Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

[bb9ball]

I agree with this. And if I were John Schmidt i wouldn't care. It's a losing game to cater to the conspiracy-minded. Right now they seem to be focused on the 2x portion of the presentation, but if that were resolved it would be something else.

The previous allegations included shaved slates, phony pockets, electronically controlled balls, Leprechauns, and 'magnetism'.

I bet John actually is enjoying that he is needling his haters by not releasing the video. And, I would bet that at least one forum member has a copy of the unedited video.

 

[Dan White]

I agree it was highly likely that the run was continually witnessed, but we don't know how many people that was. There's no mention anywhere that the people who signed the statement all "continually witnessed" it, just that they "witnessed" it, whatever that means.

When I wrote "continually" witnessed I meant it was seen by a large enough group that there were eyeballs on every shot he took. If there was a miss it would have been known. I do not believe that every witness saw every single shot, nor do I think that would be necessary to validate the record.

Yes, the general public was admitted, but we don't know if that included any of Willie's friends. Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't really matter does it?

The things that we know for sure are pretty limited. But it doesn't matter.

What we do know is that BCA talked to Willie, and they had the signed statement, and they were confident in what happened, and they declared it a record run.


...probably...doubtful....acquaintances.

You're speculating. You don't know.

If you want to suggest that the record might be tainted because we do not know if everybody in the audience is a relative of Mosconi willing to lie then I don't know what to tell you. You don't seem to understand the circumstances in which Mosconi gave exhibitions. We don't really know anything at all but we can be pretty certain of some things, like death and taxes.

 

[logical]

Right.

And we don't know if anything has been edited.

Lou Figueroa

But we do know that playing part of it back at 2x speed didn't edit it.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[lfigueroa]

Yes, John Schmidt is claiming a BCA record, and established a run of 626 that was accepted by the BCA as a new record based on witness statements and viewing a continuous video.

I had the understanding that it was less than 100 shots that were sped up, and at 3 shots/minute (?) that's 33 minutes at normal speed. 17 minutes at 2x speed. Maybe it wasn't necessary to reduce the length of the presentation by less than 20 minutes , but it's not an unreasonable thing to do. As you know, there are frequently parts of a straight pool game that are unremarkable. Maybe they had a target duration for the presentation, and with the additional time taken in describing the history of 14.1 runs and the facilities, and the process that Schmidt followed, it may have just made the event too long. Have you actually asked someone who's part of the team presenting it?

It remains though that reputable and highly regarded straight pool players have 'witnessed' the video and have made 'written statements' on this forum that the video was continuous and it was a magnificent run of 626.

John Schmidt may wind up selling copies of the raw video, or maybe he'll prefer to sell the video with commentary. (I'd be most interested in the commentary.)

But until he gets what income he can from his "Evening with John Schmidt", you can always pay the $50, attend his presentation, and ask him questions directly. Maybe he'll play that 20 minutes for you at normal speed, or maybe you'll have to wait to purchase your own copy. Either way, you can slow that part down if you're still suspicious that there's a conspiracy. I think Danny Harriman will.

All of that is great.

But I remain with an open mind.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

If one were conspiriatorially minded, or just super suspicious of the claim, speeding up the footage could be used to hide cuts and edits. If the sped up video was played without sound (especially) it would make such trickery a lot easier.

I stopped doubting the run after Bob J. said he'd seen the footage. He's probably the one I'd choose on this forum to review something like this.

However, as long as JS holds on to the footage, he'll have to accept doubters. It's just the nature of these things. People have grudges, idolize Mosconi and have other motives not to believe the claim. There will always be people like this and the only real defense is to release the data. Somehow I doubt some of those people will even accept the unedited video and instead fabricate a new reason not to believe any of it. That is also to be expected. Some people are just nuts. I learned long ago that people believe what they want to believe and evidence is usually not a really big factor in that decision.

