Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

Status
Not open for further replies.
solid

lfigueroa said:
Who were they?

IF you told me that the BCA had asked a couple of Hall of Fame 14.1 guys to check out JS's video -- Nick Varner, Ray Martin, Dallas West, (extra points for including Mike Sigel :-) -- I'd be far more incline to accept this argument at face value.

But we don't know, do we.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Eureka is all i can say to this, these four players are some of my 14.1 hero's and there word should hold much more 'Sports Pocket Billiard history' credibility in the billiard industry than some yahoo hiding behind the bca curtain. I do not judge a person by how well they play - I just don't know the record keeper at bca - nor do I want to. It would seem however us honest 14.1 students are forced to follow their little yella brick road.
 
Last edited:
Danny didn't hack me, lol but I think he brought up some valid points

If someone asked who had the highest run, I'd say I don't know, I never saw Willies, Babe's or John's runs. Apparently other people did. I don't know about the equipment on their runs, and don't know the equipment was ever verified.

If I set the world record for most free throws in a row, nobody verifies the size of the ball, or the hoop? If I have my own practice court setup for the sole purpose of breaking that record, the lack of verification becomes much more bothersome to me.

At this point I don't care much, John saying he did this to help pool but won't release it to the public unless he makes money, meh.
 
hustlin for truth

I just don't understand why Pocket Billiard history news has to be a hustle. Mosconi's credible record deserves better than this spread the bca,charlie williams and schmidt have devised.
 
Believe Phil Capelle witnessed it. But, how about another Haiku?

John ran six hun plus,
Fans, they cry, spit, boo and fuss,
Oh well, we just cuss.

You notice, I made it rhyme, too. That's a Haiku plus..Oh Jesus, that still rhymes.

All the best,
WW
 
lfigueroa said:
So who at the BCA watched it -- do you know?

As I recall, the BCA nowadays, is all folks who sell pool tables, hot tubs, and equipment with their main goal being to promote their expo. As far as we know, it could have been the admin clerk and janitor who watched the video one night in between doing their job and swilling beer and eating Doritos.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Rob Johnson and Shane Tyree

Sent from the future.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by jimmyg View Post
Aside from using Guinness as an example, it is irrelevant to the point of the post. Records are only broken when the event and it's exact circumstances are replicated. Capish?
Click to expand...

Black-Balled said:
Just coz nobody has bothered to address the nutty assertion- again- doesn't mean it is accurate.

Care to explain how speed records can possibly be broken, if circumstances need be identical?
Click to expand...

In my best John McEnroe voice: "You cannot be serious".

Which "speed" record are you referring to, there are literally thousands of them and they are all rightfully separated and categorized into "exact", "near exact", "similar", and "new record" groupings in order that reasonable comparisons can be made. Scientific evidence holds the highest standards, it requires exact conditions and repeatable results before finding are accepted as factual, certainly I am not suggesting that a record, itself, be repeated before certification, that's simply not doable, but the requirement of "exact", or "near exact'" conditions being replicated is not only doable, but in every other discipline it is a requirement.

Speed record claims for bicycles are not compared to speed records for airplanes, humans, or any other record category other than bicycles.

In fact, there are men's, women's, various distance, individual track/race, and special equipment and situation records. There is actually a downhill, snow, speed record: During the last decade of the 20th century, two Frenchmen, Eric Barone and Christian Taillefer, set the speed record descending on snow several times. On 28 March 2015, Eric Barone reached 223.3 km/h (138.8 mph) at Vars ski resort, France, besting his own record from 2000, using a specially designed prototype bicycle.[32]

There are hundreds of horse racing speed records alone: different racing classes, surfaces, distances, ages, individual track and specific race records, male, female, thoroughbreds, trotters, quarter horses, workout and match race competitions...., a new and broken record must be in the same category as the old record...a 6 furlong race speed record does not compete with a mile race speed record.

The same type and amount of categories apply to human, auto, aircraft, motorboat, and motorcycle speed records...there are thousands of them...please don't ask me to list the various categories....in order to claim breaking an existing record you must fit into and duplicate the exact category and conditions that the existing record resides in, otherwise, it is a new and different record. One cannot claim breaking a Super Bowl record unless it is done in a Super Bowl. Now, when I say "exact" we need to be realistic, I'm not speaking in terms of things like temperatures and time of day being included. Equipment and event circumstances? Yes, absolutely.
 
jimmyg said:
In my best John McEnroe voice: "You cannot be serious".

Which "speed" record are you referring to, there are literally thousands of them and they are all rightfully separated and categorized into "exact", "near exact", "similar", and "new record" groupings in order that reasonable comparisons can be made. Scientific evidence holds the highest standards, it requires exact conditions and repeatable results before finding are accepted as factual, certainly I am not suggesting that a record, itself, be repeated before certification, that's simply not doable, but the requirement of "exact", or "near exact'" conditions being replicated is not only doable, but in every other discipline it is a requirement.

