John Schmidt has beaten Mosconi

[jrctherake]

Lou brings an extremely well informed point of view to the forum.

Yes he does. He knows that 14.1 is a game of inches and so is this conversation, if modern day 14.1 fans give even one inch to the brutal attack, it may do harm to the YOUNGER crowds outlook on 14.1.

 

[jrctherake]

Only those that are clueless about 14.1 would question this accomplishment. In a run like that, there are so many potienal problem balls, cluster,which can kill a run, that must be delt with plus getting a decent break shot.

It matters not one bit if it was in competition or not. Mastering 14.1 is the ultimate level in pool. Once mastered, all the other games seem like childs play.

You are correct about some being clueless.

On the other hand, there are some that aren't clueless. As a matter of fact, some are very knowledgeable about 14.1but insist on being negative about John's run.

Regardless of what I think about someone, facts are facts.

If what they say is true, well:

Pretty much EVERYONE on AZB can stop talking about their heydays.

If John's run means 5hat little to them, I dont want to hear a peep out of them no matter if it's about their play OR about some cool story about knowing or playing or even just talking with a LEGEND.....I'm sure others feel like myself:

Keep your "stories" to yourself if you cant acknowledge a "fact".

 

[9 Ball Fan]

It would be silly to think 626 isn't significant in the history of pocket billiards. It's huge.

It sheds light, on a game long forgotten by the masses.

A great game, with very little public awareness.

 

[WildWing]

Both mosconi and Schmidt's feats are unbelievable in their own rights. I'm certainly not picking sides nor would I ever care to. I'm also not trying to slight either feat.

I do have to ask, how much pressure was Mosconi really under? He was playing an exhibition match and simply kept shooting. It wasn't like the expectation was a 526 or nothing. If hemissed on 4 something that simply would have been the record. I'm sure as the ball count got higher the self pressure increased but there was still nothing on the line, the pressure of the exhibition was surely long gone before he was anywhere near 526. I'm certain that not one soul would have left that room in disappointment if Willie didn't set a record that night, except maybe Willie, I don't know.

How many other nights on this and other exhibition tours did he continue to shoot? You could suppose that continuing to shoot at all past the official end of a match is always an attempt at a high run, or why else would you keep shooting? To entertain the crowd, I get it, but they were already entertained long before a record would have been reached. If he wasn't actually trying for a high run then you could argue there wasn't any pressure at all. So it could be argued that Mosconi was actively making a run at documenting a high run much the same as Schmidt, although quite different at the same time.

As for the table conditions, I am sure it is very hard to play on different tables night in and night out. I will tip my hat to Willie in this regard. It is more likely that he hit 526 on this particular night because he found these conditions to be favorable, than it is likely that he did it in spite of the less than favorable conditions. How many high runs were halted by less than favorable conditions on other nights?

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

The answer is there was much more pressure on John than Willie. John had a number to shoot to, 526 or better. I believe 768, but I'll accept 526. That was the number, or else it didn't matter.

Willie, on the other hand, one of the greatest, did exhibitions very well. The 526, I would have to feel, he didn't feel any pressure at all. After all, did he know what the previous record was? I doubt it. Think it might have been Cranfield's 420 on a 5 by 10 table, but not sure. It was basically practice to him, not pressure.

Some glued to the past may not accept this, but I think it's the perspective that occupied both minds, John and Willie.

I hear a few grinding their teeth...

All the best,
WW

 

[SlickRick_PCS]

Your definition of mastering and mine are different. Mastering 14.1, to me, must include a tendency toward outplaying your rivals in the heat of battle in the toughest spots. John hasn't done this, and there's no reason to believe that his endless practice on a table with 5" pockets has prepared him in any way to beat the giants of straight pool on a table with pro specifications.

Basically, are you saying that John playing on that table he ran that record for could not translate well on the actual 14.1 tournament tables?

A young man I used to know owned and played on an oversized 8' table with very forgiving pockets. When he played us on an actual 9' Olhausen table with not-so-forgiving pockets, he clocked us out! So I would suffice to say that I don't fully agree with that comment. John is a pro, he'll definitely adjust fairly enough to the point of actually doing well. Even if he doesn't, he still did something no other 14.1 player could even attempt or never was willing to attempt, at this time.

 

[DelayedJuice]

Congrats to John Schmidt ! Awesome no more debate now about who the best straight pool player in the world past and present.

 

[Cornerman]

Congrats to John Schmidt ! Awesome no more debate now about who the best straight pool player in the world past and present.

No debate:

Way past: Greenleaf
Past: Mosconi
Near past: Sigel
Current: Hohmann

Highest Official Exhibition Run: Schmidt

 

[one stroke]

Basically, are you saying that John playing on that table he ran that record for could not translate well on the actual 14.1 tournament tables?

A young man I used to know owned and played on an oversized 8' table with very forgiving pockets. When he played us on an actual 9' Olhausen table with not-so-forgiving pockets, he clocked us out! So I would suffice to say that I don't fully agree with that comment. John is a pro, he'll definitely adjust fairly enough to the point of actually doing well. Even if he doesn't, he still did something no other 14.1 player could even attempt or never was willing to attempt, at this time.

