Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

telinoz

Registered
It is available for public consumption. When John does a show he presents the video and talks about the run.

Well respected members of our community here, Bob Jewett, Freddie Agnir and others have seen the video and written detailed accounts of it and have all validated it.

The idea that the public is entitled to a person's work for free is odd.

John made the video available to those who keep the records. It was validated.

Given that there are no table specifications for high runs the table specs don't matter in terms of whether or not John ran 626 balls. The Billard Congress of America is the only official body in America which can validate such records. They have done so.

Either they are incompetent or complicit in a fraud if they were presented with a faked run. What are the odds that all of the people involved are going to deliberately risk their reputations as well as possible criminal fraud charges to stand behind the validity of an obscure record that the majority of skeptics seem to claim isn't worth anything financially anyway?

Too low to bet on. Danny isn't willing to bet against it, the self-proclaimed millionaire isn't willing to bet against it. The spin guy isn't willing to bet against it. None of these people are willing to bet anything significant against it.

I don't even have to believe John but I certainly believe the honorable people I know who wouldn't stand behind this if they had any doubt.

So faced with the choice between John went for it and broke the record through really hard work and John+a whole group of people with way more to lose are running a con on the billiard world....I go with did break the record and I am willing to bet 100k on it.

Half-assed accusations and deliberate defamations suck. The ignorance that pervades this sport is sickening. The depth of depravity in terms of people unashamedly lying about prominent people and brands is astounding to me. And I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Nature abhors a vacuum and any sport where information is super sparse is probably going to be filled with deliberately bad and ignorant statements. Especially in a sport that idolizes the con artists and hustlers.

I can also understand being skeptical. But when people who are honorable and knowledgeable vouch for something like this it ought to be enough to accept it and move on.

Yes it would be great if anyone could watch this historic feat for free on demand. But none of us have the right to the product of someone else's work for free.

And before someone makes the inevitable welfare/taxes remark...... Happy to defend that policy with the underlying logic but not in this thread.

John ran 626 balls. The official record was 526 and now it is 626. If anyone wants to create standards and equipment specs and categories they certainly can and lobby the BCA to adopt those guidelines. Until then John's record has only one category, 14.1 Continuous Straight Pool high run - 626.
Good summary.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I suspect that his credibility IS (or should be) very high on his list as he wants well deserved recognithin for this incredible thing he accomplished. And it for this reason that he should release this video unless he does have something to hide, Wouldn’t that be the logical thing to do?
A lot of people that i consider credible(the BCA for one) have seen and signed-off on it. That's more than good enough for me. If you want to see it so bad contact him via FB and set-up a viewing. I for one put ZERO stock in all these loony conspiracies or the people that start/follow them.
 

Maniac

2manyQ's
Silver Member
It is available for public consumption. When John does a show he presents the video and talks about the run.

Well respected members of our community here, Bob Jewett, Freddie Agnir and others have seen the video and written detailed accounts of it and have all validated it.

The idea that the public is entitled to a person's work for free is odd.

John made the video available to those who keep the records. It was validated.

Given that there are no table specifications for high runs the table specs don't matter in terms of whether or not John ran 626 balls. The Billard Congress of America is the only official body in America which can validate such records. They have done so.

Either they are incompetent or complicit in a fraud if they were presented with a faked run. What are the odds that all of the people involved are going to deliberately risk their reputations as well as possible criminal fraud charges to stand behind the validity of an obscure record that the majority of skeptics seem to claim isn't worth anything financially anyway?

Too low to bet on. Danny isn't willing to bet against it, the self-proclaimed millionaire isn't willing to bet against it. The spin guy isn't willing to bet against it. None of these people are willing to bet anything significant against it.

I don't even have to believe John but I certainly believe the honorable people I know who wouldn't stand behind this if they had any doubt.

So faced with the choice between John went for it and broke the record through really hard work and John+a whole group of people with way more to lose are running a con on the billiard world....I go with did break the record and I am willing to bet 100k on it.

Half-assed accusations and deliberate defamations suck. The ignorance that pervades this sport is sickening. The depth of depravity in terms of people unashamedly lying about prominent people and brands is astounding to me. And I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Nature abhors a vacuum and any sport where information is super sparse is probably going to be filled with deliberately bad and ignorant statements. Especially in a sport that idolizes the con artists and hustlers.

