I dunno,, man.The original claim was four people were there watching. That included the racker, his wife, and john's wife. I don't remember if they originally claimed the hall owner as a witness or not. While pj thought I was asking an impossible question to answer, the answer for all but maybe one or two of the people there has already been given.
john, hitting balls
the racker, racking
the room owner, getting ready to open
the room owner's wife, getting ready to open
one employee, getting ready to open.
john's wife, there, why, and what she was doing while every shot was taken is unknown.
Very unlikely that there were eyes on john at an angle to see the shot every moment of the run. Compare that to Willie Mosconi's run. Number of people there, unknown. Number that signed a document claiming to have seen the entire run, 38. I'm dubious about that number. However, most of these people were there as spectators to see an exhibition by a multi-time world champion. This was basically a one time thing too. They couldn't ramble in pretty much anytime the room was open and see Willie like they could watch john five days a week, week after week. Willie didn't have dozens and dozens of failed attempts to discourage spectators from thinking they were going to see something really special either.
Bottom line, the circumstances of Willie's run were much different than john's and there were many more spectators. Very easy to believe there were ten or more sets of eyes on every shot of Willie's. Also very easy to believe that john could have committed an unnoticed foul and perhaps didn't even consider it as these attempts were very much like practice runs. Very common to keep on if we have a minor foul in practice but any such thing would invalidate a record run.
john might have set a record, I think it is ridiculous to call it an exhibition record without any real spectators.
Gerry, there was no claim from john's camp that any spectators were there to watch the attempt. Original claims and updated claims during the week had zero unbiased witnesses present.
Logical, your point isn't without logic! While I would call myself more of a skeptic as I don't think you will find a statement from me anywhere that john didn't run 626 balls without a miss or foul, I would be far more easy to convince this was a legitimate record if john had 38 independent witnesses to his attempt.
Did he or didn't he? Only his hairdresser, and maybe john, know for sure!
Hu
Isnt it a double standard to say that video needs to be evidenced and it does not suffice for witnesses (for the first 200 balls or whatever "what if" angle is being humored now)?