Better equipment, shafts, Tips, and Kamui Chalk, but the 526 RUN RECORDS Stands?

[CocoboloCowboy]

I know he's gone, I was just saying "What if..."

Your spot on with that comment though! He was pure talent!

My long time friend is a Cousin to Willie, his dad was mentioned in the Book-Willie's Game. My friend have had many conversation about Willie. Brunswick had Willie on the pay roll for years, as Willie was Great For, and IMHO Pool Greatest Ambassador. When willie was Drafted in WW-ii he spend his time in uniform going from Camp to Camp entertaining the Troops with his pool talents.

IMHO Pool need more Willie Types, to bring the game back to the people, and make pool popular again.

 

[topcat1953]

I don't get it. If Cranfield ran over 700 and Eufemia had a run over 600 and Mosconi run 42 or 43 racks in a row before one of the Fats matches, isn't it true that those runs were on standard 4 1/2 X 9's? If so, then why bother with trying to match the playing conditions of Mosconi's 526? There are only a handful of guys in the World who might be able to attain a new record. So, just do it, if your capable.

Beside that, 14.1 is probably the best test to determine the best player. Although 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-Ball, One Pocket are great games, they are games which involve more degrees of luck and are designed for gambling and TV.

Seems to me, that up until the Color of Money, 14.1 was the game of Champions. It may not be true for the newer generation of players, but all the best players from the 70's, 80's, into the 90's, had strong 14.1 backgrounds and won titles in all disciplines.

14.1 is making a comeback and could very well be the salvation of our Sport for the future.

 

[stevekur1]

I don't get it. If Cranfield ran over 700 and Eufemia had a run over 600 and Mosconi run 42 or 43 racks in a row before one of the Fats matches, isn't it true that those runs were on standard 4 1/2 X 9's? If so, then why bother with trying to match the playing conditions of Mosconi's 526? There are only a handful of guys in the World who might be able to attain a new record. So, just do it, if your capable.

Beside that, 14.1 is probably the best test to determine the best player. Although 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-Ball, One Pocket are great games, they are games which involve more degrees of luck and are designed for gambling and TV.

Seems to me, that up until the Color of Money, 14.1 was the game of Champions. It may not be true for the newer generation of players, but all the best players from the 70's, 80's, into the 90's, had strong 14.1 backgrounds and won titles in all disciplines.

14.1 is making a comeback and could very well be the salvation of our Sport for the future.

Tap, Tap, Tap.....Greenies comin at ya !!!!

 

[cleary]

Beside that, 14.1 is probably the best test to determine the best player. Although 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-Ball, One Pocket are great games, they are games which involve more degrees of luck and are designed for gambling and TV.

Totally disagree with you. To string racks of 9ball or 10ball is harder than straight pool. If you run 100 balls in 9ball, thats an 11pack... how often does that happen? The 9ball break is pretty easy to make a ball on the break, especially with a magic rack so you can call the break "luck" all you want but lets see how lucky a top player gets when you spot him the breaks...

Furthermore, you included one pocket in there and said that involves more luck that straight pool... Your family will put you in the psych ward if you keep talkin like that.

 

[Apocalypse2017]

Totally disagree with you. To string racks of 9ball or 10ball is harder than straight pool. If you run 100 balls in 9ball, thats an 11pack... how often does that happen?

This is from a 9/10ball players prospective.

Lets say you're a monster like SVB. I've heard stories of him running big packs (6pack recently in 10ball). In 9/10ball you get BIH behind the head-string for each break and probably make 1-3 balls on the break. The only thing stopping him from running out every set is getting unlucky on the break ie scratching on the break or no shot at the 1 ball.

14.1 you must get precise position to break out the stack every rack along with getting lucky a few times to run say 150. You must play precise position unlike rotation where you can play to an area.

I'd be willing to make a small bet, the average rotation player couldn't run more than 25 balls in 14.1 with 20 attempts.

Disclaimer: this is all IMO of course.

 

[topcat1953]

Totally disagree with you. To string racks of 9ball or 10ball is harder than straight pool. If you run 100 balls in 9ball, thats an 11pack... how often does that happen? The 9ball break is pretty easy to make a ball on the break, especially with a magic rack so you can call the break "luck" all you want but lets see how lucky a top player gets when you spot him the breaks...

Furthermore, you included one pocket in there and said that involves more luck that straight pool... Your family will put you in the psych ward if you keep talkin like that.

I love one pocket and have played my share of it. The creative part of one pocket is what makes it so appealing, but how many times have you been on the receiving end of your opponent's moving the balls toward his hole and one just happens to drop in? The move is skill, the ball dropping in is luck. You can say the result of a good move was that a ball dropped, but it is still luck if you did not plan for it to happen.
In 14.1, you must call every ball to a pocket. The only luck there is missing it and it caroms off something and goes in, which doesn't happen very often, once you reach a certain level of play. You could also say there is luck with how clusters break out, too. But, again, the more skilled players know where and when to attack the clusters.
I was told years ago by an oldtimer, that was what made Mosconi better than everyone else. His ball to ball play. He knew how, where and when to hit clusters and break out balls better than anyone.

 

[maxeypad2007]

Bank 9-ball is pretty exciting to watch as well.

A few of my friends who are not pool players at all went to the derby city classic last year and were completely mesmerized by the bank ring game. The bank ring game format has tons of crazy shots that you never seen in a real game. Its much more of a spectator sport than anything i've seen to date.

 

[sfleinen]

Totally disagree with you. To string racks of 9ball or 10ball is harder than straight pool. If you run 100 balls in 9ball, thats an 11pack... [...]

This is from a 9/10ball players prospective.

Lets say you're a monster like SVB. I've heard stories of him running big packs (6pack recently in 10ball). In 9/10ball you get BIH behind the head-string for each break and probably make 1-3 balls on the break. The only thing stopping him from running out every set is getting unlucky on the break ie scratching on the break or no shot at the 1 ball.

14.1 you must get precise position to break out the stack every rack along with getting lucky a few times to run say 150. You must play precise position unlike rotation where you can play to an area.

I'd be willing to make a small bet, the average rotation player couldn't run more than 25 balls in 14.1 with 20 attempts.

Disclaimer: this is all IMO of course.

I totally agree. Let's take some of the fallacies about 14.1 proffered by 9-ballers, point-by-point:

1. "14.1? You mean I can shoot at *any* ball, and not just the lowest-numbered ball on the table? Oh my gosh, how can *anyone* who's a decent shooter not just salivate all over that, and run lots of balls with the greatest of ease?"

Answer: Patterns, numbskull. The patterns aren't dictated to you by the numbers on the balls, in "color by numbers" style. You have to create your own patterns. And, unlike 9-ball where the "pattern" (again, dictated to you by the numbers on the balls) is more difficult at first, and gets easier as you remove balls off of the table (the "less congestion" thing), 14.1 gets progressively more difficult as you remove balls off of the table. In fact, when you get down to the last three balls, the pattern is at its most critical point -- you are working for an optimum position on the break ball, and in most cases you have only inches to play with. Overrun or underrun your position on the key ball (or the break ball itself) by a mere inch, and YOU HAVE NO BREAK BALL. You'll have to play a safety on your break shot (or sink the break ball and play a safety off the rack), bringing your run to an end.

2. "If you run 100 balls in 9ball, thats an 11pack..."

