I get it. You are not a straight pool player. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing
Lou Figueroa
The True Record Hi Run
- Thread starter billinboston
- Start date
I get it. You are not a straight pool player. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing
Lou Figueroa
Jim, however it happened, you can't argue that 526 is generally considered the record nowadays. End of story.
Lou Figueroa
No it is not. Several years ago when I was playing a lot of 9ball I ran nine racks in a row. That doesn't put me in the same general ballpark of Earl Strickland.
Lou Figueroa
What this sentence should say is "BPI is not the real measure of skill, the only good measures of skill among players in the same era are wins and titles." In that case it would be a pretty decent argument. But just because someone was the best in one era, does not mean that people don't get even better than them later on down the road. Surely you have to understand that and agree.
I get what you are saying though. You only care about and rank someone as compared to their contemporaries of their time. And using that criteria, I don't know anyone in the world that disagrees that Mosconi clearly wins that criteria. Yes, everyone agrees, Mosconi was the best of his era, and dominated his era more than anyone else dominated their era. What you don't seem to understand though is that criteria doesn't work very well when you start comparing eras, because the talent level of the field can get a whole lot deeper and closer together in another era.
Just as a really extreme example to illustrate the point, let's say there were ten guys today that were all literally five times as good as Mosconi. All ten have high runs over 2000. All of them play better patterns and safeties than Mosconi. All of them average 100 balls per inning or more, again, average. But yet all ten of them play exactly equal with each other, none of them being better than the other nine, and each one only won about 10% of the titles and tournaments. According to your argument Mosconi would be better than them since he had more titles, yet they were all five times as good.
You are arguing about who was better compared to their contemporaries. Most others are arguing based on their actual skill and ability with nothing to do with how it compared to anyone else in their own time. They are two totally separate things.
Basically all you are saying is "X" guy was better for his time than "Y" guy was for his time. Fair enough and a good discussion, but one that is a totally different discussion from "X" guy was better than "Y" guy.
Last edited:
I get what you are saying and truth is we are both right. At this point you are trying to argue semantics instead of substance. You have about zero chance of being able to run 526 unless you are a pretty damn good straight pool player, absolutely world class, which means you are in the ball park of Mosconi (no I don't want to argue the semantics of ball park so don't bother, you get my point which is what matters). It is however possible to run 9 racks of 9 ball and not be world class.
Player B in your example was the player with the higher run, just as Engert in my example was. Engert, despite having a high run that's 6 racks better than Thorsten's, would not be the favorite if they played.
Here's another example of your flawed logic in thinking that a higher run means they are the better player in a match up.
Earl Strickland has a high run of 408, but he would not be the favorite over guys like
Grady Matthews*
Oliver Ortmann
Steve Mizerak*
Mike Sigel
Mika Immonen
Irving Crane*
Ralph Greenleaf*
and a few other players that also never even came close to breaking 400.
*If they were still alive.
As I said the likelihood of something is not changed by the fact that there are exceptions. Player B is probably the better player. Will there be exceptions sometimes? Yup. But it doesn't change that when there is a large separation in their high run numbers, assuming a large enough sample size of attempts made to get their high run number, then the player with the much larger high run will be favored over the much lower run player. You will be able to find specific exceptions, but it doesn't change that it will be true the majority of the time.
It was also approved by whichever pool body was running things at the time also, I believe. I'm just saying its not a real record like Maris or DiMaggio or Aaron, etc. borne out of competition. Mosconi could have probably done 526 give or take some balls every quarter of the calendar over a dozen years.
That's where I'm at on this Lou. He was a savant with a cue.
What was the number before 526 ? Most have forgotten. Was it notarized and recognized ? It just wasn't something that was highly sought after by the better players. Play til you drop? Not hardly. No money in it. Same is true today. And for people to come into the conversation now with generational insecurities that want to tear it down from a multitude of positions are missing the big picture. Put up or shut up. Everything else is a sandcastle. And without major titles and domination to go along with it, the feat will mean less than the 526 unless your Guiness.
