My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Dear

Here is something you might have missed.

In the 1940 World League Championships two records were set First - On March 29, Onofrio

Lauri had the FIRST perfect one inning game of 125 and out. Second - On April 11, Andrew

Ponzi scratched on the opening break for a two point penalty, shot, then ran 127 and out

during the 1941 Championship. Willie Mosocni, Andrew Ponzi, and Erwin Rudolph all had one

inning games running 125 and out. In the 1956 world tournament Willie Mosconi ran 150 and

out in one inning, the first perfect game on a 4 1/2 x 9 foot table in the last game of the tourna-

ment. Willie won with a record of 14 and 0

Charles

I will ask Mr. Ursitti the exact year, but 14.1 was played on 5 x 10 tables with 5" corner & 5.5" side

pockets until sometime in the early fifties. Today, if you buy an off the showroom floor "profession-

al" 9 x 4.5 pool table:

http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/WPA_Tournam ... ifications

Corner Pocket Mouth: between 4.5 [11.43 cm] and 4.625 inches [11.75 cm] Side Pocket Mouth: be-

tween 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.

However, you will see challenge "matches" played on 10 foot tables with the same or tighter pocket

dimensions.

The "professional" table I would like to see as the tournement table for 14.1: a 10 foot table with a

corner pocket mouth of 3.75 inches & a side pocket mouth of 4.25 inches. And a pocket shelf depth

of 2.25" for side and corner pockets. That would make a 10 foot table more difficult than a 12 foot

snooker table.

Sickpotter wrote:In the end the players win by scoring but setting up the opportunity
to do so involves solid safety play.

The good and the competent players do that, even the great players do that, when they

have to. Because sometimes, a shot does not exist. However, what seperates the "good

and the competent" from the great players is that the great players have the vision and

imagination to see shots that the lesser players do not, AND the TALENT and SKILL to

make them. And even if by chance the lesser player sees the shot, they either can't make

the shot or are not confident enough in their abilities that they can, so they play a safety.


And here is The 1966 U.S. Open 14.1 Final to demonstrate my point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k06-M12lQWE

It is about 56 minutes long. The is a 150 point Championship game. One point per ball. The

table is a mid sixties 9 foot Brunswick Gold Crown I. The man you will see is Irving Crane,

age about 55 at the time of this game. Watch and you will learn something.

I went through the entire 1966 U.S. Open Pocket Billiards final again and I picked out every

shot of note.

Part One - Shot @ 4:48 - Name this shot - What is it called?

Attempted - Shot @ 6.27

Part Two - Shot @ 2:42

Take note of Part Two @ 2:42. Look at the cluster of balls and their position on the table,

now look at the position of the cue ball on the table, observe the ball that he calls and its

original location within the cluster, note the pocket that he calls, now take in the entirety

of the shot. That is what is called SKILL & TALENT of a high order. Ronnie the Rocket [or

you Sickpotter] could not make that shot, would not have attempted that shot, in fact,

neither one of you would have SEEN that shot. In your pocket billiard mind, that shot does

exist.

Shot @ 8:51

Part Three - Shot @ 4:12

Part Three - Shot @ 7:11

Part Four - Shot @ 9:34

Part Six - Shot @ 6:31

Now be honest, how many of the shots I have pointed out do you believe that YOU or

Ronnie the Rocket, or your Snooker Idol: White-Hendry-ROS would have seen, attempted,

and MADE in a Championship environment? I saw the 2013 Crucible Final, and neither

Hawkins whom I was pulling for to win, nor Ronnie the Rocket displays ANY of the shot-

making that Irving Crane so brillently demonstrated.

With 150 balls, Irving Crane demonstrates a level of creativity, imagination, vision, pattern

recognition, TALENT, and SKILL that Hawkins and Ronnie the Rocket could not fathom much

less equal with 735 balls.

Tell me this, how long do you think it would take Irving Crane to be good enough @ snooker

to beat YOU like a drum Sickpotter? I say one year tops. If you can sit there after seeing this

video and tell me that a man of Irving Crane's caliber could not master snooker in very short

order - three years tops - I do not know what to tell you.

Hi Mr Cam, you seem to have put a lot of thought into this but to be honest I lost interest after the first few lines. It is not the rules that make the game exciting/interesting or boring it comes down to the players and how they wish to play. You just have to look at how successful RS has being to realize that there is absolutely no need to make any changes at all. RS plays good safety to get in there plays great snooker when in the balls. Negative players may have short term success but it is the players with the right balance who make great champions and we should do nothing to change this.

Mr Cam wrote:

Sickpotter wrote:In the end the players win by scoring but setting up the opportunity
to do so involves solid safety play.

The good and the competent players do that, even the great players do that, when they

have to. Because sometimes, a shot does not exist. However, what seperates the "good

and the competent" from the great players is that the great players have the vision and

imagination to see shots that the lesser players do not, AND the TALENT and SKILL to

make them. And even if by chance the lesser player sees the shot, they either can't make

the shot or are not confident enough in their abilities that they can, so they play a safety.


And here is The 1966 U.S. Open 14.1 Final to demonstrate my point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k06-M12lQWE

It is about 56 minutes long. The is a 150 point Championship game. One point per ball. The

table is a mid sixties 9 foot Brunswick Gold Crown I. The man you will see is Irving Crane,

age about 55 at the time of this game. Watch and you will learn something.

I went through the entire 1966 U.S. Open Pocket Billiards final again and I picked out every

shot of note.

