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

the420trooper said:
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?
Click to expand...


If johns better then why is willies record still standing? And yes maybe willies table was eaiser but every other peice of equipment was not as good as what we have nowadays.

Willie grew up playing on 5x10's thats one of the reasons the pockets where bigger. Lets see john break 400 on a 10 footer first. As long as mosconi holds the record he is better.


and if i recall corecttly willie never missed he just reached 526 and then stopped cause he was exhausted. If there was a high run prize im sure he wouldve been closer to 600
 
Last edited:
What about...

What about Willie's 15 BCA 14.1 World Championships in a span of 16 years? And this was back when 14.1 was THE game! His enduring dominance of the game was unparalleled in any sport or game I am aware of. Now I'm not saying I'd bet on Willie if we could magically resurrect him on his best day and pit him against Mr. Schmidt on his best day, but Willie's tenure at the very top of the 14.1 world for so many consecutive years can't be ignored. As for my opinion, having watched both men play the game, given a tough layout on a modern table, I'm more likely to bet on Willie running them out.
 
the420trooper said:
You guys have made some good points here, and maybe I shouldn't have stuck names into the thread.

The point that I wanted to make is that pool can be vastly different, depending on the table you play on. Mosconi insisted tables tailored to his specs, (sloppy), or he wouldn't play.

Guys LIKE John Schmidt, Thorsten Hohmann, Thomas Engert, etc. prefer tighter tables, because that's where great players really shine.

Example: When the old Sands 9 ball tournaments had huge pockets, 7 packs were common. Can anyone remember a 7 pack in a Derby City match played on Diamonds?
Click to expand...

You are correct, but don't make the error of thinking that 14.1 is just about pocketing the balls. There is much more to it. Of course, that is how you get the score, but there is so much more to the game such as table management, dealing with clusters, manufacturing a break ball/key ball, reading patterns and controlling the cue ball through those patterns, etc etc, ad infinitum.

With tighter pockets, you have to adjust your strategy, along with having to adjust your break ball/cue ball position.

You won't see a lot of high runs on tight pockets - period - and that is due to many factors. Example: if you like a severe Ervolino-esque high angle break ball, those shots are low percentage on a tight Diamond, but you can knock them in all day on a GC or a Gabriel. The tighter pockets will limit your options when developing or selecting a break ball or a pattern to get on it.

John addresses this very issue on several DVD's - and I have personally talked to him about this very subject on a few occasions. If you want to see high numbers, it's better to have a table that plays a little easier - pockets that take the balls easier - etc.

John's 245 is on a super-tight GC with new cloth - in February of 2006. That is IMO a superb run for those conditions - and the run ends on a miss in one of those tight corner pockets.
 
Mosconi hands down, not even the same league. Look the 526 balls he ran, Mosconi did not miss, he quit shooting because after 37 racks he was tired...period. I agree with earlier posters, when anyone, dominates 20 years of 14.1 in world championships, in the hay day of that game, beating the likes of Crane, Greenleaf...then they too can be considered the best. Look, I hear of people say that Efren Reyes made the best shot ever, but imho, Mosconi did when, needing ONE ball to win a world championship against Andrew Ponzi, being corner hooked, went six rails to kick in the case ball...for the World Championship.

No one even comes close. My opinion, I have seen them both shoot and John Schmidt is a great guy but Mosconi was Magic in his day.
 
Remember, you only need to run 150 to win the game so are we talking about who can run the most balls in practice or who would win if WM and JS were both in their prime and playing each other? From what I know it seems that Mosconi probably had more mental toughness and will to win than JS. JS is a great player at his best but I don't think he plays up to his potential in competition as often as he should; he doesn't always make the most of the opportunities he gets against his opponents. If we could magically create that match my money would be on Mosconi based on his will to win. If it were a competition with several games being played (One P, 9-ball, 8-ball, 14.1) a modern player might fare better.
 
I think a factor to consider is the pressure of competition. Straight pool at the high levels (I am not anywhere close disclaimer) has a ton of pressure because a mistake may mean you don't get a turn. IIRC this was discussed by Mosconi comparing his game to 3 cushion with Willie Hoppe. 3 cushion could be argued to be more difficult, although there could be an argument, but there is no argument that a match in straight pool was more stressful because your opponent could run out from anywhere. Nobody was going to run out a 3C match, a match would even out. Even now, how often does a 3C player run a set of 15 out, and that is one set in a longer match? In straight pool a small safety error or bad roll could doom you. That makes a 75 ball run against a great player and leaving him safe an impressive feat that won't be talked about in 40 years.

That is one thing that is both good and bad about the new 14.1 format in the Accu-Stats invitational. With games to 60 there is a bunch of pressure early, but the high runs are achieved when there is no opportunity to lose if you miss a break ball and blow the rack apart. That said I think it is an overall good format, is good for the game, and I enjoy watching the DVDs. Schmidt, and other modern players, can play. I am not sure you can say one or another of them is better than Mosconi or Greenleaf. I would think the best of that era would play well on modern equipment and the best now could adjust to 10' tables.
 
Wow!

Yancey said:
Mosconi hands down, not even the same league. Look the 526 balls he ran, Mosconi did not miss, he quit shooting because after 37 racks he was tired...period. I agree with earlier posters, when anyone, dominates 20 years of 14.1 in world championships, in the hay day of that game, beating the likes of Crane, Greenleaf...then they too can be considered the best. Look, I hear of people say that Efren Reyes made the best shot ever, but imho, Mosconi did when, needing ONE ball to win a world championship against Andrew Ponzi, being corner hooked, went six rails to kick in the case ball...for the World Championship.

No one even comes close. My opinion, I have seen them both shoot and John Schmidt is a great guy but Mosconi was Magic in his day.
Click to expand...

What I would give to see that shot!

Ray
 
One of the guys that I sometimes play with (actually my boss) used to train with Luther "Wimpy" Lassiter while he (my boss) was in college. He use to go to Wimpy's house and play in his garage on his table. He said that Wimpy stated many times that the world record would actually be on that table in his garage, however, there were not enough witnessess or it had to be in competition or something like that.

He said that Wimpy claimed to have run somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 to 850 balls (he lost count after 50 racks). My boss said that it was almost to the point that he would keep making balls until he got tired. Then miss a ball and say "It's your turn". Then he would go to his couch (in the garage) and take a nap for about an hour. When he woke up and my boss missed he would say "my turn" and proceed to run 200+ balls before he would take another nap. He said this would happen all day.
 
I think John and Thorsten Hohmann are the two best in the world, right now but its really hard to compare players today vs. players that played on totally different conditions.

I think Babe Ruth is clearly the best baseball player to ever live... even though his records are nearly all broken. Its just hard to compare things like this.
 
To the original poster:

There's no way for me to post without chancing offending John Schmidt, whom I like very much and whom I see as one of today's most elite straight poolers, and for whom the sky is the limit in future achievements, but .......

Are you serious trying to compare him with Mosconi?

Let's start with this. Schmidt failed to reach the final day of any of the last three World 14.1 Championships. Any player wanting to be compared with the best must win the games most prestigious titles.

By comparison, Thorsten Hohmann, 2006 World 14.1 champion, placed fifth or better in each of the last three World 14.1 Championships, and averaged over 50 balls per innning in the 2005 European Straight Pool Championships in what may have been the single most dominating performance in Straight Pool history.

Simlarly, Oliver Ortmann, the 2007 World 14.1 Champion, has other major feathers in his cap, inluding the 1989 and 1993 U.S. Open 14.1 titles and five European 14.1 Championships.

Mosconi mass-produced World championships and had, by far, the highest competitive balls per inning of anyone that ever played the game. Other players from the twentieth centruy with whom John cannot logically be compared include, but are not limited to Irving Crane, Mike Sigel, Nick Varner, Allen Hopkins, Ray Martin, Dallas West, Frank Taberski, Ralph Greenleaf, Jimmy Caras, Steve Mizerak, Joe Balsis, Harold Worst and Art "Babe" Cranfield.

John Schmidt is a great player, and he's still on the rise, but until his resume of competitive accomplishments grows dramacially, he is not even in the discussion for "best of all time" when it comes to steaight pool. Even today, I'd have to argue that Hohmann and Ortmann have stronger credentials for inclusion in that discussion than John, and, perhaps, so does reigning 14.1 World Champion Niels Feijen, who beat John on the way to his victory.

