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

[Celtic]

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

Wow, just wow.

One would think a person would feel honored to play a legend from the past. This post takes the cake, you want to rob Willie Mosconi playing banks, one-pocket, 10-ball? Games the guy never even played?

The thread was about the best 14.1 player John, not the best all around.

You seriously disrespect the late Willie Mosconi with that "wants to fight" crap? Thinking he would even bother trying to play a game he never played before against someone from this era or that is says anything about him that he would get beat in it against someone who has played it most of their pool playing life? I suppose you would suck at 14.1 if Blomdahl beat you in 3-cushion? Because that is what you just put out there for Willie.

It should be a dream come true for a true sportsman to play a legend from the past in their own game, especially when you are a supposed master of that very game as well and supposedly respect it. You have ZERO respect for the game or those that came before you. You would want nothing more then to rob Mosconi in games he does not even play? You have zero heart John.

Any respect I did have for you got vaporized on that last post of yours, you showed a complete lack of class and such utter disrespect I almost could not believe it and had to read it twice to make sure I was seeing it right.

Rest assured, you truly are not worthy to carry Mosconi's jock strap and that has nothing to do with skill at all. He had more heart and respect for the game in his pinky finger then you have in your whole body and THAT is why he is a 15 times World Champion and I will be surprised if you EVER can say you are a 1 time World Champion given your attitude towards the game you just displayed there.

Willie was the one that actually stepped out of the box to play Hoppe in the billiard games, he was the guy who liked to challenge himself. He was not the type to try and pull people into a game they never even played, beat them, and then somehow feel proud about that accomplishment. His spirit is why he was so dominate and that is something you really cannot comprehend in the slightest because you lack completely that which made the truly great players great. Your own poor attitude will make sure that in 100 years they will still be talking about Mosconi and they will likely have forgotten John Schmidt. And with all your talent that is just a sad case.

 

[gunzby]

Kind of hard to make a comparison like that as both are great players. It's especially hard to make that comparison considering that during Mosconi's prime the equipment wasn't as good as it is now. Today the felt is much better, cushions are better, lights are better, tips are better and the balls are better.

It's like comparing Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan.

 

[muttley76]

Kind of hard to make a comparison like that as both are great players. It's especially hard to make that comparison considering that during Mosconi's prime the equipment wasn't as good as it is now. Today the felt is much better, cushions are better, lights are better, tips are better and the balls are better.

It's like comparing Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan.

All of that is true, but it goes both ways. The pockets are so much tighter that is would probably affect the avg inning's run by at least 10%-20%, the talent pool is deeper, and the players no longer play much 14.1, whereas back then it was pretty much the only pocket billiard game. Between the good and the bad, it make it truly impossible to try and compare, imo.

 

[Alex Kanapilly]

Finally

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 most of Mosconi's accomplishments were on 5 x 10 equipment. Facilitating the comparison, though, is the fact that the earliest portion of Sigel's career was on the slow cloth, too.

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.

Still, 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.

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.

Nice post.

 

[TXsouthpaw]

Page 167 "Willie's Game" by Willie Mosconi & Stanley Cohen:

"On March 19th in Springfield, Ohio I ran 526 balls, a record that still stands. I was playing a two-hundred point match against an amateur named Earl Bruney in the East High Billiard Club. He made three balls off the break, then I ran two hundred and just kept going. The run took two hours and ten minutes which meant that over that span I averaged four balls a minute. I finally missed a difficult cut shot, but by that time I was weary; it was almost a relief to have it come to an end."

That's the fact, right out of the horse's mouth.

Like I said. Ive read it both ways.(im not getting the books out to cite the page) But id believe willie's book over the others.
I wasnt doubting anybody.

 

[TXsouthpaw]

I always find it funny when someone appoints himself the ender of the discussion. As if their opinion is SO correct and indisputable that no further views on the matter shall be considered.

Yes thats exactly why I said end of discussion. Because I thought my opinion was the only one that mattered and everyone else should drop the issue since I had already spoken.:withstupid:

U read to much into a simple sentence. It is just a saying


and my point was, that until the record falls we shouldnt even be having this discusion.

 

[JB Cases]

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?

Sadly John Schmidt and all the current players who play 14.1 at a high level may never get the chance to equal any BUT Mosconi's high run record.

Mosconi is not defined purely by the high run that happened by chance at an exhibition. Instead he is acknowledged as the greatest ever by virtues of his constant incredible performances in high level competition. And this wasn't the kind of competition where you could just show up and play, instead it was the kind where you had to qualify through long tournaments at city and regional levels before getting a spot in the National/World Championships.

