Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

[Dan Harriman]

Well, all I can advise is that if you ever run into Bobby in person you keep your opinion about how soft his head is to yourself ;-)

Lou Figueroa

Bobby has less chance in the boxing ring than u do, I think you would do well to keep yer advice -To ME - on anything related to Pocket Billiards - to Yerself. If he needs any further clarification - to sweet science of truth - I know a place where u sign a piece of paper and they tape yer wrist and foam gloves. my weigh in ='s 160 - but It may hurt worse for him than the propane tank he recently battled with - tell yer pal chamberlain Harriman say's - The Truth Hurts - for those who are dishonest. I hope that does sound a bit heavy handed - it is - what it is period..

 

[Dan Harriman]

Who had the under on two weeks?

I am sure peepill' like u enjoy reading news that they know is false and then gambling on who will believe - in such nonsense. All people like u can do is ask questions - foe the rest of yer life? Who under had the over on unedited reel of the 626 - like Radar said to many other phony troll posters - u should utilize any of yer responses to this thread as bathroom tissue - u good at squeezing the charmin - that is about the extent of yer Pocket Billiard knowledge. So next time yer searching for the truth - reach for the charmin - yer sqeezably soft in the head.

 

[easy-e]

I am sure peepill' like u enjoy reading news that they know is false and then gambling on who will believe - in such nonsense. All people like u can do is ask questions - foe the rest of yer life? Who under had the over on unedited reel of the 626 - like Radar said to many other phony troll posters - u should utilize any of yer resposes to this thread as bathroom tissue - u good at squeezing the charmin - that is about the extent of yer Pocket Billiard knowledge. So next time yer searching for the truth - reach for the charmin - yer sqeezably soft in the head.

Nice one! He'll probably never recover from that!

 

[Dan Harriman]

Forrest Gump voice also works!

My mama told me I was gunna play sum pool.
But, the table no good.
And that's all I have to say bout dat.

I have found some of yer responses to be worthy of attention but - U never did answer the question I asked you twice. Round three - do you think the recent fake news/626 exposing that there was (and still isn't) any 'set standard' for high run competitions - was worth the cancel culture - TRYING to erase Mosconi's true mark of 526? Just for the record I care nothin about all the companies you own - that is yer thang.

 

[Dan Harriman]

Sure.

You didn’t want any up front money from Bobby or Peter.

Lou Figueroa

That is 100% true, I think when the people look at my track record - for honest bein' - they can run a cross the country. When we take a close gander at your chamberlain's record - it is hard on the vinyl - kinda scratchy or sketchy imho. Again Lou, bobby should have approved it with his higher ups - before inviting me to his circus pocket soiree. It is a well known fact now - that the pockets for jason's run 714/669 were altered and not factory specs. I thought you were ok - now I know who yer business associates are - and I have been enlightened shall I say.

 

[Dan Harriman]

This thread becomes even better if you imagine all of Danny's assiduously unpunctuated posts spoken by Marlon Brando or Lee Marvin playing a biker gang member in the Wild One

Once again nothing pertinent to offer the discussion - I remember u r 1 of the few who was relegated to calling me a conspiracy theorist in the beginning of this thread - for simply asking to see the 626 tape. Now that shaw surpassed (on phony circus pockets) the 526 mark - do u think j.s. should offer to share his 626 tape with the public in disc form? I only ask cause u seem to know so much about corruption - i figured yer the gey to ask. If u cannot answer this simple question - go hide in yer basement with yer magic 8 ball in company.

 

[easy-e]

Once again nothing pertinent to offer the discussion - I remember u r 1 of the few who was relegated to calling me a conspiracy theorist in the beginning of this thread - for simply asking to see the 626 tape. Now that shaw surpassed (on phony circus pockets) the 526 mark - do u think j.s. should offer to share his 626 tape with the public in disc form? I only ask cause u seem to know so much about corruption - i figured yer the gey to ask. If u cannot answer this simple question - go hide in yer basement with yer magic 8 ball in company.

You still use discs?

 

[telinoz]

I have found some of yer responses to be worthy of attention but - U never did answer the question I asked you twice. Round three - do you think the recent fake news/626 exposing that there was (and still isn't) any 'set standard' for high run competitions - was worth the cancel culture - TRYING to erase Mosconi's true mark of 526? Just for the record I care nothin about all the companies you own - that is yer thang.

All of these runs are classified as exhibition runs.
Until very recently, there have been no attempts to standardize the equipment, rules around them.
And recently, still nothing published.
So, this covers Mosconi, Schmidt and Shaw and anybody else as well.
Hope that answers your question.

