9ft. Diamond pro Table was built in 2008.Pockets are tight right at 4.5 inch or just under and it has 3 piece 1.25 inch slate not the 1 piece slate Diamonds that play kinda easy like a bar table.
The True Record Hi Run
- Thread starter billinboston
- Start date
9ft. Diamond pro Table was built in 2008.Pockets are tight right at 4.5 inch or just under and it has 3 piece 1.25 inch slate not the 1 piece slate Diamonds that play kinda easy like a bar table.
• Super good, given that it had 4.5" corners!
• The slate is probably 30mm (1.18") -- that's what they used to use. 1.25" would be 31.75mm.
• I don't know why a table with a 3-piece slate would play any more difficult than one with a 1-piece slate, other things being equal.
Good points that I made earlier in the thread as well. A record broken because you specifically set out to break it would be a much bigger feat than running the same amount of balls when you already had a very nice run going in an exhibition, just wanted to see how much more you would run if you kept going, and when there isn't even an established recored to beat, much less one that you had on your mind and specifically set out to beat from the get go. And runs of bigger accomplishment have already been made by today's players. Anybody that thinks that anyone who has run over 400 on a tighter 9 ft isn't capable of running a little over 500 on a loose 8 ft is out of there mind. They already have runs under their belt that required equal or greater skill to achieve. And there are other guys like Efren and some others that don't have really high runs like that but could certainly do it if they put their mind to it and actually played the game a bit.
The record has already been surpassed, just not in number, and on different equipment. But better runs have already been made by current players.
To make even a half serious attempt at the official Mosconi record on the same equipment would take a pretty serious investment of time, effort, and money. The financial cost would be in buying a table, and camera equipment if they don't already have it. The time would be however long it takes. There is a lot of luck in any really high run in straight pool. Because of the luck factor, the record could take anywhere from weeks to months of serious effort by a top player. Because a player can't control the luck factor, he is going to assume worst case scenario (that it will take months of effort as opposed to a shorter amount of time if luck happened to be on his side too) when deciding if it is worth it to devote the effort. So he is only going to make the effort if the reward justifies the months of effort.
First, the player is going to have to by a 4x8 and have it set up in their home with the same specs. And if they have the room and money for a table, they probably already have a table, a 9 ft no doubt. They have to get rid of the 9 ft somewhere now too. It would take a lot for someone to go through that hassle and expense, especially considering none of the tournaments or gambling matches are played on that equipment today so they are hurting themselves in the process when it comes to being able to conveniently practice for today's tournaments and such.
Second, the players have to know about a reward for breaking Mosconi's record before it has any incentive. Something can't entice you if you haven't heard about it.
Third, even if they know about the reward, they have to believe that the people offering it would 100% come through with paying it out if they broke the record. Nobody is going to spend what could be months of effort if there is any doubt in their mind on whether it would actually be paid out.
Fourth, the reward has to be large enough to justify their expenses and what could be months of hard effort. I doubt for most pros that $20,000 is enough to justify spending several thousand on a table and camera equipment, giving up the 9 ft that you use to practice for current events and matches, and investing what could be months of serious pool playing and filming effort and hassle.
Fifth, the award would need to be extremely large to justify trying for it if it was on a "first person to break the record gets the reward" basis. Nobody is going to go through all the money and hassle of getting camera equipment, getting an 8 ft, getting rid of their 9 ft, spending what could be months of serious effort in the attempt, all with the hassle of making sure every second you are at the table is always being filmed with no glitches, with the risk that several months in after all that financial and time investment another guy gets the record before you do. It either needs to an offer of like $30,000 that is made to and valid only for one specific person, or it needs to be $30,000 for EVERY guy that can do it within a certain time period no matter how many end up doing it (so if three guys do it within the time frame they each get $30,000), or it would need to be much, much larger reward to justify all that effort for nothing when some other guy could beat you to it by a day.
Give us some more details about this $20,000 reward. Who is offering it, how has it been publicized, and what things have been put in place to ensure that it will actually be paid out (is it in escrow, has the reward offer been made in a way that is legally binding on the person making it, etc)? What are all the exact requirements for being able to claim the $20,000 (what are the requirements for proof, equipment, etc)?
I'm thinking it is not enough money to justify the effort, especially if the payout isn't absolutely 100% assured, and if it is on a "first to break the record" basis. But again, you don't have to take my belief on it, you can just ask the top pros what they would feel would justify their serious effort to break it and get it straight from the horses mouth. I'm betting it is along the lines of what I have mentioned though. Please post here what they say when you ask them.
You really don't have even two brain cells banging around together in that noggin do you? I didn't have to read his mind, what I wrote is exactly what he had previously laid out very clearly as his belief. I just pointed where he conveniently mis-worded his belief to be misleading on that particular occasion.
You keep following me around in every thread trying to argue with me, and every time you you end up looking dumb because you didn't comprehend what was written. I already tried to give you some friendly advice in the other threads, that being that when you are attempting to find and point out a mistake from someone as a personal vendetta against them, you should first make sure the mistake wasn't in fact actually yours, leaving you as the one looking dumb. So far every time you have tried it the mistake has been yours. But I expect that you will continue to follow me around as you are obviously a sucker for punishment. Ever heard that saying "better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?" It's another good lesson for you, and it didn't even cost you anything (except some more humiliation).
Poolplaya9
Trying to act as if you're superior to everyone in every thread you post in, most assuredly gives you the award as the dumbest looking person on AZ.
Make no mistake about that.
Hey don't take this wrong, every ones allowed to act the fool once in a while
but you sir, are abusing that privilege.
But by all means keep up the good work, as I find you amusing !
Trying to act as if you're superior to everyone in every thread you post in, most assuredly gives you the award as the dumbest looking person on AZ.
Make no mistake about that.
Hey don't take this wrong, every ones allowed to act the fool once in a while
but you sir, are abusing that privilege.
But by all means keep up the good work, as I find you amusing !
Last edited:
Tap, Tap, (f'n) Tap ... It needed to be said.
LOL. I think what it really comes down to is that people try to attribute more importance to a record than is appropriate. For instance, you could debate home run records in baseball all day long. All the outfields had different dimensions, not to mention different pitching mound heights and different equipment. Was Babe Ruth's record "better or worse" than modern day records? The answer, I think, is that a single record cannot prove that one player is any better than another. 526 is the official high run, but that does not necessarily mean that it makes Mosconi better or worse than the guy who ran 85 balls on 2 3/8" pockets.
You can look at the player's overall record against his peers to get an idea of his place in history, but you can't prove much with one very high run of balls.If Eckert or someone ran 491 balls on a tight 9' table I'd agree this is a greater feat than running 526 on an 8' table. But then don't then say that makes Eckert a better player than Mosconi.
The only person looking dumb in every thread they post in is you because you say so many things that are dumb and factually dead wrong. But it sure doesn't stop you.
As for me, I don't try to act superior to anyone. I admittedly have low tolerance for willful stupidity, the failure to use logic, low ethics, a failure in comprehension due to laziness, and misinforming people with factually incorrect information. I don't think anyone should be terribly tolerant of those things, especially on a public discussion forum, and don't see a problem with pointing out those things when they occur as I believe everyone should.
I do at times get a little snippy at people, but it is only in cases were someone was out of line or an extreme example of one of the above, like you for example following me around in every thread saying "oh my gosh poolplaya9, you are so dumb, 2+2 does not equal 4 like you say, it equals 5 you idiot". Your damn right, when someone has a hard on for me and follows me around in every thread, trying to argue everything I say simply because they have some personal vendetta, and to top it off they are always factually dead wrong in every single case, every last single time, yeah, I'm going to be a little snippy with them, and deservedly so.
..............
Last edited:
Thanks. It really is an amazing feat.
oh the dichotomy
On one hand, people say a nice big (modern) run, such as a 400, might be "equal" to the record set by Mosconi on a 4x8, because today's (9ft) tables are tighter or tougher.
But by the same reasoning, it might be argued that Greenleaf's 287 on a 10foot table with a horse blanket could be 'equal' to Mosconi's record, or even any other modern record. Especially if the 10foot table had 4.5 " pockets, which was the tournament standard since 1887.
On one hand, people say a nice big (modern) run, such as a 400, might be "equal" to the record set by Mosconi on a 4x8, because today's (9ft) tables are tighter or tougher.
But by the same reasoning, it might be argued that Greenleaf's 287 on a 10foot table with a horse blanket could be 'equal' to Mosconi's record, or even any other modern record. Especially if the 10foot table had 4.5 " pockets, which was the tournament standard since 1887.
What about my run of 153 on Bonneville Salt Flats with 4.5" Gopher Holes ?
Does it qualify for the Real Record ? You young'ens need to get over it.
Willie was THE MAN. His Record Stands Tall, period, end of discussion.
Does it qualify for the Real Record ? You young'ens need to get over it.
Willie was THE MAN. His Record Stands Tall, period, end of discussion.
Well you heard it here first folks. Let's go to another thread. This one is a goner. And I agree with Str8...The legend lives on and I'm told when he did drink beer he preferred DosEquis.
billinboston
Registered
I think though.. at the time, the regulation table was a
4 1/2x9..... Mosconi does not hold the record for the regulation size table hi run
He had several runs in the mid 300's, but do not think
He has ever thrown a 400 at anyone.
There are a few people with documented runs over 400
Does anyone know the hi run on a 5 x 10 ?
For some reason, i think Jimmy Caras held that record
Bill
4 1/2x9..... Mosconi does not hold the record for the regulation size table hi run
He had several runs in the mid 300's, but do not think
He has ever thrown a 400 at anyone.
There are a few people with documented runs over 400
Does anyone know the hi run on a 5 x 10 ?
For some reason, i think Jimmy Caras held that record
Bill
309
Irving Crane set the exhibition record of 309 on a 10-footer in 1939. Mosconi tied it in 1945.
[Info from Mosconi's autobiography.]
Edit: But here is a list that includes an item about Babe Cranfield running 420 on a 10-footer: http://www.thehypertexts.com/Pool Billiards record high runs.htm. Hmmm.
Last edited: