[xradarx]

Originally Posted by jay helfert

Now that's really interesting if true. WHY would they want to move an historic table like that? Better to sell it to the highest bidder, after John signs it saying this is the table I ran 626 balls on.

Originally Posted by Black-Balled

Bob jewett has stated more than once that he had the opportunity to inspect the table and didn't note any irregularities with it.

Originally Posted by wrldpro

Who is Bob Jewett? I think he is a nice guy but is very partial to Schmidt. Why wasn’t it offered for the table To be inspected by neutral people and pool table mechanics as you know it is some type of so called record. The poolroom guarded that table like Fort Knox from being inspected.
Bottom line is table was altered no unedited video tape no inspection of the circus table and so on. Has anyone ever thought that Schmidt had been playing 10x more straight pool than anyone else in the world in the last 20 years and all his high runs have been on circus and easy tables..
If anybody doesn’t think the table conditions matter than how come he has 59,000 runs over 300 and not a single run on a Diamond over 300 not a single run. Wake up people. John creates the ultimate angles and conditions above and beyond so he can keep his ego so high and be able to continually wag his tail.

Originally Posted by Maxx

So you are saying Bob is in on the conspiracy, he’s a liar? I think you have much more “skin” in the game trying to debunk the record than Bob does when he just states his observations. I seen no agenda for Bob, but yours comes through loud and clear. You are just throwing random allegations against the wall and seeing what sticks.

Pathetic to say that about Bob.

Originally Posted by Biloxi Boy

Bob Jewett is Bob Jewett, and I would say that, if you were looking for a person who had both the utmost integrity and the ability to accurately record and report any observations made or inquiries in which he engaged, then Bob should be your man. He would certainly be mine.

On another note, what did Mosconi do to "monetize" his record? How much did he realize as a result?

Here is/are missing scenario(s) which have been bedeviling me since I first began considering this conundrum:

Poolhall Owner: "Hey, JS how about you come on down to my place and break Mosconi's record? And, oh btw, we know that you are going to need good video of your record breaking run to send to BCA, and to make money with, so,

a) We will just use the state of the art video system already installed at
THE TABLE at my place (It was on THE TABLE, right?); or

b) I do not have a state of the art video system already installed so we will get
one installed; or

c) What's say we go ahead and contact Accustat (or _____________) now, and
see what kind of deal you can make with them and let them sweat the
details."

It occurs to me that any of the above are so perfectly logical that one would expect one of them to have occurred. Right? This make any sense at all?

Originally Posted by logical

I was in on the whole thing and Bob was not at any of our secret meetings so I can verify he wasn't in on it.

Originally Posted by Icon of Sin

Regardless of the record and John breaking it, John's not going to go down as the next Mosconi... I do not see the Schmidt Cup ever happening.

If that table sells for 5 dollars more then it's current value, I'd be shocked.

Originally Posted by Bob Jewett

In the interest of full disclosure, I in fact have complete transcripts of all your secret meetings. That smoke detector in the Monterey Holiday Inn where you had your meetings was not a smoke detector.

The site of their nefarious conspiracy:

Attachment 560381

It's fun to make things up.

Bob <-- been known to bug people

Originally Posted by logical

I can't believe you fell for our fake decoy meetings. The real ones were in Beijing.

read it and weep, peeps;
14.1 Pool from May13, 2011;
Mark Griffin BTW: Bob Jewett pledged $10,000 if anyone ties or beats Mosconi 526. CSI matched it so it stands at $20,000 bonus. Highly unlike;y and maybe next year we can get this up to at least $50,000.

Bob Jewett and other members stirred this pot long for years. I think they have some skin in the game.
Tigers don't change their stripes.
Bring forth real proof
.

[Bob Jewett]

Originally Posted by logical

I can't believe you fell for our fake decoy meetings. The real ones were in Beijing.

Oh, well. Fooled again. I still think you were using magnets, though. That curving cue ball was the result of a switch left on when it shouldn't have been.

Bob <-- nearly all magnets come from China now so it all fits together

[Black-Balled]

Originally Posted by wrldpro

They took the 760 Simonis off the table and cut it into a million small pieces and John autographed all the pieces and sold them.

Meant as sarcasm, but this is probably the single best suggestion that schmidt might have profited from.

At least 50x100 to be cut up....3x2" autographed cuts
5000/6= 833 pieces.
25$ per piece= 20k

I see why you have nice things...cash from trash. Brilliant.

[arnaldo]

Originally Posted by wrldpro

Who is Bob Jewett? I think he is a nice guy but is very partial to Schmidt. Why wasn’t it offered for the table To be inspected by neutral people and pool table mechanics as you know it is some type of so called record. The poolroom guarded that table like Fort Knox from being inspected.
Bottom line is table was altered no unedited video tape no inspection of the circus table and so on. Has anyone ever thought that Schmidt had been playing 10x more straight pool than anyone else in the world in the last 20 years and all his high runs have been on circus and easy tables..
If anybody doesn’t think the table conditions matter than how come he has 59,000 runs over 300 and not a single run on a Diamond over 300 not a single run. Wake up people. John creates the ultimate angles and conditions above and beyond so he can keep his ego so high and be able to continually wag his tail.

Wrldpro, your world record 311 run on a Diamond table is remarkable to anyone well-acquainted with Diamonds and with the sustained excellence that is fundamental to Straight Pool itself.

Permit me this sincere suggestion that -- if implemented -- would resolve a number of issues and result in a great deal of personal satisfaction for you and many 14.1 devotees:

Given the inarguable -- and not necessarily troubling -- fact that both Mosconi's 526 and John's 626 were accomplished on tables that had very generously-sized pockets, and such tables are widely available in all regions of our country, why not try a fair number of recorded sessions each month on such a table?

Given the very high-level skills exhibited on some of your videos (and the fact of your 311 Diamond run) it's extremely likely that with determined effort, you will substantially exceed the 626 and emerge with unedited, creditably-witnessed footage that will be both admirable and highly-instructive (and monetize-able at your discretion).

Arnaldo

[logical]

Originally Posted by arnaldo

Wrldpro, your world record 311 run on a Diamond table is remarkable to anyone well-acquainted with Diamonds and with the sustained excellence that is fundamental to Straight Pool itself.

Permit me this sincere suggestion that -- if implemented -- would resolve a number of issues and result in a great deal of personal satisfaction for you and many 14.1 devotees:

Given the inarguable -- and not necessarily troubling -- fact that both Mosconi's 526 and John's 626 were accomplished on tables that had very generously-sized pockets, and such tables are widely available in all regions of our country, why not try a fair number of recorded sessions each month on such a table?

Given the very high-level skills exhibited on some of your videos (and the fact of your 311 Diamond run) it's extremely likely that with determined effort, you will substantially exceed the 626 and emerge with unedited, creditably-witnessed footage that will be both admirable and highly-instructive (and monetize-able at your discretion).

Arnaldo

Perhaps you haven't been reading along, but rational thinking is not tolerated in this thread.

[Ghosst]

Originally Posted by logical

Perhaps you haven't been reading along, but rational thinking is not tolerated in this thread.

Plus, Mark jacked the legs on the table so his run is invalid. I can't prove anything but I CAN TYPE IN ALL CAPS AND REPEAT MYSELF SO IT'S TRUE!!!

[justadub]

Originally Posted by Ghosst

Plus, Mark jacked the legs on the table so his run is invalid. I can't prove anything but I CAN TYPE IN ALL CAPS AND REPEAT MYSELF SO IT'S TRUE!!!

And don't forget the vast conspiracy to make this all happen....

[Tooler]

Originally Posted by Black-Balled

Meant as sarcasm, but this is probably the single best suggestion that schmidt might have profited from.

At least 50x100 to be cut up....3x2" autographed cuts
5000/6= 833 pieces.
25$ per piece= 20k

I see why you have nice things...cash from trash. Brilliant.

Come on Man.....

This thinking is flawed.

John needs at least a 6X 8" piece of cloth, in order to write his name bigly.
I believe he's working on a stamp, just like fatty........next....

[Ghosst]

Originally Posted by justadub

And don't forget the vast conspiracy to make this all happen....

Well, if you see a strange smoking man hovering around behind the ball polishers, look the other way. THEY don't want you to know about the caffeine they added to the polish. I would say more but the red APA helicopter keeps circling so I may have been found. More later.

[Bob Jewett]

Originally Posted by Black-Balled

... At least 50x100 to be cut up....3x2" autographed cuts
5000/6= 833 pieces.
....

I believe the plan was and still may be to make 626 numbered commemorative sets with a signed piece of cloth in each set. I think a better price would be $100/set but I'm not very good at marketing.

[Straightpool_99]

In spite of all the nuttyness of this thread, I think there are some very important points that should have been adressed by anyone trying to break the world record:

1. Table inspection. The table in question should be inspected with levels and straightedges in order to detect any shaving of pockets or other slate/rubber shenanigans. This is especially important after the record attempt, but also before. Under no circumstances should anything be done to the table before inspections have been made.

2. A rail bounce test should also be included, IMO, to make sure they at least hold BCA standards. A stimp-meter sort of device should be used and its specs included.

3. Ball inspection. To ensure no silicone, teflon or other shenanigans. Balls should be in spec.

4. Marketing. Anyone would be well adviced to have a method of sale prepared in advance.

5. Public availability (not necessarily free, but at least available in some form, right after the attempt, not 2 years later).

6. Unbiased witnesses and inspectors (a given, I'd say).

7. A good idea, but maybe not a requirement would be a peer-review of top players of the discipline, hall of famers or high level referees which could have been appointed in advance.

8. I almost forgot that the markings on the table, including the foul line should be clearly and visibly marked, to avoid any tilting and that the perpendicularity (is that a word? English isn't my mother tongue) of this line should be especially thouroughly checked.

It's sad and shocking to me that anyone who bowls 300 three times in a row has to have their bowling balls inspected with scientific equipment, while a pool world record which has stood for half a century has nothing in the way of such requirements. I don't know John Schmidt and don't really have anything against him as a person. This is not really about him, but the sport and its reputation. Had such inspections been made and the requirements met, most of the naysayers wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. Sadly, due to the lack of such preparations and the lack of general video availability, the speculations will continue to spread.

[Bob Jewett]

Originally Posted by Straightpool_99

In spite of all the nuttyness of this thread, I think there are some very important points that should have been adressed by anyone trying to break the world record:

1. Table inspection. The table in question should be inspected with levels and straightedges in order to detect any shaving of pockets or other slate/rubber shenanigans. This is especially important after the record attempt, but also before. Under no circumstances should anything be done to the table before inspections have been made.
2. A rail bounce test should also be included, IMO, to make sure they at least hold BCA standards. A stimp-meter sort of device should be used and its specs included.

3. Ball inspection. To ensure no silicone, teflon or other shenanigans. Balls should be in spec.

4. Marketing. Anyone would be well advised to have a method of sale prepared in advance.

5. Public availability (not necessarily free, but at least available in some form, right after the attempt, not 2 years later).

6. Unbiased witnesses and inspectors (a given, I'd say).

It's sad and shocking to me that anyone who bowls 300 three times in a row has to have their bowling balls inspected with scientific equipment, while a pool world record which has stood for half a century has nothing in the way of such requirements.

1. So far as I know, there is no good spec for table flatness near the pockets. There is a general spec, but it's fairly long-range. And there is no evidence that the slate was in any way doctored. That appears to be a manufactured rumor. I have played on that table and there did not appear to be anything strange about it.
2. The specs on rubber are a minimum of 4 lengths without jumping. That's pretty dead rubber.
3. Most balls available in a pool hall are not in spec, but I guess a serious attempt will have an equipment sponsor.
4. Pool players are no better at that sort of thing than the typical person. Their skills do not tend in that direction. There are a few notable exceptions.
5. It was only about six months but I generally agree with you



6. The witnesses are more or less guaranteed to be fans, more or less.

I think the BCA has no budget to send out inspectors for pool records. I think no inspection was made of any table on which pool records were set. Snooker on the other hand requires tables to meet standards for pocket sizes and shapes and records have been denied for lack of measurement.

[Biloxi Boy]

So how does pool get a governing body along the same lines as snooker? Does BCA even publish standards for tables? Cues? Tips? Balls? Specify the type of proof it requires for purported records?

[xradarx]

Here are those stats, in case folks missed them....

What Were The Odds?
Although John Schmidt's run of 626 balls was a singular event, he had a lot of tries leading up to it, which allows for good statistical analysis. Based on records kept during his last three attempts, Schmidt posted 209 runs of 100 balls or more.

What were Schmidt's percentages on a single shot? While missing 209 times, he made 15,998 balls which is 98.7 percent successful shots or, on average, one miss every 77 balls.

Given that average, Schmidt is expected to run 100 or more from an open shot about 27 percent of the time, and 200 or more about once in 13 tries. Stated as a proposition, if you give Schmidt 10 tries, he is slightly better than even money to run 200.

