Breaking Mosconi's 526

Bob Jewett said:
I see several problems with your plan as outlined.

I may have misread him, but I don't think Greg Sullivan is interested in setting a record with a loose table. He would like to see 200 on a standard table and he continues to offer a prize for that at DCC.

I'm willing to bet that no insurance company will underwrite a long-term competition like you describe unless the premium is over $500,000 and the time is limited to a year or some similar length of time. At one of the Sang Lee 3-cushion tournaments, there was a $1,000,000 prize offered if a player could match ball placement from a break shot by Blomdahl, but that was underwritten by a carom fan who happened to have $1,000,000 in his pocket. Lightning didn't strike. The shooter got only one try.

The highest per-inning straight pool average seen so far at DCC was something like 62 by Immonen in 2007. I doubt that anyone can maintain that kind of average for a year. I think a reasonable working average is closer to 45, and maybe 20 players could achieve that over the long haul. It is not hard to figure how many tries it will take to reach 527 with an average of 45 balls per inning. It turns out to be a 1 in 140000 shot. About 6 million balls will be pocketed during the unsuccessful attempts. At 20 seconds per shot, that's two million minutes spent, or 34,000 hours of play.

If you assume that the average level of 14.1 play by the competitors will raise itself up to 60 BPI, then 527 becomes a 1 in 7000 shot, and you only need two thousand hours of play. Maybe that will happen, but I don't think so.

And you will need to worry about playing conditions. If you get one skid in 200 shots, most of the potential 500-ball runs will be ruined.

For more on high-run statistics, see http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2006-06.pdf
Click to expand...

Bob,
I respect your opinon a great deal. I want to make it happen and I understand the "hardcore" industry people (yourself, Greg Sullivan, etc) may not be interested in setting a record on a "looser" table. I do not care if the conditions (8 foot, bucket pocket Brunswick) are duplicated. The public pool fan knows 526 like baseball fans knew 61 or 755. I want to reward a straight pool great with the chance to make a lot of money. If Lloyd's of london or someone else will not underwrite the policy I will post it. It's my scratch and trust me I earned it, but what money is for to enjoy. I play some of the highest stake poker games spread and it's not about the money It is what I enjoy. My whole life I have been around pool and I am very lucky to find myself in a position to really make this happen. If I blow a million I will do it with my intentions being fufilled. I have no desire to fund a pool tour, etc. I want to see if 526 can be broken with some pressure applied and a way to qualify to get the oppurtunity. I have some associates who also may be interested in my venture. With that being said do you think it is possible in say a 5 year time table hosting the event at say Derby City, the US Open the WPC, and maybe the Mosconi Cup the number 526 could be broken?
 
Johnnyt said:
Yes. I was waiting for someone to bring that up. I don't believe any of the 1000000 people that say / said they were there in that SMALL place know for sure what size pockets he was shooting into. I say if your going to do it, make it a new world record on a 4 1/2X9 table. Johnnyt
Click to expand...

Johnnyt, I agree with you. Do it on a 9 foot table. Huckster, good luck with your idea! I think it's great and it would bring straightpool back into popularity for sure! Maybe TAR would be interested in documenting something like this? We could watch it at home! I'd pay to view it for the month or whatever! Have a table or two dedicated to this and it doesn't have to be at another associated event. What a fantastic opportunity to stimulate interest again in straightpool!

Curly
 
Just thinking what might happen if someone breaks the Mosconi record. People will start suggesting that Babe Cranfield's 768 is the true target. And who knows for sure what kind of table Cranfield used or that he did it at all? Who were the witnesses?

It seems that the Cranfield record has the taint of being during practice. The Mosconi record has the taint of being on a 4 by 8.
Who and how many have to witness a high run and on what size table with what size pockets and under what circumstances?

We need regulations to start a new era. It isn't straight pool. It's high run 14.1 --- a completely different game. No safeties. Ball in hand to start. Start over if you miss. I don't know, whatever. But a new game with rules and officials and video.

I think Bob Jewett already started that new era with his challenge. Maybe what you should do is to simply add incentive to that challenge by adding money. Players will be practicing there arses off, and in time will break what most see as "the" record. And we'll all have it on DVD! No disputes. The runs may take a while to get up there but they'll most certainly get higher all the time, because the players today are incredible shooters. They just need time and incentive to practice the patterns and discipline. Stick Mosconi's or Cranfield's mind inside one of these shooters and you've got a 1000 ball run in the making.

Here's a link to a page that has high runs listed for many players. Where did they get this information? Are these runs reported by the players? Did they have to be witnessed? Anyone know?
http://hermund.ardalen.com/straightpoolhighruns.htm

The site shows Min-Wai Chin as 500 plus. Who saw it? Who saw Engert's run of 492?
Thanks,
Jeff
 
ShootingArts said:
Jim,

The game is as much or more about positioning the cue ball and breaking out balls than it is about making balls. Having played a lot of pool in general on seven, eight, and nine foot tables, I do believe the eight footer is the easiest to play on. It doesn't have the congestion of a seven footer or the distances of the nine footer.

Although I never really played 14.1, I did play a lot of snooker where the playing style is quite similar since the goal for most of the game is to make a red ball and the seven over and over using the two corner pockets almost exclusively. Every extra inch the cue ball had to travel to accomplish another goal after hitting the object ball was a big deal.

The pockets, table size, the balls and how clean they are, everything becomes a big deal when trying to run over 37 racks without a miss. To break Mosconi's record we would indeed need the exact conditions but we would not have a new record for the next person to shoot for unless we again set up the same conditions. I think it makes far more sense to set up a typical table and establish a new record on it. Harder to do but once done it is a record that can be readily shot for again.

I do think that any new 14.1 record chased by the world's best and shot in public for a huge prize will be accepted as the new world record and that is the key. Many people would disagree that Willie Mosconi has the highest run in history. Far fewer would disagree that he has the accepted world record. A new generally accepted world record seems to be the goal here.

Hu
Click to expand...

As always, I respect your views. But there is little historical precedent for your view that to establish a new record, the exact conditions of the former record must be in place.

Players who established new home run...batting average records etc. didn't use the same bats, the same ball parks (some of which were torn down and replaced) etc.

In tennis and golf, enormous fundamental changes have taken place.

About the only major sport that hasn't changed (venue/equipment) is basketball...BUT...the PLAYERS have changed Not too many 6'6" GUARDS in 1960!

So, as long as the table length, pocket specs and cloth are matched as closely as possible, any new event would be MUCH closer to former conditions as almost any other record breaking attempt in modern history.

As for 9 ft. vs. 8 ft tables are concerned, the math is as I suggested it was and 3 inches of width (from center line to side rails) and 6 inches (from center spot to foot rail) just is no big deal.

But regardless, the OP's proposition is to fund a competition to break MOSCONI'S record and enlarging the field of play or making the pockets more difficult would result in NOT challenging the MOSCONI record but setting a NEW AND DIFFERENT record.

That's fine too. I have no problem with setting NEW types of records. But doing so is not what the OP's referred to.

Regards,
Jim
 
Again, I have enormous respect for what Huckster is trying to do and as successful as he has been, he already knows that he should march to the beat of his own drummer.

My only input is that given the odds I and Bob have quoted, there is likely no player in the world who believes he would break the record.

Many would give it a try...for the same reason people buy lottery tickets in spite of 13 million to 1 odds against winning.

But what they won't do, IMHO, is to spend any money for travel expenses etc. They would only compete if such a challenge took place before or after a tournament they plan to attend anyway.

But again...BRAVO for caring as much as you do about 14.1 and your interest in promoting interest in that game.

Regards,
Jim
 
perhaps....

i think it is possible on a 9' box with 4 3/4" buckets, it wouldnt be a bad investment to stake certain players and cover the $100 a pop fee, you might be into it $50,000 but you would still be getting over 20-1 on the $$$ before you cut it up with the player, a few guys have come close in the past couple years and with real $$ on the line there would be enough interest to get serious about it,


I dont know what the "Hole in one" insurance would cost thru Lloyds, but the premium would eat up some of the $100 attempt fee(Lloyds aint cheap they insure one of my houses) and the cost of running it would as well. the prize $$$ would have to be secured in an escrow with clear rules about the pay-off before there would be anyone who would be serious about it, Earl got robbed on a similar prop bet, the IPT didnt go so well for lots of reasons, so without a iron clad guarantee particapation would be low.
 
Seems to be

Jim,

I respect your opinion also, definitely discussion here and not argument. The OP does seem to want to set the new record on more typical equipment according to some of his posts. You are right that it isn't the same record from a realistic standpoint. However I think the new record, if one is set, will be seen as bettering Mosconi's record unless it was to be set on much easier equipment. I think that the idea is to try to replace one generally accepted high run record with another generally accepted high run record and this competition should be able to do that. Perception is what will count as far as the widespread acceptance of any new record goes.

Hu




av84fun said:
But regardless, the OP's proposition is to fund a competition to break MOSCONI'S record and enlarging the field of play or making the pockets more difficult would result in NOT challenging the MOSCONI record but setting a NEW AND DIFFERENT record.

That's fine too. I have no problem with setting NEW types of records. But doing so is not what the OP's referred to.

Regards,
Jim
Click to expand...
 
ShootingArts said:
Jim,

I respect your opinion also, definitely discussion here and not argument. The OP does seem to want to set the new record on more typical equipment according to some of his posts. You are right that it isn't the same record from a realistic standpoint. However I think the new record, if one is set, will be seen as bettering Mosconi's record unless it was to be set on much easier equipment. I think that the idea is to try to replace one generally accepted high run record with another generally accepted high run record and this competition should be able to do that. Perception is what will count as far as the widespread acceptance of any new record goes.

Hu
Click to expand...

Yep...I fully agree.

Regards,
Jim
 
For Huckster...I looked around for hole in one insurance as a proxy for insuring against the 526 run and found the following:

The price of hole-in-one insurance is based on three things:

The value of the main prize, such as a car or cash.
The number of participants that will be playing in the event. The insurance company might automatically cover up to 144 golfers, with an additional charge for each participant over 144. They also need to know if any professionals are in the field?club or tour?because their presence increases the premium as a result of their higher skill level.
The yardage of the main prize hole from which golfers will be taking their shot. Most companies require that this be a minimum of 150 yards while other companies require a minimum of 165 or even 175 yards.
The cost of a premium is generally 2-4 percent of the grand prize value.

