Secaucus Fats
Banned
poolchic said:
Here is the link (there are some other cool Mosconi pics and documents there): http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d9744.htm
Here's a flyer promoting an exhibition by Mosconi at age 11:
Last edited:
Willie Mosconi's High Run
- Thread starter oceanweb
- Start date
Here is the link (there are some other cool Mosconi pics and documents there): http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d9744.htm
Here's a flyer promoting an exhibition by Mosconi at age 11:
But Mosconi's record is for high run in a scheduled exhibition witnessed by the public. Runs in private, even if on video, have nothing to do with that record. There is no recognized record for runs in private. It is accepted by many, including me, that Cranfield holds that non-record at 768.Luxury said:
They don't have to announce ahead of time that they are going for the record, but they have to play straight pool. That's pretty rare lately. The last straight pool in an exhibition I saw was by Grady Mathews maybe 15 years ago. He had an 89, which is pretty good for one shot.Luxury said:
Jimmy M. said:
Straight Pool as it is played now, began in 1912. The early game was played on 5X10 tables until about 1941 when 4.5X9 became the standard.
3kushn, I didn't mean to say that Mike Euphemia called a 200 ball run upon setting up the break shot. I understand that Mike wasn't much of a gambler. Like I say, a true practice player. Instead, a couple of railbirds would see Mike set up the break and wager amongst themselves on how many would be run. Mike probably had no idea this was going on.
NYC cue dude said:
Thanks, Randy.
I've been meaning for some time to thank you, too, for your efforts to promote straight pool events. I didn't have the opportunity to make it to NJ for the fabulous tournament you were involved with last summer. I may make it this year, though.
I had heard about George's 300+ run, but I missed it. Interesting that Ervolino watched. They would watch each other, and clearly respected each other's game, but I never saw them match up, even for fun. I once sat with George watching Johnny run 100 on that super tight (3.5" pocket) table downstairs with Simonis 300 cloth. I've never, before or since, played on a table so difficult. When Johnny's run ended, George remarked it was one of the most impressive run he'd ever seen. I was astounded. I doubt I ever broke 20 on that table.
I began taking straight pool lessons with George at Jullians in the early 80's. Eventually, we started playing matches; I'd go to 65, George to 100. I never beat him, despite once running a 51 from the opening break. Our daily matches ended when George went on one of his many benders.
Funny story about George. During one of his major drinking binges, he came home on a hot summer night and decided to perch on the second floor window sill of his apartment, where he promptly passed out. Before long he rolled off the window ledge and crashed to the street, right on top of a stack of plastic garbage bags. Other than a few scrapes, he was unharmed.
I also racked many times for George's runs at Chelsea. I loved to watch him play straight pool. His patterns were the simplest and most logical I've ever seen. A lot of us from Julians and Chelsea, including Vinnie, Paul Scheider, Frank Bono, Butch, Ginky and certainly myself, learned a great deal from George's mastery and willingness to share.
Those who only knew George from Chelsea probably never got to see him play 3c. George may have been an even better 3c player than a straight pool player. He was phenominal at 3c. Perhaps owing to the miserable tables at Julians, George had an effortless, yet tremendously powerful stroke.
And one day at Julians, Danny Diliberto popped in and played George 60 games of 1-pocket, ending 31-29, George. This was when Danny was in his prime, too.
It's hard to imagine what George may have achieved in pool had his talents not been diluted by alcohol. He's surely among a handful of the greatest pool and billiard talents I've ever seen. We miss you, George ...
> On the note of Eufemia,according to legend he not only played that speed just at that poolroom,he was off if he even moved to another table in that room. Supposedly he was just another strong player if he went across town,as opposed to the machine-like standards he set for himself there. The window was so wide open they took the slider out of the frame if you wanted to bet he WOULDN'T run 200 between the time he hit the first ball of the night and the time the place closed,he only did it every single night for 10 years. Tommy D.
tedkaufman said:
the first time efren ever played 14.1 was in maine at spotshots in 1995.
rempe, sigel, miz, earl, everyone was there.
not only did reyes win the tourney, he had the high run of 139, and he had never even played before.
he was learning as he went. he didnt even know all the rules.
no doubt in my mind efren could beat the record......smash it even.
feats like this is why efren is the greatest player to ever live.
chris G
Last edited:
John Barton
New member
And there is the story of Johnny Archer winning a straight pool event depite having played stright pool for the first time. He ran 150 and out in the finals and upon encourgement to continue he ran to 195.
bogey54311 said:
I have the tape of Efren's run you mentioned from the 1995 Maine event. It's fascinating to watch because Efren is so creative and such a terrific shotmaker, with remarkable cueball control. However, that run also illustrates why Efren would be a bad bet to break Mosconi's record. He frequently had to resort to unconventional, creative patterns that relied on a lot of cueball movement and difficult shots. After his opening run of 123 (it wasn't 139), he had 3 turns at the table to close out the match before he finally got out. He just plain missed easy shots or blew simple position. That's what I meant by Efren having lapses.
The thing with straight pool is it's easy until you make a mistake, and all it takes is a moment of relaxed concentration--shoot the wrong ball, miss position by the smallest amount or simply miss an easy shot. And that doesn't account for the times runs are broken by a bad roll. For example, making a successful breakshot, clearing and parking the cueball, only to have a ball roll up on it, leaving nothing. That's why there have been thousands and thousands of 100+ runs and only a handful of 300-400 ball runs. It ain't that easy and you have to be lucky. Moreover, the higher the run goes, the more pressure ratchets up.
bigmanpool
Registered
I Would Like To Add ! That It Is Harder To Run Balls On A 4+8 Table . Alot More Clusters To Deal With . So Given That ! It Was A Amazing Run .
NYC cue dude said:
Opps, I forgot about Engert and his great run. Can you imagine the pressure he must have felt as he closed in on 500? An awesome achievement.
I feel 526 on any size table is amazing. But considering that 14.1 has fallen out of popularity during the last 20 years or so and also since all the top 14.1 players in history were American, Thomas Engerts 491 on a 4 1/2 x 9 is more impressive. I mean I don't want to get obsesed with numbers or comparing because they are both stagering achievments but we are talking about breaking records.
I am one of those that feel 526 would be broken if 14.1 was as popular as years ago simply because of runs of over 400 by various current players even though its hardly played today at a top level.
I do also believe as Ted Kaufnam mentioned that the higher the run the more important it is to have classic 14.1 knowledge concerning patterns and the nuances of the game.
The fact that these discussions are going on is wonderful! I just wish 14.1 was as much a spectators game on TV like 9 ball is. I've come to feel its more of a players game.
I am very appreciative of Randy G. and his crew in there efforts to keep 14.1 alive. These 14.1 events go a long way to a possible resurgence and maybe new records.
I am one of those that feel 526 would be broken if 14.1 was as popular as years ago simply because of runs of over 400 by various current players even though its hardly played today at a top level.
I do also believe as Ted Kaufnam mentioned that the higher the run the more important it is to have classic 14.1 knowledge concerning patterns and the nuances of the game.
The fact that these discussions are going on is wonderful! I just wish 14.1 was as much a spectators game on TV like 9 ball is. I've come to feel its more of a players game.
I am very appreciative of Randy G. and his crew in there efforts to keep 14.1 alive. These 14.1 events go a long way to a possible resurgence and maybe new records.
I had to chime in here. I grew up in Dayton and almost all the Midwest poolrooms in the 60's had the oversize 8' tables. They were primarily Brunswick Sport Kings. I learned to play on these tables. The pockets were stiff and the slate was deep enough for balls to hang. They were (and are) great pool tables.
I had occasion to go into East High Billiards in the mid 60's. I was "on the road" looking for action. At the time, Russ Maddox owned the room I believe and Howard Barrett was working there. Both good players, but Howard was better. Russ and I played some 9-Ball and he beat me out for 40 or 50 playing 5 a game. They showed me the table that Mosconi made the run on. There was a small plaque on the wall with a photo of Mosconi. It was like the rest of the tables in the room, maybe 4.75 inch pockets, with stiff jaws. You had to "make" the ball. It would not "slide" in, trust me.
I think John Schmidt's assessment is right on. The great players of yesterday were every bit as good as the best of today's players. A player Mosconi's speed would be a force today. And his assessment of the difficulty of running 500 balls (especially for money) is dead on. IT AIN'T EASY!!! I don't care if they run 'em on a 7'. Like Danny H. said, the balls get jammed up, making position difficult.
I like what Bob Jewett is doing, by allowing players to try for high runs. We marvel at a player running 150 on a Diamond table. If you were to loosen the pockets a bit, we may see many runs over 200 and some over 300 even. But 500 is WAY WAY out there. It may not happen if the best players try for years.
I never heard Mosconi talk about any runs higher than the 526. When he was asked his high run, he would refer to the 526. There was quite a bit of talk about Eufemia running 600+ while practicing in New York. But it's quite a bit different without an audience watching every shot, and you have one shot at it. And Mosconi did not start with a break shot. He started after his opponents break. As far as Cranfield and his 700+ run, he claimed to do that at home. PLEASE!! That's like Myron Zownir's claim to have made six 9 balls on the break in a row at home, with no one watching. Who cares?
Anyway, a good thread here. I like all the comments, especially by Bob J., Danny and John. They have given you an accurate assessment of what it takes to accomplish such an extraordinary feat. It is like Ruth's 60 home runs. This record may be around forever, and someone could break it one day. My hat is off to them if they do.
I had occasion to go into East High Billiards in the mid 60's. I was "on the road" looking for action. At the time, Russ Maddox owned the room I believe and Howard Barrett was working there. Both good players, but Howard was better. Russ and I played some 9-Ball and he beat me out for 40 or 50 playing 5 a game. They showed me the table that Mosconi made the run on. There was a small plaque on the wall with a photo of Mosconi. It was like the rest of the tables in the room, maybe 4.75 inch pockets, with stiff jaws. You had to "make" the ball. It would not "slide" in, trust me.
