Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

smoochie

NotLikeThis
I've watched his youtube 434 and now I am convinced that his 626 is true, I mean why not.... I already saw his 434 and that he is capable, why wouldn't he get lucky and run 626 in one occasion? I don't see what would prevent him.

I mean it is possible that he touched a ball here or there slightly without moving them but who cares, still a legit 626 in my book even if he did that.
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Dam 150 pages and I went through all of them , one page ,one post at a time and my friends witnessed it , don't anyone dare question that , I have proof ,it was recorded and I've locked it away , my eyes are tired in my search for the holy grail I came up empty, I'll check back in after another 150 pages,


1
I've watched his youtube 434 and now I am convinced that his 626 is true, I mean why not.... I already saw his 434 and that he is capable, why wouldn't he get lucky and run 626 in one occasion? I don't see what would prevent him.

I mean it is possible that he touched a ball here or there slightly without moving them but who cares, still a legit 626 in my book even if he did that.
Where do you draw the line on these type of matters though?
Is it a disqualifying infraction:
If he moves a ball 1/4" and puts it back?
If he moves a ball 4" an puts it back?
If he picks up ball to clean it and doesn't put it back in exactly the same place?

The difficulty in drawing the line that would result from such a thing is easily eliminated by all-ball-fouls rule and I don't think it is unreasonable to require one who wishes to be on top of the cowpie to be able to have accomplished the feat cleanly.
 

ExilePreacher

Equal Opportunity Gadfly
Silver Member
Where do you draw the line on these type of matters though?
Is it a disqualifying infraction:
If he moves a ball 1/4" and puts it back?
If he moves a ball 4" an puts it back?
If he picks up ball to clean it and doesn't put it back in exactly the same place?

The difficulty in drawing the line that would result from such a thing is easily eliminated by all-ball-fouls rule and I don't think it is unreasonable to require one who wishes to be on top of the cowpie to be able to have accomplished the feat cleanly.

I’m cool with that. However I’d add the caveat that cleaning (especially the cue ball) should be allowed somehow. Maybe a skilled third party? Obviously you want the ball back exactly where it belongs but all that chalk has got to go eventually. I had a tough 9 the other night and was terrified with all the chalk marks. My opponent and I were both using some higher end chalk that’s notorious for making a super dirty cue ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

logical

apart of their 'semi public'
Silver Member
Where do you draw the line on these type of matters though?
Is it a disqualifying infraction:
If he moves a ball 1/4" and puts it back?
If he moves a ball 4" an puts it back?
If he picks up ball to clean it and doesn't put it back in exactly the same place?

The difficulty in drawing the line that would result from such a thing is easily eliminated by all-ball-fouls rule and I don't think it is unreasonable to require one who wishes to be on top of the cowpie to be able to have accomplished the feat cleanly.
How about we draw the line at the point where we currently are...nobody has reported anything like this on the 626 run.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

alstl

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Where do you draw the line on these type of matters though?
Is it a disqualifying infraction:
If he moves a ball 1/4" and puts it back?
If he moves a ball 4" an puts it back?
If he picks up ball to clean it and doesn't put it back in exactly the same place?

The difficulty in drawing the line that would result from such a thing is easily eliminated by all-ball-fouls rule and I don't think it is unreasonable to require one who wishes to be on top of the cowpie to be able to have accomplished the feat cleanly.
I wouldn't have a problem with touching a ball like he did on one of his 400+ runs because we don't know how many balls Mosconi touched. I can understand the reluctance to accept it without a continuous unedited video. Best case scenario is eventually the full DVD is released and all doubt is removed.
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
How about we draw the line at the point where we currently are...nobody has reported anything like this on the 626 run.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
I think the consideration about what would be acceptable would be applicable in a greater sense than just one run.
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I wouldn't have a problem with touching a ball like he did on one of his 400+ runs because we don't know how many balls Mosconi touched. I can understand the reluctance to accept it without a continuous unedited video. Best case scenario is eventually the full DVD is released and all doubt is removed.
Best case scenario for who?
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've watched his youtube 434 and now I am convinced that his 626 is true, I mean why not.... I already saw his 434 and that he is capable, why wouldn't he get lucky and run 626 in one occasion? I don't see what would prevent him.

I mean it is possible that he touched a ball here or there slightly without moving them but who cares, still a legit 626 in my book even if he did that.

The higher the 14.1 run, the level of skill required progresses logarithmically.

IOWs, because you can run 100, does not mean you can run 200. If you can run 300, it does not mean you can run 400, and so on.

Lou Figueroa
 

gerryf

Active member
To remove all doubt.

I doubt it will remove all doubt. There are personalities that will focus on 'something' to keep alive their 'feelings' that Schmidt didn't beat Mosconi's record.

The evidence is solid already, with hundreds of people having seen the video including professionals who were looking for fouls and irregularities.

But if you don't like John Schmidt, there will always be a reason. Didn't Danny's Bowel Movement suggest that Schmidt had wiped the balls to build up a static charge, then steered the balls into the pockets using "Magnetism"? Danny Harriman wanted U.S. Naval Intelligence to examine the video.

There's no analysis that will ever satisfy people who are determined not to be satisfied. The cognitive biases are hard-wired into their personality.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
He was playing CB fouls only in all his prior attempts. He would list that in the livestream description. I have zero problem with CB only fouls. MANY professional events are and have been played the same way, including straight pool events. I'm willing to bet nearly every single one of us in this whole forum typically play CB fouls only when we are gambling, whether its a local $5 weekly tourney, or a $1000 per game one pocket session.
 

gerryf

Active member
The higher the 14.1 run, the level of skill required progresses logarithmically.

IOWs, because you can run 100, does not mean you can run 200. If you can run 300, it does not mean you can run 400, and so on.

Lou Figueroa

If there were a database of straight pool runs, it would be interesting to determine the odds of a player running 1 rack, 10 racks, 100, 200, 300, etc., and actually plot it out.

With every rack being almost independent of the previous run, I wonder if the principal problem is fatigue. I think i read a quote from Jimmy Caras saying that on an 8 foot table, the only reason to ever miss was fatigue.

There are players who would be strong favorites to run a single rack, and players who would be strong favorites to run a rack and be in good position to run the second etc. Add in a little luck....

An interesting problem left for the student...

It would also be interesting to have enough tournament data to see the growth(?) in 100 ball runs with time.
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I doubt it will remove all doubt. There are personalities that will focus on 'something' to keep alive their 'feelings' that Schmidt didn't beat Mosconi's record.

The evidence is solid already, with hundreds of people having seen the video including professionals who were looking for fouls and irregularities.

But if you don't like John Schmidt, there will always be a reason. Didn't Danny's Bowel Movement suggest that Schmidt had wiped the balls to build up a static charge, then steered the balls into the pockets using "Magnetism"? Danny Harriman wanted U.S. Naval Intelligence to examine the video.

There's no analysis that will ever satisfy people who are determined not to be satisfied. The cognitive biases are hard-wired into their personality.

No, it's not like that.

Some us would just like to see unedited video. Those hundred of people you mention were all shown an edited video, a portion of which was played at high speed.

Lou Figueroa
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
He was playing CB fouls only in all his prior attempts. He would list that in the livestream description. I have zero problem with CB only fouls. MANY professional events are and have been played the same way, including straight pool events. I'm willing to bet nearly every single one of us in this whole forum typically play CB fouls only when we are gambling, whether its a local $5 weekly tourney, or a $1000 per game one pocket session.

Yes, we all play CB fouls only, unless we're playing in a championship 14.1 tournament... or maybe trying to break a 14.1 world record.

Lou Figueroa
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If there were a database of straight pool runs, it would be interesting to determine the odds of a player running 1 rack, 10 racks, 100, 200, 300, etc., and actually plot it out.

With every rack being almost independent of the previous run, I wonder if the principal problem is fatigue. I think i read a quote from Jimmy Caras saying that on an 8 foot table, the only reason to ever miss was fatigue.

There are players who would be strong favorites to run a single rack, and players who would be strong favorites to run a rack and be in good position to run the second etc. Add in a little luck....

An interesting problem left for the student...

It would also be interesting to have enough tournament data to see the growth(?) in 100 ball runs with time.

The principle problem becomes depth of knowledge.

The longer the run the wider the variety of table layouts and shots that must be shot. And, as the run lengthens, the likelihood of difficult situations that take more knowledge, experience, and skill to overcome, occurs more often.

IOWs, play a few racks and you might not see anything too terrible. Keep going a few more racks and maybe the balls don't open up so well. A few more and maybe you misplay your position or pattern. More racks and perhap you need to manufacture a break ball. More racks and maybe you have to break the balls off a difficult 15th ball. And then there is maintaining focus -- let it wander just a bit and maybe you miss a ball or a positional play you'd normally make.

Wash, rinse and repeat.

Lou Figueroa
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Yes, we all play CB fouls only, unless we're playing in a championship 14.1 tournament... or maybe trying to break a 14.1 world record.

Lou Figueroa
There is a championship 14-1 tourney from the 90's or early 2000's on youtube. I think Grady was commenting, or playing, I can't recall. Anyway they were playing CB fouls. It came up in the commentary. I'd link it but I forgot what it was called to find it.

PS, it was an exhibition high run. Not a tournament. And as mentioned, many tournaments are CB fouls only.
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
Where do you draw the line on these type of matters though?
Is it a disqualifying infraction:
If he moves a ball 1/4" and puts it back?
If he moves a ball 4" an puts it back?
If he picks up ball to clean it and doesn't put it back in exactly the same place?

The difficulty in drawing the line that would result from such a thing is easily eliminated by all-ball-fouls rule and I don't think it is unreasonable to require one who wishes to be on top of the cowpie to be able to have accomplished the feat cleanly.
I agree. All ball fouls have been the standard in Europe for quite some time. Cueball fouls only seem to be an American phenomenon as far as I can tell. It leads to all kinds of problems, as you outlined in your post. To me the idea that I can touch balls without fouling is quite hard to understand. It just wouldn't feel right, especially in a game like straigh pool where a couple of mm can literally be the difference between an epic fail and a perfect position in many cases. Picking the cueball up, willy-nilly, just invites all sorts of shenanigans. For a high run attempt such as this, the line gets a little blurred, but I do think it ought to follow the same rules as a standard game. It just makes things so much easier and cuts down on arguments and doubts.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There is a championship 14-1 tourney from the 90's or early 2000's on youtube. I think Grady was commenting, or playing, I can't recall. Anyway they were playing CB fouls. It came up in the commentary. I'd link it but I forgot what it was called to find it.

PS, it was an exhibition high run. Not a tournament. And as mentioned, many tournaments are CB fouls only.

Well, as previously alluded to, there is a problem when you don't play all ball fouls.

If a guy jumps up and janks a ball way over there, or maybe just a little over there, how much are you willing to forgive because *you know* that ball is not going back exactly where it was.

It's tough to do it that way without some guidelines, which I don't know what those would be.

Lou Figueroa
 
Top