That would be $40k for a million cash. There certainly would be an upcharge for pros vs. amateurs but on the other hand, the 14.1 event would be limited to a dozen or two in the world who would have any chance at all...not 144 players so I would guess those two variables would about wash.

The 4% premium underwrites a 25-1 shot when, in fact, a hole in one...even for pros...has to be AT LEAST 50-1 even on a par 3 they know very well...probably closer to 100-1 but that's why insurance companies own those big buildings!

A knowledgable underwriter would probably rate a 526 run as being at least as unlikely as a hole in one and so my guess is that insuring against such a thing wouldn't cost more than $40k for a single event with each contestant getting one chance.

In fact, that would be about the easiest 40 grand anyone has ever made IMHO.

Regards,
Jim
 
huckster said:
... With that being said do you think it is possible in say a 5 year time table hosting the event at say Derby City, the US Open the WPC, and maybe the Mosconi Cup the number 526 could be broken?
Click to expand...
As I pointed out, if the competitors are averaging 60 BPI, you will need about 2000 hours of play to be odds-on to have a 527 run. For Engert (491, not 492, as reported on the high-run page cited above), Hohmann (404 and not 408?), Schmidt (404, not 400), Cranfield (768) and Eufemia (625 and not 626), it seems that all of the high runs were set in home rooms or on familiar tables. The exception to this is Mosconi, as reported by Charlie Ursitti, who had his 700+ on a practice table that he may not have seen before.

It is unlikely you will average more than 40 hours of play per event if you have a single table. That says that you might have to go to 50 events. If you do that, you will need to find some way other than the lure of a final, large prize to get the players to play for that many hours.
 
Bonds broke the HR record using Roids, perhaps if we put John Schmit on a few cycles of roids he might have a better chance. Are we gonna drug test? :D :D

^^^^my dumb friday joke. :)
 
As a close friend of Thomas Engert and he plays in my club, i can tell you that at 490 he broke the rack perfect, and then missed a hanger!
More then a dozen people were witness of his high run.
It was played on a 9 ft. table with normal pockets, or maybe even a little tighter...

MH
HOB Weert
 
HOB Weert said:
As a close friend of Thomas Engert and he plays in my club, i can tell you that at 490 he broke the rack perfect, and then missed a hanger!
More then a dozen people were witness of his high run.
It was played on a 9 ft. table with normal pockets, or maybe even a little tighter...

MH
HOB Weert
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm a fan. I love his rhythm and stroke.
Jeff
 
huckster said:
Whatever my representation can work out with them then I will make sure that it happens. I need to talk to Pat Fleming, Greg Sullivan, about getting them onboard as far as using there products. I really am not looking at this as a buisness venture I have nothing to gain but hopefully we could see an intrest in pool occur, and the level of play would increase. Also a lot of players that do not come to the USA would take some shots at the prize. A million is just a number I tossed out there I want it to be a mill at least if not 2-3. If I can get this to happen for example I can get someone like Lloyd's involved, I will be more then happy to pay at least a few years premium's to make this happen. I have an idea what the premium may be (ballpark) and these speciality policies are quite costly but I don't care. I can't take my money with me when I die and after making so much the excess does not have a purpose for me I want to enjoy things in life, and this would be interesting, and good for the game.
Click to expand...

If the run were recorded, additional revenues could be generated from sales of the video and narration by the player as to what he was thinking at different points in the run.

JoeyA
 
JoeyA said:
If the run were recorded, additional revenues could be generated from sales of the video and narration by the player as to what he was thinking at different points in the run.

JoeyA
Click to expand...
Sure, but at an additional cost of about $50,000 if you figure there will about 2000 hours of play to tape before you break the record.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Sure, but at an additional cost of about $50,000 if you figure there will about 2000 hours of play to tape before you break the record.
Click to expand...

Could the attempts be recorded on computer hard drives and just continue to re-write the drives as they became full or the feat was completed?

FTR, I don't think it is a matter of can 526 be broken and recorded. It is merely a matter of motivation and the money Huckster is talking about is plenty enough to inspire the best and the not so good to make the attempt.

I would be most concerned about determining the qualifications for this feat. The feat has to be accomplished according to a set of strict criteria so that there is no, "but he did it by using blah blah blah....".

JoeyA
 
Bob Jewett said:
Sure, but at an additional cost of about $50,000 if you figure there will about 2000 hours of play to tape before you break the record.
Click to expand...

And what do you think the world would pay today to have the 526 run of Mosconi on video?
JoeyA
 
isn't the high run like 425 on a 4 1/2-9

I think it was Cisero Murphy.should be easy to look up. Or ask Jay Hefert he probibly was there. I also think Mr. Hal Houle could shed some light on how players were chosen in the day. There were players who were not allowed to play in these tournements! You have to use a 4-8 in my opionon and you will get more takers on the 4-8 table(with straight pool). Attempting the challenge. mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top