Schmidt or Crane?? - best 14.1 shot in a match

[av84fun]

it was very observant of you to notice how hard that shot is.people talking about how easy it was would have to see the shot in person to realise the difficulty.it was 100 times harder than cranes not bragging its just a fact thats all. i could have easily missed it.

Possibly you could describe the shot to remove any doubt about how it actually set up.

In the diagram, the OBs are frozen and appear to be "on" so that the task was to strike the first ball merely to avoid throwing the second ball off. Props for even noticing the shot...let alone having the stones to shoot it but....

If the frozen pair was "off" and HAD to be thrown to contact the OB correctly, then the shot would have been FAR more difficult to judge.

Hundreds of trick shots rely on frozen pairs and set up "on" that shot could be made 80% of the time.


But with GREAT respect, no shot in the history of pool was "100 times" more difficult than the Crane shot...and if it was, it would have been foolish to attempt.


Regards,
Jim

 

[CueAndMe]

I looked at that original post table for a solid 2 minutes. I couldn't find a damn thing. And Willie even gave the hint about it being a 4 ball combination. Wow. Just being aware of that shot on the table is great. Playing it in that situation is either heroic or insane. Probably both.

In my opinion, it's a tougher shot, by far, than the Crane shot. Also, on Crane's shot it would have been a routine thing to inspect the rack. I think most top players would have seen it.

Also, Terry, I'd have to disagree with you about Mike Sigel's style of straight pool. I think he plays some of the safest straight pool ever. Because of his great shotmaking ability, he's willing to go for a tougher shot when faced with it out of the chair or when he hooks himself, but when he get's into running balls, you will rarely see him in trouble or with a difficult shot. I've posted about this before. He chooses shots that leave insurance balls and routes more than anyone else I've seen.

 

[ShootingArts]

shots

Willie,

I have to point out that the shot in the actual picture is considerably different than the diagram. John's shot was impressive but not the hero move it appears in the diagram. Of course in the diagram he has some far better options anyway.The six, possibly the twelve, is playable straight in and there is the potential for a lock-up safety on the bottom rail.

Both shots are impressive. Some things not mentioned about Crane's are that it took a great deal of force to transfer energy around the circle and it was a do or die shot since it was a total sell out if the ball stopped short. When all the balls are in a pile like that it is very easy to hit too softly because of poor energy transfer between some of the balls when rounding the circle.

All I can say is that I would hate to shoot either shot for all of the marbles.

Hu

 

[SmoothStroke]

Possibly you could describe the shot to remove any doubt about how it actually set up.

In the diagram, the OBs are frozen and appear to be "on" so that the task was to strike the first ball merely to avoid throwing the second ball off. Props for even noticing the shot...let alone having the stones to shoot it but....

If the frozen pair was "off" and HAD to be thrown to contact the OB correctly, then the shot would have been FAR more difficult to judge.

Hundreds of trick shots rely on frozen pairs and set up "on" that shot could be made 80% of the time.


But with GREAT respect, no shot in the history of pool was "100 times" more difficult than the Crane shot...and if it was, it would have been foolish to attempt.


Regards,
Jim

Agreed and well said...Apparantly when he took pool lessons they forgot to teach how to be humble. I am just curious on how many World Titles Mr. 40,000 holds in straight pool. Great shots are great shots,, they are made every day in all pool rooms. You can't teach a great shot and you can't teach Class. Class and humble sounds something like this. Cranes shot was great, I thank you all for even associating my name with his.
100 times harder than Cranes shot? Typical bush league poll hall mentality.
Sorry to jump on your post, it's the only one to hit the nail on the head on all ends as you did recently with a few Masters in which I was just looking for a simple yes or no.

 

[Terry Ardeno]

Also, Terry, I'd have to disagree with you about Mike Sigel's style of straight pool. I think he plays some of the safest straight pool ever. Because of his great shotmaking ability, he's willing to go for a tougher shot when faced with it out of the chair or when he hooks himself, but when he get's into running balls, you will rarely see him in trouble or with a difficult shot. I've posted about this before. He chooses shots that leave insurance balls and routes more than anyone else I've seen.

Jeff,
I think we're on the same page w/ Sigel, and I agree with your post 100%.
That was the point I was trying to make as well. Guys that are the exceptional shotmakers do play a more "daring style" of 14.1 than others.
Guys like Sigel, Mizerak & Dallas West ran the balls "the right way."

I've been a big fan of Oliver Ortmann since the 1980's. But he does not play the patterns that come up in the traditional way that the aforementioned trio would. Instead, Ortmann relies on his exceptional shotmaking to continue thru the rack. In a similar situation, Sigel has his "lock-up" safties available to him PLUS his great shotmaking skills. So, Sigel can afford to play outside his normal style more often than someone else who may not be as good at both saftey play & shotmaking.

One more point...if you ever saw some of the Ortmann 14.1 matches on Accu-Stats, especially his 1989 14.1 U.S. Open match vs Mizerak, you'll see how he seemed to "struggle thru the rack" by being out of position fairly often. Whereas if you watch Sigel or West, they seem to get thru the racks much smoother because of their tight positional play. And if push comes to shove, I think Sigel has the shotmaking ability to continue on where others would opt to play safe.

 

[Jimmy M.]

Also, on Crane's shot it would have been a routine thing to inspect the rack. I think most top players would have seen it.

I don't believe there was anything routine about that shot. Dead, yes. Routine, no.

 

[worriedbeef]

Agreed and well said...Apparantly when he took pool lessons they forgot to teach how to be humble. I am just curious on how many World Titles Mr. 40,000 holds in straight pool. Great shots are great shots,, they are made every day in all pool rooms. You can't teach a great shot and you can't teach Class. Class and humble sounds something like this. Cranes shot was great, I thank you all for even associating my name with his.
100 times harder than Cranes shot? Typical bush league poll hall mentality.
Sorry to jump on your post, it's the only one to hit the nail on the head on all ends as you did recently with a few Masters in which I was just looking for a simple yes or no.

it's not about being 'humble' at all!

all john did was have the balls to state confidently that he thinks his shot was significantly harder than the one crane played. that's not disrespectful towards crane at all! he's not saying he's a better player than crane, or a better human being than him, just that that particular shot he played was more difficult than the one crane played. which i agree with - crane's was a dead ball combo, john's required precision execution.

why do you have to try and twist the issue into something else?

 

[av84fun]

it's not about being 'humble' at all!

all john did was have the balls to state confidently that he thinks his shot was significantly harder than the one crane played. that's not disrespectful towards crane at all! he's not saying he's a better player than crane, or a better human being than him, just that that particular shot he played was more difficult than the one crane played. which i agree with - crane's was a dead ball combo, john's required precision execution.

why do you have to try and twist the issue into something else?

There was no twisting of the issues. I am sure no one here...and certainly not I...would write disrespectfully, in general, of a great champion like John.

But "100 times harder" is what John wrote and what he is stuck with...not "significantly harder" or "more difficult" as you editorialized.

Some elected to merely comment on what was obviously a gross exaggeration.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Terry Ardeno]

I am just curious on how many World Titles Mr. 40,000 holds in straight pool. Great shots are great shots,
Class and humble sounds something like this. Cranes shot was great, I thank you all for even associating my name with his.
100 times harder than Cranes shot? Typical bush league poll hall mentality.

SmoothStroke,
Thanks for defending Irving Crane. He will always be remembered as a great, great player as well as a perfect gentleman.

As for John Schmidt, personally, I think now that the 14.1 World Championship tournaments seem to be reviving, the chances are very good that he'll win some more titles before all is said and done. He can't win titles in tournaments that don't exist. I think the major difference between Crane & Schmidt is longevity, which brings a certain amount of knowledge with it.

Here is a little clip from a post I wrote the other day on Irving Crane's longevity, something that in all probability, will never be equaled....

