John Schmidt - How high will he go?
- Thread starter jason
- Start date
Yeah and one bad roll too which is almost bound to happen in 35+ racks.
It's possible that he just confused the ending of his run of 526 (a miss) with the ending of one of his other long runs where he just quit, such as a run of 589 described (at around the 6 minute point) by Charlie Ursitti here: https://www.facebook.com/mr3cushion...f_t=video_processed¬if_id=1542760693483993
On an eight footer, the record wouldn't stand for long. Anyone who thinks that because Mosconi's record was set on an eight footer, such an accomplishment would be comparable overlooks that Mosconi didn't have Simonis cloth. On an eight footer with Simonis cloth, I think that in a DCC 14.1 Challenge type of format, it would take 300 just to qualify and a run of 1,000 would be well within reach.
Babe Cranfield ran over 400 on a 5 x 10 on the old nappy cloth. I'd still view that as a greater accomplishment than a 1,000 ball run today on an eight footer with Simonis cloth.
Of course, there's a point at which these comparisons become ridiculous, but an eight footer with Simonis is not, in my estimation, a sufficient test of the skills of a world class professional.
LOL. . The US just lost how many Mosconi Cups in a row. And there is someone that can take on Mosconi if he were alive today ? The man rarely missed. Who does that. Ran 100 without breaking a sweat, in fact, he ran 100 as a warm up. In straight pool, there will never be another Mosconi.
How come these "greats" of today have not won more than a dozen world championships... I mean, if they are going to eat Mosconi alive, certainly, they'd storm through everyone else on the planet, no ?
With that being said, I hope John breaks the record. Records are made to be broken, gives pool a little boost and it might even make the news
LOL. . The US just lost how many Mosconi Cups in a row. And there is someone that can take on Mosconi if he were alive today ? The man rarely missed. Who does that. Ran 100 without breaking a sweat, in fact, he ran 100 as a warm up. In straight pool, there will never be another Mosconi.
How come these "greats" of today have not won more than a dozen world championships... I mean, if they are going to eat Mosconi alive, certainly, they'd storm through everyone else on the planet, no ?
With that being said, I hope John breaks the record. Records are made to be broken, gives pool a little boost and it might even make the news
well, nobody plays straight pool anymore. so who knows. but at the games that are played, 9-ball etc, i definitely think the players of today are better than those of yesteryears
I wonder if something like Dr. Dave's "Table Difficulty Factor" could be used to level the field so comparisons could be made.
pj
chgo
LOL. . The US just lost how many Mosconi Cups in a row. And there is someone that can take on Mosconi if he were alive today ? The man rarely missed. Who does that. Ran 100 without breaking a sweat, in fact, he ran 100 as a warm up. In straight pool, there will never be another Mosconi.
How come these "greats" of today have not won more than a dozen world championships... I mean, if they are going to eat Mosconi alive, certainly, they'd storm through everyone else on the planet, no ?
With that being said, I hope John breaks the record. Records are made to be broken, gives pool a little boost and it might even make the news
People who believe the old greats would be great today all too often get handwaved away as being "nostalgic," which is a lazy argument. See a prior post of mine that uses Earl as a kind of link between generations that shows a prime/peak Mosconi, after a time to adjust to modern conditions, would logically be a top player.
I think pool's talent pool has shrunken considerably (not in terms of people who play, but play it seriously) since the Mosconi era and a decade thereafter for the simple fact there is no money in the game. You quite literally have to be one of the greatest players to ever live (as SVB already is) to make any kind upper-middle class living.
No doubt there's thousands of young kids in the US and abroad who are natural geniuses at the game, but not many parents are going to push their kid into it or support their kid's wish in becoming a pro, investing in lessons, travel time, tourney fees, etc when the payoff is so low. Landon Shuffett was one of the most promising young talents there was and gave the game up as a serious pursuit.
Another example of the comparatively shallow talent pool are things like Ernesto Dominguez's top 10 US Open finish at the age of 60 in 2014. Not taking anything away from Ernesto, as he's a great talent (who perhaps could've been an all-time great, but work and family always came before his pool game. He's reflected on how good he might've been if he devoted 100% of his time to the game), but he finished higher than many of today's "monster players" who supposedly would've eaten Mosconi alive. I don't think 60 year old part-timer Ernesto Dominguez is on prime Mosconi's level. Even today, Ernesto can still hang.