Part One - Shot @ 4:48 - Name this shot - What is it called?

Attempted - Shot @ 6.27

Part Two - Shot @ 2:42

Take note of Part Two @ 2:42. Look at the cluster of balls and their position on the table,

now look at the position of the cue ball on the table, observe the ball that he calls and its

original location within the cluster, note the pocket that he calls, now take in the entirety

of the shot. That is what is called SKILL & TALENT of a high order. Ronnie the Rocket [or

you Sickpotter] could not make that shot, would not have attempted that shot, in fact,

neither one of you would have SEEN that shot. In your pocket billiard mind, that shot does

exist.

Shot @ 8:51

Part Three - Shot @ 4:12

Part Three - Shot @ 7:11

Part Four - Shot @ 9:34

Part Six - Shot @ 6:31

Now be honest, how many of the shots I have pointed out do you believe that YOU or

Ronnie the Rocket, or your Snooker Idol: White-Hendry-ROS would have seen, attempted,

and MADE in a Championship environment? I saw the 2013 Crucible Final, and neither

Hawkins whom I was pulling for to win, nor Ronnie the Rocket displays ANY of the shot-

making that Irving Crane so brillently demonstrated.

With 150 balls, Irving Crane demonstrates a level of creativity, imagination, vision, pattern

recognition, TALENT, and SKILL that Hawkins and Ronnie the Rocket could not fathom much

less equal with 735 balls.

Tell me this, how long do you think it would take Irving Crane to be good enough @ snooker

to beat YOU like a drum Sickpotter? I say one year tops. If you can sit there after seeing this

video and tell me that a man of Irving Crane's caliber could not master snooker in very short

order - three years tops - I do not know what to tell you.

For the love of God, go hit a few balls on the tables your heros are playing on and then go try the same shots on a snooker table.

You do realize that adding a couple of feet in table length and width and shrinking the pockets makes all shots harder right? That basic truth hasn't eluded you right?

Take shots down a rail.....ridiculously easy on a 14:1 table, lowest percentage ball out there on a snooker table.

You really have no concept of the difficulty until you PLAY, until you actually do, give it a rest.

Thanks for that PM about the only successful Canadian player (on the little tables) you could find. I was going to send you one for the most successful snooker player to come from the US but alas, there wasn't one to be found.

I watched the 150 and out from Mr Crane end to end as you know Mr Cam and the truth is he got lucky on several occasions during that run. It is good viewing though and I recommend it to everyone to watch.

For the love of God, [Do you actually believe in God? Or are you a closet atheist or agnostic?]

go hit a few balls on the tables your heros [I never called them my heros] are playing on and then

go try the same shots on a snooker table.

You do realize that adding a couple of feet in table length and width and shrinking the pockets makes

all shots harder right?

----------------

You do realize that YOU, sickpotter, have NEVER and never WILL match Mr. Cyrille Dion's accomplish-

ments in pocket billiards or billiards right?

You do realize that YOU, sickpotter, COULD never be more than Mr. Cyrille Dion's cabin boy, right?

That basic truth hasn't eluded you right?

The basic truth that, YOU sickpotter, have no concept on why Irving Crane was a World Class player,

and, YOU sickpotter, are a non entity in the world of pocket billiards & billiards [carom]. That FACT

hasn't eluded you right?

Sickpotter, since you are a legend in your own mind, and your pocket billiards skills have been

sharpened by snooker, then all you have to do is enter the next U.S. Open for 14.1, win it, then

you can tell the whole world how "easy" it is! Enter the next U.S. Open for 14.1 and WIN by

shooting consecutive 150 and out wins in one inning in ALL of your matches on the your way to

the U.S. Open 14.1 title. After you do that, you can win the NEXT World 14.1 title by shooting

consecutive 200 and out wins in one inning in ALL of your matches on your way to the WORLD

14.1 title. You, SICKPOTTER, can become the very FIRST snooker player to EVER win a 14.1 U.S.,

EURO, & WORLD 14.1 TITLE!!! Imagine the fame and fortune you will win!!! Then you can hold a

PRESS CONFERENCE and tell all of the world's best 14.1 players how SUPERIOR snooker players

are in the art and science of pocket billiards in comparison to 14.1 players. Better yet, play each

14.1 competitor you face for $100 a ball, or $15,000 a game. According to you, it is all ridiculously

easy on a 9 or 10 foot 14.1 table.

----------------

Take shots down a rail.....ridiculously easy on a 14:1 table, lowest percentage ball out there on a

snooker table.

You really have no concept of the difficulty until you PLAY, until you actually do, give it a rest.

----------------

You really have no concept of the difficulty of 14.1 until you PLAY and WIN an actual U.S., Euro,

or World Title. Until you actually do, give it a rest!

----------------

Thanks for that PM about the only successful Canadian player (on the little tables)

----------------

Actually, you are an ignoramus, in the time period that Mr. Cyrille Dion played and won his titles,

pocket billiards competitions were played on 5 x 10 tables & billiards [carom] competitions were

played on either 5 x 10 or 6 x 12 tables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrille_Dion

Read more, Think more, Post less. Or, in your case, POT less.

http://files.umb-carom.org/Public/Ranki ... /teams.pdf

As a side note, I looked at the UMB National Team rankings in Carom Billiards. The U.S. ranks 27th

out of the TOP 32. We SUCK! Funny thing is, I could not find Canada's National Team World Ranking

in Carom Billiards.

You seem to think that the World of pocket billiards BEGINS & ENDS with snooker. You are WRONG.

I am reading a highly respected AMERICAN author on pocket billiards & billiards [carom]. He gives his

opinion on the most SKILLFULL games in Billiards. If you care to read it, I can give you a word for word

QUOTE of what he says.

This is wiki's bio of Irving Crane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Crane

Mr. Sickpotter, please do show us your ENTIRE professional pocket billiards career

so that ALL of the readers of this website can compare your record of achievement

to that of Mr. Crane's. Let us see how your accomplishments compare to that "on

the little tables" player, Irving Crane. Show us YOUR wiki POCKET BILLIARD bio. So

us mere mortals can stand in AWE of your cue exploits. Show us how many times you

have won a WORLD title in pocket billiards. Show us YOUR spot in the Canadian Hall

of fame for Pocket Billiards & Billiards [carom]. Show us how the cue press & cue his-

torians in Canada rank YOU, Sickpotter, above Mr. Cyrille Dion, that (on the little tables)

player and WORLD champion.

I, a lowly American pocket billiard fan of 14.1, went to the trouble of finding a Canadian

of note in pocket billiards & billiards [carom]. I do not believe that you ever knew who

Mr. Cyrille Dion was BEFORE I sent my PM. You should have been proud of the accomp-

lisments of a fellow Canadian pocket billiards & billiards [carom] player, but all YOU could

muster, Sickpotter, was the dismissive expresion, (on the little tables). What a piece of work

you are.

You don't need to devote that much effort in your responses, I never get through more than a sentence or two of rants.

I never claimed to be as good as the world title winners, never said they were bad players. Had they devoted their time to snooker some of them certainly could have done well.

It is my position that snooker is a harder cue sport than 14:1. Your listing 14:1 champions and their records does nothing to refute my position.

GO HIT SOME BALLS!!!!!

You continue to rant on about the skill level of these players without any actual experience which frankly makes you clueless as to what's difficult and why.

Here's a Canadian who won snooker championships and a world pocket billiard title.

George Chenier....Canadian.....North American Snooker Champion and World billiards champion.

http://www.sportshall.ca/honoured-membe ... e-chenier/

The historical Record shows that George Chenier was NOT THE 1963 14.1 World Pocket

Billiard Champion. However, I sent this e-mail message to the man that KNOWS. As opposed

to who you cited as an "accurate" source. He will confirm or refute the ASSertions made by

the Canadian Sports Hall.

Read this: http://charlesursitti.com/?page_id=206

From page 2 through page 8.

-----------------------

What do you know about George Chenier?

http://www.sportshall.ca/honoured-membe ... e-chenier/

1963 - Ran the first ever perfect game of 150, beating reigning world champion at the time.

In 1963, he played in the World Pocket Billiard championship and ran the first perfect game

of 150 ever registered in tournament, a victory made all the sweeter as he beat world champion

Irving Crane in the finals.

Except the historical record shows that he had 5 wins & 6 losses in the 14.1 tournament that

lasted from April 9 through through April 14th - 1963. The winner is listed as Wimpy with a 10 & 1

record. The Canadian Sports Hall claims - 1963 - World Pocket Billiard championship title

Sickpotter wrote:

It is my position that snooker is a harder cue sport than 14:1. Your listing 14:1 champions and their
records does nothing to refute my position.

You continue to rant on about the skill level of these players without any actual experience which
frankly makes you clueless as to what's difficult and why.

Byrne’s New Standard Book of Pool and Billiards

Robert Byrne

Harcourt Brace & Company

New York San Diego London

1998, 1987, 1978

-----------------

xxiii

Snooker, a game played on a six- by-twelve-foot table with narrow pockets and small

balls, is not discussed directly. Much of what is said about the technique of playing

pool applies equally well to snooker.

-------------

Page 220

Straight Pool

Straight pool, also called rack pool and–by industry flacks–14.1 continuous pocket

billiards, is one of three games used to measure skill at the highest level, the

others being nine-ball and one pocket. Eight ball is an inadequent test.

-------------------

Page 231

Unlike pool & snooker, you can play three cushion billiards all over Scandinavia, the

low countries, western, eastern, and souther Europe, North Africa, South and Central

America, Japan, and Indonesia.

-------------------

And before you go off and think or call him a pool or 14.1 only “fan”, this man is a

SERIOUS BILLIARDS [Carom] player. At one time he was a nationaly ranked, in the

U.S., billiards player. And I DISAGREE with him about nine-ball. And he AGRESS with

YOU about one pocket. And he DISAGRES with YOU on snooker.

Sickpotter wrote:
It is my position that snooker is a harder cue sport than 14:1. Your

listing 14:1 champions and their records does nothing to refute my

position. You continue to rant on about the skill level of these players

without any actual experience which frankly makes you clueless as to

what's difficult and why.

Now YOU go tell Robert Byrne that he is “clueless as to what's difficult and why.”

I would love to see you try and match his credibility with your “credibility” with the

professional authors, historians, and press in the the North American pocket

billiards and billiards [carom] community. Go ahead while I LAUGH at you in your

futile attempts to match his authorship, knowledge, and table accomplishments.

FYI: And the international standard for billiards [carom] is a 10 FOOT table, you

know, (on the little tables).

The FIRST recorded perfect game in a 150 point match on a 4.5' x 9' table was by Willie Mosconi
in the 1956 World Tournament held April 2 - 17, 1956 at Kinston, NC. Mosconi was playing Jimmy
Moore and it was the last game of the tournament. Mosconi finished the 8 man double robin
tournament undefeated with a record of 14 & 0.

George Chenier was never the World Pocket Champion but I do believe he was [the] Canadian
Snooker Champion several times. He was a great player but never did too well except for 1963.

Charles [Ursitti]

Understand Sickpotter, it is NOT your fault that the source you quoted is WRONG!!! But it it YOUR

responsibility to ensure what you do quote is ACCURATE. Trust but VERIFY. Just like Hawkins did in

his 2013 finals match with The Rocket when he called a FOUL on himself for touching a ball, I post

ALL of my sources to either substantiate what I write, or CORRECT myself when I am WRONG.

Lets see you do likewise.

Sadly, the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame made an ASS out of you and themselves. Charles Ursitti

said: He was a great player but never did too well except for 1963. What he means by "but never

did too well except for 1963" is in 14.1 play. And remember, we are talking about the best Canadian

Snooker player ever? A man who learned how to play pocket billiards in Detroit. A man who thought

enough of 14.1 to COMPETE at the highest levels during his career. And from 1956 on, (on the little

tables), the BEST this WORLD CLASS CANADIAN snooker player could manage was [5 wins & 6 losses

in the 14.1 tournament that lasted from April 9 through April 14th - 1963] and that tournament was

held (on the little tables).

http://www.sportshall.ca/honoured-membe ... e-chenier/

Second paragraph.

He began playing snooker as a youngster in Ottawa, but it was in Detroit while working
as a bellhop that he really learned the game, watching players between his work shifts.

Question is: was he watching 14.1 or Snooker in Detriot?

-------------------------

A post George Chenier might have written today.

--------------------------

Dear Sickpotter

14.1 is much more difficult than you think it is, even (on the little tables).

And 14.1 players are much more skilled than you think they are or you give

them credit for. Even as a World Class Snooker player, the best I could do

in 14.1 play was [5 wins & 6 losses in the 1963 World 14.1 tournament that

lasted from April 9 through April 14th.

Signed

George Chenier

Mr Cam, you're quite welcome to come and play a few with me.

We can play 14:1, snooker, 8 ball, 9 ball or 10 ball.

I've made a perfect game in snooker
I've run 100's at 14:1
I've run an 8 pack at 9 ball
I've run a 7 pack at 8 ball
Admittedly I've little exposure to 10 ball but it's the same as 9 ball and I'll run racks.

Quote all the greats, it changes nothing in your understanding of the game.

In the end it boils down to opinion. While I have the experience to formulate my own opinion you've been been relying on others to provide you yours.

Maybe some day you'll actually pick up a cue and truly learn something beyond what you've read and watched.

As far as the info. on Chenier being incorrect......funny, I can't find on online source that says any different. Wiki lists him as the champion as well. Where are you/your source getting their info?

1963 World 14.1 Tournament:

Read this: http://charlesursitti.com/?page_id=206

From page 2 through page 8.

--------------------

I think you have a reading handicap. This is the opening page of his website.

------------------------

Dear fellow pool and billiard lovers;

This website is dedicated to those of us who love the sport and history of billiards. It is the
accumulation of over 33 years of research and collecting information and memorabilia.

It all started in 1976 at the PPPA World Open 14.1 Tournament in Asbury Park, NJ, when I
was first introduced to professional pocket billiard tournaments.

My first two television productions took place at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City.
The first one was taped on October 22, 1977 for ABC’s Wide World of Sports, but never aired
due to production difficulties. The second was taped on Valentine’s Day February 14, 1978 and
was titled “The Great Pool Shootout” or “The Match of the Century”. It featured Willie Mosconi
and Minnesota Fats along with six other players from the PPPA (Professional Pool Players Ass-
ociation) competing in a trick shot competition (Irving Crane, Steve Mizerak, Allen Hopkins, Ray
Martin, Peter Margo and Ernie Costa).

The show aired in two parts on consecutive Saturdays and Sundays and received the second
highest rating for a sport show in 1978 with a 40.7 share of the viewing audience.

I teamed up with Big Fights Inc. and together we had a ten year run on television. Shows and
series were produced for ABC’S Wide World of Sports with Howard Cosell, CBS’s Sports
Spectacular with John Madden, NBC’s Sports World, ESPN, USA and other cable networks.

In order to supply the commentators (Cosell and Madden) with accurate information I had to
research the history of the sport. I found many inaccurate statistics, so I went back to the first
recognized Pool tournament in 1878 and worked my way forward. It was fascinating! I started to
collect anything I could find in book stores, private collections and later on ebay. Then I started
researching Three-Cushion Billiards and did the same thing. I have made an investment to date
of over $450,000.00.

Some time, in the near future, I will finally publish a “Statistical History” of both Pocket Billiards
and Three-Cushion Billiards, but until then I am sharing everything I have with you.

I hope you enjoy the site.

Sincerely,

Charles J. Ursitti

-----------------

Now, YOU go tell Charles J. Ursitti that he is INCORRECT. I would love to see

you try and match his credibility with your “credibility” with the professional

authors, historians, and press in the the North American pocket billiards and

billiards [carom] community. Go ahead while I LAUGH at you in your futile

attempts to match his authorship & knowledge and accomplishments in poc-

ket billiards.

Now maybe, just maybe, you will READ more, THINK more, and POST less

about pocket billiards.

Sickpotter wrote:Steve Davis once beat Efren Reyes in a 9 ball match coming back from a 7

or 8 game deficit racing to 9.

I've seen Steve Davis play nine ball, and he is nothing to get excited about. And Steve Mizerak

beat Steve Davis at Snooker. When they played 14.1, the best run Steve Davis had was 58. And

your claim that you have run in the 100's in 14.1, sorry, you are not a creditable source.

Sickpotter wrote:The top snooker players are capable of stepping up and playing the best

in the world on any table.

Including Billiards [Caorms]?, what a STUPID & IGNORANT thing to say.

Sickpotter wrote:The top snooker players are capable of stepping up and playing the best

in the world on any table.

Have you ever seen Rocket Ronnie try to play eight ball? What a pathetic sight that was.

Sickpotter wrote:The top snooker players are capable of stepping up and playing the best

in the world on any table.

Dear Sickpotter

14.1 is much more difficult than you think it is, even (on the little tables). And 14.1 players are

much more skilled than you think they are or you give them credit for. Even as a World Class

Snooker player, the best I could do in 14.1 play was [5 wins & 6 losses in the 1963 World 14.1

tournament that lasted from April 9 through April 14th].

Signed

George Chenier

Again, you've got ZERO playing experience and are only regurgitating OTHER peoples opinions.

I've stated my opinion as to what game I believe is hardest. You've stated someone elses opinion and accepted it as gospel without ever having played the games.

Tell me, what's Mr. Ursitti's experience with PLAYING snooker?

You've never addressed my question....why have the 14:1 masters never moved to playing snooker when that's where the money is? Do these professionals like earning less than 10% of what the top snooker players make?

Come back when you've played and we can debate your position on the hardest cue sport. Until you've played you're simply using an appeal to authority to back your position which is not a valid argument.

Here's a simple thing for you to try which will give you a good idea of shot difficulty difference in the two games:

You need a snooker table and a 4.5x9 or 5x10 pool table.

Set up the following shot on both tables:

Put a ball about a 1/4 inch off the rail about 1/2 way between the corner pocket and side pocket.

Put the cue ball anywhere on the baulk line and pot the ball.

Note your success rate on each table and post about your experience actually hitting balls.

I quote the experts and the historical record. I live in the world of objective fact.

All you have is YOUR opinion. And I LAUGH at YOU and your opinion. I have shown

the website you cited

[http://www.sportshall.ca/honoured-members/28140/george-chenier/]

as WRONG and their bio that claims George Chenier won the 1963 "World Pocket

Billiards Title" is a LIE!!! Since you quote sources that LIE! What other LIES have you

spewed? I have destroyed your "OPINIONS" point by point with objective fact. I have

cited one of the best pocket billiards and billiards [caroms] authors in the U.S. and

the TOP pocket billiards and billiards [caroms] historians of the U.S. game. Who have

you cited???

Pray tell Mr. Sickpotter, what would you prefer; go to PRISON based on someone's

OPINION and the amount of evidence you have presented or have your defense

team lay out point by point the amount of evidence I have presented by some of

the most trusted and respected people in their field?

All you've spewed is records/stats.

Nothing you've spewed out offers anything to refute my position that snooker is the hardest cue sport.

My opinion is based on experience playing. It happens to be shared by professionals such as Alex Pagulyan (former 9-ball WC), Cliff Thorburn (former World Snooker champion) and others I can list but it is still first and foremost MY OPINION.

You have an opinion on what? How the US has dominated 14:1?

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION AT HAND.

Reading record books and such gives you ZERO insight into what is the hardest game.

Please, just go hit some balls and learn to form your own opinion.

If this is now a what's the hardest cue sport thread I'll say IMO it is most definitely snooker, I have played them all and never really got Into billiards, too boring for me. Pool I love because it makes me look good, I can blast balls into the pockets with spectacular effect. However if I was to try them shots on a snooker table it would be a spectacular failure. Even gimmes can be missed with the slightest twitch. Snooker is the game I'd aspire to be great at and I believe playing snooker improves my pool game tenfold.

Sickpotter wrote:
As far as the info. on Chenier being incorrect......funny, I can't find on online source that says

any different. Wiki lists him as the champion as well. Where are you/your source getting their

info?

------------------------

The simplest way to prove this is go to to the NY Times article archive. Punch in the dates of

April 1, 1963 to april 30, 1963 and search pocket billiards or billiards. The NY Times clearly

states that Luther "Wimpy" Lassiter was the winner. If this doen't work you can go to

newspaperarchives.com. There you will find numerous papers from all over the US declaring

Lassiter the champion.

If this doesn't work I [don't] know what else to show him.

Remember "Facts don't cease to exist because you choose to ignore them".

Charles Ursitti

Keep it going lads by the way, Mr Cam and Sickpotter. This thread has entertained me royally over the last few days.

http://charlesursitti.com/?page_id=202 1940 - 1949 Page 54 - 59

Feb 4 - 10, 1949 U.S. National Championship Tournament

5 x 10 foot table. 5" corner & 5.5" Side pockets

The top three finishers would meet Willie Mosconi in a double
round robin tourna- ment for the WORLD 14.1 Title. George
Chenier FAILS to qualify for the 1949 WORLD 14.1 Championship.