Ya well he hasn't done that consistently to this point , just remember JS took every measure available to him Revo shaft pool globe , changed tables , and venues ,even the end of the tables ,cleaned balls along the way etc and god only knows how many attempts , all of which except for shaft and glove you can't do playing a opponent


1

 

[one stroke]

No debate:

Way past: Greenleaf
Past: Mosconi
Near past: Sigel
Current: Hohmann

Highest Official Exhibition Run: Schmidt

Freddie < .. must have bumped his head


1

 

[sjm]

Basically, are you saying that John playing on that table he ran that record for could not translate well on the actual 14.1 tournament tables?

A young man I used to know owned and played on an oversized 8' table with very forgiving pockets. When he played us on an actual 9' Olhausen table with not-so-forgiving pockets, he clocked us out! So I would suffice to say that I don't fully agree with that comment. John is a pro, he'll definitely adjust fairly enough to the point of actually doing well. Even if he doesn't, he still did something no other 14.1 player could even attempt or never was willing to attempt, at this time.

You may be right here, tough to say, but an often discussed matter on this forum is that it's tight pocket play that develops your game more than looser tables, which, many have argued over the year, can cause slippage in pedigree.

Thanks for sharing your own experience here. Perhaps the adjustment is easier than I think.

 

[SlickRick_PCS]

You may be right here, tough to say, but an often discussed matter on this forum is that it's tight pocket play that develops your game more than looser tables, which, many have argued over the year, can cause slippage in pedigree.

Thanks for sharing your own experience here. Perhaps the adjustment is easier than I think.

Truly and sincerely, do you know the width of the pockets for 14.1 Continuous tournament tables, by chance, sjm? :scratchhead:

 

[sjm]

Truly and sincerely, do you know the width of the pockets for 14.1 Continuous tournament tables, by chance, sjm? :scratchhead:

In the modern era, it's usually 4 1/2" corners and 5" sides, but at the Derby City 14.1 Challenge this year, per Bob Jewett, two 4 1/2" tables were used and two 4 1/4" tables were used.

 

[SlickRick_PCS]

In the modern era, it's usually 4 1/2" conrers and 5" sides, but at the Derby City 14.1 Challenge this year, per Bob Jewett, two 4 1/2" tables were used and two 4 1/4" tables were used.

I tossed you a greenie!
Thank you very much!

 

[BeiberLvr]

I've attended about a dozen SANCTIONED world straight pool championships, so I'd venture a guess I'm not clueless.

Your definition of mastering and mine are different. Mastering 14.1, to me, must include a tendency toward outplaying your rivals in the heat of battle in the toughest spots. John hasn't done this, and there's no reason to believe that his endless practice on a table with 5" pockets has prepared him in any way to beat the giants of straight pool on a table with pro specifications.

Amazing run for sure, a record that may stand forever, but we'll see if John can turn his very ordinary competitive record around. I'm betting against, but I'd be happy to be wrong.

People win titles all the time.


Now how many people have run a 626?

 

[wahcheck]

How bout Eufemia

Has anybody mentioned that 626 not only beats Mosconi's 526, but also Mike Eufemia's purported 625???

 

[WildWing]

Has anybody mentioned that 626 not only beats Mosconi's 526, but also Mike Eufemia's purported 625???

Yes, it's been noted. There's really only one more record to break.

All the best,
WW

 

[one stroke]

People win titles all the time.


Now how many people have run a 626?

The same number of people who dedicated a life of trying to break it ,, 1


1

 

[sjm]

People win titles all the time.


Now how many people have run a 626?

The same number of people that have made 5,221 consecutive foul shots. Is Ted St. Martin the greatest ever shooter of the basketball and should we put him in the basketball hall of fame? Yeah, people make foul shots all the time but only one has made 5,221 in a row. That doesn't make him the best. It just means that there was a day on which he was the best.

There's a guy who made about 2,000 spot shots in a row, too. Is he the best shooter ever? No, but he was for a day. He'll not be entering the BCA Hall of Fame anytime soon just because he had that one special day.

 

[jrctherake]

The same number of people who dedicated a life of trying to break it ,, 1


1

Your funny.

I'm serious. You state all the time that you dont even care for 14.1 but, let someone, hell, anyone accomplish something or even try to start a positive conversation about 14.1 and you (and a couple others here) pounce on it like a cat on catnip.

Is John your catnip? I'm just curious cause some on h er e seem to get off on bashing him and his accomplishments regardless of how amazing they are.

I truly do not understand it.

Is it jealously, hate or what?

I really want to know.

 

[BeiberLvr]

The same number of people that have made 5,221 consecutive foul shots. Is Ted St. Martin the greatest ever shooter of the basketball and should we put him in the basketball hall of fame? Yeah, people make foul shots all the time but only one has made 5,221 in a row. That doesn't make him the best. It just means that there was a day on which he was the best.

There's a guy who made about 2,000 spot shots in a row, too. Is he the best shooter ever? No, but he was for a day. He'll not be entering the BCA Hall of Fame anytime soon just because he had that one special day.

Apples and oranges.