Not that anybody here cares
 

but this gives me a mix of happy and melancholy..

Willie Mosconi's 65 year old record of 526 balls run in straight pool was just shattered by John Schmidt by exactly 100 balls. John has tried to beat the record for decades...he finally did it!

(edit) Local TV news coverage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I6-9v8HdVk

Wow, a 65 year old record. It seems routine for so many records to fall to the new younger talent with better equipment and raining. I remember when a 4 minute mile was world record fast. Now the men's record is 3:43.13. No woman has come close to a 4 minute mile.

Porsche ran a 6:13 back in 1983 and everyone said it would really hard to beat, and they were right. Now the Porsche 919 has done it at 5:19.55, almost a full minute faster. It will be a long time before someone beats that.

I wonder how long Secretariat's record will stand 1 1⁄2 miles on dirt in history, 2:24 flat.

Equipment not as much a factor in pool. But Mosconi set his record using an all maple shaft on a 8' Brunswick that had what would be considered bucket pockets today. John did it on a 9' table, standard pockets, faster cloth, using a whiz-bang carbon fiber shaft. Theoretically, John had a much tougher table...it's much easier to judge ball speed on the 1954 cloth Mosconi used.

I cannot fathom doing what they have done. It is simply incredible.

Aha! Somebody else here has attempted to make a run of straight pool. Only those who have tried know how tough it is.

man just watching those few shots in that link I could see his incredible control of the cue ball.

Well it’s no snooker... ;)

Hell, if I got five in a row it might set a personal record.

I still remember watching Willie Mosconi, and Minnesota Fats battle back, and forth on Wide World of Sports.

I remember Fats barking while Willie played pool, easily winning. From those who were around at the time, Fats could play some...was a decent player. Willie was a much better player, the best of the time when straight pool was the game.

Flatbutt got it. In pool, cue ball control IS the game. John here is a 14-1 (aka straight pool) specialist.

14-1...called that because after running a rack, the player leaves one ball on the table as a break ball while the other 14 are re-racked with the head ball missing from the head of the triangle. Player has to pocket that one remaining ball, while hopefully opening up the rack in order to make all the remaining balls, except for one left as the break ball. On it goes, call pocket, until a miss... Most professional 14-1 matches call the game won after a player sinks 150 balls.

That helps a lot for understanding the video where Schmidt breaks into a new rack kissing the "odd ball" into a pocket.

That video is jaw dropping. 31 lengths in front of other world class race horses. A confirmed genetic wonder (from autopsy) with a physically monstrous heart that was feeding that freakish muscular form.

I think it will stand long time.

Now what did Schmidt have that allowed this record to happen? He's just a dude like Secretariat was just a horse.

John Schmidt in one hell of a pool player, but not a genetic freak like Secretariat.
Don't read me wrong, he's a heck of a pool talent, but a 14-1 "specialist". In that game alone, he's scary to opponents indeed. For years he had the nickname "Mr. 400" for a 400 ball run he made.

But overall? There is a ranking computer system out there that keeps a running tab on players, based on tournaments entered, difficulty of table & opponents, equipment used, etc. Not sure of everything factored in because it's a trade secret thing. But this site is heavily used by gamblers. Gives a numerical rating for every player in the world who has entered a minimum number of tournaments. John Schmidt has a "fargo rating" of 735. 48th in the USA. World wide, not in the top 100.
http://www.fargorate.com/top-ten-lists
For comparison, Shane Van Boening currently sits atop the USA list at 822. World wide #2.
For more comparison, my "honorary nephew" Matt, a well skilled amateur, is at 690.
Anybody 700 and above is easily in the top 1%.

This tells me that in a short race to 9 or less in the rotation game of 9 or 10 ball, Matt could "sneak up on" John Schmidt with a bit of luck. But if John Schmidt were to play Shane Van Boening? Well, if I were a gambler, which I'm not, Shane would be a heavy favorite. But in 14-1? Well, I'd say pick 'em, because John is a specialist in that game.