SVB runs a 305 in straight pool

[2strong4u]

I'm no expert but I would think slower cloth that is well maintained would be an advantage in 14.1. The huge stroke shots that benefit the most from Simonis not being as big a factor in this game. I would think the slower cloth would make it easier to be more precise in your positioning.

Can anyone tell me why Simonis is an advantage in 14.1 other than the fact that modern day players are familiar with it?

The main difference is that modern balls on modern cloth seperate more easily when the pack is bumped. Back in the day they were more cluster, more play hitting wired combos out of the pack. True a very different game.

There's no way to say Mosconi would do better with modern contitions. He was well suited to the conditions of his time. Same can be said of today's players, they might not have thrived in old conditions.

 

[flyvirginiaguy]

The main difference is that modern balls on modern cloth seperate more easily when the pack is bumped. Back in the day they were more cluster...

I would not bother. Some here can't really understand simple sentences such as these.

 

[Blue Hog ridr]

Thats way cool. I may be able to run a 5 or 7 on a good day.

That means Shane has me by 300. Give me another 30 years, I might be able to catch him.

Good stuff for Shane as usual.

I bet that the little bugger could out Ice Fish me too. Cause I know that is close to his second favorite Sport.

 

[pt109]

The old Brunswick Monarch cushions did not have as much bounce ?
Didn't those last for decades and still played great ? Lots of people swore by them. Same with the Manhattan cushions by AMF.

I bet that the little bugger could out Ice Fish me too. Cause I know that is close to his second favorite Sport.

He's caught a lotta fish at both sports.....
...has a lot to do with his drills.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I think way to many people take WAY WAY WAY too much liberty in stating their opinion that Shane, or any other top pro, would easily beat 526 if there was a real monetary motivation.

Mosconi ran it in 1954. For the 50 yrs prior, and for at least 35 yrs after, straight pool was the main game.

In all those years, 85 at least, no one ran more than 526 (save for the unverified runs of 600s and possibly 800s).

Do you really think Shane, or Efren, or Schmidt, or Thorsten have more talent and work ethic than Mosconi did? They are all top pros. To say that they could beat 526 in a month, a year, perhaps even a lifetime, is ludicrous.

Siegel, Rempe, Fusco, Hall, Grady, Hopkins, none of those guys got close. And they played on both the old and the new cloths, again, when 14.1 was the main game

 

[prad]

It just amazes me that a lot of people don't give proper respect to today's players. Running 300+ balls is no joke. It is an impressive run so kudos to SVB.

I don't understand when people try to compare Mosconi to today's players, that was a different era. No doubt he is one of the greats but that does not mean that players today are any lesser of a player than him.
Having said that it going to be tough to break Mosconi's high run is straight pool anytime soon because :-
1). Straight pool itself is not very popular now, I have seen more one pocket matches on online stream than straight pool. Lot of players don't play straight pool that often in a tournament setting.
2). No pro player today can money just by playing straight pool, so why spent time trying to practice it ? (Which Mosconi did, lot of people know Mosconi never got into action playing onepocket or any rotation game). Straight pool was his game.
4). Table conditions, equipment has changed a lot.

IMO it is not fair to compare today's players and their skills to an era of players that are long gone. It was a totally different time and players had a different mindset.

P.S - I do realize that people are always going to compare the records and that has nothing to do with pool. It is just the nature of sports. If you got some time look up Sir Don Bradman and what he accomplished in his sport. Every one agrees that Don's record is almost impossible to beat but they don't bash or degrade current cricket players which a lot of people seem to do when it comes to our sport (billiards). I think the reason is because every tom dick n harry thinks that they could be as good as any pro player today if they had time to practice. So, they find comfort in saying that SVB is not great, in fact he is an average pro if you take his break out, and stating that current pro players have never broken Mosconi's record gives these people more justification to their egotistical BS.

I think way to many people take WAY WAY WAY too much liberty in stating their opinion that Shane, or any other top pro, would easily beat 526 if there was a real monetary motivation.

Mosconi ran it in 1954. For the 50 yrs prior, and for at least 35 yrs after, straight pool was the main game.

In all those years, 85 at least, no one ran more than 526 (save for the unverified runs of 600s and possibly 800s).

Do you really think Shane, or Efren, or Schmidt, or Thorsten have more talent and work ethic than Mosconi did? They are all top pros. To say that they could beat 526 in a month, a year, perhaps even a lifetime, is ludicrous.

Siegel, Rempe, Fusco, Hall, Grady, Hopkins, none of those guys got close. And they played on both the old and the new cloths, again, when 14.1 was the main game

 

[lfigueroa]

I think way to many people take WAY WAY WAY too much liberty in stating their opinion that Shane, or any other top pro, would easily beat 526 if there was a real monetary motivation.

Mosconi ran it in 1954. For the 50 yrs prior, and for at least 35 yrs after, straight pool was the main game.

In all those years, 85 at least, no one ran more than 526 (save for the unverified runs of 600s and possibly 800s).

