Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

alstl

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
An unedited DVD of the run would rationally, simply not be a commercially viable product, because it would unproductively include totally unnecessary, viewer-dissuasive footage of downtime for bio-breaks and other away-from-the-table protracted minutes. It would be utterly foolish from a marketing POV to quantity-produce that form of an ultra-high -- possibly historic -- Straight Pool run DVD.

John or his team logically could of course, produce by request -- and at a higher price point -- any amounts of an unedited DVDs of the run, but there'd be far more controversy-ridden downsides than productive upsides for doing so, IMO.

I'd imagine that John and his team have -- or should have -- already commonsensically considered all of these marketing-relevant factors.

Arnaldo
I saw a video of him running over 400 and it seemed to be unedited. I can't imagine that was that much down time. To remove all doubt it would have to be unedited.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
Extra DVD's don't add that much extra cost and john could pass it on to the customers anyway. I think I would market two versions, edited for time, no fast forward though, just cut out the nonpool time. Put commentary on that. Along with that release a version with no cuts for anything, no commentary, the best proof he has. It would add less than ten bucks to the cost I believe and should bury most of the controversy. john did touch a ball in another of his high runs, did he do something like that on this one? Only he and his hair dresser know for sure!

Hu
 

smoochie

NotLikeThis
Yer truly pitiful trob, now the table Mosconi ran the 526 on was a trash home table? I agree that ur truly inept and pitiful. Willie's bs record eh - wow what a loser. Mosconi's 526 is recognized in the Smithsonian Institute, see if the 626 claim - without unedited footage - is recognized from the Smithsonian. I seriously doubt that the Smithsonian will recognize their theater show as true evidence.
There's no video for mosconi's 526, where is the unedited footage? I don't think it happened for real, they say its on 8ft table but I think it did not happen to be honest with you. And I don't care about Smithsonian who even are those? who cares about their opinion, Not me!

And John's Schimdt run of 626 happened for real. How I know? I'm glad you asked, because he did a 400+ so many times with his revo shaft and p3 butt. Which means on a good day he could have some luck and beat his 400+ and get 600+ no problem, it makes so much sense.

Go buy a p3 and revo and maybe you will reach above the 400+ mark, gluck.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
OK, but the idea raised by someone that it was significant that JS didn’t have something in the Smithsonian is a stretch.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

True, but there is certainly an undeniable prestige to having something in their collection.

Lou Figueroa
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yer truly pitiful trob, now the table Mosconi ran the 526 on was a trash home table? I agree that ur truly inept and pitiful. Willie's bs record eh - wow what a loser. Mosconi's 526 is recognized in the Smithsonian Institute, see if the 626 claim - without unedited footage - is recognized from the Smithsonian. I seriously doubt that the Smithsonian will recognize their theater show as true evidence.
Before xredardedx decides to edit further...
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The bca folks aren't qualified to assess or endorse a run, but the Smithsonian folks are?

More hypocrisy.

Where has it been said that the Smithsonian asessed or endorsed diddly-do-dada, other than on the basis of historical value, Walter?

Where is this hypocrisy you speak of?

Lou Figueroa
 

logical

apart of their 'semi public'
Silver Member
.... Mosconi's 526 is recognized in the Smithsonian Institute, see if the 626 claim - without unedited footage - is recognized from the Smithsonian. I seriously doubt that the Smithsonian will recognize their theater show as true evidence.

Well this is how itbwas brought up...I see "reccognize" and "evidence" but not "history".

It doesn't mean much of anything unless you are reaching for straws...and it should not suprise anyone who brought it up.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Where has it been said that the Smithsonian asessed or endorsed diddly-do-dada, other than on the basis of historical value, Walter?

Where is this hypocrisy you speak of?

Lou Figueroa
Again, you show a convenient lack of understanding, as it pertains to the matter of 626.

See post above, quoting Danny. He clearly attaches the smithsonian's possession as support of 526.

Don't bother with your unprovable assertion the items are there solely for historical value ( I agree)...while that may be your contention, it can't be danny's, as he literally tied the museum's unlikely to take 626 without unedited footage. This shows attachment to the run, not historical impact.

Hypocrisy.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Again, you show a convenient lack of understanding, as it pertains to the matter of 626.

See post above, quoting Danny. He clearly attaches the smithsonian's possession as support of 526.

Don't bother with your unprovable assertion the items are there solely for historical value ( I agree)...while that may be your contention, it can't be danny's, as he literally tied the museum's unlikely to take 626 without unedited footage. This shows attachment to the run, not historical.

Convienent nothing.

Your original post immediately followed mine on the subject of the Smithsonian. Even in your post that I’ve quoted now, you want to argue the point with me.

But if your issue is actually with something Danny or anyone else said, quote their post to avoid confusion. Certainly you’ve been on the board long enough to know how to use that function.

Lou Figueroa
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Convienent nothing.

Your original post immediately followed mine on the subject of the Smithsonian. Even in your post that I’ve quoted now, you want to argue the point with me.

But if your issue is actually with something Danny or anyone else said, quote their post to avoid confusion. Certainly you’ve been on the board long enough to know how to use that function.

Lou Figueroa
You said this...?

Where has it been said that the Smithsonian asessed or endorsed diddly-do-dada, other than on the basis of historical value...
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Fuck, dude.

If you can't follow the discussion, stop participating in it.

You said this:
Where has it been said that the Smithsonian asessed or endorsed diddly-do-dada, other than on the basis of historical value...

and I responded to your question.

Go pound sand, Walter, I’ll partipate where I want.

You even say your issue is with something Danny said but respond to me.

Lou Figueroa
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Go pound sand, Walter, I’ll partipate where I want.

You even say your issue is with something Danny said but respond to me.

Lou Figueroa
Context was smithsonian. My replies were on point, irrespective of whom I quoted.

It bugs me a bit that we've gotten here. I know you are one of the good guys here and I'like to think I sometimes put a foot in that room too.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Context was smithsonian. My replies were on point, irrespective of whom I quoted.

It bugs me a bit that we've gotten here. I know you are one of the good guys here and I'like to think I sometimes put a foot in that room too.

My experience on the pool interweb, going back over 20 years and to RSB, is that one should always address any point of disagreement with the individual who made the original statement you take issue with or confusion ensues.

Yes, I know the issue was the Smithsonian but your disagreement seems to stem from something DH wrote, not unlike the issue of the Army reviewing a video a few posts back. You take those up with me and I have no clue why.

I only speak for myself and not for everyone on any side of an issue. So I would politely ask, to avoid future confusion, that you keep that in mind.

Lou Figueroa
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
My experience on the pool interweb, going back over 20 years and to RSB, is that one should always address any point of disagreement with the individual who made the original statement you take issue with or confusion ensues.

Yes, I know the issue was the Smithsonian but your disagreement seems to stem from something DH wrote, not unlike the issue of the Army reviewing a video a few posts back. You take those up with me and I have no clue why.

I only speak for myself and not for everyone on any side of an issue. So I would politely ask, to avoid future confusion, that you keep that in mind.

Lou Figueroa
I will try.perhaps using multi-qoute function is something I'd benefit from.

Things they did not teach me of in college...
 

Dan Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
Try to quote me correctly next time. You (and Danny) started with the insults.
He didn't run 626!!!😩😩😩😩 So adult of you two.
This is incorrect and misleading, having the right to an opinion - is not a direct insult. Sounds like u have some stock in their phony theater show. Yes I speak the Truth - it is apart of being an adult.
 
Last edited:

Dan Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
Just got back from watching the 626. They made a nice production, and it was very enjoyable to watch. Listening to John sharing his rollercoaster of emotions put this historic feat in the spectacular zone for me. Lot of things had to go right (in his life and on this run). There were a dozen times the run could have ended on a bad roll.

Yes, the video is 626 continuously run balls by John Schmidt and so much more. There are no cutaways, and only a single camera view for the entire run. Whatever people want to say about it, oh well. To everyone else, If this traveling show comes to your town, go see it!
Interesting to me how u described their (bcapl/csi) theater show, I could not help but notice u described it as a 'production' rather than a 'new record' people in yer position have to kinda be careful with the words they choose - eh? But yea they made a hollywood production lol, if they were not trying to capitalize on Mosconi's good name it would be comical. How does it feel to be on the side that is trying to promote what is likely nothing more than - a lie? :) Does the term 'we eat our own' ring any bell for u freddie? Kinda funny the word spectacular = striking effects - hence yer term 'production'. I would not want u in my corner - bcacornerboy/freddie agnir. But yea thanksfor referencing their little theater show as a 'production' rather than a 'new record'. Ha ha spectacular zone defense - wouldn't u say.
 
Last edited:
Top