Straightforward evidence would be nice.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

But we do know that playing part of it back at 2x speed didn't edit it.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Didn't know anyone said otherwise.

Lou Figueroa

 

[easy-e]

When I wrote "continually" witnessed I meant it was seen by a large enough group that there were eyeballs on every shot he took. If there was a miss it would have been known. I do not believe that every witness saw every single shot, nor do I think that would be necessary to validate the record.

If you want to suggest that the record might be tainted because we do not know if everybody in the audience is a relative of Mosconi willing to lie then I don't know what to tell you. You don't seem to understand the circumstances in which Mosconi gave exhibitions. We don't really know anything at all but we can be pretty certain of some things, like death and taxes.

I'm pretty sure the haters aren't looking for a miss. They're looking for a single moment where John's shirt might have made contact with a ball.

 

[gerryf]

If you want to suggest that the record might be tainted because we do not know if everybody in the audience is a relative of Mosconi willing to lie then I don't know what to tell you. You don't seem to understand the circumstances in which Mosconi gave exhibitions. We don't really know anything at all but we can be pretty certain of some things, like death and taxes.

As i said, i don't think it matters if any of the audience were Mosconi's friends. What i was responding to were comments suggesting that Schmidt's witnesses were friends of his, and even if it's true, i don't thing that matters either. Mark Wilson and Nick Varner and Bob Jewett were dismissed as friends of John Schmidt and also part of some kind of billiards mafia.

There are a number of posts where people advance their own opinions about Mosconi, and act like it's a fact, when it's clear they're just advancing an opinion. They weren't there, there's little documentation about the run other than Mosconi's brief description and the witnesses statement that they saw him run 526 balls. Even where people actually saw a Mosconi exhibition, there's no evidence that his exhibition in Ohio was the same. Just opinions. It is clear that Mosconi could run 100 balls almost at will, and was a great player.

The people who believe Schmidt, the room owner, his witnesses, the BCA, and the prominent players who have reviewed the video are all part of a conspiracy to taint the record of Willie Mosconi will believe it no matter what evidence is put in front of them.

Back at the beginning of this thread, Danny and his buddy, Danny's Bowel Movement (dBm for short), were suggesting all kinds of things, and a few others would read that and say "Oh Gee! I didn't know that so I'm skeptical of this run as well". Not a lot of critical thinking going on.

 

[Dan White]

I'm pretty sure the haters aren't looking for a miss. They're looking for a single moment where John's shirt might have made contact with a ball.

In my opinion, that doesn't matter for an exhibition. I don't personally think a run is tainted if a ball gets brushed slightly and even reset by a referee if it has no material impact on the run. I'm probably in the minority on that because you can ask where the limit is.

 

[easy-e]

In my opinion, that doesn't matter for an exhibition. I don't personally think a run is tainted if a ball gets brushed slightly and even reset by a referee if it has no material impact on the run. I'm probably in the minority on that because you can ask where the limit is.

I agree completely.However, the same posters on here who are questioning John's run, have said that his last 400+ run doesn't count because he slightly touched a ball during the run. We're not dealing with rational people here.

 

[Dan White]

As i said, i don't think it matters if any of the audience were Mosconi's friends. What i was responding to were comments suggesting that Schmidt's witnesses were friends of his, and even if it's true, i don't thing that matters either. Mark Wilson and Nick Varner and Bob Jewett were dismissed as friends of John Schmidt and also part of some kind of billiards mafia.

It matters a tremendous amount. If that isn't obvious then, well, it should be.

There are a number of posts where people advance their own opinions about Mosconi, and act like it's a fact, when it's clear they're just advancing an opinion. They weren't there, there's little documentation about the run other than Mosconi's brief description and the witnesses statement that they saw him run 526 balls. Even where people actually saw a Mosconi exhibition, there's no evidence that his exhibition in Ohio was the same. Just opinions. It is clear that Mosconi could run 100 balls almost at will, and was a great player.