Answer: I love when 9-ballers say that. In fact, you'll only hear that kind of speak coming from 9-ballers who've never played (or have only once or twice "tried") 14.1 in their life. How can any correlation between a run in 14.1 and a package of consecutive break-and-run 9-ball racks be made? One thing, they are completely different skill sets. Two, they are not comparable because in 9-ball, the break itself is the variable (even *with* a Magic Rack). In 9-ball, it's not as dangerously imminent that you're going to be seated for most or the entire set if you miss. The break in 9-ball introduces enough of a variable that you stand a good chance that you'll get back to the table (regardless if it's a dry break, pushout, or a safety -- at least you're getting back to the table and "can at least do something"). In 14.1, you make one false move, and you better have your truck driver's heated seat cushion handy, for you may spend the rest of your time there, and only get up to shake your opponent's hand after he/she runs the game completely out on you. There have been instances in a 150-point match where Player A runs 149 and misses, then Player B gets up to the table and runs 150-and-out (this happened to Mike Sigel). Three, the call-shot aspect comes into play -- slop doesn't cut it in 14.1. As an example, in 14.1, if you have a ball hanging in the pocket, off to one side of the pocket, and you try to combo another ball into that hanging ball (you called the hanging ball), but the ball you shot squeaks by the hanging ball leaving the hanging ball still up on the table, you just turned the table over to your opponent, even though that would be a legal shot in 9-ball.

3. "I'd be willing to make a small bet, the average rotation player couldn't run more than 25 balls in 14.1 with 20 attempts."

Answer 1: I agree. In fact, I'll go one step further -- I'd be willing to make a small bet (I'm a working man) that the average rotation player can't get into the second rack at all, within 6 attempts. (That is, if you miss [i.e. missing during the rack, missing the break ball itself, or making the break ball but missing the rack], you re-rack and start over.) Unless one practices 14.1 regularly, the whole "playing to an area" thing in 9-ball works only to a point in 14.1. You have to be much more accurate than that. IMHO, your average one pocket player has a better chance at a high run in 14.1 than the average 9-baller, precisely because of better cue ball control, as well as deeper knowledge of what balls will do / where they end up when breaking up a cluster. And on top of that, knowledge of 14.1 *patterns* is indispensable to ensuring a high run, among the other aspects mentioned above. 9-ballers simply don't have those patterns memorized, simply because they can't, unless they play 14.1 regularly (as Johnny Archer and Mika Immonen do).

Answer 2: Uninterrupted concentration and focus is the key to successful 14.1. Your average 9-baller has about as much concentration as can be spread across 9 balls (including the break). Their focus tends to "reset" after pocketing the 9-ball, getting ready for the break in the next rack. In 14.1, you have to remain focused for the entire time, until you either run the match out, or until you play a safety to turn the table over to your opponent. Big difference in focus factor there. You either have that long-term focus/concentration as a "gift," or you build it with lots of 14.1 practice.

-Sean

 

[easy-e]

I totally agree. Let's take some of the fallacies about 14.1 proffered by 9-ballers, point-by-point:

1. "14.1? You mean I can shoot at *any* ball, and not just the lowest-numbered ball on the table? Oh my gosh, how can *anyone* who's a decent shooter not just salivate all over that, and run lots of balls with the greatest of ease?"

Answer: Patterns, numbskull. The patterns aren't dictated to you by the numbers on the balls, in "color by numbers" style. You have to create your own patterns. And, unlike 9-ball where the "pattern" (again, dictated to you by the numbers on the balls) is more difficult at first, and gets easier as you remove balls off of the table (the "less congestion" thing), 14.1 gets progressively more difficult as you remove balls off of the table. In fact, when you get down to the last three balls, the pattern is at its most critical point -- you are working for an optimum position on the break ball, and in most cases you have only inches to play with. Overrun or underrun your position on the key ball (or the break ball itself) by a mere inch, and YOU HAVE NO BREAK BALL. You'll have to play a safety on your break shot (or sink the break ball and play a safety off the rack), bringing your run to an end.

2. "If you run 100 balls in 9ball, thats an 11pack..."