 

[Dan Harriman]

All of these runs are classified as exhibition runs.
Until very recently, there have been no attempts to standardize the equipment, rules around them.
And recently, still nothing published.
So, this covers Mosconi, Schmidt and Shaw and anybody else as well.
Hope that answers your question.

It is not an acceptable answer, so again it is a yes or no answer and I know people who own much company can easily overcomplicate their answers. So i try and ask u another way so as u can understand question easier. Is the recent attempt from bca to have a 'set standard' for exhibition runs - worth the bca/cancel culture trying to erase Mosconi's LEGIT 526 - and not offer the run for sale to the public in disc form? You may explain why - but again - this is a simple yer or no question. I am having trouble seeing the Forest through the tree's, welcome to the jungle.

 

[ACL]

All of these runs are classified as exhibition runs.
Until very recently, there have been no attempts to standardize the equipment, rules around them.
And recently, still nothing published.
So, this covers Mosconi, Schmidt and Shaw and anybody else as well.
Hope that answers your question.

That's a very logical explanation which means it will fall on deaf ears.

 

[telinoz]

It is not an acceptable answer, so again it is a yes or no answer and I know people who own much company can easily overcomplicate their answers. So i try and ask u another way so as u can understand question easier. Is the recent attempt from bca to have a 'set standard' for exhibition runs - worth the bca/cancel culture trying to erase Mosconi's LEGIT 526 - and not offer the run for sale to the public in disc form? You may explain why - but again - this is a simple yer or no question. I am having trouble seeing the Forest through the tree's, welcome to the jungle.

What was the table specs for the 526?
What makes it more legit than any other exhibition run before, and since then?

Your question can only be answered, when you can create a form of legitimacy around standards established for Mosconi.
Other than the sworn affidavit of witnesses present who saw his high run, I have never seen a single piece of evidence about the table itself beyond it was a smaller 8ft table.
Because, nobody measured all pocket specs, drop, etc.. As guess what, there was no standards and rules established for exhibition high runs.

There is no cancel culture around Mosconi run.
It has been recorded as a standing record for decades, till recently.
It is the recent records that have caused some fuss.
The more time has passed, no public video from Schmidt, certainly no table spec data the more it looks sketchy.
Shaws record was better documented and video is out.
However, due to the organisors stubborn stance of 'nothing is good enough' in context to releasing full table specs, they have created their own issues.
There is NO denying how many balls Shaw ran though, and it was more than 526.

Still, and this is the important part.
All 3, still done when there are no official standards or rules.
All 3 records, different tables.
That is a fact beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't see any evidence of the BCA trying to cancel Mosconi record.
None.
Even if they set a standard for tables, rules etc for exhibition runs.. The history books still show all 3 records for Mosconi, then Schmidt and now Shaw.


Where have they stated that if they publish these standards and rules it is a clean slate and from that day, any record set becomes the new record???

 

[easy-e]

What was the table specs for the 526?
What makes it more legit than any other exhibition run before, and since then?

Your question can only be answered, when you can create a form of legitimacy around standards established for Mosconi.
Other than the sworn affidavit of witnesses present who saw his high run, I have never seen a single piece of evidence about the table itself beyond it was a smaller 8ft table.
Because, nobody measured all pocket specs, drop, etc.. As guess what, there was no standards and rules established for exhibition high runs.

There is no cancel culture around Mosconi run.
It has been recorded as a standing record for decades, till recently.
It is the recent records that have caused some fuss.
The more time has passed, no public video from Schmidt, certainly no table spec data the more it looks sketchy.
Shaws record was better documented and video is out.
However, due to the organisors stubborn stance of 'nothing is good enough' in context to releasing full table specs, they have created their own issues.
There is NO denying how many balls Shaw ran though, and it was more than 526.

Still, and this is the important part.
All 3, still done when there are no official standards or rules.
All 3 records, different tables.
That is a fact beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't see any evidence of the BCA trying to cancel Mosconi record.
None.
Even if they set a standard for tables, rules etc for exhibition runs.. The history books still show all 3 records for Mosconi, then Schmidt and now Shaw.


Where have they stated that if they publish these standards and rules it is a clean slate and from that day, any record set becomes the new record???

Great response. Prepare for the nonsensical reply.

 

[Welder84]

What was the table specs for the 526?
What makes it more legit than any other exhibition run before, and since then?

Your question can only be answered, when you can create a form of legitimacy around standards established for Mosconi.
Other than the sworn affidavit of witnesses present who saw his high run, I have never seen a single piece of evidence about the table itself beyond it was a smaller 8ft table.
Because, nobody measured all pocket specs, drop, etc.. As guess what, there was no standards and rules established for exhibition high runs.

There is no cancel culture around Mosconi run.
It has been recorded as a standing record for decades, till recently.
It is the recent records that have caused some fuss.
The more time has passed, no public video from Schmidt, certainly no table spec data the more it looks sketchy.
Shaws record was better documented and video is out.
However, due to the organisors stubborn stance of 'nothing is good enough' in context to releasing full table specs, they have created their own issues.
There is NO denying how many balls Shaw ran though, and it was more than 526.

Still, and this is the important part.
All 3, still done when there are no official standards or rules.
All 3 records, different tables.
That is a fact beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't see any evidence of the BCA trying to cancel Mosconi record.
None.
Even if they set a standard for tables, rules etc for exhibition runs.. The history books still show all 3 records for Mosconi, then Schmidt and now Shaw.


Where have they stated that if they publish these standards and rules it is a clean slate and from that day, any record set becomes the new record???

Mark Twain said it best: Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's...

 

[easy-e]

Mark Twain said it best: Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's...

I always liked the one "Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

 

[ACL]

What was the table specs for the 526?
What makes it more legit than any other exhibition run before, and since then?

Your question can only be answered, when you can create a form of legitimacy around standards established for Mosconi.
Other than the sworn affidavit of witnesses present who saw his high run, I have never seen a single piece of evidence about the table itself beyond it was a smaller 8ft table.
Because, nobody measured all pocket specs, drop, etc.. As guess what, there was no standards and rules established for exhibition high runs.

There is no cancel culture around Mosconi run.
It has been recorded as a standing record for decades, till recently.
It is the recent records that have caused some fuss.
The more time has passed, no public video from Schmidt, certainly no table spec data the more it looks sketchy.
Shaws record was better documented and video is out.
However, due to the organisors stubborn stance of 'nothing is good enough' in context to releasing full table specs, they have created their own issues.
There is NO denying how many balls Shaw ran though, and it was more than 526.

Still, and this is the important part.
All 3, still done when there are no official standards or rules.
All 3 records, different tables.
That is a fact beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't see any evidence of the BCA trying to cancel Mosconi record.
None.
Even if they set a standard for tables, rules etc for exhibition runs.. The history books still show all 3 records for Mosconi, then Schmidt and now Shaw.


Where have they stated that if they publish these standards and rules it is a clean slate and from that day, any record set becomes the new record???

Once again, an excellent use of logic. Alas, it will once again fail to hit it's mark. I appreciate your persistence.

 

[pw98]

What was the table specs for the 526?
What makes it more legit than any other exhibition run before, and since then?

Your question can only be answered, when you can create a form of legitimacy around standards established for Mosconi.
Other than the sworn affidavit of witnesses present who saw his high run, I have never seen a single piece of evidence about the table itself beyond it was a smaller 8ft table.
Because, nobody measured all pocket specs, drop, etc.. As guess what, there was no standards and rules established for exhibition high runs.

There is no cancel culture around Mosconi run.
It has been recorded as a standing record for decades, till recently.
It is the recent records that have caused some fuss.
The more time has passed, no public video from Schmidt, certainly no table spec data the more it looks sketchy.
Shaws record was better documented and video is out.
However, due to the organisors stubborn stance of 'nothing is good enough' in context to releasing full table specs, they have created their own issues.
There is NO denying how many balls Shaw ran though, and it was more than 526.

Still, and this is the important part.
All 3, still done when there are no official standards or rules.
All 3 records, different tables.
That is a fact beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't see any evidence of the BCA trying to cancel Mosconi record.
None.
Even if they set a standard for tables, rules etc for exhibition runs.. The history books still show all 3 records for Mosconi, then Schmidt and now Shaw.


Where have they stated that if they publish these standards and rules it is a clean slate and from that day, any record set becomes the new record???

Jay Helfert played at the pool room where the 526 happened and said the pockets were not easy.
It also was done using a triangle rack. Also, it was done in early Spring in Ohio and anyone that knows Ohio weather knows this is not a good time to be playing pool. Moreover, I looked up the weather for Dayton Ohio which is very close to Springfield Ohio and it said there was rain in the area that day so it is very possible it a rainy day and was a very bad day to be playing pool in Ohio. Shaw's run was intentionally done in January in the middle of the winter when the furnances were on full making the place completely dry. Its just a joke.

So basically Mosconi did it under less than ideal conditions and these other guys did it in the greatest concocted conditions ever.

So basically I'm sure if you put every 14.1 player on these tables for a week and told them to try to set their high run the results would be:
1. On Mosconis table no new personal high run.
2. On John Schmidts table a new personal high run.
3. On Jayson Shaws table a new personal high run.