Watching John play 14.1 is a great treat, and his best is yet to come. Perhaps one day comparing him to the all-time great will be reasonable, but now it's, in my opinion, inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
the420trooper said:
Eric, we know you're just trying to stir up some straight pool action....You don't have to "work" us.:D
Click to expand...

You know what would be sweet? Just like they did a computerized remix or something about boxers of yesterday fighting todays champions...I wonder if they can do that with pool? I know it is not accurate but it sure would be fun to watch....:thumbup:
 
Just another guy's opinion, but then I guess all these posts really are.

Willie had been retired something like 15 years from competition and had already had a heart attack (or stroke) when he ran the 526. In his day, as previously stated, he ran rough shod over the competition and carried higher averages for balls per inning and more 100+ runs and more 150 and outs than anyone. And remember, this is not against some local hack, but against other world class players who might put a 150 right back on you if you miss.

I still hear rumors from old guys who heard the scuttlebutt back in the day. They say Willie had a 9 or 10 footer set up in his house and during an all day practice session, with meal breaks, would never miss a ball. I have heard estimates, all unwitnessed conjecture of course, that he had runs upwards of 700 in practice.

As noted above, 14.1 was THE game back in Willie's day, and he DOMINATED for something like 20 years and was at the top level, for another 10 or so.

If everyone only played 10-ball today, and ONE GUY won almost every national and world chcampionship spanning three decades.... that would be a fair comparison.

There are stories upon stories of guys dropping out of tournaments, not signing up, or getting all sorts of psycho-somatic illnesses upon hearing they MIGHT have to play Mosconi in a major match.

He learned, or at least honed, that no holds barred, "kill yo' mama" will to win playing all those exhibitions with Greenleefe, and nearly split the 100+ they played. That's like a 20yo Johny Archer going on tour Parica in 1990 and splitting 100 long sets with him.

Mosconi dominated all the big names of THE 14.1 era. That's why he's spoken of in such reverent terms.

In the years that followed, there were still a lot of great 14.1 players. I'm no expert at the game, but almost all the great all around players of the last few decades (except Buddy and the Philipinos) played GREAT 14.1.

Skipping over the 60's,through the 70's and 80's you could put together a 32 man field where anyone you drew might drop a "150 and out" on you. Miz, Siegel, Varner, Rempe, Hopkins, and those are just a few.

But interest in and field strength in 14.1 has dropped off. They don't play in two week, round robin, formats anymore. You can't put a field like that together anymore.

I like almost everything I have read or watched of John Schmidt, but I don't think a fair comparison can be made.
 
I saw Willie Mosconi play. Granted he was in his 50's and "retired" from competition, but he was still doing exhibitions for Brunswick all over the country. He would run 100 or more every day in his exhibition! That was a guarantee. He did bring his own balls to play with (smart guy), but the equipment was different everywhere he went.

I watched Willie run the balls many times. The only player I've ever seen who controlled the cue ball as good as him was Efren Reyes. And Efren doesn't know the intricacies of 14.1 like Willie did. Willie could run 150 balls and never make a hard shot. See who else can do that. He played so good, it was boring for a lot of people to watch. He just kept breaking the racks and running them out perfectly.

Willie expected perfect position on every shot (just like Lassiter) and if he got a little out of line he would be upset. When he finally missed a ball (usually the result of a chilly roll) he would be mildly perturbed.

John's a great player but he's no Willie Mosconi. At least not yet. ;)
 
the420trooper said:
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?
Click to expand...

You REALLy need to get your facts straight - there are so many errors
in your post I won't address them all but here are some observstions

1. pockets - John's run was on 5 inch pockets - Willie's was on a table
that had typical pockets for the equipment of that era -they
were not as tight as a Diamond Pro, but, they were not EASY.

FWIW there have been many Mosconi knockers over the years that have
made up and/or repeated lies about 'The Run' - this one about the
enormous pockets is rather recent'

BTW Willie and Crane both had runs well over 300 on 5 x 10s that
most likely had 4 1/2 inch pockets.

And, don't even get me started about the monumental difference between
these Exhibition runs and PRACTICE runs.

2. Most of all, on his video, John more or less says he is not as good
as Willie.

Dale(not that I care...:)
 
Last edited:
John's run was not on a Diamond Pro table. It was on a Gold Crown with big pockets in Q-Masters, Virginia Beach. I watched the run live from 150 balls on......
 
hi

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 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top