Answer: I love when 9-ballers say that. In fact, you'll only hear that kind of speak coming from 9-ballers who've never played (or have only once or twice "tried") 14.1 in their life. How can any correlation between a run in 14.1 and a package of consecutive break-and-run 9-ball racks be made? One thing, they are completely different skill sets. Two, they are not comparable because in 9-ball, the break itself is the variable (even *with* a Magic Rack). In 9-ball, it's not as dangerously imminent that you're going to be seated for most or the entire set if you miss. The break in 9-ball introduces enough of a variable that you stand a good chance that you'll get back to the table (regardless if it's a dry break, pushout, or a safety -- at least you're getting back to the table and "can at least do something"). In 14.1, you make one false move, and you better have your truck driver's heated seat cushion handy, for you may spend the rest of your time there, and only get up to shake your opponent's hand after he/she runs the game completely out on you. There have been instances in a 150-point match where Player A runs 149 and misses, then Player B gets up to the table and runs 150-and-out (this happened to Mike Sigel). Three, the call-shot aspect comes into play -- slop doesn't cut it in 14.1. As an example, in 14.1, if you have a ball hanging in the pocket, off to one side of the pocket, and you try to combo another ball into that hanging ball (you called the hanging ball), but the ball you shot squeaks by the hanging ball leaving the hanging ball still up on the table, you just turned the table over to your opponent, even though that would be a legal shot in 9-ball.

3. "I'd be willing to make a small bet, the average rotation player couldn't run more than 25 balls in 14.1 with 20 attempts."

Answer 1: I agree. In fact, I'll go one step further -- I'd be willing to make a small bet (I'm a working man) that the average rotation player can't get into the second rack at all, within 6 attempts. (That is, if you miss [i.e. missing during the rack, missing the break ball itself, or making the break ball but missing the rack], you re-rack and start over.) Unless one practices 14.1 regularly, the whole "playing to an area" thing in 9-ball works only to a point in 14.1. You have to be much more accurate than that. IMHO, your average one pocket player has a better chance at a high run in 14.1 than the average 9-baller, precisely because of better cue ball control, as well as deeper knowledge of what balls will do / where they end up when breaking up a cluster. And on top of that, knowledge of 14.1 *patterns* is indispensable to ensuring a high run, among the other aspects mentioned above. 9-ballers simply don't have those patterns memorized, simply because they can't, unless they play 14.1 regularly (as Johnny Archer and Mika Immonen do).

Answer 2: Uninterrupted concentration and focus is the key to successful 14.1. Your average 9-baller has about as much concentration as can be spread across 9 balls (including the break). Their focus tends to "reset" after pocketing the 9-ball, getting ready for the break in the next rack. In 14.1, you have to remain focused for the entire time, until you either run the match out, or until you play a safety to turn the table over to your opponent. Big difference in focus factor there. You either have that long-term focus/concentration as a "gift," or you build it with lots of 14.1 practice.

-Sean

Good points:thumbup:.

 

[The Chinchilla]

This is from a 9/10ball players prospective.

Lets say you're a monster like SVB. I've heard stories of him running big packs (6pack recently in 10ball). In 9/10ball you get BIH behind the head-string for each break and probably make 1-3 balls on the break. The only thing stopping him from running out every set is getting unlucky on the break ie scratching on the break or no shot at the 1 ball.

14.1 you must get precise position to break out the stack every rack along with getting lucky a few times to run say 150. You must play precise position unlike rotation where you can play to an area.

I'd be willing to make a small bet, the average rotation player couldn't run more than 25 balls in 14.1 with 20 attempts.

Disclaimer: this is all IMO of course.

On this note, I really believe they are just so different in that in 9 ball it is more about the angle the cb is coming on, even to the point where a really good line totally negates the need for good speed. Straight pool on the other hand is all about speed.

That is all a big generalization of course, but that is really how i see it.

 

[maxeypad2007]

I bet that someone could quantitatively analyze the difficulty in pool in 1960 versus now by simply figuring out the following.

In regards to mosconi's run of 526 versus John Schmidt's run.

How much more "tight" are the pockets now versus today - 5" with no shelf versus 4.25 with a significant shelf and hard rubber. That is at least a 20% increase in difficulty and I would argue more.

Slow cloth - I'm not sure how much this would matter in the grand scheme of things but I will say it is definitely a different game.

