Straight Pool Record Challenge

[Williebetmore]

It just seems like nobody is in any position to know this or even have a reasonably good idea.

...In pool it seems that the only reliable way to tell what someone is capable of is by what they have actually accomplished. Anything else is far too speculative just because of the nature of the game of pool.

Tak-man,
I guess I will definitely have to disagree with this.

The players in the first half of this century played straight pool almost exclusively for their whole lives. The fans that hung around them watched straight pool almost exclusively for their whole lives. It's like asking a current fan or player the question, "do you think Earl could run 11 racks of nine-ball in a row?" While the answer is speculative in nature, I do not believe that it is "far too speculative." The people "speculating" are the experts and true students of the game. I value their opinion (if Irving Crane told me that black was white, I would probably still tend to believe him - he had character).

I think sjm has hit the nail on the head - there was virtually no incentive for these men to engage in "record-setting" attempts.

I also would be in favor of ANY venture that would encourage the best players in the world to return to playing the true championship game.

 

[sjm]

Just what do you mean when you say that these people are "capable" of a 1000 ball run?

First of all, I don't think physical conditioning is an issue here and I don't think maintaining concentration for the seven hours such a run would likely take is a far stretch for any of the players I noted.

Hence, what I mean is that if a player's probability of running a rack, beginning with a breakshot, and ending with a breakshot, is x, then the likelihood of running the 72 racks needed to pass 1,000 is x to the 72 power.

I'm guessing that only the cream of the straight pool crop have an x of greater than 75%. Unfortunately, if their x is just 75%, they are a 1 billion to one shot in a given inning to run over 1,000. A very strong straight pooler like a Dick Lane, Jim Rempe or Jimmy Caras, for example, probably has an x of 80%, but even that would make them a 9.5 million to one shot to run 1,000 on any inning.

I reckon only a handful that ever lived had an x of .85, perhaps just Mosconi, Greenleaf, Cranfield, Sigel, Varner, and Balsis, and a player having an x of 85% can expect to run 1,000 roughly once every 120,000 innings. Hence, I'd conclude that a 1,000 ball run is possible for this group, if players in this category focused chiefly on reaching this goal. I suspect that, of today's players, only Hohmann, Engert, Schmidt, and maybe Feijen are capable of sustained play at this level, and each, I suspect would have to dedicate thier lives to straight pool to attain that level of play.

............That's what I mean.

Still, Takumi, you are right in suggesting that there are enough intangibles involved here that who really knows whether this accomplishment is realistic?

 

[Takumi4G63]

Tak-man,
I guess I will definitely have to disagree with this.

The players in the first half of this century played straight pool almost exclusively for their whole lives. The fans that hung around them watched straight pool almost exclusively for their whole lives. It's like asking a current fan or player the question, "do you think Earl could run 11 racks of nine-ball in a row?" While the answer is speculative in nature, I do not believe that it is "far too speculative." The people "speculating" are the experts and true students of the game. I value their opinion (if Irving Crane told me that black was white, I would probably still tend to believe him - he had character).

You seem to misunderstand my problem. For one, Earl has run 11 racks so that is a bit different question. While it seems on the face of it a very understandable question to ask if player X is capable of running XXX balls, I really don't know how to answer any question of this type unless they have actually ran the said number of balls (but even then the answer is not obvious). Ask yourself if you think you are capable of running a 10-pack in 9-ball and it seems clear (unless you've run a 10-pack) that there's no good way to answer this question because (1) you do not know how your mental game will develop as you go and (2) you do not know if you will ever get enough rolls to run it. (and this goes for any player)

It is not a problem with what a person is capable of doing per se (of course it may be that Sigel was capable of a 1000 ball run), but with what we can know about what a person is capable of doing. It seems because of the nature of the game of pool we cannot know (or even have a really good idea) much of what a person is capable of until they have reached the point of, for example, running 500 balls. But even then they may never in their life get decent enough rolls to make another run that big. Are they then not capable of a 500 ball run? See why this is not the clearest question in the world?

I am not against speculating about this but thinking that all these guys were capable of running 1000 balls seems dogmatic for the reasons I gave. I did not mean to say we can't even speculate about what it would take to do this. I just think we necessarily will always have very poor reasons for thinking anyone would be capable of running 1000 balls, especially if they have not even gotten close.

 

[Takumi4G63]

First of all, I don't think physical conditioning is an issue here and I don't think maintaining concentration for the seven hours such a run would likely take is a far stretch for any of the players I noted.

How do you have any idea what it takes to concentrate on one straight pool run for 7 hours? That is a whole different ball game than just practicing for 7 hours. Anyone who plays straight pool knows it's very mentally taxing just playing straight for 7 hours even not on any kind of continous run. And for the noted players, one of them, Mike Sigel, said he could not even understand how anyone could concentrate long enough for a 526 ball run. Also, Earl said he was absolutely exhausted after his 400 ball run and he could not fathom running much more (one reason I mentioned physical conditioning)

Hence, what I mean is that if a player's probability of running a rack, beginning with a breakshot, and ending with a breakshot, is x, then the likelihood of running the 72 racks needed to pass 1,000 is x to the 72 power.

I'm guessing that only the cream of the straight pool crop have an x of greater than 75%. Unfortunately, if their x is just 75%, they are a 1 billion to one shot in a given inning to run over 1,000. A very strong straight pooler like a Dick Lane, Jim Rempe or Jimmy Caras, for example, probably has an x of 80%, but even that would make them a 9.5 million to one shot to run 1,000 on any inning.

I reckon only a handful that ever lived had an x of .85, perhaps just Mosconi, Greenleaf, Cranfield, Sigel, Varner, and Balsis, and a player having an x of 85% can expect to run 1,000 roughly once every 120,000 innings. Hence, I'd conclude that a 1,000 ball run is possible for this group, if players in this category focused chiefly on reaching this goal. I suspect that, of today's players, only Hohmann, Engert, Schmidt, and maybe Feijen are capable of sustained play at this level, and each, I suspect would have to dedicate thier lives to straight pool to attain that level of play.

............That's what I mean.

The biggest problem I have with this is that a calculation like this cannot really tell you that any of these players are capable of running 1000 or that they would ever run 1000. It is simply an induction from statistics, but again who knows if any of these players would ever get enough rolls to run 1000 in their lifetime or that they would be able to maintain concentration that long?

Still, Takumi, you are right in suggesting that there are enough intangibles involved here that who really knows whether this accomplishment is realistic?

And who really knows whether anyone is capable of it? - is what I say.

 

[StraightPoolIU]

Not to be a wet blanket, but debating whether or not someone is capable of running 1,000 seems to be somewhat of a moot point. To break the "official" high run and win the prize for said contest the player would only have to run 527.

 

[Williebetmore]

Not to be a wet blanket, but debating whether or not someone is capable of running 1,000 seems to be somewhat of a moot point. To break the "official" high run and win the prize for said contest the player would only have to run 527.

SP,
Very true. In addition, I think Tak-man may have missed the point that all of those players I've mentioned were reported to have been observed running in the 600-700-800 range (but didn't care enough about it to count, or get official witnesses sworn in - and while I doubt that all of these reports are accurate, there are so many that some of these guys must have exceeded at least the 600 level IMO). TheOne came up with the 1000 figure as a joke; but there appear to be many that think that even that level was reachable (not probably by me though).

 

[ghostball]

I could not agree more,maybe if we let pool just be as it really is it may it may go somewhere,whats the worst that can happen be the same as it is right know. Go BLACKJACK.
RAY

 

[nick serdula]

Ralph Greenleaf

Had runs over 1200 and 1000!
Merry Christmas all!
Nick

 

[iba7467]

Would anyone bet that they would ever see 27 racks of 9ball ran in a row?
No
Has it been done and confirmed?
Yes

Would anyone bet they would ever see 700 ran in straight pool?
No
Has it been done and confirmed?
No


I believe there was gambling/grudge/challenge matches in the past where players played to well over 250/500. Was there ever a run this high? Only Willie's and Eufemia's 625. How can someone say, I believe they ran 700. I dare any of you to watch an assembly line (much less time elapsed) and tell me with certainty whether 500 or 600 or 700 had passed.

As with the most successive 9ball racks ran, I believe if it is possible it would have been done.