Kris_b1104 said:

Shane is a way more refined player today than he was over a decade ago. He's made many improvements on his wobbly stroke and has been even more accurate in the past 5-10 years. Shane today would give 2007 Shane the 6 or 7 ball. The knowledge and shot repertoire he has gained in his arsenal is enough to beat young Shane.

Also, one reason Shane was dominating everything and everyone back then is because there weren't as many elite players as there are in today's era of pro pool. Less competition and fewer elite players, so it was easier for him to be the stand out. Today, he is no longer the biggest shark in the smallest pond.

Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. Shane plays as well as he ever has, and probably better than he did a decade ago.

The rules have evolved in a way that he cannot dominate with his break the way he did when he had his greatest success (meaning 2014-16), but by adding features to his game and becoming more refined tactically, he has managed to keep up with the much higher grade of pros we find in today's game. Assuming their careers are still going when they are 42, I really doubt either Josh or Fedor will still be a Top 5 player in the world based on Fargo, as Shane is at present. Of course, we shall see.

Those who fail to appreciate just how difficult it is to stay at or near the top of the pro game year after year when the game has exploded internationally simply aren't giving Shane enough credit. He's a modern marvel. Only a few have ever had his staying power.

vintagecollectibles831 said:

Some of them appear to have super sharp points. This one for example. It is a Handmade Custom though.

Joss Collector Cue HM016 - Joss Cues - Handmade since 1968

Joss Collector cue HM016, Five pointy points, hand-select curly maple, rear has a dashed ring, the wrap is cowhide embossed to look like an elephant ear.

josscues.com

Click to expand...

I was referring to the Joss cues on PoolDawg.
I know that Joss can and will make custom cues with sharp points, but most production aren't

I'm working on a more general purpose ball rack. Maybe 2 types. One that screws to the Dimaond table somewhere, and a second that sits on a shelf and can be moved wherever needed. My printer can only print 4 balls wide in one row. I'm thinking holding 8 total balls (2 rows) is enough for 99% of the games ever played. I made a handicap chart of all the games I've played over the years, and it seems only 10-6 and 13-5 would end up with a ball or 2 without a home, that might end up on the floor, or potentially stacked on top, but not too stable. Do you one hole players think 8 balls in the holder is enough? For the games that go to 9 (with no coin on the rail), such as 9-7, 8 would be enough because that 9th pocketed ball never actually goes inside the rack.





I printed this one last night that I had designed a couple years ago (but never printed). I'm going to take it to the pool room tonight to see how it fits on the diamond table in the black flat area between the ball return and the leg. It also sits on a shelf, but it wasn't intended that way. I'll see how stable it is in real use. The shelf version I'd intend to have a wider base.



This is one idea I'm sketching up, by pencil still, for a shelf version.

For both types, if I can get it to fit 8 balls total instead of 12, it will make it a lot easier to fit and print.

GoldCrown said:

Where did you see this.... best I saw is 50 for around $17. I think $1.50 is a Civil War price.

Click to expand...

The box is on ebay. The price label does not look terribly old....maybe it is a thrift store tag.

qolbrand said:

When i very first started playing this game, i would play a combination of 9.1 and take 5 over and over and over again. i think i’m probably due for another session of that

Click to expand...

i had a half hour to play today, so i squozed in some of this.

i missed many easy balls. but it was a fun change of pace.

Login to view embedded media