The balls - They were all new sets and honestly didn't play that much different than the balls of today.

Cues - Not everybody plays with a low deflection cue now. Frankly the old high quality cues were perfectly acceptable. In games that did not require a ton of english like straight pool I would say the difference is nominal

How much more difficult is a 9' table than an 8' table for a game like straight pool - at a minimum you are looking at at ~12 percent difference.

All of this factored in lets just say that the equipment of today could be as little as 30% more difficult to play on. I know I feel like a superstar when I play on my buddy's 8' steepleton with 5" pockets and no shelf.

I know this isn't an exact science but you can't ignore the significant differences in equipment.

I'd love to see John do a run a 8' steepleton with the 5" bucket pockets and no shelf. I would imagine after a little practice he could hit 400 no problem.

 

[swest]

.
.
.
How much more difficult is a 9' table than an 8' table for a game like straight pool - at a minimum you are looking at at ~12 percent difference.
.
.

I haven't read this entire thread, but I would point out (if it hasn't already been pointed out) that, yes the 8' table is smaller, but there's a tradeoff in terms of congestion... In other words, yes the average shot distance is shorter, and easier, but there's less room for 14 balls to occupy, so harder.

 

[JB Cases]

I totally agree. Let's take some of the fallacies about 14.1 proffered by 9-ballers, point-by-point:

1. "14.1? You mean I can shoot at *any* ball, and not just the lowest-numbered ball on the table? Oh my gosh, how can *anyone* who's a decent shooter not just salivate all over that, and run lots of balls with the greatest of ease?"

Answer: Patterns, numbskull. The patterns aren't dictated to you by the numbers on the balls, in "color by numbers" style. You have to create your own patterns. And, unlike 9-ball where the "pattern" (again, dictated to you by the numbers on the balls) is more difficult at first, and gets easier as you remove balls off of the table (the "less congestion" thing), 14.1 gets progressively more difficult as you remove balls off of the table. In fact, when you get down to the last three balls, the pattern is at its most critical point -- you are working for an optimum position on the break ball, and in most cases you have only inches to play with. Overrun or underrun your position on the key ball (or the break ball itself) by a mere inch, and YOU HAVE NO BREAK BALL. You'll have to play a safety on your break shot (or sink the break ball and play a safety off the rack), bringing your run to an end.

2. "If you run 100 balls in 9ball, thats an 11pack..."

Answer: I love when 9-ballers say that. In fact, you'll only hear that kind of speak coming from 9-ballers who've never played (or have only once or twice "tried") 14.1 in their life. How can any correlation between a run in 14.1 and a package of consecutive break-and-run 9-ball racks be made? One thing, they are completely different skill sets. Two, they are not comparable because in 9-ball, the break itself is the variable (even *with* a Magic Rack). In 9-ball, it's not as dangerously imminent that you're going to be seated for most or the entire set if you miss. The break in 9-ball introduces enough of a variable that you stand a good chance that you'll get back to the table (regardless if it's a dry break, pushout, or a safety -- at least you're getting back to the table and "can at least do something"). In 14.1, you make one false move, and you better have your truck driver's heated seat cushion handy, for you may spend the rest of your time there, and only get up to shake your opponent's hand after he/she runs the game completely out on you. There have been instances in a 150-point match where Player A runs 149 and misses, then Player B gets up to the table and runs 150-and-out (this happened to Mike Sigel). Three, the call-shot aspect comes into play -- slop doesn't cut it in 14.1. As an example, in 14.1, if you have a ball hanging in the pocket, off to one side of the pocket, and you try to combo another ball into that hanging ball (you called the hanging ball), but the ball you shot squeaks by the hanging ball leaving the hanging ball still up on the table, you just turned the table over to your opponent, even though that would be a legal shot in 9-ball.

3. "I'd be willing to make a small bet, the average rotation player couldn't run more than 25 balls in 14.1 with 20 attempts."

