Eagle Eye Takes Aim at 14.1 High Runs

Poolplaya9 said:
Not sure what you mean?

Since we are here though, I'm curious, up until not that long ago you were as far and as entrenched on the other side of the argument as could possibly be, believing and vehemently arguing that Mosconi's record stood for so long because it was essentially impossible to beat, and that if somebody was capable of beating it they would have and it didn't happen because nobody has been capable and incentive wouldn't have changed that. You still have major doubt about whether John actually broke the record or not, but that aside, have you changed positions any, or do you still feel just as staunchly that very few if any people since Mosconi have been capable of beating the old record (or John's new record) regardless of time or incentive?
Click to expand...

The players are out of country or at other events or have other things going on -- Bobby has had a ton of interest from other top flight players, it'll just take some time but I think you will see some heavy 14.1 hitters taking a swing at this.

And,

A.) I don't recall ever saying Mosconi's record could not be beat or would not. What I recall saying, many times, was that records were made to be broken;

B.) What I have is an open mind on whether Schmidt broke the record. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but never mind. Because if a player breaks the record at our event THERE WILL BE UNEDITED VIDEO RELEASED (ahem);

C.) I believe there are any number of contemporary players that can beat Mosconi's record and also beat 626. Bobby is providing the venue and the money to see if that can actually happen.

I guess we'll all find out in due course.

Lou Figueroa
 
BasementDweller said:
I love me some snooker players but I really think you are discounting the years of ingrained knowledge all players, in all disciplines, collect in relation to the specific balls and cues they use. While I'll agree that snooker players have the required technical ability to accomplish high 14.1 runs, I just don't think it's as easy as you imply here. I'm not so sure the comfort level with speed, spin, deflection, and all other interactions on a pool table that take place, can be attained through osmosis.
Click to expand...
They already have all those things in their own games, they would just be dealing with them a bit more often and they would be just a bit different with this equipment. It wouldn't be much different than a pool player changing from a high to a low deflection shaft or vice versa. It isn't rocket science, it just takes a bit of time to adjust and re-calibrate things and of course pros would adjust to this fairly quickly.

If Warren buffet said he would pay a million dollars to every single person who could run 627 or more balls (on equipment like Mosconi did his 526, or like Schmidt did his 626, or like the equipment in use for this challenge) by January 16, 2023 (one year from today), there would be dozens of players who would accomplish it including a number of players from other billiard disciplines on other table types such as snooker players and Chinese 8 ball players.
 
Last edited:
What is this?

1642382282575.png
 
I'm sure it is common knowledge and I'm the only one who doesn't know. What were the dimensions of John's table?
Let's be honest, this table is rediclous.
 
lfigueroa said:
The players are out of country or at other events or have other things going on -- Bobby has had a ton of interest from other top flight players, it'll just take some time but I think you will see some heavy 14.1 hitters taking a swing at this.

And,

A.) I don't recall ever saying Mosconi's record could not be beat or would not. What I recall saying, many times, was that records were made to be broken;

B.) What I have is an open mind on whether Schmidt broke the record. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but never mind. Because if a player breaks the record at our event THERE WILL BE UNEDITED VIDEO RELEASED (ahem);

C.) I believe there are any number of contemporary players that can beat Mosconi's record and also beat 626. Bobby is providing the venue and the money to see if that can actually happen.

I guess we'll all find out in due course.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
Up until just a few years back (before John broke the record) you used to staunchly believe and vehemently argue on here that Mosconi's record was still standing because nobody had ever been capable of beating it. You felt that if anybody could have beat the record they would have as the prestige of breaking it was the supreme incentive and any monetary incentives wouldn't have changed a thing because they just simply weren't capable. I can find a thread with you arguing the gist of that if you want but it sounds like you are basically saying that you now feel differently so that answers the question I had, which is yes, you have done a complete 180 regarding that belief and now apparently feel very differently about it and realize that the record is very breakable without near the difficultly you once believed.

As far as this event, yes, people's schedules obviously mean not everybody could be there all the time, but since it is being limited to one table that really doesn't matter. As you point out I think there would be enough interest from players (because they all know how very breakable the record is too) that yall could keep some good players on the table most days, which indeed yall have.
 
Last edited:
Poolplaya9 said:
Up until just a few years back (before John broke the record) you used to staunchly believe and vehemently argue on here that Mosconi's record was still standing because nobody had ever been capable of beating it. You felt that if anybody could have beat the record they would have as the prestige of breaking it was the supreme incentive and any monetary incentives wouldn't have changed a thing because they just simply weren't capable. I can find a thread with you arguing the gist of that if you want but it sounds like you are basically saying that you now feel differently so that answers the question I had, which is yes, you have done a complete 180 regarding that belief and now apparently feel very differently about it and realize that the record is very breakable without near the difficultly you once believed.

As far as this event, yes, people's schedules obviously mean not everybody could be there all the time, but since it is being limited to one table that really doesn't matter. As you point out I think there would be enough interest from players (because they all know how very breakable the record is too) that yall could keep somebody on the table most days, which indeed yall have.
Click to expand...
I was one of the people who thought the record stood because the (9ball) pros couldn't break it. And I stand by it. Schmidt needed many, many tries and dedication over a long period of time and he is in the top tier of straight pool players. Other people have tried, this isn't the first attempts at it, though it's one of the first PUBLIC attempts. Very advanced straight pool players like Hohman, Feijen and earlier players have life time high runs around the 400 mark. As we all have seen, even the shotmaking machine Shaw is having problems getting to 400. Schmidt was raining 400's for a while before he broke the record, even Shaw, as awesome as he is, is not at that level at the moment.

Is the record breakable? Absolutely. Can people relatively new to 14.1 blast their way past it on pure shotmaking talent? Doubt it very much. At the very least they would need an extremely long period of time, at which time they'd be experienced players.

I'm not going to harp on about why, as I've said it many times before, only that it will take a very different approach than what we've seen so far (apart from maybe Ruslan). If I'm proven wrong, I'll happily admit to it.
 
Last edited:
If the rack counter is correct, Jayson is now in the 250s. Almost hitting his daily high run of 267.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
Up until just a few years back (before John broke the record) you used to staunchly believe and vehemently argue on here that Mosconi's record was still standing because nobody had ever been capable of beating it. You felt that if anybody could have beat the record they would have as the prestige of breaking it was the supreme incentive and any monetary incentives wouldn't have changed a thing because they just simply weren't capable. I can find a thread with you arguing the gist of that if you want but it sounds like you are basically saying that you now feel differently so that answers the question I had, which is yes, you have done a complete 180 regarding that belief and now apparently feel very differently about it and realize that the record is very breakable without near the difficultly you once believed.

As far as this event, yes, people's schedules obviously mean not everybody could be there all the time, but since it is being limited to one table that really doesn't matter. As you point out I think there would be enough interest from players (because they all know how very breakable the record is too) that yall could keep some good players on the table most days, which indeed yall have.
Click to expand...

Show me.

Lou Figueroa
 
Straightpool_99 said:
I was one of the people who thought the record stood because the (9ball) pros couldn't break it. And I stand by it. Schmidt needed many, many tries and dedication over a long period of time and he is in the top tier of straight pool players. Other people have tried, this isn't the first attempts at it, though it's one of the first PUBLIC attempts. Very advanced straight pool players like Hohman, Feijen and earlier players have life time high runs around the 400 mark. As we all have seen, even the shotmaking machine Shaw is having problems getting to 400. Schmidt was raining 400's for a while before he broke the record, even Shaw, as awesome as he is, is not at that level at the moment.

Is the record breakable? Absolutely. Can people relatively new to 14.1 blast their way past it on pure shotmaking talent? Doubt it very much. At the very least they would need an extremely long period of time, at which time they'd be experienced players.

I'm not going to harp on about why, as I've said it many times before, only that it will take a very different approach than what we've seen so far (apart from maybe Ruslan). If I'm proven wrong, I'll happily admit to it.
Click to expand...
You were one of the people who was wrong then. Mosconi's record stood so long solely because it wasn't worth the effort to break, but at any point in time, and now more so than ever, dozens of players had the ability to break it, they just didn't have the motivation to break it.
 
He just hit a weird shot where he put the cue ball on the rail for the break ball to get more of an angle, and then barely made the next ball after the break. Run still continuing though on the 20th rack.
 
middleofnowhere said:
I'm sure it is common knowledge and I'm the only one who doesn't know. What were the dimensions of John's table?
Let's be honest, this table is rediclous.
Click to expand...
I am a guy in favor of tables that are somewhat easier than the Diamond pro cuts as far as 14.1 play is concerned. However, I have to agree with this post, I just watched a small amount of Jason this week on Facebook and , at least from what I have seen, the table does look very, very generous in the way the balls are entering the pockets. It almost looks like a pool ball vacuum the way some shots hit way up from pocket and then are pocketed, as well as the free space between pocket facings when a ball goes in clean.

I remember this as well when John Schmidt was doing his thing in pursuit. Maybe it is just the appearance on screen, and maybe this is what Mosconi was playing on that magical night as well, I am not sure and I am not pretending to know all the facts about these three tables.

To me, watching a bit of Jason play this week, yes, this table looks ridiculous - it looks that way - I don't know bc I am not playing on it though.
 
Anyone who thinks this table is ridiculous is completely out of touch with how pool is generally played. In the grand scheme of things, this is a normal table. A tight Diamond is the aberration.

After ripping through this rack Jayson came up a couple inches short and has his work cut out for him in rack 21.

He BARELY made it but he made it and here we go...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top