Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

alstl

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.
An unedited DVD would remove all doubt.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I finally found the video where there was a straight pool match with CB fouls only. I had seen it months ago, and found it again today. Its Grady vs Fleming in a player review match from 1993. The link below will open right to the timestamp where they are talking about the rules for this tournament. If the timestamp does not work, it starts at timestamp 1:20.41, and they talk about it for about 30 seconds.

 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
Despite having multiple pairs of knowledgeable eyes on each and every shot.

pj
chgo

Not unless people have x-ray vision or a most amazing fluke! Even if he releases the video showing everything in real time there will be the issue of the tripod mounted single camera. His body will block our view of some shots. One of my sharks when people were cheating me was to shoot shapre where my body blocked their view of the shot. Made them crazy when they realized I was playing shape to do just that! I could block the view of my opponent on a fourth of the shots or more, admittedly playing shape to do that deliberately. However, John had no larceny in his heart so let's say his body blocked a clear view of the tip hitting the cue ball during only one in twenty shots. That would add up to over thirty shots when we couldn't see the shot from that single camera. I noticed that Bob Jewett, a careful man with words, didn't say there were no fouls. He said he didn't see any.
I agree. But you know as well or better than most that almost all gambling is done cueball fouls only, and almost all tournaments on a local or regional level are played cue ball fouls only as well. I also recall even on national events that unless the match is officiated by a referee, they may be playing cue ball fouls only. There are generally accepted guidelines for resolution when a player moves a ball, that seem to work reasonably well when two people are gambling.

Also, by all accounts of those who viewed the "edited" footage, and by Bob who has viewed the "unedited" footage, no balls were touched, so this is a moot point.

If you throw away the all ball fouls (which I know is opinion to do so...), but for arguments sake if you do, about all this is left is seeing if there was some sort of double hit type foul.

The skill level of the BCA members that watched this is brought into question. If all they have to watch out for is a double hit, I'm pretty sure they can manage. Hell, my high run is a measly 37, and I think I could make a call if I had the footage on a double hit or similar type foul. And if there was a shot that I was not sure of, I would definitely be able to see that it was questionable, and then call onto a more experienced player/referee to watch the shot on the video.

I certainly understand the desire to make the call for oneself, and not trust the expertise of someone else. But that just doesn't look to be the case that it will happen here. Unless you go to one of the viewings. Even at 2x speed for some portions, if there is something close to a foul, you will spot it. At that point you can jump up and down and ask John to show a replay in slow motion of that shot in question. So far maybe 100 people went to his shows, a few on here, and no one said any shot was close to a foul.


I don't know that I have seen every time Bob said something but what I read was that he didn't see any fouls. Not quite the same as saying there weren't any. Again, just what I read, the video is from a tripod mounted camera. With the low camera john's body would block a view of some cue ball hits. Given that his body blocked one shot in thirty that would still be twenty shots that weren't recorded clearly. john is a victim of his own sloppy work. My belief is that while the video may prove he fouled, it won't prove he didn't. A good reason for not releasing it.

Hu
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Despite having multiple pairs of knowledgeable eyes on each and every shot.
...there will be the issue of the tripod mounted single camera. His body will block our view of some shots.
I'm talking about the live spectators in the room with him - he'd have to stand in multiple positions at once to block all their views. Even accounting for people looking away randomly there must have been eyes on every shot.

I'm not saying there certainly was no foul, but the chances of that are slim - it takes some "personal interest" to object, particularly as loudly as we've seen here, on the basis of "anything's possible".

pj
chgo
 

Danny Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
Danny, I have been read into what Bobby Chamberlain is going to pull off and it is something historic -- an opportunity you should not pass up lightly.

I hope you reconsider because I figure you to be a favorite to bust whatever claims are out there -- on tape, unedited.

Don't blow this -- goferit.