What I think tricks people into believing today's players are a tier up are the easier conditions that facilitate greater offensive display.
I’m curious about monsters on the table like a decade or so after chalk or leather tips were invented. And even more recently you had depression era badasses. They shot standing almost straight up and somehow could still make balls! How strong is that? I figure the crop back then might be the best ever. Life was so much cheaper so they could play every day, there weren’t nearly as many distractions in the world, not as many chemicals, more testosterone, days were longer, and they were always in action with each other apparently. There will always be an SVB or ko but in general the depression era crop of top level was probably the best large group the world will see, at least in America.
Dominguez won 4 matches in 2014 (Parks 11-9, Souquet 11-7, Geronimo 11-9, Futrell 11-5) before his two losses (Busty 6-11, Klatt 5-11).
I take issue with people saying "Mosconi walked off the street and ran 526, while John is on a mission.... etc...".
Lets forget about Mosconi for a second.
What about all the other high runs in the modern era. Hopkins ran 400 something. Sigel 300 something. Varner 300 something. Grady 300 something. Engert 400 something. Earl 400 something. Etc.
Do you guys thing they were NOT trying to run as many balls as they could? When was the last time you ever heard of a player who ran 280 and said to themselves, let me stop here and go home. That is ludicrous. Everyone runs until they miss, to see how high they can get. That's the whole freaking point of pool! If that was not the case, then there would never have been any runs over a match score of 125, or 150, or 200.
So these other runs of 300-400's, these guys were all probably playing every day. If they didn't have action, and were hitting balls in their home room, they were probably just playing racks of straight pool by themselves all day long. Certainly from 1950 to 1980's straight pool was played daily by almost all the pros.
I wrote somewhere else recently, the owner of my home room is a top player, Bob Maidoff. He plays straight pool after he gets the room in order every day, by himself in the early afternoons when the room is not busy, and one of the customers or houseman rack for him. He had his lifetime high run of 330ish balls about 6 or 7 years ago, well into his 50's.
Another example is Johnny Ervolino. He ran 300 something about 10 years ago, well into his 60's. He probably played nothing but straight pool every day of his life, and managed a super high run at an older age.
So those are two top players that played straight pool every day by themselves because what else are they going to do? They were from the straight pool generation. To think players aren't going for a top run is nuts. What do you all think goes through a players mind: "Let me run 75 and then go home". Really?!
The whole point of this tirade, is that JS is not doing anything different than any other straight pool era player did. Hit racks and racks and racks by themselves every day until they've had enough.
Lets forget about Mosconi for a second.
What about all the other high runs in the modern era. Hopkins ran 400 something. Sigel 300 something. Varner 300 something. Grady 300 something. Engert 400 something. Earl 400 something. Etc.
Do you guys thing they were NOT trying to run as many balls as they could? When was the last time you ever heard of a player who ran 280 and said to themselves, let me stop here and go home. That is ludicrous. Everyone runs until they miss, to see how high they can get. That's the whole freaking point of pool! If that was not the case, then there would never have been any runs over a match score of 125, or 150, or 200.
So these other runs of 300-400's, these guys were all probably playing every day. If they didn't have action, and were hitting balls in their home room, they were probably just playing racks of straight pool by themselves all day long. Certainly from 1950 to 1980's straight pool was played daily by almost all the pros.
I wrote somewhere else recently, the owner of my home room is a top player, Bob Maidoff. He plays straight pool after he gets the room in order every day, by himself in the early afternoons when the room is not busy, and one of the customers or houseman rack for him. He had his lifetime high run of 330ish balls about 6 or 7 years ago, well into his 50's.
Another example is Johnny Ervolino. He ran 300 something about 10 years ago, well into his 60's. He probably played nothing but straight pool every day of his life, and managed a super high run at an older age.
So those are two top players that played straight pool every day by themselves because what else are they going to do? They were from the straight pool generation. To think players aren't going for a top run is nuts. What do you all think goes through a players mind: "Let me run 75 and then go home". Really?!
