john schimdt runs 266

[Bob Jewett]

OK, I'm a little dense. Can you explane in english how you can get to 15 in straight pool and be able to run 19 racks. Heck, even if a guy plays a safety and you rack 15 or there are 15 on the table, then you only run 14 unless there is some new science out there.

I'll try.

The usual situation at 14.1/straight pool is that you start with 15 object balls on the table, run 14 of them off leaving yourself a nice shot on the 15th ball and then rack up the 14 with the head ball missing, and shoot that 15th ball and break open the rack to continue the run.

Sometimes when pocketing the 14th ball of a rack you also pocket the 15th ball on the same shot. In that case you get a point for the 15th ball, all 15 rack up and if you want to continue the run you have to call ball and pocket for some ball in the full rack.

There are perhaps a dozen fairly well known shots that can be played out of a full rack of 15 balls and a similar number you can play from a 14-ball rack. I was once playing a doubles match and twice during the match my partner called and made a ball from an unbroken rack.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Of course it will never be beaten on an 8 ft table with bucket pockets like Mosconi set it on when you consider two very simple facts:
-Probably zero top players spend much time playing on 8' tables with bucket pockets.
-Very few top players spend much time playing straight pool period on a table of any size.

So while there may be hundreds of thousands of 8' tables around, no top players are playing on them, and they certainly aren't playing straight pool on them.

But Mosconi's feat has already been surpassed. It is just that it was done on different equipment (a 294 on a diamond 9 ft, runs of 400+ on other 9 fts, etc).

Today's pros have no reason to spend any time on an 8 ft with bucket pockets, but as I've said in the past, give them an incentive to do so and you will see the record broken real quick, in a period of time that could be measured in weeks, not years. Offer $30,000 to the first person that can break it on video on comparable equipment, and give a deadline to do it by. Or offer $10,000 to every single person that can break it by a certain deadline.

If it is such an impossible record as you say, there really is no risk at all and your money is safe and you would have no reason not to do it because you just can't lose. Funny how nobody is willing to put up any money on this supposedly safe can't lose bet though huh? My prediction is that more than one player would break the record within a few months.

That said, I also believe Mosconi could have broken his own record if he had had any incentive to do so, which of course will still leave the argument open as to who is really better even after somebody else breaks his record. I'm certainly not taking anything away from Mosconi as he was a phenomenal player and talent. But he certainly wouldn't be running over the best players of today like he was doing to the best players of his era, and some of the top players of today say the same thing (John even publicly said so recently).

Now I might be wrong about this, but I believe every year at DCC they have a "bounty" on Mosconi's record. $10,000 or so is what I've heard.

No one has come close.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Now I might be wrong about this, but I believe every year at DCC they have a "bounty" on Mosconi's record. $10,000 or so is what I've heard.

No one has come close.

That would be the George Fels Memorial 14.1 Challenge at the DCC but I don't think it has a specific prize for a 526. A 526 on a pro-cut Diamond would be a thing to behold and a nice video to sell.

For a few years at the BCAPL there was a similar 14.1 challenge with an explicit bonus for a 526 of $25k or $50k. Since this was also on a pro-cut Diamond, no one came close.

I think the highest in either event was a 206 and that might have been in practice, not in the contest.

There has been a similar 14.1 challenge at the SBE several years.

The table makes a huge difference. At two different BCA trade shows, John Schmidt ran over 175 balls within three tries on a small table (182 and scratch on the first try, 179 and frozen to a small cluster on the third try -- I saw both runs). I think that if he had that situation for a week, he would run 600. Or his arm would fall off.

 

[KRJ]

Of course it will never be beaten on an 8 ft table with bucket pockets like Mosconi set it on when you consider two very simple facts:
-Probably zero top players spend much time playing on 8' tables with bucket pockets.
-Very few top players spend much time playing straight pool period on a table of any size.

.

yeah, we've all heard the excuses before. If it were so easy, then why doesn't someone just break the record, and have their name attached to it. oh, by the way, it would have to be on the same cloth, same type of balls, same humidity (not sure if they had the AC on when he ran it)

Hell, he just did 266, why not go for the record on an easy table... and as someone already explained, it's not all about the pockets, it's the patterns, cb control, breaking clusters, etc. that has nothing to do with the pockets. Nobody disparages Babe Ruth's records even though he played against a bunch a "rag" arms that barely through 80mph, and the pitchers did not have the various pitches they have now.

But we don't throw our legends under the bus because of something they could not control, nor even wanted. He did not set out to make a record. And in all these years, nobody could top it. Funny, but if I could do it, I'd do it in heart beat and advertise my lessons from "Mr. 527" the world record holder.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Now I might be wrong about this, but I believe every year at DCC they have a "bounty" on Mosconi's record. $10,000 or so is what I've heard.

No one has come close.

To my knowledge nobody has ever offered a credible and sizable sum of money for breaking Mosconi's record on a similar table, and certainly not in "modern times" or where the player actually has a period of time to try for it as opposed to an attempt or two.

And there is a reason sizable money has never been offered for this. They don't want to lose their money! You'll see a ton of lip service about how the record has stood for 50 years and can't be beat and how safe their money would be etc, but what you haven't ever seen is a single soul or company who will back it up with a sizable sum from their wallet.

 

[Poolplaya9]

yeah, we've all heard the excuses before. If it were so easy, then why doesn't someone just break the record, and have their name attached to it. oh, by the way, it would have to be on the same cloth, same type of balls, same humidity (not sure if they had the AC on when he ran it)

And in all these years, nobody could top it. Funny, but if I could do it, I'd do it in heart beat and advertise my lessons from "Mr. 527" the world record holder.

Nobody said it was easy. Only that multiple pros today could do it. It would take some effort, and it just isn't worth what little payoff/benefit they would gain in return.

Like I said, if it is so impossible then put up the 30k prize fund for breaking the record and put a deadline on it. If nobody has had the ability to do it in the last 50 years, it is a pretty damn safe bet that nobody will be able to do it in say the next 6 months. You can't lose, so put up the cash. So far all I've heard from the world though is crickets when it comes to putting up the prize fund (which is supposedly so safe with such an impossible feat and all).

I know your's and everybody on your side of the fence's response is yet again is going to be "nobody has done it in 50 years so that proves just how near impossible it is and that nobody has had the ability to do it in the last 50 years and nobody right now could do it either or they already would have". And my response back yet again is going to be "then put up the prize fund. If it is so impossible that nobody could do it in 50 years then you have no reason not to put the money as your money is completely safe. And after you do put it up very shortly you and your wallet will find out just how wrong you were". And my other response is going to be "his record has already been bested on other equipment."

I really think a cue or shaft maker such as Cuetec or Predator should put up 30k for anyone that could break the record with their cue/shaft. They would get a lot of publicity from the offer alone, and once the record was broken they could forever use that fact in their advertising. "Play with the cue that broke the 50 year old record...".

 

[BeiberLvr]

To my knowledge nobody has ever offered a credible and sizable sum of money for breaking Mosconi's record on a similar table, and certainly not in "modern times" or where the player actually has a period of time to try for it as opposed to an attempt or two.

And there is a reason sizable money has never been offered for this. They don't want to lose their money! You'll see a ton of lip service about how the record has stood for 50 years and can't be beat and how safe their money would be etc, but what you haven't ever seen is a single soul or company who will back it up with a sizable sum from their wallet.

Well I think that's also because offering a large sum of money just to see a record get broken would be reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllly stupid.

Now if Mr. Imaginary Rich Guy offered a bet to any player in the world, that would be different. Something like $50,000 with 20 to 1 odds for unlimited attempts over a span of 3 weeks.

I don't think there would be more than a handful of players on the planet that would put up $50k to try it.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Well I think that's also because offering a large sum of money just to see a record get broken would be reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllly stupid.

Now if Mr. Imaginary Rich Guy offered a bet to any player in the world, that would be different. Something like $50,000 with 20 to 1 odds for unlimited attempts over a span of 3 weeks.

I don't think there would be more than a handful of players on the planet that would put up $50k to try it.

But so many people claim that it is reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllly stupid to believe that the record has stood for 50 years for any other reason other than because nobody has had the capability of beating it since then. And considering that belief, no, I don't think it would be stupid in the least for them to back it up with the prize fund offer to prove their contention.

As to your betting scenario, three weeks might be pushing it although it is possible you could get a taker even with that time frame. But push it up to 8 weeks for large money at 20 to 1 odds and I'm pretty certain that you would have a small line of players lined up to take that bet. I'd love to find out and would love to see it happen.

