[dr_dave]

Originally Posted by AtLarge

... the weird massé-like turn of the cue ball into a pocket on the break shot for rack 32 ...

For those interested in what might have caused this, I did a careful analysis and suggest possible causes in this video:

Did “Ball Turn” Deny John Schmidt (434) Willie Mosconi’s Straight Pool Record (526)?

Enjoy,
Dave

[ChrisinNC]

Danny, just curious, what constitutes your definition of a “tight” 10 footer that you are playing on - Corner and side pocket mouth specs? Thanks

[Black-Balled]

I suggest you go back and read the thread.

This has all been discussed.

There are no rules. There is no organization and there is no money. There was NO CALL FOR STANDARDS until after the event occurred.

This is pool, where amazing accomplishments cannot be rewarded or celebrated; where felons can get on their high horses and speak down to respected folks; where there is no plan for tomorrow; where there is no money

Your break.

Originally Posted by Biloxi Boy

I feel for you and all 14:1 players. As stated, I played enough 14:1 to understand it and appreciate it -- I only quit it because had no one to play it with.

First step to taking on a record is to determine what are the rules to follow when attempting to break the record. For instance, should it be an 8ft or 9ft table? This is something a proper governing body would have addressed and resolved a long time ago. Next issues, observers, pocket width, proof to be submitted. Standards, Standards, Standards. Otherwise, we have a book of records filled with asteriks.

How does one even begin to attempt to break a record without such rules?

Does anyone else find this to be an intolerable situation?

[Get_A_Grip]

Originally Posted by dr_dave

For those interested in what might have caused this, I did a careful analysis and suggest possible causes in this video:

Did “Ball Turn” Deny John Schmidt (434) Willie Mosconi’s Straight Pool Record (526)?

Enjoy,
Dave

If one of the red measles was indeed bulging slightly, that is what I think probably caused it. In fact, John's cue ball appeared to be spinning with the red dots all horizontal with the cloth at the end just before the cue ball took the sharp turn into the corner pocket.

We've all seen a cue ball curve a little, like in the video examples that you did, but what happened to John was definitely not normal IMO.

EDIT: Thinking about it some more, I think that dirt/chalk build up where the original foot spot was located most likely contributed to the cue ball gripping the cloth more than is normal and where it did. If I get skids of the cue ball on my table, it more often than not occurs down where I rack the balls and where dirt has built up on the cloth.

I'm not sure where in the course of attempting the high run John switched to racking the balls at the head spot, but I'm guessing that there was sufficient time for dirt and oils to build up at the original foot spot.

[xradarx]

https://youtu.be/FVN8jD3TJmA?t=7

Open and shut case, nuff said. Let it go.

[Danny Harriman]

Originally Posted by arnaldo

I am thereby among the blessed regarding the historic 626 run (haven't yet seen, and yet believe, having seen his publicly-available 494)).

Arnaldo ~ Patiently awaiting release of the instructively voiceovered video that John and his team have already completed and have thankfully edited to eliminate non-contributory playing pauses -- at or away from the table -- and all biobreaks, etc. (Btw it's likely that Willie -- then in his mid-forties -- paused for a biobreak or two during his 526 run.)

U could not even get that right, j.s's high run (un edited footage) = 434 last time i checked not the 494 u previously stated. That was with a heated slate - ironically that was what gave him the detour. ur a joke to compare j.s to Willie Mosconi - there not even in the same conversation as far as greatness.

[jay helfert]

The longer he withholds the actual video evidence of his record run, the more it begins to look like a non record. If it is finally revealed in an edited version there will always be questions about what we didn't see. As for me I'd like to watch the whole thing and make my own judgement on it's validity.

[Danny Harriman]

Originally Posted by dr_dave

For those interested in what might have caused this, I did a careful analysis and suggest possible causes in this video:

Did “Ball Turn” Deny John Schmidt (434) Willie Mosconi’s Straight Pool Record (526)?

Enjoy,
Dave

Thanks davey for yer clinical 'indoc'trinated inform nation'. Sawbones can't repair chopped video either. How bout more surgical distractions from the unedited 434 report. Funny I thought this post pertained to j.s supposed 626?

[Black-Balled]

Originally Posted by Danny Harriman

U could not even get that right, j.s's high run (un edited footage) = 434 last time i checked not the 494 u previously stated. That was with a heated slate - ironically that was what gave him the detour.

A claim which- Hay, guess what?!- you can't prove is even a phenomenon, much less true in this case.

Your hypocritical thought process remains obvious: you 'require' proof for another's claim but dont hold yourself to the same standard.

You 'defend' mosconi, but sully pool in multiple ways.

[Danny Harriman]

Originally Posted by ChrisinNC

Danny, just curious, what constitutes your definition of a “tight” 10 footer that you are playing on - Corner and side pocket mouth specs? Thanks

A yard stick for lunatics - 1 point of view. Birtha (5x10) will keep em honest. i.e. Double shimmed pockets.

[Danny Harriman]

Originally Posted by Biloxi Boy

I feel for you and all 14:1 players. As stated, I played enough 14:1 to understand it and appreciate it -- I only quit it because had no one to play it with.

First step to taking on a record is to determine what are the rules to follow when attempting to break the record. For instance, should it be an 8ft or 9ft table? This is something a proper governing body would have addressed and resolved a long time ago. Next issues, observers, pocket width, proof to be submitted. Standards, Standards, Standards. Otherwise, we have a book of records filled with asteriks.

How does one even begin to attempt to break a record without such rules?

Does anyone else find this to be an intolerable situation?

