In reading the threads about who was / is the greatest 14:1 player it appears each is rationalizing their pick on the basis of long run, i.e., Willie = 526, Ralph = 309 and John = 400+. Also the difficulty of the tables, i.e, 8ft vs 9ft vs 10ft. IMO all are valid metrics for establishing difficulty level... Same as how they judge diving or gymnastics in the olympics, by level of difficulty. My question is, how much consideration do you give Willie in that he never missed in his 526 run. He simply got tired and quit but without a miss! Who knows how many balls he would have run if he had just left the table as it were and then rested until resuming his infamous long run. He may have exceeded 1,000?
John, Willie or Ralph?
- Thread starter CrossSideLarry
- Start date
Worthy of another thread? :deadhorse:
(420's thread provides evidence that Willie did miss, btw.)
Just my opinion,
Matt
(420's thread provides evidence that Willie did miss, btw.)
Just my opinion,
Matt
CrossSideLarry said:
Folks:
Humbly, I think what everyone seems to be missing is that straight pool greatness is not one- or two-off high runs, or merely running balls. Straight pool greatness is about the will to win, no matter if it's done via a single high run or not. Willie's greatness in straight pool stems not from his record (which folks on this board seem singularly-focused on), but rather from his dominance in a field that consisted of monsters like Jimmy Caras, Joe Balsis, Andrew Ponzi, Luther Lassiter, etc. Not all of Willie's wins were from a single run-out. Most of us seem to forget the art of safeties in straight pool. Yes, we as spectators love when a player takes off on a high run, running out a match. But true aficionados also take notice and appreciate a good safety in straight pool. Not a lot of folks know that Willie was also an excellent tactician -- using safeties where they fit best, to get the results he wanted.
Another excellent straight pool player known for *both* his ability to run out a match and his defensive play was The Deacon, Irving Crane. Crane was legendary in his near-lockup safeties, and his opponent was forced into herculean efforts to get back into the match (e.g. very low percentage shots), most often with disastrous results. When playing Crane, you *had* to do something extraordinary to get back into the match, because you certainly weren't going to out-move him.
*This* is straight pool greatness. Not the ability to soar-off on a high run alone.
Humbly,
-Sean
lets not forget thorsten..he has a high run of over 400 balls as well.
I have a question, since a lot of people have brought this up in the past few days: Does anyone know for sure that he quit at 526 because he was simply too tired?
To me this really seems like something that was made up, to further glorify and immortalize Mosconi. Granted, it happened 50+ years ago and without much documentation except an affidavit of the run itself (and not how it ended) -- but outside of "I heard it from a guy, who heard it from a guy, who read somewhere..." does anyone have any real (preferably first-hand) knowledge of how the run really ended?
To me this really seems like something that was made up, to further glorify and immortalize Mosconi. Granted, it happened 50+ years ago and without much documentation except an affidavit of the run itself (and not how it ended) -- but outside of "I heard it from a guy, who heard it from a guy, who read somewhere..." does anyone have any real (preferably first-hand) knowledge of how the run really ended?
CrossSideLarry said:
StevenPWaldon said:
Originally posted:
AtLarge said:
I haven't read the book mentioned here, but this looks to be a reputable source...maybe.
Ok...I'm a life long 14.1 lover....some folks here know that. I have strange opinions on the game as well...like, slow cloth is BETTER, not to mention easier to play the game on....yea, yea....blah blah blah......try it, you will see what I mean. Develop a strong stroke on slow cloth and you can beat the world! just ask Rempe, Varner, Sigel, Hopkins...etc.
My vote for best 14.1 player ever is Babe Cranfield. Yea, Mosconi was the best known, and he was a killer, BUT.....read a little about Mr. Cranfield and your head will spin at the numbers this man put up!
That being said.....there are a BUNCH of the Euro players I like to watch like....Thorsten, Niels, and mostly.....Thomas Engert...that guy (and I'm a LEFTY) makes the game look too easy!
Gerry
My vote for best 14.1 player ever is Babe Cranfield. Yea, Mosconi was the best known, and he was a killer, BUT.....read a little about Mr. Cranfield and your head will spin at the numbers this man put up!
That being said.....there are a BUNCH of the Euro players I like to watch like....Thorsten, Niels, and mostly.....Thomas Engert...that guy (and I'm a LEFTY) makes the game look too easy!
Gerry
StevenPWaldon said:
Lord only knows why Willie ever started claiming he quit withiout a miss.
It doesn't help that he still made that claim in his instructional video
from aprox 1982-ish.
However, he absolutely missed. He does admit to missing in his Bio book,
perhaps because by then, the news was out - their was a story
in the Springfield newspaper<Ohio> that even described the shot
that didn't go.
Dale
In my opinion Greenleaf and Mosconi are the only names in the running, they dominated their eras. John Schmidt hasn't won a damn thing in 14.1.
