Mosconi's 526 run POOL TABLE questions
- Thread starter K2Kraze
- Start date
FTR, George Rood did purchase the table that Mosconi's HR was performed on. Since he has passed away, perhaps searching out his surviving family members would gain some new information (George was a regular at Airway for decades). You could call Airway Billiards in Dayton, and ask the owner if he knows any of Rood's family. I know he had a grandson that was interested in pool...but don't have any information other than that.
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Since you've only got 189 posts we'll assume you're not familiar with internet forum ettiquette: people can, and will, reply with anything they want to say. It might not be interesting to you, but it might be interesting to someone else. You might even learn something you don't know or hadn't even thought about.
It might not even have anything remotely to do with your question; get over it.
You can stomp your feet, shake your fists, even threaten to take your cueball and go home...but doing so is the surest way to be ignored.
I asked George Rood about the table one year that he was at the DCC watching the 14.1. He (and his partner) bought the room and the table some time after the exhibition. He said that the table didn't have abnormally large pockets, but I don't know what normal was for that time. He also mentioned that there were three different people who believe they now own the table.
I got a dollar that says they did.
Tournaments have been played on Brunswick tables with 4.5 inch pockets since the late 1880s, if not earlier. This is not a story, but a documented fact.
5+ inch pockets were a fairly recent development.
That said, I will check with Brunswick's historian and see if he can provide any solid info about the pocket size for the 8ft of that era .
Nice post, Mr bdorman.
Member for less than 3 years.
How many posts?
Let me see if I have this right - since I'm a newbie AZB poster on your radar with only 189 previous posts - the decorum and Internet forum etiquette you have just displayed is the kind of member I should aspire to become.....you've read the questions I've posted and felt it necessary to prove in fact with your worthless post that anyone can and will say anything they wish and I for one should "get over it". Did I summarize that to meet your satisfaction and esteemed tutelage?
You, bdorman, are a piece of work.
How's this response work for you:
Thank you for taking the time to help me out today - I really appreciate the contribution you've made to the thread I started looking for more answers.
Have a great weekend ahead.
Kerry
LIVFST
Member for less than 3 years.
How many posts?
Let me see if I have this right - since I'm a newbie AZB poster on your radar with only 189 previous posts - the decorum and Internet forum etiquette you have just displayed is the kind of member I should aspire to become.....you've read the questions I've posted and felt it necessary to prove in fact with your worthless post that anyone can and will say anything they wish and I for one should "get over it". Did I summarize that to meet your satisfaction and esteemed tutelage?
You, bdorman, are a piece of work.
How's this response work for you:
Thank you for taking the time to help me out today - I really appreciate the contribution you've made to the thread I started looking for more answers.
Have a great weekend ahead.
Kerry
LIVFST
I got a dollar that says they did.
Tournaments have been played on Brunswick tables with 4.5 inch pockets since the late 1880s, if not earlier. This is not a story, but a documented fact.
5+ inch pockets were a fairly recent development.
That said, I will check with Brunswick's historian and see if he can provide any solid info about the pocket size for the 8ft of that era .
Let me know how that works out for ya:thumbup: but do yourself a favor, take a look at the number 3 and 6 drop pocket irons used by Brunswick back then...then imagine what the pockets would look like at 4 1/2"...and how far past the pocket leather the sub-rails would have to be extended to shrink down the pocket openings to reach that smaller pocket size....then maybe, just maybe you'll start to see the picture
for what it's worth, it's a royal pain in the ass to build a Kling with 4 1/2" corner pockets, replacing the sub-rails and all just to pull that one off....and you're trying to tell me Brunswick provided pro cut pockets stock???...LOL....OK
of people say they were there
Mosconi has been quoted as saying he missed an easy shot and he never missed...just got tired. If that part is BS then the 526 was probably BS too. Over the years 1000's of people have said they were in the poolroom watching the whole time...just like the millions that say they were at Woodstock. Tired of listening to this crap on here 10 times a year. Johnnyt
Mosconi has been quoted as saying he missed an easy shot and he never missed...just got tired. If that part is BS then the 526 was probably BS too. Over the years 1000's of people have said they were in the poolroom watching the whole time...just like the millions that say they were at Woodstock. Tired of listening to this crap on here 10 times a year. Johnnyt
I knew both George Rood (a great player by the way, near unbeatable by any road man) and Russ Maddox (played a lot of Gin with him - he robbed me
). And I played pool at East High Billiards in the early 60's. The tables were similar to those in many pool halls in the area, oversize 4x8's. It could have been an early Brunswick Sport King because they were used in many poolrooms back then, as a lower priced commercial option to the Anniversary. The Sport King was a solidly built table (I've owned several), probably a little heavier than a Gold Crown (Glen?). My last one that was in my house in the Valley fifteen years ago was reworked by Ernesto to make them 4.5" pockets. He used facings to do this. I'm pretty sure they were something like 4.75 to 5" openings before then. Even before this work was done, the table didn't play that easy, probably because of how the pockets were cut (dead straight) and the deep shelf. After Ernesto finished his job the table played very tough and was a good test for the many top players who came through.