Mosconi so dominated his peers that their records aren't even close. In some competitions he had more runs of over a hundred balls on 5x10' tables than the rest of the field combined! And this was at the highest level of competition, at the world championships.

So John doesn't have the opportunity due to the lack of established 14.1 competitions held in the same grueling manner to exceed Mosconi's accomplishments.

So, about the only record that John can break is the 526 mark and if he did it on a 9 footer so much the better. If he did this then he would have a place among the greatest for sure.

 

[trustyrusty]

I really dislike the different eras (in any competition) comparisons, so I'm gonna throw a monkey wrench in it all. Mosconi vs. Ben Hogan or Byron Nelson, and John Schmidt vs. Tiger ... which is the closer matchup?

BTW, John I was in the AZB room for you and Corey's tries at the 1P challenge, and from what I saw you were both really good guys with INCREDIBLE games - I would fair much better against you two on the links

Don't sweat the "not in the same league" stuff...one generation said Nicklaus wouldn't hold a candle to Bobby Jones, and Nicklaus' generation thinks he woulda won more if he had the golfball and club technologies that Tiger is enjoying etc. Numbers are just numbers (many things affect records in different eras), great players in their own times are GREAT players PERIOD

 

[ShootingArts]

not really informative in the way you may hope

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

John,

I took twenty years off from pool. To be honest I have not a clue how Sigel played at his best. I didn't see it live or on TV. I have seen the numbers but that is nothing like watching him play. I have seen some short video's but it wasn't something I paid a lot of attention to. I don't know what your best is or can be, only what I have seen. I pay some extra attention to your play since the US Open. I also bought the 245 tape directly from you when you first offered it. These things cause me to pay attention to your play so I have seen more of your matches than of most of the current crop of pool players. Neither you or Hohmann matched Willie's cue ball control on the best I have seen you two play compared to the best I have seen him play.

It happens that the best I have ever seen Willie play was also the earliest I have seen him play and it was years later before I saw him play again. I don't know if he regularly delivered that level of play or they happened to catch him having a career day. I do know that he absolutely owned the cue ball that day. Not as flashy but every bit as in control or more so than Efren on the 2006 DCC One Pocket tapes.

The catch, as I went to some effort to explain in my first post, is that you, Sigel, or Hohmann have not had reason to focus on that level of control for the entire time you play pool. You often run 14.1 racks for practice precisely because it is better practice overall than other games. At least I seem to recall you saying on your video that this was true. You play 14.1 primarily because you enjoy it. Willie played it because it was his sole livelihood. Quit performing and his rare sponsorship and endorsement deal went away.

Most players for the last couple decades have derived most of their income from nine ball according to everything I see and hear. That simply doesn't put the same demands on a player for the same lengths of time that playing 14.1 does.

You are a great pool player. Will you reach legendary status? Nobody knows. It depends on both your accomplishments over the years and the exposure they get. Because of his endorsement deal and paid exhibitions Willie had more exposure than any player of his time. He does have the wins, and he has them competing against the best of his time. Nobody can say if he would have done the same today or not but any time anyone beats the best competition the world has to offer it is impossible to say that they couldn't have done it in a different time period.

This thread isn't about pool in general, it is about 14.1. Regardless of it offending you, you haven't begin to post the stat's that Willie has playing 14.1. You haven't dominated the 14.1 fields that you have played in either. Could you if you focused entirely on 14.1 to the exclusion of almost all else in your life as he did? Maybe, but until you either put that level of effort in 14.1 or dominate the current 14.1 world at your current level of effort we will never know.

The primary way we can judge players is by the yardstick of their peers. Willie dominated his peers in 14.1 in a way that you haven't yet. You would stack up better against Willie if you asked who was the better pool player. You still fall short overall because we are measuring a lifetime of his accomplishments against a few years of yours. Sometime in the future when people can tally up the lifetime stat's on both of you the story might be different. Right now you simply do not have the 14.1 record to compare with Willie so when you insist on comparing 14.1 you fall short.

I don't know you well enough to like you or dislike you and I have no ax to grind. Michael, (the420trooper) that originated this thread is a friend of mine. We often share opinions. I had intended to stay out of this thread until I saw that he started it. He will be interested in my opinion. Until you challenged me I had no idea that you would care about it one way or the other.

