John Schmidt's 626

[Dan Harriman]

chopped liver

I did go to the Orange, CA showing in March, 2020.

Considerably before that I sat and watched the entire original unedited recording. At that time I noted the position of each break ball and the number of the break ball. When there was any question I had the video rewound to the part needed. The entire video was at normal speed. I was watching for any touch fouls. I did not see any, which of course does not guarantee there were none.

Did they display the cow jumping over the moon as well?

 

[Biloxi Boy]

Is it a foul in 14:1 to touch an object ball? When is an object ball "in play"? After the break?

I recall playing that touching an object ball at anytime with anything -- cuff, cue, bridge -- was a foul: end of inning and loss of a point. Is this still the rule?

 

[Poolplaya9]

As I have stated before - even if this were a player whom I trusted and was in good favor with - I would still demand to see un edited proof for my own eyes to view. There is zero evidence of their claim - without 1st presenting unedited video available to the people. Two people at bca who don't even play 14.1 - and bob jewett (friend's with j.s). - does NOT = unedited proof last time I checked. Most genuinely concerned 14.1 enthusiasts would not argue my point here. Lou,myself, and many others are not so concerned with table specs - as we are unedited video proof. Also I did not care for their divisional lango - open for the 'semi public' to see? Something ain't stirring the kool aid.

I didn't say that the evidence at hand should be enough for everybody to feel they have 100% conclusive proof and that there was zero doubt of anything left. What I essentially said is that the current evidence, which includes the governing body saying they have seen the unedited video in full and have officially recognized the record, along with Bob Jewett's and other people's confirmation of having either seen it in person or the unedited video in full and are also vouching for it, it should be clear to any reasonable and intelligent person that the record is far more likely than not to have occurred. What I also said is that the evidence at hand certainly wouldn't support calling Bob Jewett a liar and perpetrator of a fraud if one is at all familiar with him.

Having some lingering small doubts about some things could be reasonable. Being all but positive that it didn't happen and everybody is lying and there is a big conspiracy of fraud is not a reasonable belief to feel any confidence about whatsoever right now.

 

[lfigueroa]

I don't disagree with much in this post. What I disagree with is that a conclusion of "well it almost certainly didn't, or even probably didn't, happen" is a reasonable one for unbiased and intelligent people given all the evidence at hand. On the other hand, "well it sure looks a lot more likely than not that it did in fact happen but because it is such a great feat I sure would like to see it for myself before I can be 100% convinced without any doubts left" could be reasonable, but you are solidly in the former and not the latter.

And there certainly isn't the evidence that supports flat out calling Bob Jewett a liar and being complicit in a big fraud here. Only bias wouldn't allow you to be able to see that IMO.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up when addressing me, because I don't recall calling BJ "a liar" or him "being complicit in a big fraud."

Lou Figueroa

 

[Cameron Smith]

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up when addressing me, because I don't recall calling BJ "a liar" or him "being complicit in a big fraud."

Lou Figueroa

Just to help clarify your position, is it your belief that either,

A. The run is just an edited together series of runs or simply editing out misses?

B. He changed out the balls regularly or had them polished during the run, which would therefore invalidate the effort?

C. There are CB/OB fouls that were ignored

D. All or some of the above

And for the witnesses to the run/video, they either did not pick up on issue A (due to editing, a sped up video, or simply not know what to look for). Or in the case of B and C they aren't holding him to a high enough standard?

 

[Poolplaya9]

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up when addressing me, because I don't recall calling BJ "a liar" or him "being complicit in a big fraud."

Lou Figueroa

My apologies if I am missing something, but if somebody says something happened and that they are witness to it, and you say it didn't happen, you are calling them a liar. You don't have to explicitly use the word liar to call somebody a liar. From what I recall Bob said he has seen the entire unedited run and validated it as appearing to be a legitimate new record. You keep saying you don't think the record happened. That is calling him a liar. Is that not the gist of the positions?

 

[Chili Palmer]

Although the 4 is an ideal break ball, in hindsight it looks like his best shot to continue the run would be to play the 6 to set up a better angle on the 4, to come around 2 cushions to pocket the 3 in the same pocket as the 4 and maybe break out one of the remaining 2 balls into position for a break shot.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

[boogieman]

Occam's Razor basically says the simplest of competing theories should be preferred to the more complex.

So let me ask you: what is the simplest explanation for unedited video of the run not having been released by now?

Lou Figueroa

He want's that money but isn't smart enough to figure out how to promote himself in a post VHS world.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Occam's Razor basically says the simplest of competing theories should be preferred to the more complex.

So let me ask you: what is the simplest explanation for unedited video of the run not having been released by now?

Lou Figueroa

Why isn't the simplest theory that the respected people who have reviewed and verified the run are assumed to be correct until something shows otherwise? Any scenario where it's false seems way more complicated and unlikely to me.

pj
chgo

 

[Biloxi Boy]

If I am correct about object ball fouls, sinking 626 in a row is one thing and running 626 (without fouling) is another. Certifying is the rub: certifying a four hour session of 626 in a row can be done in 4 hours, but certifying a "fouless" run may take much longer -- don't know how long it could take. The exception to this analysis depends upon the player's character: if one is the type of player who readily calls fouls on himself, then the certification is closer to four hours but still needs to be exacting enough to determine a foul that the player missed.