The whole point of this tirade, is that JS is not doing anything different than any other straight pool era player did. Hit racks and racks and racks by themselves every day until they've had enough.
Yes, that's what I think. Most of them practiced by playing matches, not by "let's see how many I can run." Nobody used to see how many more they could run when they ran a game out.
?On the other hand, I recall watching Ray Martin practicing alone once. He was up to 98 with a breakshot and he put the balls back in the tray and left. The run meant nothing to him, just the practice.
Babe Cranfield, on the other hand, was the one guy who tried for a high run over and over every day. A high run meant everything to him, and he had two runs of over 700 and a run over 400 on a 5 x 10. He was not, however, one of the best few of his era, typically coming up short in competition when he faced guys like Mosconi, Crane, Caras, Balsis, Lassiter and others.
I'd guess the Greenleafs, Mosconis and Sigels of the world only tried for a maximum run about one fiftieth as often as Schmidt or Cranfield.
Last edited:
We can agree to disagree
Its human nature to see how far one can go. Certainly, sometimes a player just wants to leave and go home. But I'd imagine most of the time they want to do their best.Here is another topic. Who were the top players from 1950 to 1980's straight pool era playing against, where they had an actual match with a built-in ending point to their run? I started playing after the straight pool era. I was a pool room bum from about 1994 to 2010 or so. Now of course this was 9 ball era. But in all those years, the top players in the local rooms didn't have much action. No one wanted to play them. So they would either practice 9 ball by themselves (and keep track of how many packages they put together, coincidentally), or they'd dump all of their money in the poker machine. I'm just guessing here as I was not alive in 1950, but I'd imagine it was similar then. The top players didn't have a serious match on a regular basis because who was going to play them? So I contend they sat in the pool rooms, drank coffee, sat at the counter, and when they wanted to hit balls, they played straight pool by themselves until they missed. Then they repeated the same thing daily for 30 years. And in a few of those days over the years, everything just clicked and the balls cooperated, and they got a super high run.
We can agree to disagree
Here is another topic. Who were the top players from 1950 to 1980's straight pool era playing against, where they had an actual match with a built-in ending point to their run? I started playing after the straight pool era. I was a pool room bum from about 1994 to 2010 or so. Now of course this was 9 ball era. But in all those years, the top players in the local rooms didn't have much action. No one wanted to play them. So they would either practice 9 ball by themselves (and keep track of how many packages they put together, coincidentally), or they'd dump all of their money in the poker machine. I'm just guessing here as I was not alive in 1950, but I'd imagine it was similar then. The top players didn't have a serious match on a regular basis because who was going to play them? So I contend they sat in the pool rooms, drank coffee, sat at the counter, and when they wanted to hit balls, they played straight pool by themselves until they missed. Then they repeated the same thing daily for 30 years. And in a few of those days over the years, everything just clicked and the balls cooperated, and they got a super high run.
I was around the pool halls of New York as early as the mid-1960's and hung out at the Golden Q in Queens, NY. This was, quite possibly, the world capital of straight pool and every major straight pooler of that era played there at some point. There were two exhibition tables with bleachers there and those were the ones on which the pros played. I often sat in the bleachers to watch. What you almost never saw there is guys trying for a high run.
Actually, during the straight pool era, most of the pros had jobs, as, even for most of the elite, pool didn't pay the bills. There were very few tourneys back then. Irving Crane sold Cadillacs, Steve Mizerak was an English teacher, two time US Open 14.1 champion Tom Jennings was a math professor at a college, and the list goes on. These guys didn't typically spend their afternoons in the poolroom except for a few days leading up to the biggest events. They played pool at night, and where possible, they matched up in action (with both pro and amateur players) to supplement their incomes.
When I was a teen, I used to play action matches with the great Jack Colavita getting a spot of playing 125 to 40. Some pros played "stop" or "no count" rules in action. In "stop", there was a max score for an inning after which you had to turn the table over to your opponent. The most common was "25 and stop". In "no count", any run less than a specified amount counted as zero. A common game was "50 no count" in which any inning less than 50 counted as zero. Only the elite could play this way, even against good amateurs, and hope to win.