As of yet you haven't proven yourself the equal of a very select few pool players of all time. That doesn't even mean you aren't equal, it is unproven in seemingly most people's eyes including mine. Words on this forum, mine, yours, or anyone else's, won't make you the equal of the elite few legends of the game in anyone's eyes. That has to be done on the table. I sincerely wish you success as I do anyone whose goal it is to be the best.

Hu

 

[JB Cases]

All I can say on this subject is that if John were to give Willie a year (don't even need "the rest of his life") to run more than 245 balls on the same table John did then I would bet everything I could get, borrow, and steal, inlcuding my first child and promise to sell myself into slavery on Willie doing it with ease.

There may never be again another player who was as dedicated to winning straight pool matches and playing perfect as Willie Mosconi was.

By John's own admission he is a part time pool player. How great would he be if he played full time? Who knows. He himself said that if the top players of today were to play much more 14.1 then they wouldn't be better than he is. So by that logic I'd have to guess that even if John did decide to be a full time 14.1 player he wouldn't be "better than" Willie Mosconi.

And also, give Wille a few months to learn one pocket and banks and I will bet my wife's family fortune putting him in box on those games as well. Willie already knew how to play rotation games at world class speed.

 

[jay helfert]

I'll chime in once more with a few things that may be pertinent to this conversation. Most of Willie's World Championships were won in SIXTEEN man round robins. Some of his opponents included Jimmy Caras, Irving Crane, Babe Cranfield, Jimmy Moore, Andrew Ponzi, Chick Seabeck, Andrew St. Jean and even a young Luther Lassiter. These were VERY good players! Also highly skilled at Straight Pool.

Contrary to what has been posted, most of these championships were won on 9' tables. They became the norm in the post war years of the 40's. I've seen some of these old tables, Anniversaries and Sport Kings for the most part. They did not have 5" pockets, more like 4.5" with deep cut slate, straight cut pockets and stiff rails. If you hit the jaws or the side rail, the ball was not going in. A run over 100 was an achievement. And another thing, they played on slow cloth with clay balls. You had to have a big stroke to move the cue ball around on those tables. I know because I played on them too when I was a kid.

Willie was plain and simple, a WINNER! He won just the way the current champions do, by having more heart and desire than anyone else. He was the best player in an era with many great players, when Straight Pool was King. But don't think he couldn't play 9-Ball if he had to. To him the game was a joke, far too easy. He won a memorable match giving Nicky Vach the five and the break on a 5x10. And Nicky could play.

Willie was not the most social guy in the world, but he was a brilliant pool player. IMO opinion just as good as the best players today, and probably a little better at 14.1. A better comparison might be the previous generation of players, who played with the new balls and on Gold Crowns. I saw Mizerak, Sigel, Rempe, Hopkins, Varner, Diliberto, Kelly, Breit, Balsis, Worst, Lassiter, Moore, Martin and Lisciotti all play in their prime. If anyone thinks these guys weren't great players, they're just wrong. Are they as good as today's top players, I would have to say yes, JUST AS GOOD!

IMO Mizerak and Sigel remain among the top five players I ever saw play the game. At any game too! How would they do if they were playing today, and still in their prime, we will never know. For my money no one today plays 14.1 as good as Steve. And no one today would have to beat Mike at Straights, 9-Ball, or One Pocket for that matter. Even at Banks he was top speed. He is one guy Danny is lucky to have not played an all around with. I like Danny's game and John's too, but Sigel was...., well he was Sigel!

I won't go into the reasons why I liked Mike's game so much, but he had superior talents at certain aspects of the game. If you saw him play in the 70's and 80's and early 90's you would understand what I mean. He wasn't about to let anyone beat him either.

I'm sorry if I ruffle anyone's feathers, but their respective records speak for themselves. The most dominant player I've seen the last 10-12 years has been Ralf Souquet, who quietly wins multiple tournaments every year. In the 90's it was Johnny.

 

[sjm]

.... Some of his opponents included Jimmy Caras, Irving Crane, Babe Cranfield, Jimmy Moore, Andrew Ponzi, Chick Seabeck, Andrew St. Jean and even a young Luther Lassiter. These were VERY good players! Also highly skilled at Straight Pool.

Contrary to what has been posted, most of these championships were won on 9' tables. They became the norm in the post war years of the 40's. I've seen some of these old tables, Anniversaries and Sport Kings for the most part. They did not have 5" pockets, more like 4.5" with deep cut slate, straight cut pockets and stiff rails. If you hit the jaws or the side rail, the ball was not going in. A run over 100 was an achievement. And another thing, they played on slow cloth with clay balls.

Great post, Jay. Yes, Willie played in an era when many other legends played.

I think clay balls were no longer the norm in the latter part of Mosconi's career, and some old timers have suggested that running balls was not any tougher with the clay balls unless one played with an old set, of course. In fact, Bob Jewett once noted:

...I think clay balls are less likely to skid.....

In short, how the use of clay balls should be factored into the high run discussion is not as simple as it might seem.

 

[APA7]

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.

Welcome back, BJ [i thought U were leaving forever].

R U still interested in my `put up or shut up` bet that U can`t run 75 balls?:wink:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=1518396#post1518396

Brian

 

[BillPorter]

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.

My thoughts exactly. I'm sorry that John responded to the thread the way he did. I have a lot of respect for his game and was glad to see him win the one-pocket at DCC, but his responses to this thread have been less than impressive.

 

[fbreen]

Willie vs John

First off the tournaments that were held with 8 players.
Willie had to Qualify locally - than state than region - than Nationals.
I think he came in Second his first time.

Also when Willie was 8 he went on the road with Ralph Greenleaf.
And had exhibitions where he won short races to 50.

Ralph Greenleaf and Willie are #1 and #2 you can choose.

Now this is 14.1

To John's case 14.1 is not the game anymore.
So he has a passion to play and practice this game.
I am not sure if John has one any major 14.1 tournaments.
He has the game to do this.

One of the things as i am doing a lot of research on Ralph Greenleaf.
The Tournaments back than were not a race to 150.

they were 100 to 200 ball blocks.
Races to 1200 to 4000 i have seen.

Ralph Greenleaf in the 20's actually was spotting people for the tittle.

The said thing is that in the 20's is that the money paid was what people are making today.

Billiards was in the sports pages like Baseball.

I think this was common until the Johnston City years.

So it seems that the Gambling element.. has truly hurt the sport.

New York Times has all of the info.. look it up. .
Actually shows the innings .. on a lot of this info.

They actually had a gold crown that if you defended 5 times in a row.

They is a great article. On Greenleaf when he sued Brunswick.
How much he made per day in each pool hall.

His life.. of any pool player should be documented
He brought the crowds in .. Made as much money as Babe Ruth in the 20's
Was held on Murder than released.
Went off in a tournament like Earl.
Was a Acoholic..
Sued Brunswick and won.
And eventually was removed from playing by Charlie Peterson.

Oh.. yeah. he won 12 Worlds.
Played Willie Hoppe in Billiards,
From 1918 to 194? Was a top player.

Still gathering all the info.

 

[john schmidt]

hi

Wow, just wow.




something i want to put in perspective was mosconi was sponsored ,played several exibitions a year etc.

his peers had jobs ,crane sold cars,balsis the butcher, cranfield rca records.etc

the guys i play today have no jobs and their is 200 of them who never miss a ball.

then you compare guys liuke me by saying oh you havent won a million times.

give me a break

anyhow you hate me because as you eluded to ealier i beat stan out of money or i beat you out of money and woofed at you to play.

so you clearly you dislike me to begin with and frankly i understand.

that explains your hostility and why you talk about mosconi like he was your dad.

well its not my job to walk around and say mosconi was the greatest blah blah.

actually several guys tried to gamble with him and lassiter i heard wanted to play him nineball.

anyway willie was awesome but to say the guys today arent in the same league shows your clueless is all.

 

[14oneman]

There is one mis-conception that some posts elude to, that all Willie could play was 14.1 and nothing else. That is simply not true.

Willie played 14.1, because it was the game of his era, and it was the game he loved. I remember him telling me, "9 ball is for bangers", but that doesn't mean he couldn't play it.

I remember in 1969, watching Willie at an exhibition, run off 200 balls like he was sleep walking, on a 9' Gold Crown, with modern balls, and some heckler in the crowd asked him about 9 ball. He politely said, "The championship game of pocket billiards is straight pool". The heckler made some reference as to Willies inablility to play 9 ball, and Willie said, "Well, I don't know about that". He then racked a set for 9 ball, and calmly proceded to break and run 11 straight racks, at which time he turned to the heckler and said,"Have I made my point?"

I also witnessed him play a one pocket game, in which he crushed his opponent like a grape. Same thing with 8 ball.

Anyone who thinks Willie would not be competitive in this era, with different games, if he were in his prime, or thinks that he couldn't play anything but 14.1, either knows nothing about the man, or is smokin' crack!

He was simply the greatest pool player that ever lived, and I've yet to see someone better in my lifetiime.

