Earl's 11 vs Mosconi's 526???

S

smashmouth

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
inspired by the recent Willie thread and not wanting to hijack it,

I'd like to know how people compare the 526 against Earl's 11 Nine Ball racks which were on nine foot Diamonds during tournament play.

Odd post for me since I've always felt that there was funny business involved with Earl's run, however I'm still open to the possibility it was legit.

At first glance, many would be quick to dismiss Earl's feat at a "game of luck" against a record held for 50+ years by arguably the greatest player ever, yet I think it is very important to consider how many opportunities players have had to run 10+ at Nine Ball vs 500+ at Straights.

If you take into account every Nine Ball match ever played (at least those with the winner required to win a race to 10+ on nine footers), then the number of opportunities presented for a player to run 10+ would surely number in the millions contrasting sharply against Straights where the record for the most part would have only ever been attempted in exhibitions.

Can we presume some ratios for shits and giggles?

There are no verified accounts of 10+ that I am aware of outside of Earl's but for arguments sake let's say it has been accomplished on ten occasions.

10 out of 1 000 000 attempts equaling .001%

now Straights, the single 500+ run out of say 10 000 attempts equaling .01%

Obviously, in the absence of proper data, the numbers can be played with at will.

So which is the greater feat?
 
smashmouth said:
inspired by the recent Willie thread and not wanting to hijack it,

I'd like to know how people compare the 526 against Earl's 11 Nine Ball racks which were on nine foot Diamonds during tournament play.

Odd post for me since I've always felt that there was funny business involved with Earl's run, however I'm still open to the possibility it was legit.

At first glance, many would be quick to dismiss Earl's feat at a "game of luck" against a record held for 50+ years by arguably the greatest player ever, yet I think it is very important to consider how many opportunities players have had to run 10+ at Nine Ball vs 500+ at Straights.

If you take into account every Nine Ball match ever played (at least those with the winner required to win a race to 10+ on nine footers), then the number of opportunities presented for a player to run 10+ would surely number in the millions contrasting sharply against Straights where the record for the most part would have only ever been attempted in exhibitions.

Can we presume some ratios for shits and giggles?

There are no verified accounts of 10+ that I am aware of outside of Earl's but for arguments sake let's say it has been accomplished on ten occasions.

10 out of 1 000 000 attempts equaling .001%

now Straights, the single 500+ run out of say 10 000 attempts equaling .01%

Obviously, in the absence of proper data, the numbers can be played with at will.

So which is the greater feat?
Click to expand...

Don't forget about Archer's well-known thirteen-pack gambling against Bustmamante. Of course, the gold standard is the fifteen-pack by Niels Feijen, which ocurred during the warmup for a Eurotour event, the longest known string on a big table that had witnesses. Specifically, while preparing for the 4th Open Weert 9-Ball Championship event on October 29, 2003, in a challenge match against French player Donald Du Bois, Feijen broke and ran 15 consecutive 9-ball racks on a regulation 4 1/2 X 9' table.

I think Mosconi's 526 is stronger than Feijen's fifteen-pack.
 
sjm said:
Don't forget about Archer's well-known thirteen-pack gambling against Bustmamante. Of course, the gold standard is the fifteen-pack by Niels Feijen, which ocurred during the warmup for a Eurotour event, the longest known string on a big table that had witnesses. Specifically, while preparing for the 4th Open Weert 9-Ball Championship event on October 29, 2003, in a challenge match against French player Donald Du Bois, Feijen broke and ran 15 consecutive 9-ball racks on a regulation 4 1/2 X 9' table.

I think Mosconi's 526 is stronger than Feijen's fifteen-pack.
Click to expand...


I'm more impressed with Archers 13 racks because it was for a sizable sum of money as opposed to practice. I've also heard that Archer ran the first 2 racks of the next set, so does that count as a 15 pack?

Either way I'm still more impressed with Mosconi's 526 than any 9-ball pack. You hear all kinds of stories about 10+ racks of 9-ball, most of which seem possible: Archer's 13 (or 15), Feijen's 15, Stricklands 11, Lassiter's (21 or 23), in fact if you ask most pros I'm pretty sure you'll hear them say they've run in the neighborhood of 9-11 racks at least in practice. But in Straight pool you only ever hear of Mosconi's 526, Eufemia's 625 and Cranfields 760+, those are the only ones I've heard of with 500+ runs so it seems to be a bit of a rarer feat.

While we're on the subject, they say Cranfield has the unofficial high run on a 5 x 10 table as well with 420!!! If that really did happen then I would have to say that would be the greatest pool feat I've ever heard of.
 
There is a tremendous amount of luck involved with all three. But to me, JA running 13 may get the cheese. He did it on a Diamond, which is a good bit tougher table than the others. Small difference, but there nonetheless. Having said that, it is hard to argue against 526, lol. All three should be hall of fame worthy, though, at least in my book.
 
Last edited:
i think mosconis is more incredible. i know when earl ran 11 racks, some of those were 9s on the break and combos....mosconi ran 526 balls.
 
I really find it difficult to compare the two or three or four... Lots of variables to consider. It's almost apples to oranges; good for conversation though.
 
Jallan said:
I really find it difficult to compare the two or three or four... Lots of variables to consider. It's almost apples to oranges; good for conversation though.
Click to expand...


While I agree that a direct comparison is impossible, deciding which more impresses an individual shouldn't be that hard. After consideration, the 526 more impresses me, mainly because I haven't played that much straight pool. The couple times I have tried, it's hard to get over 2+ racks for me. I have, however, put 5+ racks of nineball together on multiple occasions. So for me, I find the 526 mind boggling, while 11 or 13 is just semi mind boggling, lol.
 
muttley76 said:
While I agree that a direct comparison is impossible, deciding which more impresses an individual shouldn't be that hard. After consideration, the 526 more impresses me, mainly because I haven't played that much straight pool. The couple times I have tried, it's hard to get over 2+ racks for me. I have, however, put 5+ racks of nineball together on multiple occasions. So for me, I find the 526 mind boggling, while 11 or 13 is just semi mind boggling, lol.
Click to expand...

I have 33 in straight and couldn't get 5 9 ball to save my life; at least at this point. If I had to chose the 526 takes it. But, I agree that both of them are scary as thinking about the size of the universe for me.
 
muttley76 said:
While I agree that a direct comparison is impossible, deciding which more impresses an individual shouldn't be that hard. After consideration, the 526 more impresses me, mainly because I haven't played that much straight pool. The couple times I have tried, it's hard to get over 2+ racks for me. I have, however, put 5+ racks of nineball together on multiple occasions. So for me, I find the 526 mind boggling, while 11 or 13 is just semi mind boggling, lol.
Click to expand...


I was thinking the exact same thing. I've run a 5 pack of 9-ball once, my high straight pool run is 79 (but I've played a lot of straight pool), so my 79 is 15% of the record 526!! But my 5 pack is 45% of earl's 11 racks. And my 5 pack ended because I came up dry on the break, I was in dead stroke I feel like I had a few more racks in me, but the 79 ball run ended because of poor position play as a direct result of poor shot selection and I ended up missing a tough shot that shouldn't have been tough in the first place, so knowledge is very important to have a big run in straight pool.
 
Running Racks

Well Archer's 13 rack run is the most documented that we all here about in recent times, and Stricklands so called 11, ( which I was there ), but I've personally watched Calvin Harcrow run 13 racks on a 9 footer, and 8 many times while gambling.

There's been many racks run up in the 20's and even 30's, but hell WERE All (so called) LIARS if we say it happen.........so what do you say?..


U.J.Puckett was told to run in the 20's and 30's.......and even "53" for his best on 9-ball....I wasn't born, don't know .....but was told that.....so there you are!..

I just know what I've seen.....and 20's and 30's could be very possible at 9-ball under the right conditions.

Hell I ran 13 once on a valley bar table mysellf.....anything is possible!


David Harcrow
 
Ironman317 said:
i think mosconis is more incredible. i know when earl ran 11 racks, some of those were 9s on the break and combos....mosconi ran 526 balls.
Click to expand...


Good call Iron. I WAS there, racking the balls for racks 6-11. I write about it in my soon to be released (promise!) book. The tables were tight (4.5") Gold Crowns and NO ONE was running any racks. Earl figured out a way to break on this one particular table. He made two nine balls on the break in the first five racks and left one or two others close to the pocket. When I took over, we put a stop to that, but he still ran out the next five racks.

Earl's feat was incredible, particularly the combo he made on the tenth rack. But I would have to go with Mosconi's 526 as the greater accomplishment. JMHO of course.

By the way, it was common knowledge "back in the day" that Lassiter had run 16 racks of 9-Ball on someone for the cash. Even he sheepishly admitted (he was not one to brag) that 16 was his best run. There were occasional rumors about someone running more racks but they were never verified, so they remained just that, "rumors". Lassiter's 16 was accepted by most because there seemed to be verification that it happened, by people who witnessed it. There was also a rumor that Lassiter had run 21 racks on someone. When asked about it he said that he thought that in one game he didn't make anything on the break and the guy pushed out. So in his mind that didn't count.
 
Last edited:
jay helfert said:
Good call Iron. I WAS there, racking the balls for racks 6-11. I write about it in my soon to be released (promise!) book. The tables were tight (4.5") Gold Crowns and NO ONE was running any racks. Earl figured out a way to break on this one particular table. He made two nine balls on the break in the first five racks and left one or two others close to the pocket. When I took over, we put a stop to that, but he still ran out the next five racks.