Except during exhibitions, which were rare, I don't recall seeing someone finish a game ending run and continue to see how much further they could go even once in all my years at the Golden Q. When the pros practiced alone, it was typically for an hour, two at most. Some of them didn't even count their runs.
The world in which pros spent their days at the pool room trying tirelessly for a high run is one that exists in your imagination only. Cranfield and Schmidt are the exception.
Although I didn't get the opportunity to play top tier players until my second pool "act" in the 90s, while you were hanging in the Golden Q, I was, most likely, at Julians, or maybe Mike's on the Lower East Side...
Straight pool was the "game" at the time and other top level players wouldn't leave the practice table until they ran the requisite 100. George Makula did that just about every day he was at Julian's, and sometimes he did it on his first try. Setting up a "special" table for months trying to break Willie's record seems "second rate" to me.
This is a great forum but there is a downside to it and this is it. This should be a fun positive thing. A guy devoting a lot of time to breaking the legendary record. Instead people want to start arguing about it.
He ran a 434 recently and I'd bet most of the Debbie downers haven't even taken the time to watch the run.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2paRAZXXGSA
He ran a 434 recently and I'd bet most of the Debbie downers haven't even taken the time to watch the run.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2paRAZXXGSA
I think that most of the time even in exhibitions they stopped at the end of the game -- the pro had limited time and only occasionally went for a record. The longest exhibition run I've seen in person was Pete Margo's 198 (June 1980, Brewster, NY) which ended on a horrible scratch (imagine that!) and I think he would have continued for as many as possible but I think he had unlimited time and he was there as a favor to the owner.
I would add Eufemia to Cranfield and Schmidt.
Here is a fun story of how one exhibition ended at the end of announced length. The original poster is taking a vacation so I hope he doesn't mind if I repost....
CARAS RUNS 100
It was a bitter cold, windy night in Ithaca, New York in the fall of 1948. At the Student Union in Cornell University a crowd of about 60 students and a few faculty had gathered in a large room containing a dozen pool tables to see an exhibition by Jimmy Caras. A freezing Canadian winter wind was hurtling down Lake Cayuga and across the campus as Jimmy arrived with his “manager,” both wearing heavy coats, scarfs, gloves, hats – the works.
The manager made the following startling announcement in a loud voice: “Mr. Caras will now run 100 balls.” You could hear a distinct murmur spread across the room. Meanwhile Jimmy has removed his coat and is screwing his cue together, still not saying a word. I figured that he just didn’t speak English which is why the manager had made that announcement. A hush then descended on the crowd.
I don’t think the whole thing took more than 15 minutes. He never took a practice shot – just broke the balls and started running. The manager counted off the score and announced the next ball to be pocketed, as they used to do in tournaments. When Caras hit 100 the whole place burst into wild applause. He bowed to the crowd, unscrewed the cue, put it into its case and disappeared into the night, again without saying a word. A really amazing moment for all of us neophytes who had never seen anything like it.
John White
Is that the one where he fouled?
Although I didn't get the opportunity to play top tier players until my second pool "act" in the 90s, while you were hanging in the Golden Q, I was, most likely, at Julians, or maybe Mike's on the Lower East Side...
Straight pool was the "game" at the time and other top level players wouldn't leave the practice table until they ran the requisite 100. George Makula did that just about every day he was at Julian's, and sometimes he did it on his first try. Setting up a "special" table for months trying to break Willie's record seems "second rate" to me.
Yes, George (and Gene Nagy and Johnny Ervolino, too) was like Babe and John, obsessed with running balls and willing to practice alone for hours. George took that same "requisite 100" rule to Chelsea Billiards in his later years, too, and there was a table there known as just "George's table." I used to play at Julian's on occasion, too. In fact, it's the only place I ever saw Mosconi play, although it was in a pro-am format. Those were the days.
Still, straight pool was certainly not "the game" in the 1990's, as most had already switched to nine ball. By then, only the old-timers were playing a whole lot of 14.1, because nine ball was, with rare exception, the only game in which one could make any real money. The action scene of the 1990's already omitted 14.1 almost completely, and people only gambled at nine ball and one pocket.