Did Scmidt set new record

Bob Jewett said:
I think that's not true. The old timers tended to be within 10 inches of the object ball and have a 60-degree cut. In comparison, Hohmann is 30 inches from the object ball and has a 30-degree cut. I think Hohmann hits the ball a lot harder than Willie did.

And my memories of playing on new Stevens cloth in the 1960s is that the balls spread just fine. When new.
Click to expand...

Agreed that Hohmann (and Feijen) hits the break shot as hard as any player I've ever watched not named Lassiter, but today's best, as a rule, hit the break shot quite a bit softer than Hohmann or the old masters. The old timers, as you've noted, got closer to the break shot than today's players by playing the patterns more skillfully, but they still got stuck more often because of the nappy cloth.

It's also true that the old masters paid a bigger price when they got a bit too straight on the break shot than today's best, because the extra power needed in such situations was harder to produce.

Finally, new cloth was not the norm in the 14.1 tourneys that I attended in my youth.
 
I'm going to have to agree with Stu here. My recollection of working as a ref in some of the old 14.1 tourneys was that many of the great players of that era (1960's and 70's) did not try to break the rack wide open. Instead they would break off one corner of the rack (maybe three to five balls) and work from there to break off other sections of the rack and clusters of balls. Running the cue ball straight into the middle of the rack would often leave them lodged against other balls or embedded in the rack. It was much harder to open up the entire rack on the break shot, as we often see done today.

I have a distinct memory of watching the best player of that era. His name was Steve Mizerak and his stroke was as strong or stronger than anyone playing today. He could go directly into the rack, with his cue ball churning and churning to get through it. Basically, Steve would overpower those old balls that tended to cling together. He forced them to come apart. He was pretty much the only guy who could do that. Sigel was the next best player and he worked around the pack as much as possible. He hit the pack hard but never directly in the middle. That was the trick, to hit the rack high or low, never in the middle.

There were many excellent Straight Pool players back then. It was the end of the Lassiter, Crane and Balsis dominated era. I watched Lassiter play at Johnston City (the other players would sit and watch him as well) and the Stardust and he would consistently run a 90 or better in the 125 point games, match after match, and no one else could do that. Like Mosconi he relied on precise cue ball control and being very careful with his break shots. They both knew how to control the cue ball on the break shot and not allow it to get lodged in the rack or stuck on the short rail. Mosconi carried his own set of balls to his exhibitions. Lassiter did not have that luxury in the tournaments that he played.

One other thing. All the top players back then would often use break shots from underneath the rack, leaving the last ball between the bottom of the rack and the nearby end rail. I rarely see this break shot used today. They also used a side pocket break shot when necessary and tried to hit the top of the rack. Just my two cents for whatever's that's worth. :smile:
 
Last edited:
I think the old nappy cloth v new cloth debate is difficult to resolve for a couple of reasons.

First, when the cloth is new it’s more difficult to control the CB with precise predictability. The ball rolls so much, so easily, it puts you at a disadvantage. So somewhere on the spectrum between super new and slick, and old and nappy, there are probably any number of ideal conditions for 14.1. I think it is also important to remember that while long draw shots and other power shots are more difficult to execute on nappy cloth (mit composition balls), those shots aren’t played with any level of frequency by the best 14.1 players. I think someone said Greenleaf was always within two feet of the OB and that Mosconi improved on that cutting the distance on the majority of his shots, in half.

So some guys play the break shot harder nowadays. But what Dallas West told me is that that was a poor approach because it spread the balls too much reducing opportunities for good break balls and forcing the player to move the CB much more which he considered a bad thing.

Lastly, if you look at historical photos taken at championship events. — from the 30s and 40s — in many of those photos, to my eye, the cloth looks *very* slick and not nappy at all

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:
A- it is not possible to break any record without 'chasing' it.
2: no speed records were ever broken into a headwind.

So...Ali vs. Tyson?
 
jay helfert said:
I'm going to have to agree with Stu here. My recollection of working as a ref in some of the old 14.1 tourneys was that many of the great players of that era (1960's and 70's) did not try to break the rack wide open. Instead they would break off one corner of the rack (maybe three to five balls) and work from there to break off other sections of the rack and clusters of balls. Running the cue ball straight into the middle of the rack would often leave them lodged against other balls or embedded in the rack. It was much harder to open up the entire rack on the break shot, as we often see done today.

I have a distinct memory of watching the best player of that era. His name was Steve Mizerak and his stroke was as strong or stronger than anyone playing today. He could go directly into the rack, with his cue ball churning and churning to get through it. Basically, Steve would overpower those old balls that tended to cling together. He forced them to come apart. He was pretty much the only guy who could do that. Sigel was the next best player and he worked around the pack as much as possible. He hit the pack hard but never directly in the middle. That was the trick, to hit the rack high or low, never in the middle.

There were many excellent Straight Pool players back then. It was the end of the Lassiter, Crane and Balsis dominated era. I watched Lassiter play at Johnston City (the other players would sit and watch him as well) and the Stardust and he would consistently run a 90 or better in the 125 point games, match after match, and no one else could do that. Like Mosconi he relied on precise cue ball control and being very careful with his break shots. They both knew how to control the cue ball on the break shot and not allow it to get lodged in the rack or stuck on the short rail. Mosconi carried his own set of balls to his exhibitions. Lassiter did not have that luxury in the tournaments that he played.

One other thing. All the top players back then would often use break shots from underneath the rack, leaving the last ball between the bottom of the rack and the nearby end rail. I rarely see this break shot used today. They also used a side pocket break shot when necessary and tried to hit the top of the rack. Just my two cents for whatever's that's worth. :smile:
Click to expand...

Wow, Jay. You were a referee in multiple disciplines and played all the games. You participated in the action scene as both a player and a stakehorse. You are a published author in the sport. You produced events, too. Your journey in pool may be the most complete of anyone I've ever known. Yes, I'm overcome with jealousy.

I'd largely forgotten about the way Mizerak would sometimes burrow through the pack with follow in the straight pool era. Of course, he, for my money, had the best stroke of anyone that I ever watched, described once by Ray Martin as "having the perfect blend of power and finesse." The only other old master I watched that regularly tried to overpower the rack on the break shot was Lassiter, viewed by more than a few as the straightest shooter the game has ever known.

There have been debates on this very forum over whether developing the rack, as most of the old masters did, was a better approach than overpowering it, as several top players do today. I've always argued that both generations have gotten it right, as the old style made sense on the slow nappy cloth but is, arguably, unnecessary on the faster equipment of today.
 
Last edited:
a very good analogy between "older cloth and table conditions" for 14.1 vs. " newer cloth and table conditions" occurred at the 1989 US Open 14.1, dominated by the young Oliver Orttmann, who understood how to play the game most effectively under the "newer conditions". In his commentary on one of Ortmann's matches, Danny DiLiberto confessed- " I have no idea what this guy is doing in his approach to this game here, but it works" - Ortmann was breaking out balls and stacks from different angles and positions that defied many traditional 14.1 patterns and routes. HE understood how to play 14.1 on "modern" equipment in a way that was a different interpretation of the game and it took America by surprise!
 
mikemosconi said:
a very good analogy between "older cloth and table conditions" for 14.1 vs. " newer cloth and table conditions" occurred at the 1989 US Open 14.1, dominated by the young Oliver Orttmann, who understood how to play the game most effectively under the "newer conditions". In his commentary on one of Ortmann's matches, Danny DiLiberto confessed- " I have no idea what this guy is doing in his approach to this game here, but it works" - Ortmann was breaking out balls and stacks from different angles and positions that defied many traditional 14.1 patterns and routes. HE understood how to play 14.1 on "modern" equipment in a way that was a different interpretation of the game and it took America by surprise!
Click to expand...


So, are you now saying that things change, equipment improves, rules and styles change with time.....or are you doubling down on your previous statements?
 
As a youngster growing up in So. Cal. I followed Mr. Mosconi around to all the exhibitions he gave in the new Family Billiard Centers that sprung up post The Hustler Movie. He had two requirements for his exhibitions and they were new felted tables and a set of new Centenial Balls. Those two conditions allowed the balls to open much better and for him to have nice runs. In every exhibition he gave he always ran a hundred balls and stopped. On a side note his trick shot exhibitions were second to none at that time. His shooting the silver dollar through two pieces of chalk after a bank off the end rail and hitting the cueball into the end rail and catching it in his shirt pocket were his closing shots.
 
Baby Huey said:
... His shooting the silver dollar through two pieces of chalk after a bank off the end rail ...
Click to expand...
I have made that maybe one time in a hundred tries. Did he usually get it through without hitting the chalks or just ricochet it between them?
 
lfigueroa said:
Lastly, if you look at historical photos taken at championship events. — from the 30s and 40s — in many of those photos, to my eye, the cloth looks *very* slick and not nappy at all

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

I was glad to see Lou question the widely-made assumption that cloth was nappy all along until Simonis and its competitors came along with 860 and faster cloth.

There has been a good bit of reference to “the old masters” and “nappy cloth” in this thread. Some of the references to those masters have been accompanied by a name or names, allowing for identification of a time frame. At least one had Mizerak among those who had to overcome slow, nappy cloth that prevented balls from easily spreading. Most of the references to “nappy cloth” have not included any reference to a time period.

Here is one way to gauge speed, and how balls in the stack separated when hit from various angles, at various points in the stack, at various speeds - at least in 1966: watch this Crane/Balsis match - https://youtu.be/Er7In9iJ5wM . Note that the announcer - who was knowledgeable about 14.1 - said the following after watching Crane hit a break shot (14:45): “Very interesting to watch Mr. Crane. He rarely slams into the rack the way some players will. Sometimes you wonder if he could shoot hard. But notice the break that he got on those balls. Now, he hardly touched that rack and still, see how well they’re spread.” Several points to unpack there, including that not all of the old boys chipped away at the stack (some “slammed” it), and that the balls actually would spread, even if hit lightly, when contacted in a proper spot.
 
Last edited:
Seth C. said:
I was glad to see Lou question the widely-made assumption that cloth was nappy all along until Simonis and its competitors came along with 860 and faster cloth.

There has been a good bit of reference to “the old masters” and “nappy cloth” in this thread. Some of the references to those masters have been accompanied by a name or names, allowing for identification of a time frame. At least one had Mizerak among those who had to overcome slow, nappy cloth that prevented balls from easily spreading. Most of the references to “nappy cloth” have not included any reference to a time period.

Here is one way to gauge speed, and how balls in the stack separated when hit from various angles, at various points in the stack, at various speeds - at least in 1966: watch this Crane/Balaia match - https://youtu.be/Er7In9iJ5wM . Note that the announcer - who was knowledgeable about 14.1 - said the following after watching Crane hit a break shot (14:45): “Very interesting to watch Mr. Crane. He rarely slams into the rack the way some players will. Sometimes you wonder if he could shoot hard. But notice the break that he got on those balls. Now, he hardly touched that rack and still, see how well they’re spread.” Several points to unpack there, including that not all of the old boys chipped away at the stack (some “slammed” it), and that the balls actually would spread, even if hit lightly, when contacted in a proper spot.
Click to expand...

theres the answer right there.
 
Seth C. said:
... even if hit lightly, when contacted in a proper spot.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and the proper spot means the corner balls.

.... but more than a few break shots must necessarily approach the rack at a less than optimal spot, and it's much easier to deal with this issue now than it was before Simonis cloth became the norm.
 
sjm said:
Fair enough, and the proper spot means the corner balls.

.... but more than a few break shots must necessarily approach the rack at a less than optimal spot, and it's much easier to deal with this issue now than it was before Simonis cloth became the norm.
Click to expand...


wow, in my experience that is absolutely not true.

You can hit the stack at a variety of spots and if you use the right speed, and when necessary alter the path of the CB, you can get a good spread without hitting them at Hohmann Speed.

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
wow, in my experience that is absolutely not true.

You can hit the stack at a variety of spots and if you use the right speed, and when necessary alter the path of the CB, you can get a good spread without hitting them at Hohmann Speed.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

No point arguing over this, Lou, as we've both seen a whole lot of pool. I've attended about fifteen world 14.1 world championship events and, generally, attended every session of play when I went. I think we'll both agree that there are some parts of the rack that are less desirable than others and some break shot angles that are less optimal than others. Even the greats encounter these situations frequently. My observation based on forty two years of attending major 14.1 events is that when less than optimal attack angles or break shot angles were encountered, the run ended more often back in the day than now. Your observations may differ, and that's OK, for yours is a very informed opinion.
 
hitman22 said:
Wonder how many high runs have been put forth without all this zen bs...
Click to expand...

The Zen Masters dont like that.

Then again, it's always been easier to talk about something vs doing it.

Most of the Zen masters that I've met have never run "one" hundred balls, much less several hundred. However, they can "talk" the damn balls completely off the table...... especially when it comes to what they "use to do".....

They just wish they had my high run of 3 balls.....
 
I love this conversation. I wasn't around to see it so it's a gift to have you guys on the forum!

One of my favorite pool books is Mastering Pool by George Fels. In his section about break shots he highlights the two head balls and two corner balls and states those are the safe targets to try to contact. He warns to stay away from the middle of the rack as you will likely get trapped on the stack. He was also a dedicated proponent of the strategy of opening up 4-6 balls with control. He felt that a top player was better off taking less chances with losing control of the shot, and that if they played to get the cue ball free they would undoubtedly have secondary break shots to open the remaining balls (most of the time with just a small nudge as he wasn't looking to spread them across the table like an 8 ball break, but only enough so they each had an open pocket when other loose balls were cleared).

I've played a bit of straight pool and have had more success breaking them hard. Maybe that's the equipment, maybe that's my lack of proficiency at the game that dictates I am better off taking my chances. But in watching players today that certainly seems to be the standard.

In any case, I support what JS is doing. I don't think it belittles what Mosconi did in any way, and I don't hear him saying that running a 550 would prove him to be a better straight pool player. What I see is a great pool player trying to play his best pool and achieve a meaningful goal he set out for himself. One that comes with a financial incentive, creates interest in pool, and would be fun for many players to be able to see on video. I think it's perfectly alright to honor Willie's legendary dominance and root JS on. They aren't competing against each other. They are each on their own journey and I am all for each individual to do their respective best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top