Ernesto said that it was an excellent table, well made and played great. All I know is it banked perfect and rolled dead straight too. And that table was nearly fifty years old. I wish I still had it, sold for $1,500 when I got my GCIV.
That's about all I have to offer. All the old time players that I knew had a lot of respect for Mosconi's high run, even if they didn't like him (many didn't). Almost to a man they said he was the best at Straight Pool. Back then no one knocked the 526 run as being too easy or inauthentic. It was still a feat to run over 200 in those days and only a few top players could do it. There were maybe five recorded runs over 300, all by the greats of the game.
Let me know how that works out for ya:thumbup: but do yourself a favor, take a look at the number 3 and 6 drop pocket irons used by Brunswick back then...then imagine what the pockets would look like at 4 1/2"...and how far past the pocket leather the sub-rails would have to be extended to shrink down the pocket openings to reach that smaller pocket size....then maybe, just maybe you'll start to see the picture
Glen, ask yourself this question : why would Brunswick require tournaments to be played on tables and equipment that they didn't or couldnt produce? Does that make any sense?
Choose one:
1.They didn't play on tables with 4.5 pockets.....
2. They had to modify every "stock" table used in every single pro level tourney...for something like 70+ years.
3. They produced tables with 4.5 pocket openings
Number 1 if you will please, now show me something from Brunswick to prove otherwise
Going against Mr Bond in a history question is like going up against JB in bannings.
The question is if he shows you an old tournament news clipping that states they played on under 5" pockets will you accept that as fact or say that "someone must have modified them"?
I've bought plenty of GC3S for my pool rooms new, and Brunswick did not offer anything but stock 5" corner pockets at that time. Brunswick's first tournament edition 4 9/16ths corner pockets came out on the GC4...double shimmed, not extended rails. The first extended rails to make a 4 9/16ths corner pocket was first offered with GC 5 at an added cost of $1,000.
Thank you, Lou.
The numbers on pocket size alone that you just pointed out are the kind of things I am trying to clarify.
Searching the forum and past thousands of replies on the run only brings up more of the same "here's what I heard" kind of thing. What I'm really after is credible information on the TABLE.
Do you by chance know anyone that actually did own the table or does have any of the information on the table in question?
I really appreciate you taking the time to offer up suggestions and help. Thanks again
The biggest problem is that there was a person selling tables and telling people they were "The" table, he not only sold 8 footers , he sold some 9 footers.
I know who it was , but I'm not posting that at this time. It may already be out there though
The table George had was also supposed to be "The" table , although George told me he was sure it was not.
I actually met the guy who was the referee? or rackman or whatever he was , they called him "Bird" .
This was in the mid to late 90s and he was a pretty old man , he would not talk about it even though George introduced me to him.
PDcue is from that area and knows the stories as well as anyone , probably closer to the original sources.
We will probably never know much more.
Number 1 if you will please, now show me something from Brunswick to prove otherwise
this thread is about the establishment of 4.5" pockets in 1887
from Modern Billiards 1909 BBC
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=288215
and then there's this:
from Brunswick's Handbook of Billiards 1910