I think John Schmidt's assessment is right on. The great players of yesterday were every bit as good as the best of today's players. A player Mosconi's speed would be a force today. And his assessment of the difficulty of running 500 balls (especially for money) is dead on. IT AIN'T EASY!!! I don't care if they run 'em on a 7'. Like Danny H. said, the balls get jammed up, making position difficult.
I like what Bob Jewett is doing, by allowing players to try for high runs. We marvel at a player running 150 on a Diamond table. If you were to loosen the pockets a bit, we may see many runs over 200 and some over 300 even. But 500 is WAY WAY out there. It may not happen if the best players try for years.
I never heard Mosconi talk about any runs higher than the 526. When he was asked his high run, he would refer to the 526. There was quite a bit of talk about Eufemia running 600+ while practicing in New York. But it's quite a bit different without an audience watching every shot, and you have one shot at it. And Mosconi did not start with a break shot. He started after his opponents break. As far as Cranfield and his 700+ run, he claimed to do that at home. PLEASE!! That's like Myron Zownir's claim to have made six 9 balls on the break in a row at home, with no one watching. Who cares?
Anyway, a good thread here. I like all the comments, especially by Bob J., Danny and John. They have given you an accurate assessment of what it takes to accomplish such an extraordinary feat. It is like Ruth's 60 home runs. This record may be around forever, and someone could break it one day. My hat is off to them if they do.
Last edited:
I feel Willie Mosconi's making over 500 balls without missing is one of pool's greatest achievments ever. I also would never discount any of the legends documented accomplishments. A good exercise for anyone is to take 15 balls and put them one the table. No balls frozen, no balls on the rail, every ball at least 6 inches from the pocket. Take ball in hand on the first shot and run all 15. Then repeat until you miss. After you do this 35 times plus 1 ball you sort of have a feel for a 526 ball run. I will always bet something that most non pro-players cannot run even 2-300 this way.
NYC cue dude
Banned
tedkaufman said:
Yes, George was one of the the true great talents of the game. Unfortunately, he never did well in competition, and therefore less well known. I also think this added to his depression/binge drinking.
Georges pattern play was simple, yet remarkable. He could have high runs well into the 100's without ever a difficult shot and never a bank or combination. As compared to ervolino's technique, george was much more conservative.
I had never watched him play 3c, but i imagine that he was proficient there as well.
God, yo ubrought back memories talking about paul schneider and the rest of the crew. How fascinating was it to watch how quickly Ginky became world class. I am sure that we have met there at one point or another.
I think it would be great if you could attend this years world straight pool championships this July. In fact, if you can come Ted, Ii'll arrange VIP passes for the entire event.
randy
Sport Kings
Jay, I'm glad you mentioned the Sports King table. That was my favorite table to bank on. I almost joined the Marine Corps Reserve because they had a Sports King in the Day room. (I wound up in the Army)
The six 9 balls in a row on the break? I actually had that happen to me on a bar table in Hot Springs for $10 a game. I didnt even stick around to see if he could get seven because I quit. I was so paranoid then that I thought they may have a magnetized corner pocket (it went in the same pocket every time). After careful checking it turned out that for whatever reason the balls just went in on the square.
the Beard
jay helfert said:
Jay, I'm glad you mentioned the Sports King table. That was my favorite table to bank on. I almost joined the Marine Corps Reserve because they had a Sports King in the Day room. (I wound up in the Army)
The six 9 balls in a row on the break? I actually had that happen to me on a bar table in Hot Springs for $10 a game. I didnt even stick around to see if he could get seven because I quit. I was so paranoid then that I thought they may have a magnetized corner pocket (it went in the same pocket every time). After careful checking it turned out that for whatever reason the balls just went in on the square.
the Beard
Bob Jewett said:
After reading Mosconi's autobiography, I think this consensus is justified. Mosconi played many long matches and almost always won them by a large margin. Just as an example, Irving Crane beat Mosconi in the 1955 championship tournament. As the runner-up or a former world champion, I'm not sure which, Mosconi was allowed to challenge Crane head-to-head for the championship a few months later. They played to 1500 points - 10 blocks of 150 points (two blocks a day for five days). Mosconi won 9 of the 10 blocks for a total score of 1500-676. This against Irving Crane, generally considered to be the second best 14.1 player of the era.
I understand the fascination with high runs, but the player with the highest run is not the best player. The best player is the one who wins when it counts. If Irving Crane possessed the 526 record rather than Mosconi, that wouldn't change my opinion - or Crane's either, for that matter - as to who was best. Mosconi dominated his era.
Crane was quoted as saying "I can do everything on a pool table that he can. I just don't understand why I can't beat him." That's from memory, but accurate. I love that quote.
bogey54311 said:
I am also an Efren cheerleader having the oppurtunity to see him play on a daily basis and even having the chance to practice many racks of 9 ball with him. I've seen him run out lefthanded in rotation consecutive racks mind you but I think Mosconi's record is a high mountain to climb even for the world's best player. Philw