Irving Crane won his 1st World 14.1 Championship in 1942! He was runner-up in 1937 & 1941 before he won his 6 World 14.1 Championships (1942-1946-1955-1968-1970-1972)! In other words, Irving Crane won WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS in 4 different decades and was competing in World 14.1 Championships in 6 decades (1930's - 1980's). The only other player to have ever won World Championships in pocket billiards over 4 different decades was Alfredo DeOro.
To properly put his greatness into perspective.....John Schmidt won his 14.1 World Championship in 2003. Oliver Ortmann won it in 2007. To have the consistancy and longevity that Irving Crane had, both of them must still be winning World Championships into the 2030's, when John will be in his 60's and Oliver in his 70's!
One more thing...Crane had as his contemporaries Ralph Greenleaf, Frank Taberski, Jimmy Caras, Erwin Rudolph, Willie Mosconi, Joe Balsis, Luther Lassiter, Cicero Murphy, Ed Kelly, Dallas West and Ray Martin, among others. These are only the 14.1 specialists, it doesn't count all the 9 ball greats who also entered some of the later championships.
Today, the 14.1 specialists consist of the elite John Schmidt, Oliver Ortmann, Ralf Souquet, Thomas Engert, Danny Harriman, Min Wai Chin and Thorsten Hohmann. Most of the others who enter the recently revived 14.1 World Championships are fledgling straight pool players.

My bottom line is that even though guys like Irving Crane are now out of sight, lets not keep them out of mind.

As a final point, I believe John Schmidt would have had more World Championships if there had been more tournaments in his lifetime. Since he's not played in as many as Crane and company, his knowledge and experience has to be behind Crane's. But the more he plays, the more dangerous he'll become. And he's already a "bad man" at 14.1!

 

[elvicash]

....I need more "in-between" competition (hopefully elvicash is listening).

I do not know if being an in between is a good thing or not however I must admit it is the truth at this juncture. I can beat just about any and all non players and cannot get on first base with a real player.
Woe is me - That will all change when I put down my first 41.


Back to the thread. I do not have the video but TAR does. From my recollection I do not think the last two balls were frozen, there was space and I did not have a clue as to what he was going for it looked like he was stuck.

WBM will be my witness that I also go for the occasional tough shot. I believe that combo on top of the score being evened up after Mr. DH having had the lead for most of the night changed the tenor and Mr. JS proceeded to close out the session.

 

[elvicash]

There was no twisting of the issues. I am sure no one here...and certainly not I...would write disrespectfully, in general, of a great champion like John.

But "100 times harder" is what John wrote and what he is stuck with...not "significantly harder" or "more difficult" as you editorialized.

Some elected to merely comment on what was obviously a gross exaggeration.

Regards,
Jim

Coming out on JS side of this one. If the balls are froze then they are dead it is just a matter of finding them and getting the shot started.

If you have a back cut combo to another ball that keeps cutting back to two balls close tother but not frozen and then 2 1/2 or 3 diamonds to a tight diamond pocket.

That is another thing that needs to be taken into acct Diamond table vs Gold Crown. Pockets angles are tougher and pockets openings are smaller.

I would not know about 100 times harder or 50 times harder or 63 times harder however cutting a ball to cutting another ball to a spaced out combo is tougher. IMHO FWIW

Does anybody have the TAR video (JCIN this could be an advertising oppurtunity) and could they post this as short snippet somehow along with the audio so we can all know what JS was facing and what the booth was thinking. I say it was the tougher shot but I am "in betweener" so buyer beware.

 

[jwilliams]

Agreed and well said...Apparantly when he took pool lessons they forgot to teach how to be humble. I am just curious on how many World Titles Mr. 40,000 holds in straight pool. Great shots are great shots,, they are made every day in all pool rooms. You can't teach a great shot and you can't teach Class. Class and humble sounds something like this. Cranes shot was great, I thank you all for even associating my name with his.
100 times harder than Cranes shot? Typical bush league poll hall mentality.
Sorry to jump on your post, it's the only one to hit the nail on the head on all ends as you did recently with a few Masters in which I was just looking for a simple yes or no.