 

[john schmidt]

I'll chime in once more with a few things that may be pertinent to this conversation. Most of Willie's World Championships were won in SIXTEEN man round robins. Some of his opponents included Jimmy Caras, Irving Crane, Babe Cranfield, Jimmy Moore, Andrew Ponzi, Chick Seabeck, Andrew St. Jean and even a young Luther Lassiter. These were VERY good players! Also highly skilled at Straight Pool.

Contrary to what has been posted, most of these championships were won on 9' tables. They became the norm in the post war years of the 40's. I've seen some of these old tables, Anniversaries and Sport Kings for the most part. They did not have 5" pockets, more like 4.5" with deep cut slate, straight cut pockets and stiff rails. If you hit the jaws or the side rail, the ball was not going in. A run over 100 was an achievement. And another thing, they played on slow cloth with clay balls. You had to have a big stroke to move the cue ball around on those tables. I know because I played on them too when I was a kid.

Willie was plain and simple, a WINNER! He won just the way the current champions do, by having more heart and desire than anyone else. He was the best player in an era with many great players, when Straight Pool was King. But don't think he couldn't play 9-Ball if he had to. To him the game was a joke, far too easy. He won a memorable match giving Nicky Vach the five and the break on a 5x10. And Nicky could play.

Willie was not the most social guy in the world, but he was a brilliant pool player. IMO opinion just as good as the best players today, and probably a little better at 14.1. A better comparison might be the previous generation of players, who played with the new balls and on Gold Crowns. I saw Mizerak, Sigel, Rempe, Hopkins, Varner, Diliberto, Kelly, Breit, Balsis, Worst, Lassiter, Moore, Martin and Lisciotti all play in their prime. If anyone thinks these guys weren't great players, they're just wrong. Are they as good as today's top players, I would have to say yes, JUST AS GOOD!

IMO Mizerak and Sigel remain among the top five players I ever saw play the game. At any game too! How would they do if they were playing today, and still in their prime, we will never know. For my money no one today plays 14.1 as good as Steve. And no one today would have to beat Mike at Straights, 9-Ball, or One Pocket for that matter. Even at Banks he was top speed. He is one guy Danny is lucky to have not played an all around with. I like Danny's game and John's too, but Sigel was...., well he was Sigel!

I won't go into the reasons why I liked Mike's game so much, but he had superior talents at certain aspects of the game. If you saw him play in the 70's and 80's and early 90's you would understand what I mean. He wasn't about to let anyone beat him either.

I'm sorry if I ruffle anyone's feathers, but their respective records speak for themselves. The most dominant player I've seen the last 10-12 years has been Ralf Souquet, who quietly wins multiple tournaments every year. In the 90's it was Johnny.

ive heard this he gave vach the 5 and the break on a 5x10.

hears the deal with that, the 5x10 would break so bad that willie was getting the first shot everygame because vach never made a ball on the break.

in reality he was damn near spotting willie.

it just shows how little they understood about pool back then.

it would be like someone saying john ill give you the break playing 6ball .

everybody knows you never hardly make a ball on the break at 6ball.

 

[john schmidt]

There is one mis-conception that some posts elude to, that all Willie could play was 14.1 and nothing else. That is simply not true.

Willie played 14.1, because it was the game of his era, and it was the game he loved. I remember him telling me, "9 ball is for bangers", but that doesn't mean he couldn't play it.

I remember in 1969, watching Willie at an exhibition, run off 200 balls like he was sleep walking, on a 9' Gold Crown, with modern balls, and some heckler in the crowd asked him about 9 ball. He politely said, "The championship game of pocket billiards is straight pool". The heckler made some reference as to Willies inablility to play 9 ball, and Willie said, "Well, I don't know about that". He then racked a set for 9 ball, and calmly proceded to break and run 11 straight racks, at which time he turned to the heckler and said,"Have I made my point?"

I also witnessed him play a one pocket game, in which he crushed his opponent like a grape. Same thing with 8 ball.

Anyone who thinks Willie would not be competitive in this era, with different games, if he were in his prime, or thinks that he couldn't play anything but 14.1, either knows nothing about the man, or is smokin' crack!

He was simply the greatest pool player that ever lived, and I've yet to see someone better in my lifetiime.

your kidding right.

someone heckles him about 9ball and on demand he decides to run 11 racks in a row and says have i proved my point.lol

please try to not believe everything you hear .

 

[14oneman]

your kidding right.

someone heckles him about 9ball and on demand he decides to run 11 racks in a row and says have i proved my point.lol

please try to not believe everything you hear .

No, John, I'm not kidding. I was there and witnessed it.