Better equipment, shafts, Tips, and Kamui Chalk, but the 526 RUN RECORDS Stands?
- Thread starter CocoboloCowboy
- Start date
I think if any particular player started traveling around doing exhibitions, and at every stop they ran 100, people would still be impressed.
Collecting 15 World Championships wouldn't hurt either ;-)
Lou Figueroa
i'm not saying the guy wasn't impressive. just from what i've read he was really picky about what equipment he would play on.
and like i said it seems like it was way easier to achieve legend status back in the day.
Most of the 15 weren't tournaments, they were something like 1000pt challenge matches - correct?
So someone answer me this:
If the latest DP 14.1 "World Championship" couldn't get WPA (or whatever) approval to be called a "World Championship" and the field was POLLUTED with the top 14.1 players on planet earth....... how on EARTH can Mosconi's championships be counted when they were 1-on-1 challenge matches (mostly)?
How many real world tournaments (having a real field of over 32 or 64 players) did he win? Regardless of what anyone says, beating 1-guy in a challenge match isn't a WORLD-CHAMPIONSHIP. Sorry. That said, how many did he win?
FWIW-- Wikipedia lists the corner pockets of his run at 5 1/4". I have a hunch today's elite can run 526 on an 8'er with 5 1/4" pockets especially if you put that Valley-type cloth on it (the kind where you can't lose your CB, where you just push the CB around the table). Based on that, if a promoter is going to put up $20k to break it -- leave the Diamond at home and setup like for like equipment. The reason it hasn't been broken is nobody plays on small black-hole tables like that anymore. That's the answer for CC's OP.
So someone answer me this:
If the latest DP 14.1 "World Championship" couldn't get WPA (or whatever) approval to be called a "World Championship" and the field was POLLUTED with the top 14.1 players on planet earth....... how on EARTH can Mosconi's championships be counted when they were 1-on-1 challenge matches (mostly)?
How many real world tournaments (having a real field of over 32 or 64 players) did he win? Regardless of what anyone says, beating 1-guy in a challenge match isn't a WORLD-CHAMPIONSHIP. Sorry. That said, how many did he win?
FWIW-- Wikipedia lists the corner pockets of his run at 5 1/4". I have a hunch today's elite can run 526 on an 8'er with 5 1/4" pockets especially if you put that Valley-type cloth on it (the kind where you can't lose your CB, where you just push the CB around the table). Based on that, if a promoter is going to put up $20k to break it -- leave the Diamond at home and setup like for like equipment. The reason it hasn't been broken is nobody plays on small black-hole tables like that anymore. That's the answer for CC's OP.
Last edited:
Wow when you put it like that it does make a lot of sense that the record hasn't been broken. they're playing on completely different standards. it's like making baseball fields a couple hundred yards bigger and then saying nobody hits as many home runs as babe ruth
I have to agree 100% here. I've been saying over and over in other threads (e.g. here and here) that the older equipment had more forgiving pocket cuts, pocket shelves, and cushions -- nevermind the "size" of the pocket apertures. It's no argument that today's cushion rubber is much livelier, and this has a profound effect on shots hit down the rails (to a corner pocket) at speed. Yesteryear's cushion rubbers could be considered "mushy" by today's standards; you can get away with hitting a ball badly down the rail to a corner pocket (e.g. glancing a diamond or so away from the pocket and still pocketing). You can even see this in some of the Mosconi demo videos:
http://vimeo.com/4957545
Watch for the following:
- The 1-ball at 3mins 30secs [3:30] in the video. Willie hits this one with a little bit of speed, so you'll have to watch very carefully -- that 1-ball actually hits the cushion a full diamond away from the pocket, but the cushion absorbs the impact and "straightens" the 1-ball's trajectory towards the pocket. There's no rebound off that cushion. That shot, hit on today's tables, would more than likely jar in the pocket, because the 1-ball would've rebounded off the cushion at a greater angle, towards the corner pocket's opposite pocket facing, due to the livelier cushions on today's tables.
- The 8-ball at 5mins 8secs [5:08] in the video. This one speaks to the pocket sizes that are being argued in this thread. And yes, when you watch that 8-ball go into the corner pocket, you can see just how large those pockets are. That pocket can comfortably fit two object balls, side-by-side, rolling into the pocket simultaneously, and still have wiggle room to spare.
- The 9-ball at 7mins 8secs [7:08] in the video. You can see this one hits the cushion a full diamond away, and still pockets, due to the "mushy" (by today's standards) cushion on that table.
All you guys are going on and on here about the size of the pocket apertures, as if it's the exclusive determining component of whether a table played easier or not. The fact is, there's much more to how a table plays than merely the size of the pockets. If you can standardize all the other aspects -- i.e. the aforementioned pocket cuts, pocket shelves, cushions, etc. -- then sure, the pocket "size" then comes into play as a determining factor. But IMHO, the other components -- which are more "globally important" to how a table plays -- are being ignored in this thread.
In my humble opinion, I think Thomas Engert's 491-ball run, on German Dynamic tables (9-footer) with Artemis cushion rubber, is a modern day high run that is on par -- if not an even greater achievement -- than Mosconi's 526 on an 8-footer with suspect cushions, pocket cuts, pocket shelves, and yes, pocket size. Or, John Schmidt's two 400+ ball runs on Diamond tables -- which, as we all know, are tables that the "keep you honest" factor built right in.
-Sean
Yeah, real picky, traveling across the country for years and playing in hundreds of different rooms.
Man was a real stickler.
Lou Figueroa
Thanks, Sean. Just to keep it real--- were either of John's 400+ runs done on a Diamond? I didn't think either were on a Diamond. I might be mistaken though. I think ANY 400+ ball run on a normal 9'er is better than Mosconi's 526 on the table he used. But, that's just me.
Dave
Dave
Dave:
At least one of them was, for a fact. Right after John got his first OB-1 shaft (back when he was sponsored by Owen-Bunnell), he shot with it at Q-Masters, in the pro room (all Diamond tables back there). That's where the first 400 was done. The second one (the 403, I believe), I'm not so sure about -- it may've been done on a Gold Crown, or a Diamond. (We might want to have Marop chime in here.)
Either way, I agree with you. Even *if* both of John's 400s were not done on Diamonds, they for sure were done on GCs setup to today's standards -- which are a lot tighter than the standards of old.
-Sean
I know there has been much debate about whether the DP event was a true world championship, but this is an issue that has been part of the sport forever. If you look at the resumes of many players you will find many highly questionable titles.
Lou Figueroa
I read someplace, "Don't believe everything you read."
I'm gonna just say for now that all the above is true. Ok, the record still stands though as far as i'm concerned (and the record books as well). I think baseball, which was brought up, has a great analogy: if a right hander hit 78 home runs and his home field was Fenway Park, and in the future all the parks had more distant left field walls, well.... it just wouldn't matter. Perhaps justifiably is should matter to some extent, but it just doesn't, because there is no way to objectively quantify what that close wall is worth exactly. It is just one of those things that has to stand, there is no other way around it. I think it is fair too, especially seeing there is nothing stopping players from hitting balls on a loose 8 footer.
An interesting note, to me anyway.... baseball fans and players don't care and fuss over this stuff as much. Fans know that a relatively low ERA at say the A's coliseum in Oakland is not exactly equal to a low ERA for pitchers who play half their games in other fields due to the high amount of foul ground at the Coliseum. But they just don't get SO caught up on it. They will give out the ERA award to the lowest ERA, OVER. I really believe this is the way to go. I just don't think saying "it is really a greater feat to run X amount of balls on a diamond" is right. It's like saying 1.82 ERA at Anaheim Stadium is stronger than 1.79 at the coliseum. Maybe you are right, but it just can't be that way. You can think that, but as far as official records go, it has to stand. All the rest is really just conjecture. I mean somebody could say running 15 balls in straight pool on the old big bertha at hard times is stronger than willie's 526.... and maybe they are right -- but who cares is the point, the 526 stands.
Point of my post if you don't want to read all that, maybe people have pulled off "greater" runs when considering equipment, but even if this is in fact true, it just doesn't matter -- and for good reason.
And by the way spider, I totally agree with you on those titles.... "15 world championships" is HIGHLY misleading.
Last edited:
Willie Mosconi played in a World Championship for the first time in December of 1933, in Chicago. He was 20 years old and nearly won the title. He would play for the Championship 5 more times during the 1930’s, nearly winning in 1938.
From November 1940 through to May, 1941, 8 players played each other 32 times in the World Championship League. Mosconi went 176-48 and was declared World Champion.
He would defend the title in a 6 player double round robin, November, 1942.
Andrew Ponzi then defeated Willie 1250-1050, April, 1943. Willie then got revenge in February, 1944, by defeating Ponzi 1250-924.
Then in January and February, 1945, Willie would play Greenleaf 48 blocks of 125 to defend the Title. Willie won 5498-3738. Greenleaf by that time, was not anywhere near the player he had been. In fact, because of his erratic behavior, he had actually been barred from some competitions.
Mosconi would defend against Jimmy Caras in February and March, 1946, by way of an 86 block match in 10 cities. Mosconi wins 8727-7508.
November, 1946, he plays 30 blocks of 125 in 4 cities versus Crane and wins 3750-2919.
In May of 1947, another defense against Crane of 16 blocks of 125 in 2 cities, 2000-918.
October, 1947, 32 blocks of 125 in 3 cities with Jimmy Caras that Mosconi wins 4000-2334.
Then March, 1948, in Chicago, He plays 9 blocks of 150 versus Ponzi and wins 1350-643.
By now, the tournaments are being played on 4 1/2 X 9 foot tables.
The tournament in Chicago, February, 1949, was a four man double round robin that Jimmy Caras wins.
Chicago, February, 1950, another 4 man double round robin where Mosconi and Crane tie. Willie wins playoff 150-112.
January, 1951, a title defense of 20 blocks of 150 with Crane results in a 3000-2323 win.
He goes 6-0 in another 4 man double round robin in Chicago, February, 1951.
An 8-1 record in Boston, April, 1952 in a 10 man round robin was good enough to win again.