All of the above being true, this matter, in large part, devolves into a question of character. Are there any among you familiar enough with John Schmidt's character to make the call?

 

[Biloxi Boy]

On the subject of Bob Jewett, I do not know him, but I know enough of his reputation, demeanor, and comportment to know that I believe what he says. I also feel safe in observing that Bob would be a very exacting judge if called upon to certify anything, much less a historic 14:1 run. Did Bob view the tape in order to certiify it, or was he simply a "lookie loo" like the rest of us mutts? If I had to guess, Bob was just one of us on the occasion, down to coke and popcorn, so welcome to the pack, Bob. LOL. The role and responsibilty assumed determine a great deal in matters such as these.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Did Bob view the tape in order to certiify it, or was he simply a "lookie loo" like the rest of us mutts? ...

My viewing was not for any kind of official certification because I'm not in a position to offer such. I did watch the full recording at normal speed (4+hours) with the intent, among others, of watching for touch fouls. I did not notice any, as I stated above. When I was uncertain about something, I had the video immediately replayed over that section.

I recorded the time and situation of each break shot. Here is a listing of that. The break ball position (BB) is listed with L=left side, R=right side, B=back of rack, SL= side pocket, left side. The SL shots were both with ball in hand from the cue ball being left in the racking area.





It's possible that I mistook the numbers of some balls, such as the 3 and 5, as noted above on the 627th shot.

The break shot at 434 was the most likely to fail as it was behind the rack with the OB close to the cushion. The cue ball was coming off the foot cushion and going more or less flat against the back of the rack. The break left a tough shot but John made it.

 

[Biloxi Boy]

I was wrong. Way better than a "lookie loo". Still not certifying. Thanks for clarifying. I hope you will still sit with us.

 

[lfigueroa]

Just to help clarify your position, is it your belief that either,

A. The run is just an edited together series of runs or simply editing out misses?

B. He changed out the balls regularly or had them polished during the run, which would therefore invalidate the effort?

C. There are CB/OB fouls that were ignored

D. All or some of the above

And for the witnesses to the run/video, they either did not pick up on issue A (due to editing, a sped up video, or simply not know what to look for). Or in the case of B and C they aren't holding him to a high enough standard?

A. Don't believe that.

B. He may have polished the balls regularly throughout the run resulting in conditions that no other pool player on Earth would ever encounter.

C. Maybe.

D. Yes.

And yes.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

My apologies if I am missing something, but if somebody says something happened and that they are witness to it, and you say it didn't happen, you are calling them a liar. You don't have to explicitly use the word liar to call somebody a liar. From what I recall Bob said he has seen the entire unedited run and validated it as appearing to be a legitimate new record. You keep saying you don't think the record happened. That is calling him a liar. Is that not the gist of the positions?

When did I say, "it didn't happen"?

When -- and please quote me -- did I say: "(I) don't think the record happened."

Lou Figueroa
gettin' old
maybe

 

[lfigueroa]

He want's that money but isn't smart enough to figure out how to promote himself in a post VHS world.

Well, here's an idea.

Since BJ seems to have sufficient access to post a screen grab, maybe he, and/or Phil Capelle can put out a book/DVD combo, walking through the run and JS could make some dough thataway.

Perhaps the run would be all chopped up, just to illustrate break balls and patterns -- it would be better than nothing, money-wise.

Regardless, with the cloth, pocket size, and JS' proclivity for relentlessly polishing the balls, if such a project were eventually released it would be of dubious usefulness to your average pool player because the represented conditions would be those that no pool player would ever face in real life.

It also would not settle the question of the entire run's legitimacy as a record, if released edited, IMO.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Biloxi Boy]

xradarx -- Come again?

 

[Cameron Smith]

A. Don't believe that.

B. He may have polished the balls regularly throughout the run resulting in conditions that no other pool player on Earth would ever encounter.

C. Maybe.

D. Yes.

And yes.

Lou Figueroa

Ah, I understand. I would be surprised if he didn’t polish them at least once. I watched a few of the live attempts and there were plenty of breaks and polishing on the bigger runs.

 

[Biloxi Boy]

If it does not violate the rules, what does it matter if the balls were polished, felt brushed, etc.? OMG, Schmidt chalked his cue twice before that one shot??? Come on. Some things are clear -- in bounds/out of bounds -- and should not be included simply to obfuscate.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

View attachment 559373
View attachment 559374

Interesting (to me) how you can see him tiring over time by the time he takes for shots. He doesn't get over 20 seconds per shot in the first 18 racks, and then rarely gets under 20 seconds per shot from then on. In the 38th rack he approached a minute per shot.

The first hour and the fourth hour aren't the same challenge.

pj
chgo


__________