Speed record claims for bicycles are not compared to speed records for airplanes, humans, or any other record category other than bicycles.

In fact, there are men's, women's, various distance, individual track/race, and special equipment and situation records. There is actually a downhill, snow, speed record: During the last decade of the 20th century, two Frenchmen, Eric Barone and Christian Taillefer, set the speed record descending on snow several times. On 28 March 2015, Eric Barone reached 223.3 km/h (138.8 mph) at Vars ski resort, France, besting his own record from 2000, using a specially designed prototype bicycle.[32]

There are hundreds of horse racing speed records alone: different racing classes, surfaces, distances, ages, individual track and specific race records, male, female, thoroughbreds, trotters, quarter horses, workout and match race competitions...., a new and broken record must be in the same category as the old record...a 6 furlong race speed record does not compete with a mile race speed record.

The same type and amount of categories apply to human, auto, aircraft, motorboat, and motorcycle speed records...there are thousands of them...please don't ask me to list the various categories....in order to claim breaking an existing record you must fit into and duplicate the exact category and conditions that the existing record resides in, otherwise, it is a new and different record. One cannot claim breaking a Super Bowl record unless it is done in a Super Bowl. Now, when I say "exact" we need to be realistic, I'm not speaking in terms of things like temperatures and time of day being included. Equipment and event circumstances? Yes, absolutely.
Click to expand...

He is probably referring to humidity, wind, air pressure, temperature etc.
 
lfigueroa said:
I saw, but they posted but have not engaged in a discussion.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

posting in a thread, multiple threads on the topic
yes he had engaged

only the nay sayers choose to not engage the people that have answers to all the questions they are so adamant about

page 7 poster justpooln you can look at his posts and see him posting in all the 626 threads with what he saw
 
That's a lotta words.

What is the 526 record for? Highest documented 14.1 run.

What is the alleged 626? 14.1 run. Documentation pending.

jimmyg said:
In my best John McEnroe voice: "You cannot be serious".

Which "speed" record are you referring to, there are literally thousands of them and they are all rightfully separated and categorized into "exact", "near exact", "similar", and "new record" groupings in order that reasonable comparisons can be made. Scientific evidence holds the highest standards, it requires exact conditions and repeatable results before finding are accepted as factual, certainly I am not suggesting that a record, itself, be repeated before certification, that's simply not doable, but the requirement of "exact", or "near exact'" conditions being replicated is not only doable, but in every other discipline it is a requirement.

Speed record claims for bicycles are not compared to speed records for airplanes, humans, or any other record category other than bicycles.

In fact, there are men's, women's, various distance, individual track/race, and special equipment and situation records. There is actually a downhill, snow, speed record: During the last decade of the 20th century, two Frenchmen, Eric Barone and Christian Taillefer, set the speed record descending on snow several times. On 28 March 2015, Eric Barone reached 223.3 km/h (138.8 mph) at Vars ski resort, France, besting his own record from 2000, using a specially designed prototype bicycle.[32]

There are hundreds of horse racing speed records alone: different racing classes, surfaces, distances, ages, individual track and specific race records, male, female, thoroughbreds, trotters, quarter horses, workout and match race competitions...., a new and broken record must be in the same category as the old record...a 6 furlong race speed record does not compete with a mile race speed record.

The same type and amount of categories apply to human, auto, aircraft, motorboat, and motorcycle speed records...there are thousands of them...please don't ask me to list the various categories....in order to claim breaking an existing record you must fit into and duplicate the exact category and conditions that the existing record resides in, otherwise, it is a new and different record. One cannot claim breaking a Super Bowl record unless it is done in a Super Bowl. Now, when I say "exact" we need to be realistic, I'm not speaking in terms of things like temperatures and time of day being included. Equipment and event circumstances? Yes, absolutely.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by jimmyg View Post
In my best John McEnroe voice: "You cannot be serious".

Which "speed" record are you referring to, there are literally thousands of them and they are all rightfully separated and categorized into "exact", "near exact", "similar", and "new record" groupings in order that reasonable comparisons can be made. Scientific evidence holds the highest standards, it requires exact conditions and repeatable results before finding are accepted as factual, certainly I am not suggesting that a record, itself, be repeated before certification, that's simply not doable, but the requirement of "exact", or "near exact'" conditions being replicated is not only doable, but in every other discipline it is a requirement.

Speed record claims for bicycles are not compared to speed records for airplanes, humans, or any other record category other than bicycles.

In fact, there are men's, women's, various distance, individual track/race, and special equipment and situation records. There is actually a downhill, snow, speed record: During the last decade of the 20th century, two Frenchmen, Eric Barone and Christian Taillefer, set the speed record descending on snow several times. On 28 March 2015, Eric Barone reached 223.3 km/h (138.8 mph) at Vars ski resort, France, besting his own record from 2000, using a specially designed prototype bicycle.[32]

There are hundreds of horse racing speed records alone: different racing classes, surfaces, distances, ages, individual track and specific race records, male, female, thoroughbreds, trotters, quarter horses, workout and match race competitions...., a new and broken record must be in the same category as the old record...a 6 furlong race speed record does not compete with a mile race speed record.