Earl's feat was incredible, particularly the combo he made on the tenth rack. But I would have to go with Mosconi's 526 as the greater accomplishment. JMHO of course.

By the way, it was common knowledge "back in the day" that Lassiter had run 16 racks of 9-Ball on someone for the cash. Even he sheepishly (he was not one to brag) that 16 was his best run.
Click to expand...


THAT IS IT!!!!!! NO MORE PIMPING OF THE BOOK, AT LEAST UNTIL WE GET THE RELEASE DATE!!!!!!!! Seriously, hurry up, I am selfish and need a good read!
 
muttley76 said:
THAT IS IT!!!!!! NO MORE PIMPING OF THE BOOK, AT LEAST UNTIL WE GET THE RELEASE DATE!!!!!!!! Seriously, hurry up, I am selfish and need a good read!
Click to expand...

I know I'm bad! Sorry. Believe me I want it done as badly as you do. The final processes (layout, photos, cover) are taking longer than I expected. Hopefully we can go to the printer next week, and have a real book sometime in March. I must have read this damn thing a million times now. :eek:
 
jay helfert said:
There was also a rumor that Lassiter had run 21 racks on someone. When asked about it he said that he thought that in one game he didn't make anything on the break and the guy pushed out. So in his mind that didn't count.
Click to expand...

LOL. Compare that to Mosconi who started telling the story that he didn't actually miss at 526, but just quit because he was tired, and told the story so many times he actually may have come to believe it himself.
 
atthecat said:
What kind of table was Mosconi playing on when he made 526? What were the pockets?
Click to expand...

A.E. Schmidt I believe. I played in that same poolroom (East High Billiards in Springfield, Ohio) in the early 60's, and they had a little plaque and a copy of the newspaper article on the wall. It was what we called an "over sized" eight footer (46"x92" playing surface). It just seemed like a normal table to me back then. What did I know? Based on the Sport Kings that were so popular in Midwestern poolrooms at that time, I would guess the pocket openings at about 4.75". But remember the slate was fairly deep on those old tables and the pocket opening were straight cut with very stiff rails.

If I had to guess, I would say the Schmidt tables played a little tougher than the Sport Kings. You could damn sure miss a ball if you weren't careful. I know I missed my share. I met Russ Maddox in there, who owned the place, and he hustled me out of $20 playing Gin. He was a good pool player too, best friends with George Rood.
 
Last edited:
526 is more impressive IMO

But I agree with whoever said it's like apples and oranges.

Two questions I have:
1. Is Earl's 11-pack available on DVD?
2. Why do people say there was funny stuff goin on, or 'so-called' 11-pack.

Alls I know about it is someone said run ten racks for a million, right? and Earl ran 11?
 
StudntofHmanMvs said:
But I agree with whoever said it's like apples and oranges.

Two questions I have:
1. Is Earl's 11-pack available on DVD?
2. Why do people say there was funny stuff goin on, or 'so-called' 11-pack.

Alls I know about it is someone said run ten racks for a million, right? and Earl ran 11?
Click to expand...


The "funny stuff" I think has to do with Earl having some combos and 9 on the break for some of the 11. I could be wrong, but I thought it was 11 for a mil, and he ended up running 12, cause #11 was a combo. Jay could tell us the whole story, I am sure. I also seem to remember that the insurance didn't want to pay, and CJ Wiley shamed them into a settlement by saying he would pay it, but I don't think he got the whole mil. I hope somebody in the know(AHEM, JAY) will tell us all of it.
 
jay helfert said:
A.E. Schmidt I believe. I played in that same poolroom (East High Billiards in Springfield, Ohio) in the early 60's, and they had a little plaque and a copy of the newspaper article on the wall. It was what we called an "over sized" eight footer (46"x92" playing surface). It just seemed like a normal table to me back then. What did I know? Based on the Sport Kings that were so popular in Midwestern poolrooms at that time, I would guess the pocket openings at about 4.75". But remember the slate was fairly deep on those old tables and the pocket opening were straight cut with very stiff rails.

If I had to guess, I would say the Schmidt tables played a little tougher than the Sport Kings. You could damn sure miss a ball if you weren't careful. I know I missed my share. I met Russ Maddox in there, who owned the place, and he hustled me out of $20 playing Gin. He was a good pool player too, best friends with George Rood.
Click to expand...


Ahh dam! I remember russ maddox, I liked him. I believe he passed away not that long ago. Do you know russ's speed when he played his best?

Did earl get paid that million or part of it for running the racks?
 
atthecat said:
What kind of table was Mosconi playing on when he made 526? What were the pockets?
Click to expand...

4X8 with 4.75" pockets. But he didn't have the advantage of the nice cloth played on these days. Lord knows what kind of shag carpet they used to play on back then. BTW, I don't believe he picked the table. It was at one of his exhibitions and that happened to be the table he played on that day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top