Exactly. :thumbup:
Would players of today wipe the floor against past players....
- Thread starter dom_poppa
- Start date
Exactly. :thumbup:
There is no motivation to break a record that was set on an exhibition.
Do you want them to devote thousands of hours in breaking it for nothing ?
Mosconi had thousands of hours logged in paid exhibitions.
And frankly speaking, the pros are not even all that impressed by that record.
There is no bonus money to break that record on straight pool tournaments either. They need the tables.
Interesting TED talk by David Epstein on this topic- he is the author of a good book called "The Sports GEne"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0
Because no one would take them seriously on an 8-ft table with 5" pockets. What was Mosconi's high-run and/or average game score on a 9-foot table with 4-1/2" pockets?
If Mosconi didn't beat John Schmidt's 400+ run, then I'd say John Schmidt is the better player on a 9-foot table with 4-1/2" pockets.
OK, try breaking the hot dog eating contest record then.One must be paid to break a remarkable record ? If I could do it, or you could do it, or any of your friends could do it, or anyone at league could do, or anyone at the amateur tourneys could do it, they all would DO it.
Amazing all the folks that say they could do it, but won't do it unless someone pays them..wtf ?
Basically, that is like saying I could beat Earl if he every comes to my house, plays on my table, on a Saturday night beween 11pm and 11:30pm, in a month that ends in a "y", and he brings $250K cash with him.
If he does not show, he's chicken
Nobody bragged about beating Mosconi's record.
THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED. IT'S A WASTE OF TIME FOR THEM.
The game now is 9-ball and 10-ball. IF there is a straight pool tourney, it's race to 100-150 points. They stop at 150. Mosconi did not achieve that record in a tournament either.
All due respect, I have spoken with several pros about this very subject, and even recorded an interview with John "Mr. 400" Schmidt earlier this year (feel free to give it a listen) and they are in fact impressed, if not intimidated at the prospect of running 500+ balls on ANY table.
And in case you were not aware, at DCC there has been a healthy bounty offered up to beat Mosconi's record, and it still stands.
Now with that said, l'm not suggesting that it simply can't be beaten, but at the same time, I have a hard time believing that there are many (if any) people out there that actually could. We're talking about running at least 35 racks in a row...which is a monumental feat of concentration and endurance.
I truly hope someone does it.
And John's not the only one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but John's high runs are 400 and 403, respectively. There are others with higher modern-day runs:
Thorsten Hohmann: 404
Earl Strickland: 408
Niels Feijen: 416 (run recently)
Stephan Cohen: 431 (run recently)
Earl Strickland: 408
Niels Feijen: 416 (run recently)
Stephan Cohen: 431 (run recently)
...and the granddaddy of modern-day high runs:
Thomas Engert: 491
Engert's 491 was done on a tournament-spec German Dynamic II 9-foot table with Artemis cushions.
Summary: although it's very thin air up there in 400-land, it's not a complete vacuum.
-Sean
Last edited:
How many of these old videos are of Mosconi, Fats, and Greenleaf in their prime? Probably none.
takeitdown
Banned
Today's equipment is vastly more consistent than anything of 40 plus years ago. Cue ball control is second nature in top players of today. If there is a skid or a ball rolls out they want to cry foul.
I think we need more of that old school grit and determination to keep pool interesting. Love long sessions and guys that bet it up. Pretty rare to see today.
I think we need more of that old school grit and determination to keep pool interesting. Love long sessions and guys that bet it up. Pretty rare to see today.
Let's set the record straight about Mosconi and straight pool:
Mosconi's 526 ball run was set in 1954 on a 4 × 8 foot Brunswick table with 5-1/4 inch corner pockets at the East High Billiard Club in Springfield, Ohio. We don't know the measurements of the side pockets. The owner of the Club told the press that they were "regulation size", which was, and still is:
Corner Pocket Mouth: between 4.5 [11.43 cm] and 4.625 inches [11.75 cm]
Side Pocket Mouth: between 5 [12.7 cm] and 5.125 inches [13.0175 cm]
*The mouth of the side pocket is traditionally ½ inch [1.27 cm] wider than
the mouth of the corner pocket.
So, the corner pockets were larger than regulation, the table was smaller than regulation, and the side pockets... we don't know for sure.
But let's look at the other side of the coin:
From 1940 to 1941, a round-robin 14.1 tournament series was sponsored by billiard halls, with eight invited players. Mosconi was sponsored by McGirr's in New York City He dominated this series, and ran 125 balls from the break five times. These games were played mostly on 5x10 tables with regulation pockets and clay balls.
After suffering a stroke in 1956, Mosconi slowed down on his tournament appearances in order to recover. He returned to the game at nearly 100% by 1957, when he once again won the BCA World Championship. I personally saw him six times in the late 1950's and early 1960's and he ran 100 balls every time. Willie carried several cue balls (and a set of Brunswick Centennials) with him to each match and it was understood that he selected the cue ball to be used for the exhibiton, after having practiced for about five minutes or so before the match began. He always performed on a Brunswick table with Brunswick balls, mostly Centennials, which the poolrooms started to phase in during the 1960's. Before that, the "mud" balls, made of clay, and heavy napped cloth were often the standard in most poolrooms. Also, in the 1960's, Simonis cloth started to become the standard in the better rooms.
