time. Chess is excluded, because the game is the same.

I love the fact he is here and talking some, thats a good move on his part(for all of us), and he will gain more fans by doing so. Same as settleing his differences with Danny(who I barly know) is great to see, we need our top players to get along(at least in the publics eye) pool cant afford any more knocks. I'm aware of a little behind the scenes stuff and there is alot there(but the guys like Nick, JA, etc) keep a good public image as they should. Its their duty as professionals, period.


Back to 14.1, why the heck anyone plays that game is beyond me??, I'd rather sit here with my cold and sneeze, at least thats more fun.

 

[Fatboy]

Who's the best ever? No matter the sport, this is the topic of many discussions....it's also a debate that can never be settled.

I remember my dad & I going 'round and 'round...Ali vs. Joe Lewis. Dad's gone now, but one thing we'd both agree on...today's heavyweight matches leave much to be desired.

John Schmidt has nothing to prove about his game...nothing. He's already proven it. His skill level leaves nothing to be desired. Willie Mosconi? Legend...the master of his time. May the memory of his skill remain.

It's all good, right guys?

Great post,

 

[Mr441]

This comparison is ridiculous, Mosconi won 15 World 14.1 titles. What has John Schmidt won in 14.1? he hasn't made the finals in any of the last 3 world 14.1 events. I saw mosconi play a few years after he retired and he was still better than anyone I've seen to this day. The only time I've ever seen a player leave me in such awe was seeing Efren play one pocket. Mosconi played with a drive you just don't see today. You could see it in his face, he just wasn't going let himself lose...and this was just an exhibition!

Now that's not to say that if john schmidt totally dedicated himself to 14.1 that he wouldn't become a legend, but as it stands now you really can't make a case.

 

[Yancey]

Amen Mr 441 and Jay Helfert. I am done with this post. People win an event and yes they should be proud but please.

 

[john schmidt]

hiu

lets change gears here.

how would mike sigel and thorston hohmann do against mosconi at solely 14.1 in their primes.

this ought to be informative

 

[muttley76]

C'mon guys, you can't compare. John doesn't get paid by Brunswick to play full time, and he also has to compete in many more disciplines. The tables may roll better now, but pockets are much tougher, and competition is a whole lot better now. Plus, back when Mr. Mosconi won his titles, weren't a lot of them 2 person challenge matches, at least for the defending champion? While I don't profess to know who would have won between the two, those of you who think that John isn't in the same league is just a joke. Period. Give the man some respect, it is insanely tough to try and make a living off of pool right now, and there are worse ambassadors for this game. Show as much respect to him as you would to Willie. Matt

 

[manwon]

Willie's famed high run of 526 balls was on a 4X8 Brunswick with 5 inch pockets, and practically no pocket shelf.

John Schmidt has run a 402 (I think that number's right. John, please correct me if I'm wrong), on a 4 1/2 X 9 Diamond Pro with 4 1/2 inch pockets.

I vote for John Schmidt, as the bigger table and smaller pockets make his accomplishment a lot harder to achieve.

I would almost guarantee that during Willie's run, he wobbled in a few balls that wouldn't have gone on the aforementioned Diamond.

Tight pockets make for a completely different pool game, imo.

Thoughts?

Well, not to take anything away from John, he is a great player and a great person to boot. But, lets even the odd's and Put John on a table covered in Cloth like Wille used and lets let him use the same style balls.

I am uncertain that he could do as well, but the real question is it even fair. These two gentlemen are from different times and they both used different equipment, to say one is better than the other is nothing but useless speculation that can't be proved.

Just my thoughts

 

[sjm]

lets change gears here.

how would mike sigel and thorston hohmann do against mosconi at solely 14.1 in their primes.

this ought to be informative

I'll take a shot at Sigel vs Mosconi. A complication in comparison is that Mosconi played in what some call "straight pool's dead ball era," before the days in which Simonis cloth was used. Another problem is that many of Mosconi's accomplishments were on 5 x 10 equipment. Facilitating the comparison, though, is the fact that the latter part of Mosconi's career was on 4 1/2 x 9 and the earlier portion of Sigel's career was on the slow cloth.

If one compares the balls per inning figures of the two, Mosconi would seem to come out on top, just barely. On a 5 x 10, in his prime, Mosconi's balls per inning was about 15 in world championship play, while Sigel tended to average closer to 13 on the 4 1/2 x 9 tables. Based on this, it's obvious that it would have been very close.

Though I don't know what Mosconi's BPI on a 4 1/2 x 9 table was, his 15 BPI on a 5 x 10 may be comparable to an 18 BPI on a 4 1/2 x 9. How do I know? I don't, but what I do know is that when the switch occurred, the standard match length in most straight pool tournaments went from 125 to 150, as statistics showed that this was appropriate given the new table dimensions. To place this in some perspective, in the 1960's, when 14.1 titles on 4 1/2 x 9 equipment were being won by Caras, Crane, Balsis, Lassiter and others, the winner's BPI tended to be anywhere from 10 to 12.

For example, here are the BPI figures from the 1967 US Open 14.1 Championships:

1st place finisher Jimmy Caras had an 11.02 BPI
2nd place Luther Lassiter had 6.86
3rd place Irving Crane had 9.29
4th place Dallas West had 8.26
5th place John Ervolino had 7.00
6th place Jack Breit had 6.66
7th place Joe Balsis had 10.70
8th place Frank McGown had 6.86
9th place Steve Mizerak had 9.23
10th place Dan Gartner had 8.16
11th place Alton Whitlow had 6.66
12th place Maynard Parish had 4.81
13th place Lou Butera had 10.05
14th place Cisero Murphy had 7.96

I actually discussed the subject of Mosconi vs Sigel with Irving Crane in the early 1980's. Irving could hardly be more qualified to make this assessment, having been an influence in Rochester, NY, of the young Sigel and a great rival of Mosconi. In 1978, Irving introduced me to Mike, calling him "a player to watch," one of the greatest ever pool understatements. Irving felt that Willie in his prime would only have been a slight favorite over Mike in his prime.

..... but who really knows? Surely, Mike would have won his share of races to 150.

 

[muttley76]

lets change gears here.

how would mike sigel and thorston hohmann do against mosconi at solely 14.1 in their primes.

this ought to be informative

Just for the record, since they never played, I don't know. How could anyone? Everyone has their opinions, but there cannot, and never will be, a definitive answer. I can't say that I blame JS for being upset at the thought of WM being in a different class. I also understand the idolization that most people have for the heroes of yesteryear. I just wish that more people would preface whatever they say with "this is just my opinion". To act like the pros of the past were in some way magically better than the pros of today would insult me as well, if I were a pro.