Basically they made a mockery of the game of pool. Its the equivalent of making a new golf course in the middle of a windless desert totally downhill and and 4500 yards and making the widest fairways and largest greens and no sand or bunkers in an attempt to set the new 72 hole record. Then when the record is (obviously) inevitably set go off about how great of a feat it was.

Its a total mockery.
Its a total joke.

 

[ACL]

Jay Helfert played at the pool room where the 526 happened and said the pockets were not easy.
It also was done using a triangle rack. Also, it was done in early Spring in Ohio and anyone that knows Ohio weather knows this is not a good time to be playing pool. Moreover, I looked up the weather for Dayton Ohio which is very close to Springfield Ohio and it said there was rain in the area that day so it is very possible it a rainy day and was a very bad day to be playing pool in Ohio. Shaw's run was intentionally done in January in the middle of the winter when the furnances were on full making the place completely dry. Its just a joke.

So basically Mosconi did it under less than ideal conditions and these other guys did it in the greatest concocted conditions ever.

So basically I'm sure if you put every 14.1 player on these tables for a week and told them to try to set their high run the results would be:
1. On Mosconis table no new personal high run.
2. On John Schmidts table a new personal high run.
3. On Jayson Shaws table a new personal high run.

Basically they made a mockery of the game of pool. Its the equivalent of making a new golf course in the middle of a windless desert totally downhill and and 4500 yards and making the widest fairways and largest greens and no sand or bunkers in an attempt to set the new 72 hole record. Then when the record is (obviously) inevitably set go off about how great of a feat it was.

Its a total mockery.
Its a total joke.

So, if I am understanding you correctly, any old record that is broken today in any sport is a mockery and joke because players, training, equipment, conditions, etc are all better than they used to be?

I am asking because based on the logic you're applying no record would ever be legitimate.

 

[wrldpro]

Jay Helfert played at the pool room where the 526 happened and said the pockets were not easy.
It also was done using a triangle rack. Also, it was done in early Spring in Ohio and anyone that knows Ohio weather knows this is not a good time to be playing pool. Moreover, I looked up the weather for Dayton Ohio which is very close to Springfield Ohio and it said there was rain in the area that day so it is very possible it a rainy day and was a very bad day to be playing pool in Ohio. Shaw's run was intentionally done in January in the middle of the winter when the furnances were on full making the place completely dry. Its just a joke.

So basically Mosconi did it under less than ideal conditions and these other guys did it in the greatest concocted conditions ever.

So basically I'm sure if you put every 14.1 player on these tables for a week and told them to try to set their high run the results would be:
1. On Mosconis table no new personal high run.
2. On John Schmidts table a new personal high run.
3. On Jayson Shaws table a new personal high run.

Basically they made a mockery of the game of pool. Its the equivalent of making a new golf course in the middle of a windless desert totally downhill and and 4500 yards and making the widest fairways and largest greens and no sand or bunkers in an attempt to set the new 72 hole record. Then when the record is (obviously) inevitably set go off about how great of a feat it was.

Its a total mockery.
Its a total joke.

The heat was turned on the room to make the area dry for Jaysons run you said? Do you have any money you want to bet on this. Always making shit up. How about before you mention shit know the facts. Is your real name Richard Head?

 

[pw98]

So, if I am understanding you correctly, any old record that is broken today in any sport is a mockery and joke because players, training, equipment, conditions, etc are all better than they used to be?

I am asking because based on the logic you're applying no record would ever be legitimate.

The difference is in the major sports everyone gets to play with the new equipment. Only a select few players got to play with this stuff and then they dismanted it....I wonder why?....
If they made a new ballpark with 300 foot fences and everyone on the home team had a 70 home run season it would be pretty obvious the ballpark caused it. Also, the 'new equipment' (ie non-triangle racks) were just used for these events. These racks are not used in tournament competition. They are also not used in normal exhibitions. They are not competition conditions, even when taking into 'newer better conditions'. Nobody else uses them except for these 'records'. Period.

Just look at what template racks do to the difficulty of beating the 9-ball or 10-ball ghost: They totally nerf it. And its pretty obvious this happened in the two recent 'record setting' runs.

 

[pw98]

The heat was turned on the room to make the area dry for Jaysons run you said? Do you have any money you want to bet on this. Always making shit up. How about before you mention shit know the facts. Is your real name Richard Head?

January in Virginia? Anyone that has played in a cold winter climate knows the heat is on and the rooms are dry in January. Do you realize how absurd you sound.... Why didnt you make the date of the event March 20th in Virginia? I know why. Because this is between seasons and not a good time to run either the heat or the AC making a high run near impossible without some super dehumidifiers. That is unless you are one of the oldschool masters who were not hampered as much by these conditions. And I doubt Shaw is one of them.