So, bottom line: most of Mosconi's tournament victories were earned during his prime, prior to suffering his stroke in 1956, when he played mostly on 5x10 tables, with mud balls and heavily napped cloth.
We'll never know how, in their primes, Mosconi, Caras, Crane, Balsis, Greenleaf, Worst, Taylor, Lassiter, Mizerak, Martin, Sigel, Varner, etc. would stack up against the best straight pool players of today. But my guess is that Mosconi was the best straight pool player of all time, because he dominated over several decades and was able to adapt to different equipment and conditions.
I agree 100% with Billy Incardona about Reyes being the all-time best 1-Pocket and 8-Ball player.
In 9-Ball and 10-Ball games, I'd take Earl and Wimpy in their primes. Earl and Wimpy broke the balls better than Reyes and Reyes never master jumping over balls, which is now standard procedure for every rotation player. Wimpy didn't have to jump because back in his day they played one-shot-shoot-out on every turn at the table.
I've heard that Worst was unbeatable for his own cash, but I never saw him play, so I'll reserve commenting on him. Is there anybody alive who has seen Worst play in his prime?
I gotta agree. Even local league players think every Bar table should play perfect. Hell if the balls are a little dirty they *****. I've heard stories from the old players of playing with balls that you could here rolling down the table like eggs lol times have changed
That's a dumb analogy because,,,, wait for it.... I can't. If I could, I'd do it. There is a book full of folks with World Records, and if some pool guy can suddenly break the proverbial unattainable feat of 526, they'd go for it.
Who would not. If the record was 100, I'd go for it. But because it is out of my league, and I'd have no chance, well, of course I'm not going to waste my time, you know, like pretty much the rest of the world !!
And it's never a waste of time to own one of pool's most magical numbers...... there is not a pool player alive that would not like to say, hey, I broke the unbreakable record...
It does NOT matter what the equipment was on. If someone would like to sue the same equipment, and I mean, table, pocket size, cloth, chalk, cue and whatever the relative humidity was on that day, then do it. But nobody will step to the plate.
Of course, that is like saying Babe Ruth's record (when it was still the record) should not count because he never had to face guys throwing 95mph, or saw sliders at 90mhp, or changes ups, or much of any of the type of pitching he would face in today's game.
But then again, baseball fans don't purposely go out of their way to knock a great.... must be why baseball thrives and pool does not.
JoeyInCali ^^^^^ How's that for you?
You're kidding.
Roger Maris went bald from the stress during that season.
The fans and the media were brutal on him.
Every season after Ruth set his record, there were hundreds of major leaguers getting paid to play the same game Ruth did.
Straight pool died as the main game for pool a long time ago.
9-ball became the tv game .
Bob Vanover holds the guiness record for most 9-ball racks strung.
I don't see Archer and Feijen bragging they broke that record a long time ago.
JoeyInCali ^^^^^ How's that for you?
On 9-foot Diamond with pro cut pockets and playing straight pool infrequently, they're a long shot.
Here's Mike Davis's take.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=265119&highlight=mosconi
Last edited:
Something else to consider:
Many people believe (in error) that the tables back in the day were all equipped with pockets the size of basketball hoops and that anyone could have run hundreds of balls with a little practice.
But that was not the case at all until they (BCA) changed the official tournament specs and went with 9 foot tables in 1949. In other words, they made it easier.
From 1885 thru 1949 the game was played on 10 ft tables with 4.5" pockets with directional (and nappy) cloth, while also going thru the conversion from ivory, to horribly inconsistent composition balls.
Consider the above info, and then consider someone like Greenleaf, who was taking on the world champions (and beating them) as a teenager, with playing conditions like this. Who has that kind of gumption under their belt today? Not many, if any.
Let's see a list of 150+ runners under 19 yrs of age, who did it on a 10ft table with 4.5" pockets....
*cricket chirp*
Many people believe (in error) that the tables back in the day were all equipped with pockets the size of basketball hoops and that anyone could have run hundreds of balls with a little practice.
But that was not the case at all until they (BCA) changed the official tournament specs and went with 9 foot tables in 1949. In other words, they made it easier.
From 1885 thru 1949 the game was played on 10 ft tables with 4.5" pockets with directional (and nappy) cloth, while also going thru the conversion from ivory, to horribly inconsistent composition balls.
Consider the above info, and then consider someone like Greenleaf, who was taking on the world champions (and beating them) as a teenager, with playing conditions like this. Who has that kind of gumption under their belt today? Not many, if any.
Let's see a list of 150+ runners under 19 yrs of age, who did it on a 10ft table with 4.5" pockets....
*cricket chirp*
Roger Wilco on that pt109.
If anyone is trying to side with older generations vs modern - (here's the biggie
) and based on the premise that each were on equal footing? It'd be a tie towards the top IMO. So many comments here, recanting the elders at 14.1 run #'s - is less a focus in modern play.There "was" awesome talent then and there is now. But it's apples to oranges.
Greenleaf played in many14.1 round robin tournaments race to 125 where he never missed a called ball the whole tournament.
What do you think?
What do you think?
he was putting the stress on himself... the media was mentioning it every few seconds to keep the pressure on and to sell papers.... the fans, well, those were yankee fans, not exactly what I'd call baseball fans
Henry Aaron was well celebrated for breaking the all time HR record when he topped Ruths' record... and as far as I'm concerned is still the HR King...
Last edited: