Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

gerryf

Active member
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

That's an interesting observation. I like that.

Beyond the usual missed shot, missed position, and just bad luck, there have been many times I wondered if the balls could be replaced in the 'post-break' position, how often the player would choose an alternative path through the rack.
 
Last edited:

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
I understand the hall was closed for business, but open to spectators, as described in numerous posts..


The original claim was four people were there watching. That included the racker, his wife, and john's wife. I don't remember if they originally claimed the hall owner as a witness or not. While pj thought I was asking an impossible question to answer, the answer for all but maybe one or two of the people there has already been given.

john, hitting balls
the racker, racking
the room owner, getting ready to open
the room owner's wife, getting ready to open
one employee, getting ready to open.
john's wife, there, why, and what she was doing while every shot was taken is unknown.

Very unlikely that there were eyes on john at an angle to see the shot every moment of the run. Compare that to Willie Mosconi's run. Number of people there, unknown. Number that signed a document claiming to have seen the entire run, 38. I'm dubious about that number. However, most of these people were there as spectators to see an exhibition by a multi-time world champion. This was basically a one time thing too. They couldn't ramble in pretty much anytime the room was open and see Willie like they could watch john five days a week, week after week. Willie didn't have dozens and dozens of failed attempts to discourage spectators from thinking they were going to see something really special either.

Bottom line, the circumstances of Willie's run were much different than john's and there were many more spectators. Very easy to believe there were ten or more sets of eyes on every shot of Willie's. Also very easy to believe that john could have committed an unnoticed foul and perhaps didn't even consider it as these attempts were very much like practice runs. Very common to keep on if we have a minor foul in practice but any such thing would invalidate a record run.

john might have set a record, I think it is ridiculous to call it an exhibition record without any real spectators.

Gerry, there was no claim from john's camp that any spectators were there to watch the attempt. Original claims and updated claims during the week had zero unbiased witnesses present.

Logical, your point isn't without logic! While I would call myself more of a skeptic as I don't think you will find a statement from me anywhere that john didn't run 626 balls without a miss or foul, I would be far more easy to convince this was a legitimate record if john had 38 independent witnesses to his attempt.

Did he or didn't he? Only his hairdresser, and maybe john, know for sure!

Hu
 

lfigueroa

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' 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) ;-)

OK, Danny, that’s all fine with me.

But I will tell you that I just spent an hour talking to Bobby and his version of your interactions is quite different. In any case, we spent most of the time talking about the logistics of his project and I feel it will be a great opportunity for those players that are invited and choose to participate.

Lou Figueroa
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Is there a separate thread on BC's tournament? I have not heard about it on here except in Danny's post a few posts back. Just curious to read about it, that is all. Thanks.
 

Danny Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
For anyone who might think that debating the claim that Mosconi's 526 has been surpassed = fun or entertainment for me - it does not. I would much rather be talking about different facets of how j.s. got through each rack and or analyzing the trouble spots that he was able to weave himself out of - with my own eyes and converse with other 14.1 enthusiast's, actually celebrating a great achievement - after seeing UNEDITED FOOTAGE. Unfortunatly after two years he has only had a few of these obscure theater showings? Y'all can bet that he has been compensated for this possible lie imposed on the general populace (that possibly involves the theft of a 65+yr old record) Shame, Shame Shmitty. Well if u get to read this John schmidt aka bullet head aka Andy Vollaria (his real given birth name) is it possible that a cue company dangled a golden nugget if u could surpass 526 - and when u were unable to accomplish this goal - it was time for yer little theater productions? Did they maybe say "well John if yer going to try this theater route - it's time to maybe sing yer song, play guitar, make it snappy?" So for proof we get these hollywood theater showings? I can't say for sure but I would guess the next theater show will be in nyc, probly govnuh Comover will be in charge of theater tickets. Maybe that is a bit over the top - but it makes perfect sense to me.
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Is there a separate thread on BC's tournament? I have not heard about it on here except in Danny's post a few posts back. Just curious to read about it, that is all. Thanks.

No, I don't believe there is.

Basically, it's still in the works. The logistics are being hammered out and then they will be tested out. There is also the question of potentially meeting the requirements of certain governing bodies. Maybe those can be worked out, maybe not. If not, I don't believe it's going to slow much down -- a live stream, with an archived video available to one and all, will be hard to argue with. Let's just say it's a work in progress.

I will say it appears some pro players, foreign and domestic, are very keen on participating and willing to pay their way for a chance at the record. For others, its more of a "what will you pay me upfront" kind of deal and those guys can plan on finding other opportunities to burnish their reputations and, perhaps, enter the record books.

Lou Figueroa
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
To Danny and others regarding the camera angle:

Here is Danny at the DCC high run challenge. His body completely blocks the rack. The scorekeeper in the corner is not watching in this moment. Did Danny move the break ball? Or rack high/low? Did he cheat? Of course I don't think so! But this is what you are all saying of JS.

What about in Danny's 351 run (I did not purchase it, so I did not see it). Was that also a single camera? Where his body blocked many of the shots and/or racking process? It probably was, as Danny wrote a few posts back that if he were to do it again he'd use two cameras.

Point being pool is a low budget activity, and most of us that play it are not super tech savvy, and camera savvy, and have money to burn to set up a studio with multiple camera angles to capture a "cheat proof" high run.

Danny, what if your 351 was 527? What would we have to go by except your word? Your body blocked the rack. You had no witnesses, did you? Would anyone have come to your house to take apart your Diamond and inspect it for "shaved slates"?

JS has a lot more. He has the footage (if you choose not to see it, that is your issue. He is making it available for everyone and anyone to view it at his showing events). He has several people who watched the run as it was unfolding. He has several runs leading up to it that were in the 400's.

The people watching the run live are probably more credible than the people who watched mosconi's run. They know they will be under scrutiny, so they better be firm in their convictions. Whereas the Mosconi run witnesses were probably people struck by fandom. There were rumors circulated over the years, that balls even popped out of the pockets during the 526 and were counted. Who knows what really happened.

IMO, what we have with JS's run, is probably the most evidence for any high run ever caught on tape. It is certainly well above and beyond what is typical for a pool "feat".
Screen Shot 2021-02-23 at 8.10.10 PM.png
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The original claim was four people were there watching. That included the racker, his wife, and john's wife. I don't remember if they originally claimed the hall owner as a witness or not. While pj thought I was asking an impossible question to answer, the answer for all but maybe one or two of the people there has already been given.

john, hitting balls
the racker, racking
the room owner, getting ready to open
the room owner's wife, getting ready to open
one employee, getting ready to open.
john's wife, there, why, and what she was doing while every shot was taken is unknown.

Very unlikely that there were eyes on john at an angle to see the shot every moment of the run. Compare that to Willie Mosconi's run. Number of people there, unknown. Number that signed a document claiming to have seen the entire run, 38. I'm dubious about that number. However, most of these people were there as spectators to see an exhibition by a multi-time world champion. This was basically a one time thing too. They couldn't ramble in pretty much anytime the room was open and see Willie like they could watch john five days a week, week after week. Willie didn't have dozens and dozens of failed attempts to discourage spectators from thinking they were going to see something really special either.

Bottom line, the circumstances of Willie's run were much different than john's and there were many more spectators. Very easy to believe there were ten or more sets of eyes on every shot of Willie's. Also very easy to believe that john could have committed an unnoticed foul and perhaps didn't even consider it as these attempts were very much like practice runs. Very common to keep on if we have a minor foul in practice but any such thing would invalidate a record run.

john might have set a record, I think it is ridiculous to call it an exhibition record without any real spectators.

Gerry, there was no claim from john's camp that any spectators were there to watch the attempt. Original claims and updated claims during the week had zero unbiased witnesses present.

Logical, your point isn't without logic! While I would call myself more of a skeptic as I don't think you will find a statement from me anywhere that john didn't run 626 balls without a miss or foul, I would be far more easy to convince this was a legitimate record if john had 38 independent witnesses to his attempt.

Did he or didn't he? Only his hairdresser, and maybe john, know for sure!

Hu
I dunno,, man.

Isnt it a double standard to say that video needs to be evidenced and it does not suffice for witnesses (for the first 200 balls or whatever "what if" angle is being humored now)?
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
The original claim was four people were there watching. That included the racker, his wife, and john's wife. ...

Gerry, there was no claim from john's camp that any spectators were there to watch the attempt. Original claims and updated claims during the week had zero unbiased witnesses present. ...
- Schmidt's run of 626 was on May 27, 2019.
- The certification, signed by 8 witnesses, was dated the same day.
- The affidavit, referring to the certification, was signed on May 30, 2019 by one of the witnesses and a notary public.

Of the 8 people who signed the certification, 4 of them would certainly be considered part of John's "team" -- his wife, the room owner, the racker, and the racker's wife. I don't know whether the other 4 were present for the entire run. The certification says they "witnessed" the run of 626.
 

logical

apart of their 'semi public'
Silver Member
- Schmidt's run of 626 was on May 27, 2019.
- The certification, signed by 8 witnesses, was dated the same day.
- The affidavit, referring to the certification, was signed on May 30, 2019 by one of the witnesses and a notary public.

Of the 8 people who signed the certification, 4 of them would certainly be considered part of John's "team" -- his wife, the room owner, the racker, and the racker's wife. I don't know whether the other 4 were present for the entire run. The certification says they "witnessed" the run of 626.
I'm pretty sure the BCA made their decision based primarily on the video. I understand the reluctance by some to want to see the full video before being 100% convinced. It's the completely baseless and personally motivated attacks on John's integrity that reflects so poorly on the pool community that motivates me to engage in this debate about a record which frankly, I don't even really care much about.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
- Schmidt's run of 626 was on May 27, 2019.
- The certification, signed by 8 witnesses, was dated the same day.
- The affidavit, referring to the certification, was signed on May 30, 2019 by one of the witnesses and a notary public.

Of the 8 people who signed the certification, 4 of them would certainly be considered part of John's "team" -- his wife, the room owner, the racker, and the racker's wife. I don't know whether the other 4 were present for the entire run. The certification says they "witnessed" the run of 626.

I just went by the count that john and his group was releasing. It indeed changed from four to five to six to eight.

Hu (dated 1963BC)
 
Top