Mosconi's 526 run POOL TABLE questions

[Mr. Bond]

From everything I've gathered so far, I wholeheartedly agree with both you, Mr. Bond, as well as Mr. Newell, on the most probable "5-ish" inch standard pockets on Brunswick tables used back in the day.

Any ideas on what "standard" cloth colors and the fabric makeup would have been - perhaps an approximate speed comparison to today's Simonis or similar offerings?

Thank you very much for taking the time to gather more information on the record table - much appreciated!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

As for the color, personally I would guess green but maybe some of the eyewitnesses out there can verify.

The cloth type would be pretty easy to determine if we knew the model name for sure.

I'm looking at the BCA table specs for 1953 and it says: (verbatum)
_____________________________________

Pocket Openings:
Pocket Billiard Tables:
Corner: 4-7/8" minimum to 5-1/8" max.
Side: 5-3/8" minimum to 5-5/8" max.
Pockets are measured at the points on the nose of cushions where the cushions begin tapering to the pocket.
______________________________________

Of course that^ is for a 4.5'x9' table, so these might not even apply to an 8ft table.

 

[Mr. Bond]

And for my friend Glen, this is from a BCA rule book in the 40s, when 10ft tables were still the pro level standard.



Gee wiz, I wonder who made all of these 4.5" pocketed tables, long before the Gold Crown ever existed ? Its a magical mystery.

 

[BJTyler]

what does color have to do with this discussion. the period was what it was!

When the records set within a particular PERIOD of time were done so while an entire subset of the baseball playing population was systematically excluded -based upon their COLOR, then the validity of those records are no less in question than those records set while players were on PEDs.

Therefore, claiming Ruth's records were more legitimate than Maris' or Aaron's or Bond's is opening a very very big can of worms.

 

[leto1776]

See your using the word *I think* again. That's way to frail for fact. I'll stick with Wiki for now and not backing that up with $$.

Wiki is known to often be a bad source of information, due to the fact that anyone can edit the articles. University professors do not allow Wikipedia to be used as a source on student research papers.

 

[realkingcobra]

And for my friend Glen, this is from a BCA rule book in the 40s, when 10ft tables were still the pro level standard.

View attachment 374118

Gee wiz, I wonder who made all of these 4.5" pocketed tables, long before the Gold Crown ever existed ? Its a magical mystery.

Well, I can tell you for sure, I've worked on a lot of antique Brunswick 5'x10's, and not one had corner pockets tighter than 5" so do me a favor, tell me what models those pocket specs came out on, in fact, do you have any pictures of those pockets that you can share with the AZB members? And for the record, there's several members here on AZB that own Antique Brunswick 10's, not one of them is coming forward to support your claim, why do you suppose that is?

 

[realkingcobra]

As for the color, personally I would guess green but maybe some of the eyewitnesses out there can verify.

The cloth type would be pretty easy to determine if we knew the model name for sure.

I'm looking at the BCA table specs for 1953 and it says: (verbatum)
_____________________________________

Pocket Openings:
Pocket Billiard Tables:
Corner: 4-7/8" minimum to 5-1/8" max.
Side: 5-3/8" minimum to 5-5/8" max.
Pockets are measured at the points on the nose of cushions where the cushions begin tapering to the pocket.
______________________________________

Of course that^ is for a 4.5'x9' table, so these might not even apply to an 8ft table.

So, let me get this straight. The BCA pocket specs you quoted were only for 9ft pocket tables? Does that mean that the BCA didn't consider the 10's worth while with pocket specs, and other size pocket tables didn't matter?

 

[realkingcobra]

And for my friend Glen, this is from a BCA rule book in the 40s, when 10ft tables were still the pro level standard.

View attachment 374118

Gee wiz, I wonder who made all of these 4.5" pocketed tables, long before the Gold Crown ever existed ? Its a magical mystery.

And for the record Mr. Bond, is that quoting the minimum size corner pocket openings, if so, what was the maximum corner pocket opening? That still don't prove or show anything to back up your claim that BRUNSWICK produced tables with 4 1/2" corner pockets now does it?....you've failed again sir, nice try though....but keep on looking for that proof you claim to have showing otherwise ok

 

[PoolBoy1]

Actually, Maris did beat his record and it's in the books. They don't use the way back machine for baseball.

And yes, my point was baseball in the 1920's was WAY different than today... but fans don't dismiss the records they achieved, same with the Olympics. Heck, a HS runner could beat most of the Olympic records from the late 1800's.... but we don't go there.... only pool players go there. That's probably why pool players get the tag as "knockers", I don't see that used for any other type of sport. Gotta be a reason.

It's NOT like Mosconi asked for that table, he didn't. But was forced to play on it because it was a Brunswick. Again, if someone wants to shoot with the same type table, balls, and cloth from the day, and put on a suit and tie and wear dress shoes and beat the record, have at it. All I can say to those who dare, Gud Lock

You might be from a generation that re wrote History books. Maris did not beat Ruth's record. It may be in the book of Fairy Tails. Ruth still holds that record. You are misstating the facts. Believe what you wish. Your prerogative, but clearly not the facts as history shows them. If Maris played every game Ruth did that year he would have come up short!! Those are facts.

 

[hang-the-9]

And for the record Mr. Bond, is that quoting the minimum size corner pocket openings, if so, what was the maximum corner pocket opening? That still don't prove or show anything to back up your claim that BRUNSWICK produced tables with 4 1/2" corner pockets now does it?....you've failed again sir, nice try though....but keep on looking for that proof you claim to have showing otherwise ok

I read similar arguments that religious people throw around, like "well you were not there 4,000 years ago, how do you KNOW the earth was not created then?". It's impossible to argue when people do not accept the facts shown them.

Since you have all the info, where is the info that all Bruswick tables had 5" pockets before the GC 3 or 4 or whatever one you said it was?

 

[BJTyler]

You might be from a generation that re wrote History books. Maris did not beat Ruth's record. It may be in the book of Fairy Tails. Ruth still holds that record. You are misstating the facts. Believe what you wish. Your prerogative, but clearly not the facts as history shows them. If Maris played every game Ruth did that year he would have come up short!! Those are facts.

....and what if Ruth had to face Satchel Paige a few dozen times during his career....

Either the records are the records for everyone credited (Ruth, Maris, Aaron, McGuire, Bonds, etc...) or there simply are no records. You can't have it both ways.

 

[PoolBoy1]

....and what if Ruth had to face Satchel Paige a few dozen times during his career....

Either the records are the records for everyone credited (Ruth, Maris, Aaron, McGuire, Bonds, etc...) or there simply are no records. You can't have it both ways.

I believe Ruth has his record and Maris has his. When Maris is compared to Ruth's record there should be a footnote. Apologies for getting off track on the thread. As far as Mosconi is concerned no one has totally validated a larger run than his. Even though it was exhibition he did have 35 witness signatures of the event.

 

[yelvis111]

I believe Ruth has his record and Maris has his. When Maris is compared to Ruth's record there should be a footnote...

So should there be a similar footnote on Ruth's "record" stating that he never faced a black pitcher in an official at-bat during his career?

Pax,

Taek

 

[pdcue]

See your using the word *I think* again. That's way to frail for fact. I'll stick with Wiki for now and not backing that up with $$.

So, you are willing to admit in public that you are so uninformed you don't understand
how unreliable Wiki is.

Where do you stand on a flat Earth?

Dale(who doesn't think, he knows)

 

[realkingcobra]

I read similar arguments that religious people throw around, like "well you were not there 4,000 years ago, how do you KNOW the earth was not created then?". It's impossible to argue when people do not accept the facts shown them.

Since you have all the info, where is the info that all Bruswick tables had 5" pockets before the GC 3 or 4 or whatever one you said it was?

Do you NOT understand that I've been working on pool tables for over 32 years now, and have owned 3 different pool rooms, and worked on thousands upon thousands of pool tables?

 

[pdcue]

You might be from a generation that re wrote History books. Maris did not beat Ruth's record. It may be in the book of Fairy Tails. Ruth still holds that record. You are misstating the facts. Believe what you wish. Your prerogative, but clearly not the facts as history shows them. If Maris played every game Ruth did that year he would have come up short!! Those are facts.

Just a thought from someone who is not known for agreeing with PoolBoy

I think it is valid to note that Maris hit 1 more HR, but in a season that had 7(?)
or whatever more games than Ruth.

As for the 'steroid generation', they don't belong in the record books at all.

But, the powers-that-be of Baseball, ONLY care about self-promotion. Records,
like the Hall of Fame, are valued for their potential to stoke interest in the game
for today. Validity? Credibility? Who cares?

Dale

 

[Maxx]

Do you NOT understand that I've been working on pool tables for over 32 years now, and have owned 3 different pool rooms, and worked on thousands upon thousands of pool tables?

I'm not quite clear on that, could you say it again?

 

[KRJ]

You might be from a generation that re wrote History books. Maris did not beat Ruth's record. It may be in the book of Fairy Tails. Ruth still holds that record. You are misstating the facts. Believe what you wish. Your prerogative, but clearly not the facts as history shows them. If Maris played every game Ruth did that year he would have come up short!! Those are facts.

Fact is Maris holds the record. Who really cares? It matters not, times change, and season got longer, and thus some records get broken.

One could argue had Ruth faced the same level of pitching Maris did, he would never have hit 60 dingers in a season... thus, why it's silly to disount one record and not the other. I'm sure Babe Ruth does not care, since he's probably still the most recoginzed baseball name on the planet.

 

[Mr. Bond]

So, let me get this straight. The BCA pocket specs you quoted were only for 9ft pocket tables? Does that mean that the BCA didn't consider the 10's worth while with pocket specs, and other size pocket tables didn't matter?

Glen Glen Glen
Youre making this harder than it needs to be.

From about 1887 to 1949 the " standard table" for professional play of pocket billiards was 10ft with 4.5" corner pockets, regardless of the manufacturer.

When the BCA formed in 1948, they adopted the same standards as the association before them (the BAA) which they kept intact until the following year (1949) when they decided that the new standard for professional play would be a 9ft table with corner pockets from 4-7/8" to 5-1/8".

The rule book examples that I have provided only address the "professional standard" table because there would be no reason to dictate what amateurs should play on.

 

[realkingcobra]

Glen Glen Glen
Youre making this harder than it needs to be.

From about 1887 to 1949 the " standard table" for professional play of pocket billiards was 10ft with 4.5" corner pockets, regardless of the manufacturer.

When the BCA formed in 1948, they adopted the same standards as the association before them (the BAA) which they kept intact until the following year (1949) when they decided that the new standard for professional play would be a 9ft table with corner pockets from 4-7/8" to 5-1/8".

The rule book examples that I have provided only address the "professional standard" table because there would be no reason to dictate what amateurs should play on.

So in other words, you don't have anything from Brunswick to back up your claim?

 

[hang-the-9]

Do you NOT understand that I've been working on pool tables for over 32 years now, and have owned 3 different pool rooms, and worked on thousands upon thousands of pool tables?

That does not prevent you or anyone else from being wrong.

I know a player that has been playing for many years, has his own table, pockets balls well. He absolutely refuses to belive that slow rolling a ball makes it harder to pocket it in most cases, and we can't for the life of us get him to play position when you have to go a rail or two to get a lot better shape. He was just arguing with someone about when two frozen are hit you can stroke straight through and it not being a foul. Even after he was shown the rules. His stance is that even if 1,000 people say something to him, or he is shown the rule, it's all wrong. I said about him "if his head was cut off, he'd argue that he is not dead for another 10 minutes" to a friend in a text when he was telling me that he was refusing to belive the rules where what they were.

If the professional play was dictated to be on 4.5" pockets, why would a huge company like Brunswick not produce tables for that standard? It's like someone saying that 90 sq inches was to be the official standard for pro tennis and Prince just made 100.