I don't believe in going by high runs either, I'm not all that impressed with
Mosconi's 526 ball run as much as his overall tournament dominance. They say Cranfield ran 768, and Eufemia ran 625, so people say they're the best but my question is this: If they were so great, where are their titles? I know Cranfield won the worlds once but so have lots of other players. Mosconi and Greenleaf got it done when it really mattered time and time again.
I equate John Schmidt with the tennis player Mark Philipousis, a great talent but never won a major. I know schmidt has a couple of majors in other disciplines but the topic here is 14.1 and he's yet to reach a major final in that. So this comparison is a bit absurd.
I don't believe in going by high runs either, I'm not all that impressed with
Mosconi's 526 ball run as much as his overall tournament dominance. They say Cranfield ran 768, and Eufemia ran 625, so people say they're the best but my question is this: If they were so great, where are their titles? I know Cranfield won the worlds once but so have lots of other players. Mosconi and Greenleaf got it done when it really mattered time and time again.
I equate John Schmidt with the tennis player Mark Philipousis, a great talent but never won a major. I know schmidt has a couple of majors in other disciplines but the topic here is 14.1 and he's yet to reach a major final in that. So this comparison is a bit absurd.
CrossSideLarry said:
Actually, I see only a few judging the case this way.
But if one chose to look at things this way:
1) Babe Cranfield had two practice runs over 700 ...... Should we immediately proclaim him the best ever? Of course not, because he had only limited success against the best 14.1 players of his day.
2) Gene Nagy is in the discussion, as Nagy ran over 400 twice ....... Of course, Nagy's name never really comes up in the discussion of the greatest ever, because his resume of competitive 14.1 accomplishments doesn't merit it.
3) Dallas West, Ray Martin, and Allen Hopkins all have a better high run than John Schmidt and each of them won world championships in 14.1 ...... Maybe we should anoint them.
....... but the thing is that all these fine players don't measure up to Willie. Mosconi dominated 14.1 tournament play in an era where there were many other legends playing and that's what distinguishes him from the rest.
sjm said:
Need to correct this. In a PM I just received, I was advised that 3-time world 14.1 champion Ray Martin claims a high run of 390.
My original source for this statement was the following AZB thread, which obviously was in error.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=25176
Please forgive this error.
CrossSideLarry said:
Page 167 "Willie's Game" by Willie Mosconi & Stanley Cohen:
"On March 19th in Springfield, Ohio I ran 526 balls, a record that still stands. I was playing a two-hundred point match against an amateur named Earl Bruney in the East High Billiard Club. He made three balls off the break, then I ran two hundred and just kept going. The run took two hours and ten minutes which meant that over that span I averaged four balls a minute. I finally missed a difficult cut shot, but by that time I was weary; it was almost a relief to have it come to an end."
either i'm confused or you guys are.
For me, personally, the question is who is the greatest 14.1 player of all time. Correct?
To me, a high run has very little to do with who the greatest 14.1 player is whatsoever.
To make my case, I'd like to cite a similar type of achievement in the game of golf. I use golf because it is an individual sport in very much the same vein as pool. 3 or 4 players have recorded 59s as the lowest round ever recorded in a PGA event, David Duvall being the last one to do it.
Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus NEVER recorded 59s in a tournament. Would anyone argue that Tiger Woods or Jack Nicklaus are not the two greatest golf players of all time? You'd be hard pressed to find a good argument against it.
14.1 is supposed to be a competitive game between 2 individuals, its not about one person at a table alone. The greatest 14.1 player of all time would be the guy who has won the most 14.1 titles and defeated the greatest players. To me, that's Willie Mosconi.
The high runs achieved by Ralph, Willie, John or Thorsten are all incredible feats that should be commended, but if they were recorded outside of competition it tells me absolutely nothing about their will to win, their competitive edge, etc.
Willie's achievements in terms of titles won, etc. is unmatched in history and it's pretty tough to me to start talking about John Schmidt even in the same breath as Willie as a champion.
For me, personally, the question is who is the greatest 14.1 player of all time. Correct?
To me, a high run has very little to do with who the greatest 14.1 player is whatsoever.
To make my case, I'd like to cite a similar type of achievement in the game of golf. I use golf because it is an individual sport in very much the same vein as pool. 3 or 4 players have recorded 59s as the lowest round ever recorded in a PGA event, David Duvall being the last one to do it.
Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus NEVER recorded 59s in a tournament. Would anyone argue that Tiger Woods or Jack Nicklaus are not the two greatest golf players of all time? You'd be hard pressed to find a good argument against it.
14.1 is supposed to be a competitive game between 2 individuals, its not about one person at a table alone. The greatest 14.1 player of all time would be the guy who has won the most 14.1 titles and defeated the greatest players. To me, that's Willie Mosconi.
The high runs achieved by Ralph, Willie, John or Thorsten are all incredible feats that should be commended, but if they were recorded outside of competition it tells me absolutely nothing about their will to win, their competitive edge, etc.
Willie's achievements in terms of titles won, etc. is unmatched in history and it's pretty tough to me to start talking about John Schmidt even in the same breath as Willie as a champion.