Oh come on people, if everyone is really so small minded as to think John Schmidt REALLY meant it was exactly 100 times harder than Crane's then you really must be naive! I would like to see a show of hands from everybody on here who has never exagerated anything in their life to make a point, to please raise their hand. "I lost my car keys and looked for them forever until I finally found them!" (really! forever! so you're looking as we speak and will be continually looking till the end of time and yet somehow created a time paradox and found them at the same time, that's amazing!) Or how about, "I just dropped this old box of papers and there were millions of them scattered all over!" (a whole million...that should have taken weeks to pick up...especially without help. it's amazing it only took you about 5 minutes!) Get a life people! Take him for what he meant...not what he "technically" said...sheesh!

 

[punter]

Oh come on people, if everyone is really so small minded as to think John Schmidt REALLY meant it was exactly 100 times harder than Crane's then you really must be naive! I would like to see a show of hands from everybody on here who has never exagerated anything in their life to make a point, to please raise their hand. "I lost my car keys and looked for them forever until I finally found them!" (really! forever! so you're looking as we speak and will be continually looking till the end of time and yet somehow created a time paradox and found them at the same time, that's amazing!) Or how about, "I just dropped this old box of papers and there were millions of them scattered all over!" (a whole million...that should have taken weeks to pick up...especially without help. it's amazing it only took you about 5 minutes!) Get a life people! Take him for what he meant...not what he "technically" said...sheesh!

Kinda like McCain saying 100 more years.....I know...off subject.

I agree that Crane's was a "knowledge" shot, also agree with Hu that seeing these shots and knowing if you can cleanly transfer the energy thru the stack to the object ball successfully, adds to the difficulty of this shot.

Would like to hear from JS as to his thinking on his shot...did you consider safety first...details on the execution. Thanks.

 

[john schmidt]

Agreed and well said...Apparantly when he took pool lessons they forgot to teach how to be humble. I am just curious on how many World Titles Mr. 40,000 holds in straight pool. Great shots are great shots,, they are made every day in all pool rooms. You can't teach a great shot and you can't teach Class. Class and humble sounds something like this. Cranes shot was great, I thank you all for even associating my name with his.
100 times harder than Cranes shot? Typical bush league poll hall mentality.
Sorry to jump on your post, it's the only one to hit the nail on the head on all ends as you did recently with a few Masters in which I was just looking for a simple yes or no.

i take back 100 times harder.i just meant it was harder i did not think it would be taken literally.i was kind of teasing jh because he said crane shot was harder.

 

[worriedbeef]

Oh come on people, if everyone is really so small minded as to think John Schmidt REALLY meant it was exactly 100 times harder than Crane's then you really must be naive! I would like to see a show of hands from everybody on here who has never exagerated anything in their life to make a point, to please raise their hand. "I lost my car keys and looked for them forever until I finally found them!" (really! forever! so you're looking as we speak and will be continually looking till the end of time and yet somehow created a time paradox and found them at the same time, that's amazing!) Or how about, "I just dropped this old box of papers and there were millions of them scattered all over!" (a whole million...that should have taken weeks to pick up...especially without help. it's amazing it only took you about 5 minutes!) Get a life people! Take him for what he meant...not what he "technically" said...sheesh!

exactly! it was just a figure of speech.

 

[CueAndMe]

One more thing...Crane had as his contemporaries Ralph Greenleaf, Frank Taberski, Jimmy Caras, Erwin Rudolph, Willie Mosconi, Joe Balsis, Luther Lassiter, Cicero Murphy, Ed Kelly, Dallas West and Ray Martin, among others. These are only the 14.1 specialists, it doesn't count all the 9 ball greats who also entered some of the later championships.
Today, the 14.1 specialists consist of the elite John Schmidt, Oliver Ortmann, Ralf Souquet, Thomas Engert, Danny Harriman, Min Wai Chin and Thorsten Hohmann. Most of the others who enter the recently revived 14.1 World Championships are fledgling straight pool players.

One thing that bugs me is the lack of video of those great 14.1 era players. Besides the Crane 150 and out run against Balsis, which wasn't as smooth as silk, I've yet to see a display of the alleged 14.1 superiority of those older fellas. Also, I believev they played a lot of matches to 125. That says to me that they weren't consistent 100 ball runners. I look at some of the young players who don't play 14.1 that much and they run balls like crazy. Maybe it's the better equipment, but some of the sloppiness I've seen in the few older videos available just doesn't seem to happen with the players of today. I think it's due to sharp shotmaking becoming such a priority.

By the way, let me strongly endorse John Schmidt's new DVD if you want a truly great 14.1 instructional. He goes through a run of about 170 balls discussing his thoughts with a microphone on him the whole way around. Excellent. It and Rempe's Accustats video of how he runs racks are absolute must haves.

 

[av84fun]

With all due respect to my heroes of the past, I tend to agree with you. While there are not too many films of the matches back in the day, there are numerous newspaper and magazine stories that gave blow by blow accounts of the matches.

What has surprised me a lot about such stories, is the number of innings it typically took to complete a match to 125-50.

15+ inninges (each...and sometimes double that amount) and average runs of 25-40 were commonplace.

After several innings of jockeying after the initial safety break, there are only two reasons for not running out...

1. Missing a shot (or a position play)...which those guys didn't do very often or
2. Bad rolls where the cluster breaks didn't yield a makable shot...or unintentional ball contact screwed things up etc.

The latter suggests what I have argued for a long time which is that there is MUCH more of a "luck factor" in 14.1 than many believe.

Mosconi ran out from his first pack break opportunity only about 10% of the time and that percentage was much higher than his peers back in the day.

No disrespect for the game I grew up on...I'm just sayin'.

Regards,
Jim

One thing that bugs me is the lack of video of those great 14.1 era players. Besides the Crane 150 and out run against Balsis, which wasn't as smooth as silk, I've yet to see a display of the alleged 14.1 superiority of those older fellas. Also, I believev they played a lot of matches to 125. That says to me that they weren't consistent 100 ball runners. I look at some of the young players who don't play 14.1 that much and they run balls like crazy. Maybe it's the better equipment, but some of the sloppiness I've seen in the few older videos available just doesn't seem to happen with the players of today. I think it's due to sharp shotmaking becoming such a priority.

By the way, let me strongly endorse John Schmidt's new DVD if you want a truly great 14.1 instructional. He goes through a run of about 170 balls discussing his thoughts with a microphone on him the whole way around. Excellent. It and Rempe's Accustats video of how he runs racks are absolute must haves.

 

[Terry Ardeno]

With all due respect to my heroes of the past, I tend to agree with you. While there are not too many films of the matches back in the day, there are numerous newspaper and magazine stories that gave blow by blow accounts of the matches.

What has surprised me a lot about such stories, is the number of innings it typically took to complete a match to 125-50.

15+ inninges (each...and sometimes double that amount) and average runs of 25-40 were commonplace.

After several innings of jockeying after the initial safety break, there are only two reasons for not running out...

1. Missing a shot (or a position play)...which those guys didn't do very often or
2. Bad rolls where the cluster breaks didn't yield a makable shot...or unintentional ball contact screwed things up etc.

The latter suggests what I have argued for a long time which is that there is MUCH more of a "luck factor" in 14.1 than many believe.

Mosconi ran out from his first pack break opportunity only about 10% of the time and that percentage was much higher than his peers back in the day.

No disrespect for the game I grew up on...I'm just sayin'.

Regards,
Jim

Jim,
That was a very insightful post. Thought provoking as well.

Let me interject something about balls per inning. I keep pool stats as a hobby and your post prompted me to check some of the modern stats.

In the 1978 PPPA World 14.1 Championship, Ray Martin won 1st place. His high run for the tournament was 99. His points scored were 1100 in 106 innings. That's a BPI average of 10.38.
2nd place was Allen Hopkins, who had an 8-2 match record. He scored 1373 balls in 191 innings for a BPI average of 7.19.
The highest BPI average for this tournament was Mizerak, in 3rd place with 849 balls in 61 innings, which is a 13.92 BPI average.

In the 1979 PPPA World 14.1 Championship, Sigel won with a record of 8-1. He made 1210 balls in 97 innings, for a BPI average of 12.47. Joe Balsis was 2nd place, with 1451 balls in 112 innings, for a BPI average of 12.96.

I think players of yore played a more traditional, conservative style compared to the more daring style popular with todays inexperienced players who are used to taking the tough shots that arise in 9 ball, for example.

Anyway, I'm very much enjoying these type of threads.

 

[bagofpaper]

With all due respect to my heroes of the past, I tend to agree with you. While there are not too many films of the matches back in the day, there are numerous newspaper and magazine stories that gave blow by blow accounts of the matches.

What has surprised me a lot about such stories, is the number of innings it typically took to complete a match to 125-50.

15+ inninges (each...and sometimes double that amount) and average runs of 25-40 were commonplace.

After several innings of jockeying after the initial safety break, there are only two reasons for not running out...

1. Missing a shot (or a position play)...which those guys didn't do very often or
2. Bad rolls where the cluster breaks didn't yield a makable shot...or unintentional ball contact screwed things up etc.

The latter suggests what I have argued for a long time which is that there is MUCH more of a "luck factor" in 14.1 than many believe.

Mosconi ran out from his first pack break opportunity only about 10% of the time and that percentage was much higher than his peers back in the day.

No disrespect for the game I grew up on...I'm just sayin'.

Regards,
Jim

And don't forget the difference in equipment.. especially the cloth.. the balls open much easier on break shots today than they would decades ago. That's why older straight pool players had a more conservative approach to breaking the balls.. they didn't want to get stuck in the pack. I've watched videos of Ray Martin and 95% of the time he'll break out say 5 to 8 balls with a 10 to 7 ball cluster in the middle.. it was too risky to try and open em all up. Today the top straight pool players will exclusively fire into the pack on the break shot unless they have a really bad angle. The balls spread wide open or many times open with few problems giving them a huge advantage to running more balls in a single inning. The drawback is the possibility of scratching but I'm guessing that it's not such a drawback since these guys today have no trouble running a 100 balls and hitting the break shot with speed.

 

[av84fun]

Jim,
That was a very insightful post. Thought provoking as well.

Let me interject something about balls per inning. I keep pool stats as a hobby and your post prompted me to check some of the modern stats.

In the 1978 PPPA World 14.1 Championship, Ray Martin won 1st place. His high run for the tournament was 99. His points scored were 1100 in 106 innings. That's a BPI average of 10.38.
2nd place was Allen Hopkins, who had an 8-2 match record. He scored 1373 balls in 191 innings for a BPI average of 7.19.
The highest BPI average for this tournament was Mizerak, in 3rd place with 849 balls in 61 innings, which is a 13.92 BPI average.

In the 1979 PPPA World 14.1 Championship, Sigel won with a record of 8-1. He made 1210 balls in 97 innings, for a BPI average of 12.47. Joe Balsis was 2nd place, with 1451 balls in 112 innings, for a BPI average of 12.96.

I think players of yore played a more traditional, conservative style compared to the more daring style popular with todays inexperienced players who are used to taking the tough shots that arise in 9 ball, for example.

Anyway, I'm very much enjoying these type of threads.

Terry, the BPI is misleading since it includes the shots after the opening break where quite often, several innings are played before either shooter even tries to pocket a ball.

A more realistic way to meaure would be to count innings aftet the first ball has been pocketed. But even then it can be misleading since sometimes there is one shot available but no break out opportunity so the player pockets the ball then plays safe.

Probably the best way to judge average runs would be to start counting after, say 5 balls have been pocketed but I doubt that such stats would be readily available.

Regards,
Jim