I can also understand being skeptical. But when people who are honorable and knowledgeable vouch for something like this it ought to be enough to accept it and move on.

Yes it would be great if anyone could watch this historic feat for free on demand. But none of us have the right to the product of someone else's work for free.

And before someone makes the inevitable welfare/taxes remark...... Happy to defend that policy with the underlying logic but not in this thread.

John ran 626 balls. The official record was 526 and now it is 626. If anyone wants to create standards and equipment specs and categories they certainly can and lobby the BCA to adopt those guidelines. Until then John's record has only one category, 14.1 Continuous Straight Pool high run - 626.
This is the best post you have ever written, Mr. Barton. I commend you and many others for taking this stance!

Maniac
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Given that there are no table specifications for high runs the table specs don't matter in terms of whether or not John ran 626 balls.
I don't question JS's record, but I do think it matters if the table's specs aren't reasonably close to whatever common equipment specs exist - for example, the WPA's. Since table specs are so important in pool, I think they should be a part of the official record.

pj
chgo
 

L.S. Dennis

Well-known member
It is available for public consumption. When John does a show he presents the video and talks about the run.

Well respected members of our community here, Bob Jewett, Freddie Agnir and others have seen the video and written detailed accounts of it and have all validated it.

The idea that the public is entitled to a person's work for free is odd.

John made the video available to those who keep the records. It was validated.

Given that there are no table specifications for high runs the table specs don't matter in terms of whether or not John ran 626 balls. The Billard Congress of America is the only official body in America which can validate such records. They have done so.

Either they are incompetent or complicit in a fraud if they were presented with a faked run. What are the odds that all of the people involved are going to deliberately risk their reputations as well as possible criminal fraud charges to stand behind the validity of an obscure record that the majority of skeptics seem to claim isn't worth anything financially anyway?

Too low to bet on. Danny isn't willing to bet against it, the self-proclaimed millionaire isn't willing to bet against it. The spin guy isn't willing to bet against it. None of these people are willing to bet anything significant against it.

I don't even have to believe John but I certainly believe the honorable people I know who wouldn't stand behind this if they had any doubt.

So faced with the choice between John went for it and broke the record through really hard work and John+a whole group of people with way more to lose are running a con on the billiard world....I go with did break the record and I am willing to bet 100k on it.

Half-assed accusations and deliberate defamations suck. The ignorance that pervades this sport is sickening. The depth of depravity in terms of people unashamedly lying about prominent people and brands is astounding to me. And I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Nature abhors a vacuum and any sport where information is super sparse is probably going to be filled with deliberately bad and ignorant statements. Especially in a sport that idolizes the con artists and hustlers.

I can also understand being skeptical. But when people who are honorable and knowledgeable vouch for something like this it ought to be enough to accept it and move on.

Yes it would be great if anyone could watch this historic feat for free on demand. But none of us have the right to the product of someone else's work for free.

And before someone makes the inevitable welfare/taxes remark...... Happy to defend that policy with the underlying logic but not in this thread.

John ran 626 balls. The official record was 526 and now it is 626. If anyone wants to create standards and equipment specs and categories they certainly can and lobby the BCA to adopt those guidelines. Until then John's record has only one category, 14.1 Continuous Straight Pool high run - 626.
Interesting comments and I do agree that John ran the balls but I can’t think of another instance where a major sports record had been broken and the public was denied of seeing the feat without having to arrange some special viewing.

Again thanks for your well thought out comments, and for the record also believe Babe Cranfield’s 768 ball run happend but we’ll never know on that one.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't question JS's record, but I do think it matters if the table's specs aren't reasonably close to whatever common equipment specs exist - for example, the WPA's. Since table specs are so important in pool, I think they should be a part of the official record.

pj
chgo
You mean like Mosconi's run on a 4x8??
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Standard or over-sized 8'?

I wonder how many great players would have a chance at bettering Mosconi's 526 if attempted on an 8-footer?

Maniac
Why wouldn't they?? Only reason they used one is because the room didn't have a B'wick 9ft.
 

L.S. Dennis

Well-known member
Schmidt played on a 4.5x9 Rebco with 5" corners and 760 cloth.
Yes in a perfect world all equipment should be exactly the same for purposing of setting of records but unfortunately this is rarely the case. I remember when Hank Aaron broke Ruth;s record of 714 there were those who Pooh pooped it by saying he did it in Atlanta Stadium with the short left field fence which is technically true. Aaron being a right handed hitter naturally was inclined to hit to left filed and so forth.

As far as JS’s run it was done on the above stated equipment with the 5“ corner pockets. John himself admitted that none of these ’massive type’ runs would be possible without the big pockets. I think to John’s credit the table conditions were made fairly transparent.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes in a perfect world all equipment should be exactly the same for purposing of setting of records but unfortunately this is rarely the case. I remember when Hank Aaron broke Ruth;s record of 714 there those who Pooh pooped it by saying he did it in Atlanta Stadium with the short left field fence which is technically true. Aaron being a right handed hitter naturally was inclined to hit to left filed and so forth.

As far as JS’s run it was done on the above stated equipment with the 5“ corner pockets. John himself admitted that none of these ’massive type’ runs would be possible without the big pockets. I think to John’s credit the table conditions were made fairly transparent.
Dude that was standard size pockets for years. Lots of big events were held with pockets that size. No one bitches about them. All this 'you gotta have tight-ass pockets' is just bullshit imo. |People are still all butthurt about St. Willies record being broken.
 

L.S. Dennis

Well-known member
Dude that was standard size pockets for years. Lots of big events were held with pockets that size. No one bitches about them. All this 'you gotta have tight-ass pockets' is just bullshit imo. |People are still all butthurt about St. Willies record being broken.
Yes you are correct the pockets have been that way some years (in modern times anyway, in the old days they played on 5x10’s with 41/2’ pockets but that was long ago) and the pro’s have been complaining about them for years!
I’m glad now that the 4/14 inches are now being used in major tournaments, which is what the pros have been calling for. I remember Grady calling these 5” pockets “cavernous”
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes you are correct the pockets have been that way some years (in modern times anyway, in the old days they played on 5x10’s with 41/2’ pockets but that was long ago) and the pro’s have been complaining about them for years!
I’m glad now that the 4/14 inches are now being used in major tournaments, which is what the pros have been calling for. I remember Grady calling these 5” pockets “cavernous”
Most big events use 4.5". The ProCut Diamond has become pretty much the standard. The tables got smaller and the pockets larger for two reasons: room owners wanted to make $$ and B'wick wanted to sell tables. The post Hustler boom would probably have not happened if 5x10's and tight pockets were still common.
 

L.S. Dennis

Well-known member
Most big events use 4.5". The ProCut Diamond has become pretty much the standard. The tables got smaller and the pockets larger for two reasons: room owners wanted to make $$ and B'wick wanted to sell tables. The post Hustler boom would probably have not happened if 5x10's and tight pockets were still common.
I agree with you on the marketing by Brunswick of the bigs pockets for the sole reason of $$$
Before I got my Gold Crown 3 (which has 4/12“ pockets) I used to have a Brunswick ‘Viscount’ at my old house which had HUGE pockets. Looking back now that I’m an old geezeer, I wish I had those pockets today!

I can understand why the pros are demanding the tighter pockets the game of nineball just got too easy for them with the big pockets.
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't question JS's record, but I do think it matters if the table's specs aren't reasonably close to whatever common equipment specs exist - for example, the WPA's. Since table specs are so important in pool, I think they should be a part of the official record.

pj
chgo
And perhaps what we've got going on now is the storm before the calm, table spec wise... the BCA should probably comment on what it will accept (going forward!).
 

L.S. Dennis

Well-known member
I agree with you on the marketing by Brunswick of the bigs pockets for the sole reason of $$$
Before I got my Gold Crown 3 (which has 4/12“ pockets) I used to have a Brunswick ‘Viscount’ at my old house which had HUGE pockets. Looking back now that I’m an old geezeer, I wish I had those pockets today!

I can understand why the pros are demanding the tighter pockets the game of nineball just got too easy for them with the big pockets.
Reply as stated
 
Top