The same type and amount of categories apply to human, auto, aircraft, motorboat, and motorcycle speed records...there are thousands of them...please don't ask me to list the various categories....in order to claim breaking an existing record you must fit into and duplicate the exact category and conditions that the existing record resides in, otherwise, it is a new and different record. One cannot claim breaking a Super Bowl record unless it is done in a Super Bowl. Now, when I say "exact" we need to be realistic, I'm not speaking in terms of things like temperatures and time of day being included. Equipment and event circumstances? Yes, absolutely.
Click to expand...

Nostroke said:
He is probably referring to humidity, wind, air pressure, temperature etc.
Click to expand...

I thought that he may have....thus I did address it...

Although I am sure that you, and most others, already know this, but lest we forget, let me add that in any mature, professional, sport there are unified and governing bodies that would review any record claims, any claim which would involve doctored equipment, possible doping, or being performed in non sanctioned events, would be immediately dismissed.

The pool world claims that it wants legitimacy, and the many benefits that come with it, but does not demand the rules and criteria that legitimacy requires. Shame on us.
 
Texas Carom Club said:
posting in a thread, multiple threads on the topic
yes he had engaged

only the nay sayers choose to not engage the people that have answers to all the questions they are so adamant about

page 7 poster justpooln you can look at his posts and see him posting in all the 626 threads with what he saw
Click to expand...


OK, but what I meant was: here we is and I don't see them chiming in.

Lou Figueroa
 
Nostroke said:
He is probably referring to humidity, wind, air pressure, temperature etc.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. There are nearly innumerable minor changes that result in improved performance.

Motorsports? Ever hear a current supercar go through the gears? There's no flirting with the motors powerband as the driver goes through the gears, that shift takes place in a fraction of a second...nevermind the paddle shifter that eliminates the need to press a clutch and use a shift lever. Faster.

Bikes: there weren't always gears in back. Increased performance, both up and down.

Speed skating: that hinge on the skate's rear?

Skiing: refined profile of skis.

The list of these minor tweaks is almost incomprehensible, there are so many.

Marginal gains.
 
jimmyg said:
I thought that he may have....thus I did address it...

Although I am sure that you, and most others, already know this, but lest we forget, let me add that in any mature, professional, sport there are unified and governing bodies that would review any record claims, any claim which would involve doctored equipment, possible doping, or being performed in non sanctioned events, would be immediately dismissed.

The pool world claims that it wants legitimacy, and the many benefits that come with it, but does not demand the rules and criteria that legitimacy requires. Shame on us.
Click to expand...

We can agree on that, no bout or doubt it.
 
Black-Balled said:
Not necessarily. There are nearly innumerable minor changes that result in improved performance.

Motorsports? Ever hear a current supercar go through the gears? There's no flirting with the motors powerband as the driver goes through the gears, that shift takes place in a fraction of a second...nevermind the paddle shifter that eliminates the need to press a clutch and use a shift lever. Faster.

Bikes: there weren't always gears in back. Increased performance, both up and down.

Speed skating: that hinge on the skate's rear?

Skiing: refined profile of skis.

The list of these minor tweaks is almost incomprehensible, there are so many.

Marginal gains.
Click to expand...

Those are all repeatable imo
 
lfigueroa said:
Who they?

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
Asked and answered.

You can easily do your own research if you now also want to know their titles..it's been talked about here before.

I'm not hear to lead you down the path. Someone asked who verified it suggesting it was some random janitor, I told you their names. The endless follow up questions are just a game.
 
Last edited:
Black-Balled said:
Not really sure about the relevance of that fact. I agree?

Doesn't mean records aren't accepted as surpassed under inexact conditions.
Click to expand...

The highest possible standards, exact, are always the most desirous and first to be attempted, if they are not achievable, one goes to the next highest, near exact, and so on. In the event that the original achievement is not repeatable, or closely repeatable, a new record is declared, not a "broken" record.

"Scientific evidence holds the highest standards, it requires exact conditions and repeatable results before finding are accepted as factual, certainly I am not suggesting that a record, itself, be repeated before certification, that's simply not doable, but the requirement of "exact", or "near exact'" conditions being replicated is not only doable, but in every other discipline it is a requirement."
 
I won't be addressing the contention that conditions must be equalled further.

You keep moving the target of a barely related detail.

jimmyg said:
The highest possible standards, exact, are always the most desirous and first to be attempted, if they are not achievable, one goes to the next highest, near exact, and so on. In the event that the original achievement is not repeatable, or closely repeatable, a new record is declared, not a "broken" record.

"Scientific evidence holds the highest standards, it requires exact conditions and repeatable results before finding are accepted as factual, certainly I am not suggesting that a record, itself, be repeated before certification, that's simply not doable, but the requirement of "exact", or "near exact'" conditions being replicated is not only doable, but in every other discipline it is a requirement."
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top