Well, I'm betting the other way. I, for one, believe John became a better 14.1 player during his quest for the record and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. Stu, I will make you a small sweat bet of say $100 per match against any opponent John has the next time he participates in 14.1 tourney. I know you're down to your last few million and it might make you a bit anxious, but I'm offering you a chance to get a small taste of the presuure you feel when you have something on the line other than just your opinion. What do you say big guy?
After reading this whole thread, I like this post the most. If anyone here follows John on Facebook and saw the set of HUMONGOUS run numbers during each scheduled attempt, no one would think he was a dog to AAAAAAANYONE in the history of 14.1. I'm not saying Mosconi couldn't beat him or that others such as Thorsten and a few others can't beat him. I'm merely saying no one in history is an odds favorite over him in his current punch. No one.
I love reading all the Mosconi nuthuggers who I won't name....
".... Yeah, but... Mosconi quit on X ball runs..."
So WHAT. That's meaningless unless you're a fanboy. All it means ever is he ran X that time. Nothing more. In fact, every time he ran 200 on a real 9ft table with 4.5" pockets and wanted to quit, I'd bet him 5000 he wouldn't run to 400. If Spidey could go back in time, A) Mosconi would never take the bet and B) if he did, he'd be broke in a few exhibitions because stats and math matter... A lot. That's why that argument is mindless. Ifs ands and buts mean zero and tall tales mean zero.
What you don't hear a lot about is how Mosconi used to biatch and moan every time he missed early, often blaming the cloth, balls, lights whatever. He had a prima donna attitude. Hal used to tell me how the players at Cochrans never used to let him sit on the bench...not because they hated his ability, but because they hated his princess attitude. So all this talk about how he'd run a gazillion if he didn't quit is baloney. If he could have, he would have... He couldn't, which is why he didnt.
Moving on to table size. On a 5"+ pocketed table, the easiest table is a 7'er, 8'er is 2nd etc. Sure there's more clusters, but literally EVERYTHING goes and literally EVERYTHING is a break shot. Triple combos that you NEVER shoot on a 9er, you can fire in on a bar box, etc. So yes there's a lot of clustering on tiny tables but huge pockets more than negate that and it's mesmerizing how some allegedly smart people think 8ft tables are hard with 5" pcokets. What a joke lol really. I'll take a break shot on an 8ft against someone else of equal ability on a 9fter if the pockets were the same size every single solitary fricken time ever in life ever ever. To think otherwise is just nonsense. My highest run I ever had was on a 7fter and when I missed I almost ran it again on my 2nd attempt but I dismissed it. Why? Because small tables don't count. Engagements below the hard deck shouldn't count and the only reason it counted at all with Mosconi is because he was Brunswick's BOY.
Instead of pumping up heroes with could've been and would've been logic and trying feverishly to convince a pool community that 8ft tables are soooo tough with 14.1 (BS), how about we all kneel before Zod in regards to John's 626 on a NINE FOOT TABLE.... ON VIDEO....beating the prima donna's high run by 100 on a tougher table.