Yes, it was on a Diamond 4 1/2 x 9.
The True Record Hi Run
- Thread starter billinboston
- Start date
Yes, it was on a Diamond 4 1/2 x 9.
You're dam right they would. Titles like that sell dvds, tshirts, lessons, endorsements, etc etc.
Bingo. Give that man a ceegar.
If they can beat it, they should grow some hair and beat it.
Mosconi didn't sit down and say "they don't pay me enough for this BS"
He stepped up and said "this is why you cant beat me "
I'm not saying nobody today can beat it, I'm saying that if you're too much of a vagina to prove it, then I'm not giving you the same respect that I give Mosconi.
end rant /]
Well at least you have backed off from the thought that nobody today can compare and that they couldn't break the record. As soon as it was pointed out that you could easily get the money together and get a definitive answer on whether it could be broken by someone of today you sure back pedaled on that real quick.
Back pedal? Jeez man. Don't flatter yourself.
Where did I say or imply that nobody can compare or that the record can't be broken?
"If you are going to respond to someone, at least know what they said and get it right. Reading comprehension is a necessity for participating in discussion forums".
Bond brother, no need to go low and use his own words you back pedaler. Ha.
Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk
ah, the old "you are too smart for this" gambit. Actually I don't know about that but I am smart enough to note that you did not answer my question as to whether you are a straight pool player. I suspect not, not because you didn't answer, but because you don't get how important pretty is.
Lou Figueroa
No, that is not proof enough. We will probably never know how good the players of today might be in comparison to Mosconi and Greenleaf and Crane because 14.1 is not the game of choice nowadays.
Might someone break the record? Sure. But that does not mean today's generation could play as good or better than Mosconi.
Lou Figueroa
Well said, Lou. Not many pros play a lot of 14.1 these days, but several of them could set the record. I'd say Hohmann, Ortmann, Schmidt, Feijen and Appleton are the ones with the best chance right now, but it's not beyond the possible reach of a few others like Mika Immonen, Stephan Cohen, Nick Vandenberg, Max Eberle and Jayson Shaw.
The real issue, though, is the absence of any real reason for anybody to try to make a really high run. Also, beating Mosconi's 526 ball exhibition run, or Cranfield's 768 ball practice run, doesn't make one better than those greats of the past. The only record of Mosconi's that one can beat and expect mention as the greatest is his competitive record.
In the end, and it's been pointed out often by the wise members of this forum, a player can only be measured by performance against his/her own contemporaries. Mosconi's dominance against his peers will be very hard to top, and to be fair, Jean Balukas' dominance over her peers also sets a standard that will be very hard to match in the women's game.
Last edited:
Of course it doesn't.
In the same way that Mosconi's 526 doesn't necessarily mean he plays better than today's generation.
Maybe I'm over simplifying things, but it seems there's only one true way to determine the better 14.1 player. That being average # of balls made per inning.
Irving Crane sure wouldn't have impressed you. His defensive tendencies made his balls per inning counts pretty low, but he was the best player not named Mosconi in their respective primes.
BPI is not the real measure of skill, the only good measures of skill are wins and titles.
Where you are correct, however, is that Mosconi's 526 does not prove he was the best ever. It is his competitive track record that makes him the best ever and nothing else.
Last edited:
Great point, Stu -- it is about how a player does against their contemporaries.
And when you consider 14.1 was the standard competition and that there was a group of legendary players who, for decades, lived and died by straight pool, it would be hard to argue against Mosconi.
Lou Figueroa
not that a few
won't anyways
hmmm, no. BPI is not the way to go. You have to remember that different styles of play emphasis the safety side of the game. I seem to recall at least one championship was won and the guy never ran more than 40 but gave the other guys fits always leaving them tied up and at the far end of the table.
Lou Figueroa
Ok, maybe you aren't then. My point was clear and absolutely accurate, sorry if you didn't get it (me thinks you are still thinking in terms of the imaginary ghost player who might be better in another era IF they were in that other era because they were born later, as opposed to just taking the person as they were which is what I was referring to and which makes the most sense in the context of this thread about his record). As for straight pool player, it depends on your definition of straight pool player. I have enough knowledge of the game to have an educated opinion on the things we are discussing, which is what you are really wanting to know, so in that respect I am certainly a straight pool player. I like the game, I play the game, although not terribly often since most others (in my area) have zero interest in playing it (and it isn't usually my first choice either for that matter), I have watched a ton of the game played at the highest level, and I'm certainly not anywhere near good enough to enter the World Straight Pool Championships. Hopefully that gives you your answer.
First off in the context of my example, favored (not who was guaranteed to win, but who was favored) didn't depend on long haul or short haul or any other time frame. If you are favored, you are favored, and the answer was either yes or no and additional clarifier's about the haul were meaningless. I disagree with your opinion though. In this particular case, I think player B is more likely to have a higher per inning average, and would be favored to win a match up. The reason for that is that based on those statistics player B appears have enough extra firepower to still outclass player A in the game all things considered.
Yes Lou that is how yesterday went in England. Selby was torturing O'Sullivan after a miss by outmoving him. He was aggressive at times, but winning by defensive techniques. He had very low breaks (runs) through the first 23 or so games. He is a champion of world snooker through a defensive discipline.
Basically the 526 was a practice drill in that the rules of the game require 2 players. The record stands as non-competitive. Remember that most governing sports bodies only recognize "numbers" achieved in competition. So to me the numbers that count most in 14.1 have the word "win" associated with.
Did I just say that ?
Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk
Basically the 526 was a practice drill in that the rules of the game require 2 players. The record stands as non-competitive. Remember that most governing sports bodies only recognize "numbers" achieved in competition. So to me the numbers that count most in 14.1 have the word "win" associated with.
Did I just say that ?
Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk
I didn't deflect, the answer was obvious. I had already provided evidence. People don't like to do a lot of hard work for little reward. This is fact. And if you listen to today's pro's talk you will know it is even more true today than it has ever been. You are right, there is a desire to break records. But when doing it would be a lot of hard work, with little reward, that more than offsets the desire for the record especially in a game that is largely considered gone and irrelevant today.
But ask one of the top straight pool players of today sometime "do you think you could beat Mosconi's high run record on the same equipment, and if so why haven't you, and what would it take to get you to do it" and see what they say. Then let us know. Then neither of us have to think the other person is trying to read their mind. I think they will say what I have been saying which is yes they could, but the amount of work to do it isn't worth the payoff in their eyes. As to what payoff they would say would be enough to make it worth to them to actually do it, that I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing a cash prize of around $30,000.
Here is what you said. "He just did it, on the spot, multiple attempts not needed." If not explicitly stating it, it sure seems to me that you were at least strongly insinuating that he didn't make multiple efforts at it and downplaying the fact that there might have been tons and tons of attempts. At best you worded it very poorly if that didn't at all say what you were trying to say, or if that was not the insinuation you were trying to make.
At some point on that day he did indeed set out to see how many balls he could run. And in contrast to what you are saying, it could easily be argued that setting the record is actually easier when based on a circumstance such as in an exhibition where you already have a real nice run going before you decide to continue it to see how high you could get as opposed to someone that started out from ball one with the intention of trying to set the record (which comes with more pressure both because you are actually trying to break a record and because that intention started at ball one). I'm not necessarily making that argument, but it would sure have some validity.
And who cares if a record comes as a result of many tries spread out over the course of a lifetime (as with Mosconi's record), or many tries over the course of a few months (if someone today were to make a concerted effort to break it). I don't see that it makes any difference at all.
Not to mention that if one of the top straight pool pros of today were were being paid to do straight pool exhibitions for years on the same equipment they would have a pretty good chance of breaking it in the course of doing that as well. But nobody is paying them to go around doing that so the opportunity doesn't exist. But again, it wouldn't make a difference to the validity of how impressive it was anyway. How spread out your many attempts were doesn't matter. Now if somebody had never tried for a high run in their life, lets say Carlo Biado just to pick someone for whom that may be true, and he walked in a poolroom one day and said "ok everybody listen up, today I am going to break the straight pool high run record" and then he proceeded to do it, then that would be more impressive for sure. But whether the many attempts were spread out over years or months is meaningless.
It has been pretty clear to me that you have been implying that nobody can compare to Mosconi. As for the implication that nobody could break Mosconi's record, you are correct, you didn't explicitly make that implication and I stretched a bit on that one. Not nearly as bad as you characterizing my position that the high run record is easy to beat when I had already previously stated explicitly in no uncertain terms and multiple times that it was hard and would take a ton of work, but it was still a stretch none the less and my apologies for it.
Last edited:
Like I said, when high runs are relatively close, then whoever does it "right" is more likely to be favored in a match up. And with just a bit more separation in high runs you might still find an exception where the player with the lower run is actually better. But the more the separation, the less likely to find an exception. Just because there can be exceptions doesn't change that what I said was correct, that the player with the higher run is more likely to be favored over the player with the lower run if there is a decent separation in run size (and they have both made enough attempts to give enough sample size obviously). And in the specific example I gave, player B was far more likely to be the favored player if they matched up.
But if they do break the record it is a pretty darn indication that they are at least in the same general ball park of ability. We do agree with the fact that we may never know for sure how today's players would stack up to him in competition. There is some evidence to suggest or even strongly suggest things, but in the end it is still probably just speculation and opinion no matter which "side" you are on.