Game: 14.1 Match: 125 points
Field: 12 Format: Round Robin

TP - Balls Pocketed OP - Opponent Balls Pocketed TI - Total Innings
BPI - Balls Per Inning BG - Fewest Innings to Win - Each Turn at the
table counts as one Inning. HR - High Run

W L HR BG TP OP

1. James Caras 10 1 82 9 1336 845
2. Irving Crane 9 2 70 2* 1228 777
3. Andrew Ponzi 8 3 69 6 1223 781
4. George Chenier 7 4 78 8 1244 906

He scored 1244 out of a possible 1375 balls - 90.47%

Score High Inning vs. Score High Inning
Run Run

Feb 5 George Chenier 125 34 13 vs. Joseph 94 26
Canton
Feb 5 George Chenier 125 Joseph 100
Diehl
Feb 5 George Chenier 74 Bennie 125
Allen
Feb 6 George Chenier 125 Onofrio 10
Lauri
Feb 7 George Chenier 54 13 James 125 41 20
Caras
Feb 7 George Chenier 125 Howard 77
Lindley
Feb 8 George Chenier 125 78 8 Jack 23
Dean
Feb 9 George Chenier 125 20 Irving 69
Crane
Feb 9 George Chenier 125 8 Andrew 33
Ponzi
Feb 10 George Chenier 118 Joseph 125 19
Procita
Feb 10 George Chenier 123 Arthur 125 25
Cranfield

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The top three finishers would meet Willie Mosconi in a double round robin
tournament for the WORLD 14.1 Title. George Chenier QUALIFIES for the
1951 WORLD 14.1 Championship.

http://charlesursitti.com/?page_id=204 1950 - 1959 Page 13 - 19

Feb 16 - 22 1951 U.S. National Championship Tournament

First year for the 4 ½ x 9 foot table.

Game: 14.1 Match: 150 points
Field: 11 Format: Round Robin

TP - Balls Pocketed OP - Opponent Balls Pocketed TI - Total Innings BPI - Balls
Per Inning BG - Fewest Innings to Win - Each Turn at the table counts as your
Inning. HR - High Run

W L HR BG TP OP TI BPI

1. Joseph Canton 9 1 110 4 1414 772 144 9.819
2. George Chenier 7 3 123 3 1372 659 100 13.720
3. Irving Crane 7 3 102 6 1169 807 115 10.170

No Record - NR
Score High Inning vs. Score High Inning
Run Run

Feb 16 George Chenier 150 66 11 vs. Al 41 16 10
Csolosky
Feb 17 George Chenier 150 68 8 Joseph 35 13 7
Cosgrove
Feb 18 George Chenier 150 123 4 Nick Oliva 0 0 3

Feb 19 George Chenier 69 42 4 Bennie 150 106 4
Allen
Feb 20 George Chenier 150 88 12 Charles -1 2 11
Cacciapaglia
Feb 20 George Chenier 142 39 17 Joseph 150 89 18
Diehl
Feb 21 George Chenier 150 80 8 Onofrio 36 29 7
Lauri
Feb 21 George Chenier 150 79 3 Irving 63 59 2
Crane
Feb 22 George Chenier 111 34 18 Joseph 150 46 19
Canton
Feb 22 George Chenier 150 70 15 James 35 14 14
Moore

--------------------------------------------------------------

http://charlesursitti.com/?page_id=204 1950 - 1959 Page 20 - 21

Feb 23 - 25 1951 World Championship Tournament

First year for the 4 ½ x 9 foot table.

Game: 14.1 Match: 150 points
Field: 4 Format: Double Round Robin

TP - Balls Pocketed OP - Opponent Balls Pocketed TI - Total Innings BPI - Balls
Per Inning BG - Fewest Innings to Win - Each Turn at the table counts as your
Inning. HR - High Run

W L HR BG TP OP TI BPI

1. William Mosconi 6 0 98 3 900 165 48 18.75

2. Irving Crane 2 4 68 12 583 746 66 8.883

3. George Chenier 2 4 63 10 494 783 74 6.675

4. Joseph Canton 2 4 68 12 483 738 67 7.209

Score High Inning vs. Score High Inning
Run Run

Feb George Chenier 31 19 11 vs. Willie 150 47 11
Mosconi

Feb George Chenier 150 63 10 Irving 105 56 10
Crane

Feb George Chenier 150 61 13 Joseph 88 26 13
Canton

Feb George Chenier 45 30 10 Willie 150 44 11
Mosconi

Feb George Chenier 115 43 13 Irving 150 45 14
Crane

Feb George Chenier 3 15 17 Joseph 150 59 16
Canton

In this game vs. Mr. Canton, 3 to 150, George Chenier must have been PENALIZED
for some foul.

----------------------

http://charlesursitti.com/?page_id=204 1950 - 1959 Page 22 - 27

George Chenier QUALIFIES for the 1952 WORLD 14.1 Championship as a result of
his thrid place finish in the 1951 WORLD 14.1 Championship.

March 24 - April 5 1952 World Championship Tournament

Game: 14.1 Match: 150 points
Field: 10 Format: Round Robin
4 ½ x 9 foot table.

TP - Balls Pocketed OP - Opponent Balls Pocketed TI - Total Innings BPI - Balls Per
Inning BG - Fewest Innings to Win - Each Turn at the table counts as your Inning.
HR - High Run

W L HR BG TP OP TI BPI

1. William Mosconi 8 1 121 2 1281 691
2. Irving Crane 7 2 113 5 1293 701
3. James Moore 6 3 82 6 1230 928
4. Arthur Cranfield 6 3 64 8 1005 933
5. George Chenier 4 5 57 13 905 1121

Score High Inning vs. Score High Inning
Run Run

March George Chenier 2 vs. Willie 150 121 2
Mosconi

March George Chenier 27 vs. Irving 150 5
Crane

These were George Chenier’s two worst losses. They were however, to the TWO best
players in the field.

-------------------------------------------

http://charlesursitti.com/?page_id=204 1960 - 1969 Page 2 - 8

George Chenier QUALIFIES for the 1963 WORLD 14.1 Championship as a result of his
Canadian Championship in Snooker.

April 8 - 14, 1963 - World Championship Tournament

Game: 14.1 Match: 150 points
Field: 12 Format: Round Robin
Entry Fee $250 Table 4 1/2 x 9

TP - Balls Pocketed OP - Opponent Balls Pocketed TI - Total Innings BPI - Balls Per
Inning BG - Fewest Innings to Win - Each Turn at the table counts as your Inning.
HR - High Run

New World Champion 14.1 - Luther Lassiter

W L HR BG TP

1. Luther Lassiter 10 1 113 1595
2. James Moore 8 3 121
3. Irving Crane 7 4 90
4. Frank McGown 7 4 112
5. Michael Eufemia 7 4 104
6. George Chenier 5 6 150 1

George Chenier has two losses with no recorded scores. We only have complete
scores from 7 of the 11 games he played

He scored 755 out of a possible 1050 balls. 71.90%

No Record - NR W L HR BG TP OP TI BPI

5 6 150 1 755 699

Score High Inning vs. Score High Inning
Run Run

April 8 George Chenier 25 vs. Wimpy 150 84 4

April 8 George Chenier 97 Frank 150 9
McGown
April 8 George Chenier 150 Onofrio 31
Lauri
April 10 George Chenier 150 150* 1 Irving 0 0 1
Crane
April 12 George Chenier 113 Joseph 150
Canton
April 12 George Chenier 150 Verne 68
Patterson
April 13 George Chenier 150 NR Michael
Eufemia
April NR George Chenier 70 James 150
Moore
April NR George Chenier 150 NR

April NR George Chenier loses or forfeits? vs. James Cattrano

April NR George Chenier loses or forfeits?

------------------------

George Chewier - Nickname - Mr. Snooker

1949: Qualified through the 1949 Cleveland Sectional to play in the 1949 U.S. National
Championship Tournament 14.1. Did NOT qualify for the 1949 14.1 World Championship
Tournament

1951: Qualified as Canadian Champion to play in the 1951 U.S. National Championship
Tournament 14.1. Qualifies for the 1951 14.1 World Championship Tournament

1951: Plays in the 1951 14.1 World Championship Tournament

1952: Qualified to play in the 1952 14.1 World Championship Tournament as a result of
his third place finish out of four in the 1951 14.1 World Championship Tourna- ment.

1963: Qualified as Canadian Champion to play in the 1963 14.1 World Championship
Tournament.

TP - Balls Pocketed OP - Opponent Balls Pocketed TI - Total Innings BPI - Balls Per
Inning BG - Fewest Innings to Win - Each Turn at the table counts as your Inning.
HR - High Run

Record for two U.S. National Championship Tournaments 14.1 - 1949 & 1951

Feb 4 - 10, 1949 U.S. National Championship Tournament

5 x 10 foot table. 5" corner & 5.5" Side pockets - Match: 125 points

W L HR BG TP OP

1. James Caras 10 1 82 9 1336 845
2. Irving Crane 9 2 70 2* 1228 777
3. Andrew Ponzi 8 3 69 6 1223 781
4. George Chenier 7 4 78 8 1244 906

Finished 4th out of 12 He scored 1244 out of a possible 1375 balls. 90.47%

Scores 113.09 pocketed balls per game. Allowed his opposition 82.36 pocketed balls
per game

Feb 16 - 22 1951 U.S. National Championship Tournament

First year for the 4 ½ x 9 foot table.

Game: 14.1 Match: 150 points

W L HR BG TP OP TI BPI

1. Joseph Canton 9 1 110 4 1414 772 144 9.819
2. George Chenier 7 3 123 3 1372 659 100 13.720
3. Irving Crane 7 3 102 6 1169 807 115 10.170

Finished 2nd out of 11 He scored 1372 out of a possible 1500 balls. 91.46%
Scores 137.2 pocketed balls per game. Allowed his opposition 65.90 pocketed
balls per game

Combined Record for two U.S. National Championship Tournaments 14.1

W L HR BG TP OP TI BPI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 7 2616 1565


He scored 2616 out of a possible 2875 balls - 90.99% Scores 124.57 pocketed
balls per game. Allowed his opposition 74.52 pocketed balls per game

--------------------------

Record for Three World Championship Tournaments 14.1. Match: 150 points for
the 1951, 1952, & 1963 14.1 World Championship Tournaments

Feb 23 - 25 1951 World Championship Tournament

TP - Balls Pocketed OP - Opponent Balls Pocketed TI - Total Innings BPI - Balls
Per Inning BG - Fewest Innings to Win - Each Turn at the table counts as your
Inning

W L HR BG TP OP TI BPI

1. William Mosconi 6 0 98 3 900 165 48 18.75

2. Irving Crane 2 4 68 12 583 746 66 8.883

3. George Chenier 2 4 63 10 494 783 74 6.675

Score High Inning vs. Score High Inning
Run Run

Three worst defeats:

Feb George Chenier 31 19 11 vs. Willie 150 47 11
Mosconi
Feb George Chenier 45 30 10 Willie 150 44 11
Mosconi
Feb George Chenier 3 15 17 Joseph 150 59 16
Canton

1951 - George Chewier Finished 3rd out of 4. He scored 494 out of a possible 900
balls - 54.88% scoring percentage.

Scores 82.33 pocketed balls per game. Allowed his opposition 130.5 pocketed balls
per game.

W L HR BG TP OP TI BPI

1. William Mosconi 6 0 98 3 900 165 48 18.75

William Mosconi Finished 1st out of 4. He Scores 900 out of a possible 900 balls.

100.00% Scores 150 pocketed balls per game. Allowed his opposition only 27.5

pocketed balls per game.

------------------------

March 24 - April 5 1952 World Championship Tournament

TP - Balls Pocketed OP - Opponent Balls Pocketed TI - Total Innings BPI - Balls Per
Inning BG - Fewest Innings to Win - Each Turn at the table counts as your Inning

W L HR BG TP OP TI BPI

1. William Mosconi 8 1 121 2 1281 691
2. Irving Crane 7 2 113 5 1293 701
3. James Moore 6 3 82 6 1230 928
4. Arthur Cranfield 6 3 64 8 1005 933
5. George Chenier 4 5 57 13 905 1121

Two worst defeats:

Score High Inning vs. Score High Inning
Run Run

March 27 George Chenier 2 0 vs. Willie 150 121 2
Mosconi

April 3 George Chenier 27 vs. Irving 150 5
Crane

Finished 5th out of 10. He scored 905 out of a possible 1350 balls - 67.03% scoring
percentage.

Scores 100.55 pocketed balls per game. Allowed his opposition 124.55 pocketed

balls per game.

W L HR BG TP OP TI BPI

1. William Mosconi 8 1 121 2 1281 691

Scores 1281 out of a possible 1350 balls. 94.88% Scores 142.33 pocketed balls per
game.

His low score was 78. Allowed his opposition 76.77 pocketed balls per game.

-----------------------

April 8 - 14, 1963 World 14.1 Championship Tournament

TP - Balls Pocketed OP - Opponent Balls Pocketed TI - Total Innings BPI - Balls Per
Inning BG - Fewest Innings to Win - Each Turn at the table counts as your Inning

W L HR BG TP OP

1. Luther Lassiter 10 1 113 1595
2. James Moore 8 3 121
3. Irving Crane 7 4 90
4. Frank McGown 7 4 112
5. Michael Eufemia 7 4 104
6. George Chenier 5 6 150 1 755 699

George Chenier has two losses with no recorded scores. We only have complete scores
from 7 of the 11 games he played.

Score High Inning vs. Score High Inning
Run Run

April 8 George Chenier 25 vs. Wimpy 150 84 4
Luther “Wimpy” Lassiter

Finished 6th out of 12. He scored 755 out of a possible 1050 balls - 71.90% scoring

percentage. Scores 107.85 pocketed balls per game. Allowed his opposition 99.85

pocketed balls per game.

W L HR BG TP OP TI BPI

1. Luther Lassiter 10 1 113 1595 758

Finished 1st out of 12. He scored 1595 out of a possible 1650 balls - 96.66% scoring
percentage. Scores 145.00 pocketed balls per game. Allowed his opposition 68.90
pocketed balls per game.

His low score was 82.

Combined Record for three World Championship Tournaments - 1951, 1952, & 1963

W L HR BG TP OP TI BPI

1951 - 3. George Chenier 2 4 63 10 494 783 74 6.675

1952 - 5. George Chenier 4 5 57 13 905 1121

1963 - 6. George Chenier 5 6 150 1 755 699

11 15

He scored 2154 out of a possible 3300 balls. 65.27% For an average of 82.84 pocket-

ed balls per game. Allowed his opposition 100.11 pocketed balls per game.

This thread has been entertaining to a point, but I am fast losing interest due to the lack of substance to any of the arguments.

I wonder if it's too late to rescue it with my 2 cents worth?


On a personal level, I usually attempt to base my opinions on my own experiences and not on the opinions of other people, so I'm not particularly impressed with "X says this" and "Y says that" no matter who "X" and "Y" are and how many world titles they have won between them.

I was probably 5 years old the last time I told someone that my dad was bigger than their dad.


To the subject - as it is now...

My biggest irritation (read: heart-ache) with snooker comes from my own inability to master the art of cueing consistently - one week great, next week rubbish. This is one things that you can (often) get away with on a pool table but will just leave you crashing and burning on a snooker table.

That aspect alone makes snooker a harder game from MY point of view.

I make no claims to being an expert on (or even caring, actually) how hard any of the multitude of pool/billiard/carom games are since, with the exception of 3-cushion, I really don't pay them much attention and only play on the small tables when I'm too tired to concentrate enough to play snooker.


For the record I play snooker for fun now (was previously in the top 8 in my country) and occasionally wander over to the pool tables to (usually) get my butt kicked because the tactics of the games are so different.

Have fun with that.

Wow, just.............wow.



I realize that this is a very old thread, but I have just stumbled upon your site and I could not leave this topic without response.

I tried to read this thread in its entirety, but I must admit that I could only choke down and digest one or two lines at a time from the industrious Mr. Cam. Beside an arguably unusual knack for expressing his point of view, he has also demonstrated himself to have the "copy and paste" skills of an avid show-n-tell prepper kindergartner. On behalf of the United States of America...nay, on behalf of the entire continent of North America, I would like to apologize for the genesis of this thread if it is remotely within my powers to do so.

I can understand that it is easy to stereotype, but please do understand that there are a few of us this side of the pond, apparently a very precious few, who really do understand and venerate this great pastime. Thank you for your patience.

I think it's fair to say Mr Cam is eccentric by any countries standards