Schmidt's goal was 527, and the chance of that for a single try given John's average pocketing percentage is 1 in 937. In all of his sessions, John had about 1,100 tries, so breaking the record is not surprising. What is surprising is that he got to 626. The chance of that given the above was about 1 in 3.

98.7 percent: Schmidt's per-shot accuracy

1 in 937: Chances of running 527 from a single start

1,100: Approximate total number of attempts

1 in 3: Chances of running 626 with 1,100 attempts

John Schmidt 14.1 Challenge I
Easy Street Billiards, Monterey, California
March 16 thru April 10, 2018
Total Playing Days 18, Total Rest Days 8
100+ Ball Runs: Did Not Track
200+ Ball Runs: 23
300+ Ball Runs: 5
400+ Ball Runs: 0
500+ Ball Runs: 0
John Schmidt 14.1 Challenge II
Easy Street Billiards, Monterey, California
November 19 thru December 13, 2018
Total Playing Days 20, Total Rest Days 5
100+ Ball Runs: 45
200+ Ball Runs: 13
300+ Ball Runs: 4
400+ Ball Runs: 2
500+ Ball Runs: 0
John Schmidt 14.1 Challenge III
Bull Shooters Billiards, Phoenix, Arizona
March 20 thru April 17, 2019
Total Playing Days 25, Total Rest Days 4
100+ Ball Runs: 67
200+ Ball Runs: 8
300+ Ball Runs: 5
400+ Ball Runs: 1
500+ Ball Runs: 0
John Schmidt 14.1 Challenge IV
Easy Street Billiards, Monterey, California
May 8 thru June 4, 2019
Total Playing Days 16, Total Rest Days 4
100+ Ball Runs: 49
200+ Ball Runs: 8
300+ Ball Runs: 4
400+ Ball Runs: 2
600+ Ball Runs: 1
John Schmidt 14.1 Challenges I, II, III, IV
Grand Total Summary
Total Playing Days 79, Total Rest Days 21
100+ Ball Runs: 161
200+ Ball Runs: 52
300+ Ball Runs: 18
400+ Ball Runs: 5
600+ Ball Runs: 1

The meat of the statistics is not included.
1,100: Approximate total number of attempts
1100-237=863 runs that began with ball in hand and object ball placed anywhere on the table, with 14 balls place into the rack area.
Appears to be over 800 racks where not even enough balls were tallied to constitute an official attempt at a record.
JS stated that if he didn't get near a 200 ball run, that he didn't consider it as a record attempt.
1100 ball in hand with object ball placed anywhere on the table break shots and not even one attempt to break a 14.1 Straight Pool Continuous Billiards rack of 15 balls with the cue ball placed behind the kitchen line.
I have not lost my sense of humor quite yet, but I am getting near there.
Keep on keeping on.....

[logical]

Originally Posted by Straightpool_99

In spite of all the nuttyness of this thread, I think there are some very important points that should have been adressed by anyone trying to break the world record:

1. Table inspection. The table in question should be inspected with levels and straightedges in order to detect any shaving of pockets or other slate/rubber shenanigans. This is especially important after the record attempt, but also before. Under no circumstances should anything be done to the table before inspections have been made.

2. A rail bounce test should also be included, IMO, to make sure they at least hold BCA standards. A stimp-meter sort of device should be used and its specs included.

3. Ball inspection. To ensure no silicone, teflon or other shenanigans. Balls should be in spec.

4. Marketing. Anyone would be well adviced to have a method of sale prepared in advance.

5. Public availability (not necessarily free, but at least available in some form, right after the attempt, not 2 years later).

6. Unbiased witnesses and inspectors (a given, I'd say).

7. A good idea, but maybe not a requirement would be a peer-review of top players of the discipline, hall of famers or high level referees which could have been appointed in advance.

8. I almost forgot that the markings on the table, including the foul line should be clearly and visibly marked, to avoid any tilting and that the perpendicularity (is that a word? English isn't my mother tongue) of this line should be especially thouroughly checked.

It's sad and shocking to me that anyone who bowls 300 three times in a row has to have their bowling balls inspected with scientific equipment, while a pool world record which has stood for half a century has nothing in the way of such requirements. I don't know John Schmidt and don't really have anything against him as a person. This is not really about him, but the sport and its reputation. Had such inspections been made and the requirements met, most of the naysayers wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. Sadly, due to the lack of such preparations and the lack of general video availability, the speculations will continue to spread.

So all that was done for the 526 Mosconi run? I did not know that.