Do you really think Shane, or Efren, or Schmidt, or Thorsten have more talent and work ethic than Mosconi did? They are all top pros. To say that they could beat 526 in a month, a year, perhaps even a lifetime, is ludicrous.

Siegel, Rempe, Fusco, Hall, Grady, Hopkins, none of those guys got close. And they played on both the old and the new cloths, again, when 14.1 was the main game

I'd have to agree with most of what you said. Everyone always says (fill in the name of your favorite player) could, would, should break Mosconi's record.

And here it still stands after all these years.

To paraphrase Jay in another thread: The best response is to just bust the record. Otherwise, it's nothing more than the same old yada yada yada. 305 is, no doubt, a fabulous run. But as most 14.1 aficionados will tell you, there is a huge gulf between running 300 and 400. Between 300 and 500 -- think Grand Canyon.

Mosconi was a savant, a one-of-kind, the 500-year flood when it came to straight pool. There will probably never be another regardless of the record. There are the 15 world titles, for one of which he had 50 runs of 100 or more in 224 games. Then there was the fact that for years, every night, he'd walk into a strange pool room, take a couple of warm up racks and then play the local champ. Without fail, within an inning or two he'd run 100, then do some trick shots, and move on to the next town. I often wonder what "the run" would have been if each night he hadn't stopped at 100.

And, for anyone who thinks Mosconi would have had trouble on Diamonds, I'll quote another player who recently said, "Most of you probingly (sic) don't know but Mosconi used to play on a 5X10 with 4" pockets called "Bertha the Box" in Philly." So it's more than likely Mosconi could handle 4.5" pockets, with todays nice balls that open up so easy, and quick Simonis cloth. Instead of 600, he might have run 1000, and then gone to dinner with Charlie Ursitti.

Lou Figueroa

 

[TheMarsMan]

All I know is I would bet that most players (myself included) could run more balls on an 8' table with 5" pockets and slow good cloth then they could on a 9' table with 4.5" pockets with fast cloth.

You can do so much more with position if you can cheat the pocket, with 5" pockets even if you get straight in you can get to just about anywhere on the table. As the pockets get tighter it takes away a lot of options when you are straight in or on the wrong side of a ball.

I understand that your break shot won't separate the rack as much but I have watched straight pool matches on slower cloth and the balls break up just fine if you hit the stack well.

Lots more "dead" balls in the stack when the pockets are bigger also being able to cheat the pockets allow you to come back into the stack to break other balls loose.

I know I will never be able to make big runs on any table, but I feel I could make bigger runs on a smaller table with big pockets and slow cloth. I am not planning on spending the money to prove my point though!

 

[Str8PoolPlayer]

What Lou said.

 

[driven]

I am not speaking of equipment in general. John complained the most about the cloth, not that he was playing on a Diamond, or ridiculous pockets. 95% of the shots in straight pool, if played correctly, are 4' or less so, as I have already said, it does not matter as much in straight pool on the pocket size as it does the cloth. Slow cloth is a huge thing to overcome in getting huge high runs like that. Try it. Is it really that difficult to understand? And if someone today run 600 on Simonis, that is a great and awesome feat, but not as tough as 526 on slow cloth.

But 300 is a long long way from 526 so it don't matter here in this thread.

Yes, John did complain about the cloth, but also mentioned the tight pockets.
And yes, 95 percent of the shots are short, most into the two corner pockets.

What I believe, and what some might not, is that given the knowledge to play the game the way John or Mike can, shot selection, patterns, etc.
the game becomes a shotmakers game plain and simple.

By your numbers 5 percent of the shots are not short four footers.
for todays best players.
five times every hundred balls a guy must make a missable shot,
ten every two hundred. do the math.

if you play like me once every rack or so...

say what you want about yesterdays or todays equipment.

The game is every bit as hard today as it has always been.
Should a person someday run a five or six hundred,
I would consider it every bit as good as the best runs of yesterday.

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

The main difference is that modern balls on modern cloth seperate more easily when the pack is bumped. Back in the day they were more cluster, more play hitting wired combos out of the pack. True a very different game.

There's no way to say Mosconi would do better with modern contitions. He was well suited to the conditions of his time. Same can be said of today's players, they might not have thrived in old conditions.

There are plenty of videos of Mosconi doing his one rack showcasing straight pool and how easy it was. That cloth was anything but slow.

All I know is I would bet that most players (myself included) could run more balls on an 8' table with 5" pockets and slow good cloth then they could on a 9' table with 4.5" pockets with fast cloth.

You can do so much more with position if you can cheat the pocket, with 5" pockets even if you get straight in you can get to just about anywhere on the table. As the pockets get tighter it takes away a lot of options when you are straight in or on the wrong side of a ball.

I understand that your break shot won't separate the rack as much but I have watched straight pool matches on slower cloth and the balls break up just fine if you hit the stack well.

Lots more "dead" balls in the stack when the pockets are bigger also being able to cheat the pockets allow you to come back into the stack to break other balls loose.

I know I will never be able to make big runs on any table, but I feel I could make bigger runs on a smaller table with big pockets and slow cloth. I am not planning on spending the money to prove my point though!

Larger pockets indeed have much more of an impact on straight pool than cloth speed. I also agree that slower cloth is easier to get high runs on, but only for people who have no clue how to stroke a cue properly. Once you know how to stroke a ball, slow cloth becomes a hindrance. But too fast of cloth is a hindrance too. It's much harder to control on a fast table versus slow. As far as moving the stack and clusters afterwards, I would definitely say that fast cloth is much, much harder to run on. A slight error in the stroke becomes amplified on a fast table, not so much on a slow table. And it may not even be noticed on a slow table.

 

[measureman]

High runs,cloth,balls,tables size,pocket size all aside.
I have seen in person and on video all the great straight pool players from the 60's to today.
i don't think i missed many. A lot of great ones from Crane,Caras and on you name them.
Nobody played the game of straight pool as effortlessly and really made it look like a work of art like Willie when he was in dead stroke.
Personally I think Cranes 309 and Willies 309 on a 10 foot tables are much more impressive then the verified big runs on 8 and 9 footers.
And SVB running 305 is not surprising. He can play a little.
But as mentioned in an earlier post that was in practice.
How would he or modern players do against the old timers that not only played more safes but were much better at trapping their opponent then today's players.

 

[easy-e]

Why wouldn't anyone give someone credit for running 527 balls? That's a lot on any equipment.

But lets see how someone who can really play feels on the subject, and how much harder it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOlxow0l8bE

What is your high run?

 

[Celtic]

Proves there is more to his game than breaking.

Seriously? You think up until he had this run there was no proof there was "more to his game than breaking"?

Is that what you are trying to put out there? Seriously?

 

[jka]

Seriously? You think up until he had this run there was no proof there was "more to his game than breaking"?



Is that what you are trying to put out there? Seriously?

Personally, I got the sarcasm. Give it a shot.

 

[robsnotes4u]

Seriously? You think up until he had this run there was no proof there was "more to his game than breaking"?



Is that what you are trying to put out there? Seriously?

Comprehension is definitely not your strong suit. Move on, as this is way over your head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jka]

Thank god we have another one of these threads where someone spouts off dumb hyperbole about anyone who might dare to suggest that SVB breaks better than most other players on the planet (as if that is some kind of a insult against the guy that requires people to run to SVB's rescue).



Guess what numbnut, people state Ko Pin Yi is one of the best players on the planet as well, and part of the reason for that is his huge controlled break that rivals SVB's.



I mean, FFS Pete Sampras was one of the all time greats in Tennis, and guess what, part of the reason is he had a huge serve. It is part of the game there should be NO PROBLEM talking about a player and identifying that they are very strong in a certain important aspect of the sport and that helps lead to their greatness.



NOTICE the word "helps" there in that statement robsnotes4u, because you seem oblivious to what is actually said and it would be really sweet if you could finally "get it" so that this can be the last stupid post you make on this subject and we don't get another one of these gems from you when SVB wins another major 1-pocket event.

I got the sarcasm again here too, as did everyone else.

 

[Celtic]

I have watched straight pool matches on slower cloth and the balls break up just fine if you hit the stack well.

Sigel and Schmidt played a straight pool match on the IPT cloth, back when Schmidt was playing a lot of straight pool and putting up his big numbers.

The slow cloth murdered them both, the high runs in that match were way off of their normal level of play.

 

[7forlife]

This feels like the steroids argument in body building. Steroids does NOT make 200 lbs turn into 75lbs and does not make 99 mph fast ball be a layup, how is it then that running over 500 balls not seem to be a remarkable accomplishment to some people. I mean if you would like take a 8 foot table with nap cloth and 6" pockets and let's see what numbers "you" put up.
The are some who play 14.1 all their life and not break 100 how does a person who does this 3-4 times in a single attempt making it through the break and clusters not get any credit. Way to go Azb

 

[NYC cue dude]

I'm surprised no one mentioned this, especially Bobby C. Anyone who has played the game or has been around the most elite 14.1 players the world has ever seen will tell you that what Mosconi did was more difficult than the conditions being played on today. The nap had quite a bit to do with it, but the 8ft table had more. It is MORE difficult to have high runs on a smaller table than on a larger one. Between the slow cloth and smaller playing surface, twice as many balls are always get tied/clustered up.

I spoke to Thomas Engert, who ran 492, and he said the last 20 balls or so he was physically shaking, as he got closer to 500. Thorsten free wheeled himself out of a few jams including a 3 rail kick into a carom during his 404. These guys will tell you at that level, there's a lot of luck. And still, for the few in that rarified air of 400, they are still almost 75% of the way there.

Shane's run of 305 is strong. There quite a few living players who have done so. Go to the straight pool section forum and look at the list. Its ridiculous to think that if he decided to, he would run 526 in a month. I'd bet, not in his lifetime.