 

[BeiberLvr]

But so many people claim that it is reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllly stupid to believe that the record has stood for 50 years for any other reason other than because nobody has had the capability of beating it since then. And considering that belief, no, I don't think it would be stupid in the least for them to back it up with the prize fund offer to prove their contention.

As to your betting scenario, three weeks might be pushing it although it is possible you could get a taker even with that time frame. But push it up to 8 weeks for large money at 20 to 1 odds and I'm pretty certain that you would have a small line of players lined up to take that bet. I'd love to find out and would love to see it happen.

I'd love to see it as well, but it's never going to happen, and for two reasons.

1. There aren't that many (if any) people in the billiards community with a cool million around to bet.

2. There isn't a pool player in the world that would be willing to put up $50k to try, and no backer would even put them in the "box"

I think the biggest thing you aren't grasping is what's actually difficult about breaking the record. It's not running 527+ balls. It's having the mental endurance to do so.

One other thing I will add is that regardless of whether it's on a tough 9' or "easy" 8', I think it's worth more if done in front of a crowd.

 

[Poolplaya9]

2. There isn't a pool player in the world that would be willing to put up $50k to try, and no backer would even put them in the "box"

I guess we disagree here. I think there are several players and/or backers that would put up 50k for eight weeks to try to break the record at 20 to 1 odds. Drop it down to 5 or 10k that they have to put up at 20 to 1 odds and I think you could get a couple of handfuls. We definitely agree that nobody is going to put up 1 million or even a hundred thousand to offer this bet to any players though. Nobody will even put up 30k against the record being broken so they damn sure aren't going to be putting up a million.

I think the biggest thing you aren't grasping is what's actually difficult about breaking the record. It's not running 527+ balls. It's having the mental endurance to do so.

I grasp the difficulty. Anybody that can run 400 on a 9 ft table can run 526 on a loose 8 ft though. One thing I think people do fail to grasp though is just how much luck is involved in a long run like that. Not only do you have to play phenomenally and maintain focus, you have to be lucky too. Bad rolls can kill a run no matter how good the player and how good they are playing and it is all too easy to get a bad roll when dealing with the balls bunched up together. Everything including a ton of good luck has to all fall together absolutely perfectly to get a run even close to the record.

One other thing I will add is that regardless of whether it's on a tough 9' or "easy" 8', I think it's worth more if done in front of a crowd.

All things being equal, a crowd is certainly worth more. All isn't equal though. In one case you had a guy running balls where it meant nothing and there was zero pressure. It wasn't in a game, he wasn't trying to break a record, nothing. I think even doing it alone in your home with all the pressure of actually trying to break a long standing and well respected record is worth far more than running balls for the hell of it after an exhibition is over with no pressure, no match, no record on the line, etc.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Nobody will even put up 30k against the record being broken so they damn sure aren't going to be putting up a million.

I think even doing it alone in your home with all the pressure of actually trying to break a long standing and well respected record is worth far more than running balls for the hell of it after an exhibition is over with no pressure, no match, no record on the line, etc.

Because there's no incentive to put up the cash for a freeroll. That's a why a bet is more realistic, although still improbable.

I agree there would still be pressure if done alone. I just think there would be more pressure in doing it in front of a crowd.

 

[leto1776]

yeah, we've all heard the excuses before. If it were so easy, then why doesn't someone just break the record, and have their name attached to it. oh, by the way, it would have to be on the same cloth, same type of balls, same humidity (not sure if they had the AC on when he ran it)

Hell, he just did 266, why not go for the record on an easy table... and as someone already explained, it's not all about the pockets, it's the patterns, cb control, breaking clusters, etc. that has nothing to do with the pockets. Nobody disparages Babe Ruth's records even though he played against a bunch a "rag" arms that barely through 80mph, and the pitchers did not have the various pitches they have now.

But we don't throw our legends under the bus because of something they could not control, nor even wanted. He did not set out to make a record. And in all these years, nobody could top it. Funny, but if I could do it, I'd do it in heart beat and advertise my lessons from "Mr. 527" the world record holder.

Fully agreed. Too many people want to disparage a legend of our sport and his record, simply because they suckle at the teat of Diamond and the belief that tight pockets are sooooooo important.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Because there's no incentive to put up the cash for a freeroll.

The incentive is to prove their point. They claim that it can't be beat, or at least that nobody today and nobody in the past 50 years was capable of doing it. There is no reason for them not to put up the money because they believe they can't lose. There is no risk in their eyes, or so they claim. And they gain credibility and the satisfaction of proving the other side wrong if they are proven right. It can be argued that that it isn't that much incentive, but again, they don't feel they can lose. If there is anything to be gained, even if small, there is never a reason not to bet if you don't believe you could lose.

Like I said previously though, who would have the most to gain is a manufacturer if they stipulated that the record had to be broken using their equipment. Even if the record was broken and they lost the money, they will get substantial and real value out of it.

I agree there would still be pressure if done alone. I just think there would be more pressure in doing it in front of a crowd.

Any pressure is more than Mosconi had. He had absolutely zero, none, nada. He wasn't trying to break a record or even thinking about it--there was no record to break or thought of creating one. He wasn't playing a tournament. He wasn't doing anything but running balls at his leisure for the entertainment of a few people watching. It was really no different than any other time he might have been practicing with people watching. Somebody trying to break that 50 year old record now, even if they were alone, would easily be under ten times the pressure that Mosconi was. It isn't even close. Again, Mosconi had zero. He was shooting balls for the hell of it. So what if people were watching him practicing.

 

[westcoast]

I understand the loose pockets argument in terms of Mosconi's run being easier, but I don't entirely agree that 14.1 is easier on an 8 foot table- I would think that would create more tie ups.

Also, what were the cloth and cushions like? Was it a high quality table in those terms? If not, that might have added to the difficulty as well

 

[Nineballjerry2]

John is an amazing player! I played him almost everyday on a diamond table in Mobile he rarely misses and when he's concentrating even more rare.one of the best players of our generation. Was always a gentleman at the table and that's a rarity in it's self.
Thanks for reading ,
Jerry2

 

[Poolplaya9]

I understand the loose pockets argument in terms of Mosconi's run being easier, but I don't entirely agree that 14.1 is easier on an 8 foot table- I would think that would create more tie ups.

While this theory certainly sounds very reasonable on the surface it isn't the slightest bit true either. While there may be slightly more clusters on an 8 ft it is offset many times over by the added difficulty in pocketing balls and playing precise position and breaking the clusters etc due to the added distances involved on a 9 ft. It isn't even remotely close. Try it some time on both sized tables and see for yourself. Not too long back John Schmidt said in an interview that an 8 ft table was not just the easiest but orders of magnitude easier than a 9 ft table for straight pool. He said it really shocked him to find out just how drastically easier an 8 ft really was when he finally tried it.

Obviously at some point a table does get too small and starts to become more difficult again, but the 8 ft is in the perfect sweet spot for being the easiest table size for straight pool.

 

[AtLarge]

While this theory certainly sounds very reasonable on the surface it isn't the slightest bit true either. While there may be slightly more clusters on an 8 ft it is offset many times over by the added difficulty in pocketing balls and playing precise position and breaking the clusters etc due to the added distances involved on a 9 ft. It isn't even remotely close. Try it some time on both sized tables and see for yourself. Not too long back John Schmidt said in an interview that an 8 ft table was not just the easiest but orders of magnitude easier than a 9 ft table for straight pool. He said it really shocked him to find out just how drastically easier an 8 ft really was when he finally tried it.

Obviously at some point a table does get too small and starts to become more difficult again, but the 8 ft is in the perfect sweet spot for being the easiest table size for straight pool.

Here's what John wrote about this on AzB in 2009:

... for the record i think 14.1 on the bartable is easier than 9ft.

you can reach allbreakballs,combos and shots are a joke etc.

yes its more confined space but with the cueball control ive learned from 14.1 thats the last thing im worried about.

for the record the easiest table to play 14.1 is a 4x8 .ive played on them all and its the easiest no doubt. enough room to play but still easier on shotmaking,reaching,combos than 9ft.

 

[markgw]

I think Bobby Chamberlain has the highest run ever on a Diamond table.

311 I believe.

Where is this run....Can you buy it???

 

[markgw]

great to see he is practicing a lot. Great player. However, MC is obviously 9 ball, so perhaps as the time approaches he should specialize in practicing 9 ball more

He is practicing a ton of rotation!! He plays the 10 ball ghost and it's scary how many racks he runs I've heard!! 9 ball is easy in comparison...

 

[markgw]

If you can play straight pool like John, then you can play any game.

Exactly Frank when the balls tell you what to do, your straight pool practice pays off!!