Statement from The Legends of Pocket Billiards

[stevelomako]

The Legends of Pocket Billiards representatives never asked for any input from AZB members, of any status, prior
to posting their intentions for hi-run 14.1 competitions.
The representatives and their chosen spokespersons owe no one on AZB zilch, zero, nada, nothing.
Anyone that just has to moan and groan about a completely free edition, should just run out into the woods by yourself and raise all the commotion that you need to, to satisfy your selfish one-upmanship desires.
Bring on the next, free video edition.

Don’t you know sweaters have right too?

 

[PoolPlayer4]

Were the exact pocket specs of the table Mosconi ran 526 on made public knowledge?

The dude ran SEVEN HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN balls. Y'all are making it sound like Shaw can't play a lick and the only reason he ran that many balls is because no one knows the down angle of the pocket. Ninety five percent of the folks nit picking the specs probably couldn't run 70 on that table.

Give it a rest already. Stop channeling your inner Danny Harriman.

You don't seem to get it. The request for table specs has nothing to do with Mosconi. It has nothing to do with Schmidt. It has nothing to do with the credibility of Jayson's run. It's about future runs, not past runs.

We've asked that the table specs be published and verified so anyone who wants to make an attempt to beat 714 can do so under the same conditions of Jayson's run.

 

[rexus31]

Well. This makes so much sense to me. Look, Mosconi played on the tables that were representative of the tables in many, many rooms in the 1950s. So why should not today's pros have enough confidence in their ball pocketing ability to just use the tables that are dominant for today's competition. The idea of going for high run records to " beat" Mosconi, by using table specs non- standard to today's most common competitive tables was started not with the most recent attempts that included Jason Shaw; but apparently by the person who claimed the 626 high run prior to the 714 run.

For any modern sports person who has access today to all sorts of training, equipment, shared knowledge, etc. etc. that sports greats from many years ago never experienced, yet still want to deviate WAY BACK to selected forms of "easier"competitive situations in order to "break" long standing records is just absurd and has no standing in my own personal judgement as far as measuring superiority.

Yes the achievements of 626 or 714 are superb, from any angle, but let's stop all this absurdity now and get these guys on Diamond pros to see what the true modern day 14.1 Hi-Run record will be- not some made up B.S.

Brand new Gold Crowns still come with 5"+ pockets and the table Mosconi ran 526 on was not representative of the equipment being used for competitive play.

 

[justadub]

Thank you.

His being so insistent on pocket facing angle measurements has become ridiculous.

Unless he can tell me Mosconi’s table pocket facing angle measurements and Schmidt’s pocket facing angle measurements, pushing for the measurements of the table that Jayson played on is inconsequential.

If he wants to compare apples to apples, let him.

The issue at hand is the fact that the primary folks involved in the Legends event(s) were heavily involved in the questioning of Schmidts table, sometime to the point of ridiculousness. (Shaved slate?) Schmidts run was completely disparaged by them, with multiple plea's for transparency, and then get all cranky the same arguments are played back against their event. To many who have been around here on AZB forums for any length of time, its very apparent that Schmidt achieving the record stuck in the craw of the Legends folks.

That's the crux of the forum furor. Which doesn't amount to a hill of beans, Shaw (and Schmidt) had an amazing run. The real world was thrilled by both. And the Legends event was a lot of fun to view, when I could. Despite its underlying mission... I hope that they do indeed continue, and we see more of todays top players take a whack at it.

The forum stuff is simply amusing to watch play out. Some things will never change. Same with some people.

 

[rexus31]

You don't seem to get it. The request for table specs has nothing to do with Mosconi. It has nothing to do with Schmidt. It has nothing to do with the credibility of Jayson's run. It's about future runs, not past runs.

We've asked that the table specs be published and verified so anyone who wants to make an attempt to beat 714 can do so under the same conditions of Jayson's run.

No, I get it but why all of a sudden do we need to now start standardizing the pocket specs for "official" high run tables?

 

[lfigueroa]

to be civil. to establish a true record you have to be completely transparent. other wise it is just a great feat that cant be compared to by another entrant as he cant play under the same conditions, or even know what they are.

the 714 balls were run into pockets on a pool table that is about all that can be considered for a record. and it is a record for that.
not a record that was set under transparent conditions with the public and or independent observers present playing under standard conditions that can be duplicated by others..

lou's reply to this will be:

you are just another whinny person that cant accept reality and are looking to nit pick anything that is done.

No -- you are absolutely wrong.

My reply is: let's wait and see what the BCA says.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Well. This makes so much sense to me. Look, Mosconi played on the tables that were representative of the tables in many, many rooms in the 1950s. So why should not today's pros have enough confidence in their ball pocketing ability to just use the tables that are dominant for today's competition. The idea of going for high run records to " beat" Mosconi, by using table specs non- standard to today's most common competitive tables was started not with the most recent attempts that included Jason Shaw; but apparently by the person who claimed the 626 high run prior to the 714 run.

For any modern sports person who has access today to all sorts of training, equipment, shared knowledge, etc. etc. that sports greats from many years ago never experienced, yet still want to deviate WAY BACK to selected forms of "easier"competitive situations in order to "break" long standing records is just absurd and has no standing in my own personal judgement as far as measuring superiority.

Yes the achievements of 626 or 714 are superb, from any angle, but let's stop all this absurdity now and get these guys on Diamond pros to see what the true modern day 14.1 Hi-Run record will be- not some made up B.S.

Playing on Diamonds happened for several years at the DCC 14.1 event and, at least to me, it was clear that the specs on those tables made it pretty much impossible to even begin to approach Mosconi's record.

To take on that record you need to try and reproduce his conditions, to a reasonable extent, or it never happens. John Schmidt took that into consideration in his attempts, as did we.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

You don't seem to get it. The request for table specs has nothing to do with Mosconi. It has nothing to do with Schmidt. It has nothing to do with the credibility of Jayson's run. It's about future runs, not past runs.

We've asked that the table specs be published and verified so anyone who wants to make an attempt to beat 714 can do so under the same conditions of Jayson's run.

I actually don't think you need to worry so much about all that.

IMO, the BCA is aware that 14.1 high runs are a thing now, at least for the moment. So It would not surprise me at all if they came out with some guidance on these kinds of attempts for the future.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

The issue at hand is the fact that the primary folks involved in the Legends event(s) were heavily involved in the questioning of Schmidts table, sometime to the point of ridiculousness. (Shaved slate?) Schmidts run was completely disparaged by them, with multiple plea's for transparency, and then get all cranky the same arguments are played back against their event. To many who have been around here on AZB forums for any length of time, its very apparent that Schmidt achieving the record stuck in the craw of the Legends folks.

That's the crux of the forum furor. Which doesn't amount to a hill of beans, Shaw (and Schmidt) had an amazing run. The real world was thrilled by both. And the Legends event was a lot of fun to view, when I could. Despite its underlying mission... I hope that they do indeed continue, and we see more of todays top players take a whack at it.

The forum stuff is simply amusing to watch play out. Some things will never change. Same with some people.

Totally inaccurate and I challenge you to show where we were "heavily involved in questioning Schmidt's table."

Lou Figueroa

 

[mikemosconi]

Brand new Gold Crowns still come with 5"+ pockets and the table Mosconi ran 526 on was not representative of the equipment being used for competitive play.

When is the last time you saw a major tournament use Gold Crowns?? They use Diamond pro cuts- you want to give them 8 foot oversized Diamond pro cuts- fine with me! Gold Crowns are not today's tournament standard, can you understand the WHOLE body of what I wrote- you just picked out one point. This is NOT about Mosconi or his 526 anymore is it- no, to me, it is about the modern day pro player showing what they can do on today's competitive equipment.

I mean, we already know that there are several players today that can probably pocket 1,000 consecutive balls on 5 1/8 pockets - we already know that - it is a given- who are we all kidding here?

 

[justadub]

Totally inaccurate and I challenge you to show where we were "heavily involved in questioning Schmidt's table."

Lou Figueroa

I am not going to waste my time (and yours) by trying to dig thru thousands of pages that have been written since then. And you know that I won't do it, too, else you wouldn't suggest it

I do know that you and Bobby were both involved in the discussion, to varying degrees. And I'm quite sure that others here will remember it too.

I also know that both of you have an axe to grind with Schmidt, as he does with you. Which is where the amusement comes in. Not taking sides, on who is right and who isn't, in the saga and conflict.

 

[rexus31]

When is the last time you saw a major tournament use Gold Crowns?? They use Diamond pro cuts- you want to give them 8 foot oversized Diamond pro cuts- fine with me! Gold Crowns are not today's tournament standard, can you understand the WHOLE body of what I wrote- you just picked out one point. This is NOT about Mosconi or his 526 anymore is it- no, to me, it is about the modern day pro player showing what they can do on today's competitive equipment.

I mean, we already know that there are several players today that can probably pocket 1,000 consecutive balls on 5 1/8 pockets - we already know that - it is a given- who are we all kidding here?

I don't think you understand. 14.1 tournaments in the 40's and 50's weren't played on 8' tables like Mosconi ran 526 on. They were actually played on 10' tables.