Answer 1: I agree. In fact, I'll go one step further -- I'd be willing to make a small bet (I'm a working man) that the average rotation player can't get into the second rack at all, within 6 attempts. (That is, if you miss [i.e. missing during the rack, missing the break ball itself, or making the break ball but missing the rack], you re-rack and start over.) Unless one practices 14.1 regularly, the whole "playing to an area" thing in 9-ball works only to a point in 14.1. You have to be much more accurate than that. IMHO, your average one pocket player has a better chance at a high run in 14.1 than the average 9-baller, precisely because of better cue ball control, as well as deeper knowledge of what balls will do / where they end up when breaking up a cluster. And on top of that, knowledge of 14.1 *patterns* is indispensable to ensuring a high run, among the other aspects mentioned above. 9-ballers simply don't have those patterns memorized, simply because they can't, unless they play 14.1 regularly (as Johnny Archer and Mika Immonen do).

Answer 2: Uninterrupted concentration and focus is the key to successful 14.1. Your average 9-baller has about as much concentration as can be spread across 9 balls (including the break). Their focus tends to "reset" after pocketing the 9-ball, getting ready for the break in the next rack. In 14.1, you have to remain focused for the entire time, until you either run the match out, or until you play a safety to turn the table over to your opponent. Big difference in focus factor there. You either have that long-term focus/concentration as a "gift," or you build it with lots of 14.1 practice.

-Sean

Before I start betting let's define what you guys mean by average rotation player?

Because I'd be willing to bet that an average rotation player can run 25 balls in 20 attempts if an "average" rotation player is defined as someone who can run an open rack of nine ball say 20-30% of the time.

 

[Pidge]

I think the fact Willie did it on a 8ft table didn't make it that much easier. The fact the pockets were huge made it easier, especially for a great player. I'm sure if the us open had holes the size of buckets the likes of tiger woods would make a few hole in ones.

I enjoy all billiard games and wouldn't say one was easier than the other. 9 ball is a game of getting from A to B and a rack takes less thought and planning than 14.1 but say, over running by 6 inches is more costly. If you do that in 14.1 chances are you have other balls to play but you have to figure out a key ball, and what's the best way to pot all 14 balls and have goot shape on the 15th.

Its a debate that will go on forever.

 

[Joe Pickens]

Kind of funny Willie Mosconi 526 Straight Pool Run Record Set in Springfield Illinois, in 1954 still stands.

In 2011 we got better equipment, High Tech Laminated Shafts, Super Layered Cue Tips, and Kamui Chalk but the Famous Straight Pool Run of 526 BALLS IN A ROW RECORDS Still Stands.:smile:

Anyone have a theory why some Hot Shot Pool player has not BROKEN Willie's Records in the last 57 YEARS, and maybe Run 1,000 BALLS in A ROW!:boring2:

I haven't read any further than this so someone else may have already pointed out to you that it was in Springfield, Ohio not in Illinois.

 

[Joe Pickens]

Reference Willie's Game, the Mosconi Book Page # 246! Springfield Illinois, in 1954

That is a mistake then because it was in Springfield, Ohio.

 

[Joe Pickens]

Theres a local player here that is in his 80's that played a ring game on the 526 table the day after Mosconi ran it. He said that the pockets were the biggest he had ever seen to this day.... The Wikipedia page used to state 5-1/2" but someone edited it.

Well, since I'm local to the Dayton/Springfield area. I hate that Dayton/Springfield crap, would you mind telling me his name? Just curious to see if I know him.

Never mind. I saw his name after reading most of the pages and I don't know him.

 

[KRJ]

Ok, since we are still "nitpicking" this a little. When is someone gonna run the 526 on 5 1/2 pockets on an 8 foot table?

And aftewards, I'm expecting 15 World Championships just to prove the point

 

[maxeypad2007]

I'd take that action on the running 20 balls in 25 tries on a bucket table especially.

 

[maxeypad2007]

Pidge, while there is more "congestion" you also have to factor in that a much larger percentage of the table is an area where balls can be pocketed because of the smaller table, larger pockets and lack of a pocket shelf.