My father had a business relationship with Mosconi and was personally invited to his exhibitions. So maybe I have some insight beyond speculation even though I wasn't there. But, you wouldn't consider such possibilities because you already know everything.

The people who believe Schmidt, the room owner, his witnesses, the BCA, and the prominent players who have reviewed the video are all part of a conspiracy to taint the record of Willie Mosconi will believe it no matter what evidence is put in front of them.

Back at the beginning of this thread, Danny and his buddy, Danny's Bowel Movement (dBm for short), were suggesting all kinds of things, and a few others would read that and say "Oh Gee! I didn't know that so I'm skeptical of this run as well". Not a lot of critical thinking going on.

I believe Schmidt's run was legit but I also believe an unedited copy should be made available, and I think it will be eventually. I think you have a mild case of PTSD from spending too much time in this thread (no disrespect to actual PSTD sufferers intended). I do understand where you are coming from.

 

[easy-e]

Glitch in when the link was copied. Go back about a minute to 14:20. I wonder how many times Willie dismissed a foul during his record run... Look where he moves the ball back to!

 

[lfigueroa]

I'm pretty sure the haters aren't looking for a miss. They're looking for a single moment where John's shirt might have made contact with a ball.

Haters?

How about nuthuggers? Really, there’s no need to sink to that level.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Glitch in when the link was copied. Go back about a minute to 14:20. I wonder how many times Willie dismissed a foul during his record run... Look where he moves the ball back to!

Two old men who had agreed to play no OB fouls to keep the TV show moving — not sure but I think that was 1978.

Trivia: they also agreed to no coats because Fats wouldn’t wear one.

It should be noted that Mosconi was totally acustomed to playing in world championships under strict rules and the scrutiny of a referee. But for this match the producers wanted to keep things going so they went with no OB fouls. And like I said, it’s two old guys.

Lou Figueroa

 

[gerryf]

It matters a tremendous amount. If that isn't obvious then, well, it should be.


My father had a business relationship with Mosconi and was personally invited to his exhibitions. So maybe I have some insight beyond speculation even though I wasn't there. But, you wouldn't consider such possibilities because you already know everything.


I believe Schmidt's run was legit but I also believe an unedited copy should be made available, and I think it will be eventually. I think you have a mild case of PTSD from spending too much time in this thread (no disrespect to actual PSTD sufferers intended). I do understand where you are coming from.

How many of the witnesses may have been friends might make a difference if there wasn't a continuous video, and if JS hadn't already demonstrated by repeated high-runs that his 14.1 skills were as good or better than anyone on the planet.

Again, almost all the anecdotal evidence is "i know somebody who knows somebody who said..... " Mosconi retired from professional tournaments more than 50 years ago but was still winning minor invitational tournaments in the 1970s. Too much time has passed to take anything seriously beyond first hand reports. In this age it's easier than ever for some ill-informed comment to quickly become common gospel.

Youtube doesn't have very many of those old matches, but from what's there, it's pretty clear that Mosconi, Caras, Greenfield, Butera etc., were all peak players. Comparing them to today's players seems pretty difficult given the different playing style and better equipment today.

Ha! Ha! Yeah, you may be right about the PTSD. This thread is a big of a quagmire, but there's a lot of pretty funny stuff here.

 

[Dan White]

How many of the witnesses may have been friends might make a difference if there wasn't a continuous video, and if JS hadn't already demonstrated by repeated high-runs that his 14.1 skills were as good or better than anyone on the planet.

Agreed.

Again, almost all the anecdotal evidence is "i know somebody who knows somebody who said..... " Mosconi retired from professional tournaments more than 50 years ago but was still winning minor invitational tournaments in the 1970s. Too much time has passed to take anything seriously beyond first hand reports. In this age it's easier than ever for some ill-informed comment to quickly become common gospel.

What is not anecdotal or speculative is that the audiences at his exhibitions paid attention to what was happening. That comes from first hand accounts on this forum.