Then another 9 man round robin in San Francisco, March, 1953, Willie goes 8-0.
In a title defense with Joe Procita, held in Philadelphia and Chicago, February 1954, they played 16 blocks of 150. Mosconi won every block and ran 150 twice.
An Unofficial World Tournament was held in Philadelphia with 7 players, March 1954. Luther Lassiter wins. Mosconi did not play.
Then in March, 1955, a 4 man double round robin in Philadelphia resulted in a tie with Irving Crane, where Crane wins the playoff 150-87.
Mosconi wins back the title over Crane in November, 1955 with 10 blocks of 150, 1500-676.
A 6 city defense with Jimmy Caras, of 32 blocks of 150 in February 1956, results in Mosconi winning all 32 blocks, 6300-3007.
Then, the 8 player double round robin April, 1956, in Kinston, NC, resulted in Mosconi going 14-0 with a high run of 150.
After which, Mosconi played Jimmy Moore 12 blocks of 150, winning all of them, 1800 –879, Albuquerque, NM, march, 1956.
This would be his last World Championship, as he retires from competitive pool at the age of 43
Thanks for the video link, Sean. It was very interesting, and it revealed two things very clearly: 1. It took a tremendous amount of talent for Willie to go through two racks, on camera, in a matter of minutes, all-the-while explaining each shot beforehand, and then effortlessly executing those shots to near perfection. (Can all of you at least appreciate the difficulty of split-concentration, such as that?) 2. Willie stated, on camera, that he never did miss a ball in his record run, he just "got tired and quit." (Was he lying when he said that?)
I apologize for interrupting this fine discussion on the greatness of today's pool tables. :grin:
Roger
Good post, Chinchilla
Golf does the same thing....shooting 280 for 4 rounds on a par 72 course
is much better than 280 on a par 70 course.
The records should be how much under par (and course rating)
But this gives gamblers an edge..they bet with these differences in mind.
I won't take anything away from Willie....don't think he'd win as many
titles on a tournament basis, but he was a giant of his era and showed
later generations how well the game can be played.
..but if I had my druthers, I'd rather have Engert's 491 than Mosconi's 526
Last edited:
Roger:
You are indeed taking this in a different direction than I think the OP intended. Don't forget, at this time in Willie's life, he was doing exclusively exhibitions for coin. When you get in the swing of doing this type of PR, you get *very* good at it. The "walking and chewing gum at the same time" thing becomes a moot issue.
In fact, while I'm typing this response to you, I have a customer on the phone walking them through a spanning-tree issue with their Cisco network switches. It takes a high degree of concentration to talk to the customer, keep part of my mind on their problem and the step-by-step procedure to resolve it, yet I'm also typing a response to you about *pool* (completely unrelated to what I'm talking to my customer about). My point? It's a practiced skill. I've been doing this for years.
As an instructor, you yourself can do this, Roger. I'm sure if someone equipped you with a steady pipeline of students, back-to-back-to-back, over the course of several weeks or months, you'll find that you can talk and demonstrate at the same time.
Telestrating while shooting is the same thing as the "walking and chewing gum at the same time" thing. It's no big deal. You can do it.
-Sean
P.S.: in Willie's book, he admits he missed a 6-ball in the corner pocket. So I think in the video, he's using some, umm... "artistic license" by saying he just got tired.
Last edited:
Calling a lie "artistic license" just because it's used for marketing purposes doesn't mean that it's still not a lie. If the man was a liar, he was a liar.:embarrassed2:
Roger
The Cobra cleared that up. It's not Mosconi's fault, but from the looks of it almost all of his world titles involved less than 10 guys - many times only two. Like I said -- Not saying he wouldn't have won a 64 player field regardless, but still. If you take the top 8 guys in 14.1 and have them play each other for 30 years straight--- maybe one of those guys would get 15 world titles too. Just saying.
hahaha God, our sport is so messed up.
Roger:
I see your point, if we're talking "in the spirit of boiling it down to barebones." But I'm not in the habit of calling anyone a liar, unless I'm prepared to do that face-to-face, and even then, I have to be mighty p!ssed and have a strong dislike for the person.
In person, Willie was great to be around (I met him during one of his exhibitions). If Willie answered "I just got tired" when I asked him about what ended his run (especially if I were armed with foreknowledge from his book), I certainly wouldn't call the man a liar -- especially in the friendly way he answers the question in the video. I might upturn an eyebrow and smile at him with a knowing smile (and he would know immediately I knew a little more than I let on), but definitely not call him a liar.
And, even though it might appear as though I'm swinging a machete at the legs of the pedestal that some of the posters here are propping Willie up on, I do admire the man's skills and achievements. I just don't get the mythical idolatry cast upon him, especially with the significant caveats (or shall we politically correctly say "asterisked footnotes") to his accomplishments, as already mentioned here?
-Sean
Just because someone has accomplished great things in a sport does not mean the man himself is great. I mean really, by all accounts Mosconi was "temperamental," perhaps as many geniuses are who come to expect perfection in an imperfect world.
To some of us there is a difference between telling a lie and being a liar. After all, who amongst us has not told an untruth?
I will let Roger cast the first stone.
Lou Figueroa