Lou Figueroa
Roger that Lou, sum thin a bit squirrly' bout it - when he said he was tryin' to get bca involved with it but really wanted me to play - I sar' a giant Red Flag with his bca assoc -but I was still interested as he did sound enthusiastic bout my attendance. I never heard back from him after a couple months, so I called him - 2nd phonee' converseanation' I had with him - did not go well. he seemed much less enthused about my attendance, stating the event was costing him alot of $ and he seemed stressed out, it was kinda negative vibe I received from the 'whirld pro' - he regurgitated that he had shortened the list of players and it was costing him alot of $ and mentioned that Pool Players are always wanting something for free? I guess he was tryin to bitterly group me in with the rest of his vissionary mod's - I am old school - plus I would not trust anyone who wants to deal off the bottom of the deck - in reference to the two jokers over at bca. I am a Pocket Billiard player who happens to gamble, so in our 2nd phone converse it seemed I was talking to a different dude, his vibe was negative and he sounded much less enthusiastic bout my participation in the 5 1/2 wash uh ton' deal - plus I was going back over some threads here and saw where Bobbie offered to play me or j.s. heads up in 14.1. I received the line on bobbie chamberlain - he has zero chance of winning with me on a tight Diamond in 14.1 (300 point set) - so I did offer him 2-1 on the $. I say he is full of b.s. like j.s. - I am not too full of it - if I say I will play - that means - i will.

I mostly play full rack and bank pool and One Pocket now uh dais'. I am more of a mono ee mono type player anyhue - plus not going to travel to washington dc to fool around on gaffed up table. I prefer to stay in the sticks and play bank or one pocket on the diamond - against Who Ever comes to the Ozarks. Thanks for the advice though, I am not in the cool crowd - I prefer it that way. I have decided to use my (as Devo would say) 'freedom of choice'. Adios Lou Figueroa - Thank you for your service - to what's left of this Country (correct spelling of your name this time) ;-)
 
Last edited:

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Roger that Lou, sum thin a bit squirrly' bout it - when he said he was tryin' to get bca involved with it but really wanted me to play - I sar' a giant Red Flag with his bca assoc -but I was still interested as he did sound enthusiastic bout my attendence. I never heard back from him after a couple months, so I called him - 2nd phonee' converseation I had with him - did not go well. he seemed much less enthused about my attendence, stating the event was costing him alot of $ and he seemed stressed out, it was kinda negative vibe I received from the 'whirld pro' - he regurgitated that he had shortened the list of players and it was costing him alot of $ and mentioned that Pool Players are always wanting something for free? I am a Pocket Billiard player who happens to gamble, so in our 2nd phone converse it seemed I was talking to a different dude, his vibe was negative and he sounded much less enthusisastic bout mmy particiapation in the 5 1/2 wash uh ton' deal - plus I was going back over some threads here and saw where Bobbie offered to play me or j.s. heads up in 14.1. I received the line on bobbie chamberlain - he has zero chance of winning with me on a tight Diamond in 14.1 (300 point set) - so I did offer him 2-1 on the $. I say he is full of b.s. like j.s. - I am not too full of it - if I say I will play - that means - i will. I mostly play full rack and bank pool and One Pocket now uh dais'. I am more of a mono ee mono type player anyhue - plus not going to travel to washington dc to fool around on gaffed up table. I prefer to stay in the sticks and play bank or one pocket on the diamond. Thanks for the advice though, sorry to report it falls on deaf ears.
Jesus. You act like everyone is out to get you, but you literally bite any hand extended to you.

You are only an outcast because of yourself.
 

Danny Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
I agree. But you know as well or better than most that almost all gambling is done cueball fouls only, and almost all tournaments on a local or regional level are played cue ball fouls only as well. I also recall even on national events that unless the match is officiated by a referee, they may be playing cue ball fouls only. There are generally accepted guidelines for resolution when a player moves a ball, that seem to work reasonably well when two people are gambling.

Also, by all accounts of those who viewed the "edited" footage, and by Bob who has viewed the "unedited" footage, no balls were touched, so this is a moot point.

If you throw away the all ball fouls (which I know is opinion to do so...), but for arguments sake if you do, about all this is left is seeing if there was some sort of double hit type foul.

The skill level of the BCA members that watched this is brought into question. If all they have to watch out for is a double hit, I'm pretty sure they can manage. Hell, my high run is a measly 37, and I think I could make a call if I had the footage on a double hit or similar type foul. And if there was a shot that I was not sure of, I would definitely be able to see that it was questionable, and then call onto a more experienced player/referee to watch the shot on the video.

I certainly understand the desire to make the call for oneself, and not trust the expertise of someone else. But that just doesn't look to be the case that it will happen here. Unless you go to one of the viewings. Even at 2x speed for some portions, if there is something close to a foul, you will spot it. At that point you can jump up and down and ask John to show a replay in slow motion of that shot in question. So far maybe 100 people went to his shows, a few on here, and no one said any shot was close to a foul.
U stated - "Even at 2x speed for some portions, if there is something close to a foul, you will spot it." ??????

This is not accurate - I heard my buddy's 2nd cousin who's third cousin knew Bob Jewett say he heard that j.s. ran 626 and it was caught on tape, although here, here, I dare say I am from the show me state - unedited footage equals verifiable evidence. U will spot nothing but phony hollywood corruption at the bca's/j.s theatrical production. Nor should their thea'trick'al theater commercial be associated with Mosconi's legitimate (well touted) 65+yr old record. If I ever decide to start recording some more 14.1 long runs - I will employ an overhead camera plus a side cam, that way I will never protrude any footage from the viewers line of sight. I have many runs where my hand touched a ball during the run, I stopped and started over, as that is not a clean run in my view. PLUS the footage will be unedited and open to the general public for sale - no corrupt ' come and see the show' stuff. If u think the people want to see footage sped up in double speed and or that is normal digital adjudication procedure that speaks volumes to me about yer character.
 
Last edited:

justnum

TesticularCancer Survivor
Silver Member
"Even at 2x speed for some portions, if there is something close to a foul, you will spot it."

This is not accurate - I heard my buddy's 2nd cousin who's third cousin knew Bob Jewett say he knew that 626 was caught on tape, although here, here, I dare say I am from the show me state - unedited footage equals verifiable evidence. U will spot nothing but phony hollywood corruption at the bca's/j.s theatrical production.
good idea, i will make a phony 626 ball run,

the only way you believe JS is if there is unedited footage.
That is a challenge I will take by the end of the week.

I will provide unedited footage of a high run.
 

Danny Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
good idea, i will make a phony 626 ball run,

the only way you believe JS is if there is unedited footage.
That is a challenge I will take by the end of the week.

I will provide unedited footage of a high run.
Good for you, it is not as difficult as some are making it out to be (providing unedited footage of a Claim) once the center is discoverd and you start rolling - the tough part is avoiding the skid - that is what stopped my 351 - without any fouls. Has anyone in Amsterdam run a 350+ in 14.1 - maybe so? Creating a edited run is very easy to do, as one person who got caught here on az - now knows - see Straight Pool section of az for confirmation. He got caught providing the phony footage of a large run - (I forgot his non legit #) I'm sure he had an avatar instead of posting his real name - he was warned - just as j.s. is being warned NOW. Turns out he was unabashed from his larceny and kept his account here on az - he replaced a ball that was missed - but the graph here on az member - caught it - what a guy.

The bca and j.s are hiding from the graph technology - as they probly should, a player that throws chalk at another opponent cause he is losing (see j.s. TAR video against me) - is not the one to replace Mosconi's great accomplishment of 526. I will adopt his 626 as solid evidence - once I see unedited footage, unfortunately - that is not being provided to us (even after two years) :-0 Plus in the beginning of their drive by news announcement - the bca stated that the run was Open to the 'Semi public'. It was this 'divisive lango' that hoisted the Red Flag for me - two years later - no unedited footage available for public to purchase - speaks volumes to me and I no salute the j.s 626 Claim. If you think being apart of the 'semi public' is kina like bein' in with the cool crowd - it ain't.
 