Youtube doesn't have very many of those old matches, but from what's there, it's pretty clear that Mosconi, Caras, Greenfield, Butera etc., were all peak players. Comparing them to today's players seems pretty difficult given the different playing style and better equipment today.

Actually, it is very easy to compare Mosconi to today's players. Just ask them. JS has basically said he isn't qualified to carry Mosconi's cue case. Modesty, I'm sure, but then again compare Mosconi's world championship wins to JS's. I'm told you had to see him play to understand.

Ha! Ha! Yeah, you may be right about the PTSD. This thread is a big of a quagmire, but there's a lot of pretty funny stuff here.

Yes, like a trainwreck except without the blood.

 

[justadub]

Did you ever go to a Mosconi exhibition?

I saw several -- no one left their chair. It was just a different era. Nowadays people pay $500 a seat for a concert and go off to buy a chili dog.

Lou Figueroa

The fact remains that there can be as much "doubt" about those witnesses attention to the details and every shot of the run, as the ones that keep being brought up about JS.

I don't for a moment doubt the Mosconi run. I just find it hypocritical to throw the slings and arrows at the BCA people who have viewed the JS run, all the while not allowing for similar potential "doubt" regarding those who may or may not have viewed the entire Mosconi run, and the level of attention (and their 14.1 acumen, since the BCA people have been denigrated regarding such) paid to it.

In short, if you're gonna nitpick the JS run, you have to apply the same standards to the witnesses of Mosconi run. (obviously there was no video then. )

I realize I'm shouting at the wall. Just taking my turn, everyone else seems to enjoy doing so...

 

[lfigueroa]

The fact remains that there can be as much "doubt" about those witnesses attention to the details and every shot of the run, as the ones that keep being brought up about JS.

I don't for a moment doubt the Mosconi run. I just find it hypocritical to throw the slings and arrows at the BCA people who have viewed the JS run, all the while not allowing for similar potential "doubt" regarding those who may or may not have viewed the entire Mosconi run, and the level of attention (and their 14.1 acumen, since the BCA people have been denigrated regarding such) paid to it.

In short, if you're gonna nitpick the JS run, you have to apply the same standards to the witnesses of Mosconi run. (obviously there was no video then. )

I realize I'm shouting at the wall. Just taking my turn, everyone else seems to enjoy doing so...

So you're saying you never saw a Moscini exhibition, right?

And thinking there should be unedited video released, which exists, when someone is claiming a world record, is not nit-picking.

Lou Figueroa

 

[justadub]

So you're saying you never saw a Moscini exhibition, right?

And thinking there should be unedited video released, which exists, when someone is claiming a world record, is not nit-picking.

Lou Figueroa

No, I was never present at a Mosconi exhibition. I'm not of the age to have gone to such. So you are saying everyone, at every Mosconi match, paid rapt attention to every shot? They didn't turn away for hours? Ok.

Would it be nice to see the JS run, sure. The guys from the BCA have seen it. Apparently they aren't as qualified to judge it as spectators in a pool room 50+ years ago. Even working for a pool organization...

 

[Dan Harriman]

I had the pleasure of watching the 626 run on March 14th (last month) with John Schmidt himself and a few others. That's all the proof I need.
Congrats again to you, Mr. 626, for your historic accomplishment!

Danny - I have an authenticated piece of the actual Simonis cloth John Schmidt ran the 626 on. I'll sell it to you for $250. Message me if you're interested

Remember what I said about the lightening bolt of Truth - it could come to u. Then u may real eyes' yer the fishie for believing - without seeing unedited footage. I can send u a copy of the last TAR 14.1 match with schmidt and myself - to go with ur little piece of cloth. lol A highlight reel - ain't REAL footage - unless u try to bite at every foreign piece of bait u see. As fer u little scrap of cloth - I don't blame u for wanting to sell it, it's probly bad luck to own a piece of hysteria'. ;-)