I have a logical answer for u, Unedited video footage. There was another az poster here who posted a huge # (in az Straight Pool section) it was graph checked by the geek squad and the fellow embarrassingly had to admit he mislead the Straight Pool section and did not run the # he had posted. He posted a doctored video i.e. replaced a ball he had missed and then got caught cheating. Ironically in his avatar he was standing next to j.s. - I guess they were pals or maybe business pardners. Yes bca and j.s - have heat - and it ain't the kind from the 434 doctored slate either - meanwhile the validity of their claim seems to have made a u turn for some - consider me apart of the minority who has a serious reservation about the validity of this 626 - and never believed it from the beginning - as I know j.s. I will refuse to be apart of their media experiment - without unedited video proof - almost two years after the announcement - and still no unedited proof = bad news for bca and j.s./ny times crew. When someone is losing (broke or desperate) - pay close attention to how they handle it.

[lfigueroa]

Originally Posted by jay helfert

The longer he withholds the actual video evidence of his record run, the more it begins to look like a non record. If it is finally revealed in an edited version there will always be questions about what we didn't see. As for me I'd like to watch the whole thing and make my own judgement on it's validity.

This is pretty much what I've been saying all along.

I don't want some edited, double-speed showing, nor am I interested in an edited version with commentary. I am certainly not interested in what a couple of guys at the BCA, with questionable 14.1 credentials, had to say about it. I want the raw video from start to finish so I can make up my own mind. And anyone who cares about the great game of 14.1 should want the same because we're talking about the greatest record in pool.

Records are meant to be broken and Mosconi's record, while one tough nut to crack, can be broken. And I further believe it can be done without gaffed up conditions that, while perhaps not breaking the letter of the rules, are certainly questionable in spirit.

To date, I'm not so sure Mosconi's record has been broken.

Lou Figueroa

[xradarx]

Originally Posted by lfigueroa

This is pretty much what I've been saying all along.

I don't want some edited, double-speed showing, nor am I interested in an edited version with commentary. I am certainly not interested in what a couple of guys at the BCA, with questionable 14.1 credentials, had to say about it. I want the raw video from start to finish so I can make up my own mind. And anyone who cares about the great game of 14.1 should want the same because we're talking about the greatest record in pool.

Records are meant to be broken and Mosconi's record, while one tough nut to crack, can be broken. And I further believe it can be done without gaffed up conditions that, while perhaps not breaking the letter of the rules, are certainly questionable in spirit.

To date, I'm not so sure Mosconi's record has been broken.

Lou Figueroa

“Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant speaker had to say". Millions and Millions and Millions are in total agreement! I may have missed a couple that are still not set in their opinion.

[jay helfert]

Originally Posted by lfigueroa

This is pretty much what I've been saying all along.

I don't want some edited, double-speed showing, nor am I interested in an edited version with commentary. I am certainly not interested in what a couple of guys at the BCA, with questionable 14.1 credentials, had to say about it. I want the raw video from start to finish so I can make up my own mind. And anyone who cares about the great game of 14.1 should want the same because we're talking about the greatest record in pool.

Records are meant to be broken and Mosconi's record, while one tough nut to crack, can be broken. And I further believe it can be done without gaffed up conditions that, while perhaps not breaking the letter of the rules, are certainly questionable in spirit.

To date, I'm not so sure Mosconi's record has been broken.

Lou Figueroa

There's no reason why John couldn't be selling "locked" copies of his DVD's of the record run. He could probably sell them for $100 apiece plus shipping and get more than a few customers. 100 sales equates to $10,000! Far more than he's made on his one or two showings of the video.

[Biloxi Boy]

Intolerable.

So the individual is supposed to call upon the BCA for the standards? (Yeah, let's try that and see how long we have to wait,) How about the novel concept that the sanctioning body anticipate that somone might come shooting for Mosconi's or Schmidt's, record, and advise all, at one time and place, and not piecemeal, or individually, what will expected of the new guns, through publically available rules voted on and approved by a majority. I thought a major function of a governing body was to LEAD -- not to react on a case by case basis where the possibility of favor and bias will always be alleged due to the fact that the question is being answered for the benefit of an identified individual rather than for all challengers at large. Even now, has the BCA set standards for the next run at the Schmidt High Run? Who wants to bet that if we went to the next BCA Board Meeting and made inquiry that the Director would actually be able to tell us the specs of Schmidt's table on the spot or, better yet, what Harriman would have to be shooting on if his new record was to be considered? The correct answer cannot be "we'll look at all aspects when you are done" for so many obvious reasons.

I was alway taught that apples should be compared to apples, etc. So, is it more difficult, or the same, to make 14:1 high runs on an 8 ft table or a 9 ft table?

If it is more difficult on a 9, then, to match 526 on an 8, one should have to shoot something less than 526 on a 9. Through a proper analysis and ratification/adoption of an objectively rational calculation via a majority vote, an official differential could be established. (I mean we put men on the moon and even got Apollo 13 back (kudos to fellow biloxi boy Fred Haise) so figuring out the Mosconi Equation should be a walk in the pool hall, right? Oh crap, forgot a bunch of ya'll don't believe in that stuff either.) Otherwise, let's just say "the 14:1 individual high run record on an 8 ft table is X, and the 14:1 individual high run record on an 9 ft table is Y."

Then there are pocket dimensions. (Please don't try to tell me that pocket size does not matter because it does and if Mosconi made his record run on a bucket pocketed table, then everyone should have the same advantage when chasing him.)

You see, someone has to take charge and be in control lest the lunatics are left to run the asylum, because we all know how that story ends, right?