Last edited:

book collector

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
But we don't know about the 300 spectators but it is not only possible but perhaps even likely -- Mosconi was a big star of that era.

Also, keep in mind that back in those days there were a lot of pool rooms that were pretty good sized. Here's one that was in STL around the same time.

Lou Figueroa
But was the one in Ohio one of them?
I don't doubt 300 people can fit in a room, but even if it was in the middle of an air force hanger, 300 can't get close enough to see much.
That's all true, and the deeper you look the cloudier it gets. Mosconi said there were 300 spectators. Thats nonsense, 300 people don't fit around a pool table without bleachers / risers and even if they did they'd need binoculars to see.

But none of that matters if he's your boyhood hero and you never grew up.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
There are still people around that played there. I'm trying to get in touch with someone that spent a lot of time there. I'm pretty sure I was there about 1967 and I don't remember it being huge . But my memory is suspect nowadays. My buddy will know for sure , he was there every day for a few years
 
Last edited:

gerryf

Active member
...he seemed much less enthused about my attendence, .... he sounded much less enthusisastic bout my particiapation ...I am more of a mono ee mono type player anyhue - ... not going to travel to washington dc ... I prefer to stay in the sticks ... ...I am not in the cool crowd

Ha! Ha! I don't think I would be enthused about you attending either!!

You do have enough excuses in place so you never have to compete again.

We all know why!! Ha! Ha! This is terrific stuff!!
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
I'm talking about the live spectators in the room with him - he'd have to stand in multiple positions at once to block all their views. Even accounting for people looking away randomly there must have been eyes on every shot.

I'm not saying there certainly was no foul, but the chances of that are slim - it takes some "personal interest" to object, particularly as loudly as we've seen here, on the basis of "anything's possible".

pj
chgo


List the live spectators and why they were in a closed business.

Hu
 

logical

apart of their 'semi public'
Silver Member
Roger that Lou, sum thin a bit squirrly' bout it - when he said he was tryin' to get bca involved with it but really wanted me to play - I sar' a giant Red Flag with his bca assoc -but I was still interested as he did sound enthusiastic bout my attendence. I never heard back from him after a couple months, so I called him - 2nd phonee' converseanation' I had with him - did not go well. he seemed much less enthused about my attendence, stating the event was costing him alot of $ and he seemed stressed out, it was kinda negative vibe I received from the 'whirld pro' - he regurgitated that he had shortened the list of players and it was costing him alot of $ and mentioned that Pool Players are always wanting something for free? I guess he was tryin to bitterly group me in with the rest of his vissionary mod's - I am old school - plus I would not trust anyone who wants to deal off the bottom of the deck - in reference to the two jokers over at bca. I am a Pocket Billiard player who happens to gamble, so in our 2nd phone converse it seemed I was talking to a different dude, his vibe was negative and he sounded much less enthusisastic bout my particiapation in the 5 1/2 wash uh ton' deal - plus I was going back over some threads here and saw where Bobbie offered to play me or j.s. heads up in 14.1. I received the line on bobbie chamberlain - he has zero chance of winning with me on a tight Diamond in 14.1 (300 point set) - so I did offer him 2-1 on the $. I say he is full of b.s. like j.s. - I am not too full of it - if I say I will play - that means - i will.

I mostly play full rack and bank pool and One Pocket now uh dais'. I am more of a mono ee mono type player anyhue - plus not going to travel to washington dc to fool around on gaffed up table. I prefer to stay in the sticks and play bank or one pocket on the diamond - against Who Ever comes to the Ozarks. Thanks for the advice though, I am not in the cool crowd - I prefer it that way. I have decided to use my (as Devo would say) 'freedom of choice'. Adios Lou Figueroa - Thank you for your service - to what's left of this Country (correct spelling of your name this time) ;-)

Nobody ever thought your presence here or in 14.1 in general was ever more than solely to hate on JS so I doubt anyone expected you to be a part of actually setting a record.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
Top