 

[lfigueroa]

When is the last time you saw a major tournament use Gold Crowns?? They use Diamond pro cuts- you want to give them 8 foot oversized Diamond pro cuts- fine with me! Gold Crowns are not today's tournament standard, can you understand the WHOLE body of what I wrote- you just picked out one point. This is NOT about Mosconi or his 526 anymore is it- no, to me, it is about the modern day pro player showing what they can do on today's competitive equipment.

I mean, we already know that there are several players today that can probably pocket 1,000 consecutive balls on 5 1/8 pockets - we already know that - it is a given- who are we all kidding here?

But it hasn't actually been done and recorded and submitted to the BCA.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

I am not going to waste my time (and yours) by trying to dig thru thousands of pages that have been written since then. And you know that I won't do it, too, else you wouldn't suggest it

I do know that you and Bobby were both involved in the discussion, to varying degrees. And I'm quite sure that others here will remember it too.

I also know that both of you have an axe to grind with Schmidt, as he does with you. Which is where the amusement comes in. Not taking sides, on who is right and who isn't, in the saga and conflict.

Of course -- that's the standard answer now when someone mades a totally false and ludicrous statement, so you don't know shee-at.

And again: show me where either of us has "an axe to grind with Schmidt." Oh, that's right -- too much trouble for you to back up your libelous statements.

Lou Figueroa

 

[mikemosconi]

Playing on Diamonds happened for several years at the DCC 14.1 event and, at least to me, it was clear that the specs on those tables made it pretty much impossible to even begin to approach Mosconi's record.

To take on that record you need to try and reproduce his conditions, to a reasonable extent, or it never happens. John Schmidt took that into consideration in his attempts, as did we.

Lou Figueroa

Thanks! my exact point! Then we all admit the modern player probably cannot run 526 on modern competitive tournament tables. Like someone else said earlier, we should have left the old record at just that- 526 and then, now, we should have started this whole thing over again on the Diamond pro cuts and see what that record would end up.

Having ALL the advantages of every other aspect today- cues, cloth, balls, training, internet, video training, etc. etc. BUT insisting on picking out something like pocket size from 60 or 70 years ago. - cheapness the whole thing IMO.

 

[stevelomako]

what is a sqweaters. r u the group spoker?

Squeakers I am not spook person too talk two

 

[lfigueroa]

Thanks! my exact point! Then we all admit the modern player probably cannot run 526 on modern competitive tournament tables. Like someone else said earlier, we should have left the old record at just that- 526 and then, now, we should have started this whole thing over again on the Diamond pro cuts and see what that record would end up.

Having ALL the advantages of every other aspect today- cues, cloth, balls, training, internet, video training, etc. etc. BUT insisting on picking out something like pocket size from 60 or 70 years ago. - cheapness the whole thing IMO.

I respectfully disagreed.

The number is the number and if you're willing to give modern day players the opportunity to run balls on equipment similar to what Mosconi and other giants of that era played and set records on it is totally legit.

Lou Figueroa

 

[justadub]

Of course -- that's the standard answer now when someone mades a totally false and ludicrous statement, so you don't know shee-at.

And again: show me where either of us has "an axe to grind with Schmidt." Oh, that's right -- too much trouble for you to back up your libelous statements.

Lou Figueroa

I shall reply in the fashion of the great AZB forum master....

Maybe you did, and maybe you didn't.

After all, that was supposed to be a valid response for many, many months.

Libelous, that's rich, heh heh.

 

[rexus31]

Thanks! my exact point! Then we all admit the modern player probably cannot run 526 on modern competitive tournament tables. Like someone else said earlier, we should have left the old record at just that- 526 and then, now, we should have started this whole thing over again on the Diamond pro cuts and see what that record would end up.

Having ALL the advantages of every other aspect today- cues, cloth, balls, training, internet, video training, etc. etc. BUT insisting on picking out something like pocket size from 60 or 70 years ago. - cheapness the whole thing IMO.

Mosconi did not run 526 on a tournament spec table of the day so why should today’s players be expected to?

 

[PoolPlayer4]

I actually don't think you need to worry so much about all that.

IMO, the BCA is aware that 14.1 high runs are a thing now, at least for the moment. So It would not surprise me at all if they came out with some guidance on these kinds of attempts for the future.

Lou Figueroa

I'll dump your assurances about the lack of need to worry in the pile (er mountain) with your other deflections and dissembling.

Transparency. Publish the full table specs so that anyone who wants to attempt to beat 714 can do so under the same conditions as Jayson made his run.