No, I don't agree. I've watched straight pool since the late 1960's, and have seen virtually every top player since Lassiter try their hand at the game.
Today's players aren't running more balls in competition than their forerunners and the quality of defensive play has dropped dramatically since the last generation of players.
Give me the players of the late 1970's over those of today seven days a week.
Do you really think there's a contingent of twelve players today that could compete in a team match against these twelve BCA Hall of Famers, all of whom excelled in 14.1?
Mike Sigel
Joe Balsis
Nick Varner
Allen Hopkins
Jim Rempe
Dan DiLiberto
Steve Mizerak
Dallas West
Ray Martin
Lou Butera
Irving Crane
Luther Lassiter
Today's crop of straight poolers is a cut below these guys, and that's understandable, as 14.1 is not the game that they focus on. Of course, today's crop would crush the guys of yesteryear in rotation games, as excellence in rotation games is the focus today.
I do, however, understand your well-made point that the presence of a multitude of superstars at a single moment in time may deny each of them a chance to have the competitive resume of their predecessors.
This debate, I feel, is not a fundamentally theoretical matter, for the straight pool era is gone and largely forgotten. I am one of the lucky few that got to see most of the old masters in their respective primes.
Thanks for your insightful and interesting post. My suspicion is that if the straight pool era had never ended, today's players would be at least on a par with the old masters of straight pool.
A final point I'd like to make is something that is true in virtually every sport. How well you play on your very best day is not the measure of your excellence, and that's why I'm quick to dismiss high run as being a definitive measure of a straight pooler. What matters far more is how well you play on your average day, and those who play best on their average day are the ones that rack up the titles and make the money in our sport and most others.
And with this post you basically switched from the "X guy was better for his time than Y guy was for his time" topic that you were previously discussing and are now back over to the totally different topic of "X guy was better than Y guy" topic. This one is better I think as it is the one that I think most people were discussing.
To address your post, no, I highly doubt that we could put 12 players together today that could beat those guys as a team if there was a time machine that could transport them from their primes and into today. I do however believe that there are a couple of players today that could hang with any of them and possibly even be winner in the long run. Their knowledge isn't quite as good, but their firepower is a little better, and it nets out. I also believe that given enough time to learn the game, there are lots of players today that could hang with or beat them, more than 12 in fact (mostly because a whole lot more of the world is playing pool now).
I agree with your statement that if straight pool had remained the dominant game through today, that today's players would be equally as good. That is essentially the sentiment I was expressing with the last sentence in the paragraph above. And it is actually very probable that today's players would be even better had it remained the dominant game, because humans tend to improve in any endeavor over time. I already believe their actual physical skills have improved.
I also agree that your average play is the best measure of how good you are overall, and appreciate your insights as well.
The weird thing about that 526 run from Willie Mosconi is sure there were witnesses and an affidavit signed by quite a few people which made it "official". i am sure he ran the balls BUT were there any fouls during the run, I expect there were he was pretty well known to be indifferent to committing a foul. I have heard rather than bridging over a ball Willie used balls as a support (not saying it happened during the big run just saying). Also the real kicker is did he miss or quit, the affidavit does not say and Willie claimed a miss earlier in life later he said he got tired and quit thus no miss. For all that this is still the run but for me anything caught from start to finish on video would have as much value / be as official as the 526 exhibition run.
Video is good enough go run some balls.
Video is good enough go run some balls.
Concerning the bolded part, I've heard that, too. Here's a good example of Willie being indifferent to [himself] committing fouls, in this match against Jimmy Caras:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=eIE5AOayYvI#t=5m50s
-Sean
Willie was used to playing all foul tournament rules. In all the times I saw him shoot he never fouled.
But, every once in a while some fool will trot out the video from the Mosconi -- Caras dinner and go, "Look he's resting his hand on a ball." What they will not tell you is that Willie was almost 80 at that time and was already suffering hints of the Alzheimer's that he would die with two years later.
Lou Figueroa
Sean-Willie was almost 80 and not all there in the head.
So when you are 80 and I'm like 100 and you come out to Denver and we play I will give you a pass on any fouls you commit.always willing to give the young players a little slack.
My favorite Mosconi video. Gives fella's like me who never seen him in his prime get an idea of his style.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ts7YqHRrjc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ts7YqHRrjc
Interesting read this thread.
I see lots of Stupid people arguing about menial facts, and I see Old Timers clinging on to remnants of the past. Exactly what one expects to see on the internet. I have no problem with any of this.
But in this day and age, cameras are cheap, and if anyone was good enough to run more than 526 on any pool table anywhere, no matter what size, no matter what cloth, etc etc they would have done it by now - they would be an internet sensation over night.
It hasn't been done yet, so it can't be that easy. Period.
Until someone runs more than 526, somewhere (anywhere - and personally I wouldn't care where or on what equipment) Willie is the Man !!
I see lots of Stupid people arguing about menial facts, and I see Old Timers clinging on to remnants of the past. Exactly what one expects to see on the internet. I have no problem with any of this.
But in this day and age, cameras are cheap, and if anyone was good enough to run more than 526 on any pool table anywhere, no matter what size, no matter what cloth, etc etc they would have done it by now - they would be an internet sensation over night.
It hasn't been done yet, so it can't be that easy. Period.
Until someone runs more than 526, somewhere (anywhere - and personally I wouldn't care where or on what equipment) Willie is the Man !!
A little delayed but I wanted to reply to this.
Here's why Mosconi's track record is relevant today -
I believe there are two ways you get absurd domination:
One way: a guy knows a 'trick' or has some unfair edge the others have,
and the others simply lack the same tools or knowledge.
For example, Graeme Obree figured out a new bike riding position,
and custom built his bike in a way that set it apart from others.
Both the position and the bike were eventually banned after he set records.
Then there's the LZR swimsuit, where 93 world records were broken
within a year and a half of its release. Imagine if only one guy wore that suit?
Mosconi had no special equipment, and afaik no secret knowledge.
Many champions in that era knew how to play the game properly.
So what did he have? In a word, drive.
he just wanted to win more badly than anyone else in the world,
You can't buy it or practice 10,000 hours to get it.
If you plopped Mosconi down in the middle of today's players,
he would still be the guy in the room who wanted to win more
badly than anyone else. Combine that with world-class shooting
ability and there's no doubt (to me) that he'd take the lion's share of titles.
For the record....
Originally posted by Hungerstrike:
Mosconi's run of 589 at age 66 or so in '79. 08-26-2011, 02:14 PM
" I just spoke with Charles Ursitti. He is ok right now riding out the hurricaine in Florida. I asked him about the run he witnessed which I knew to be near 600. The details are that it was done in the practice room of a major Las Vegas tournament in 1979. Charlie says that all the tournament pros came in to watch portions of the run at one point or another. Pete Margo came in and watched some.... then asked Charlie what the score is up to and Charlie said over 20 racks. He quotes Margo as saying that "if there was a 5000 point match right now, I'd bet on Willie." On the 589th ball, which was set up as a perfect break shot, Charlie told Willie that the next rack would put him over 600, but just as he was saying it, Willie fired in the 589th ball before the balls were racked. It was over because Willie was hungry and tired. I know Charles Ursitti very, very well and in doing research for him he has made me check and recheck facts. The overwhelming majority of his data (as seen on his website on the history of the game's records) has multiple sources. He is a stickler for facts. He has also been referee for many big matches. I have ZERO doubt in my mind as to the validity of this story. No doubt. This feat was accomplished on a standard 4.5'x9' Brunswick Gold Crown.... "
Last edited: