High Runs -- Free for All or...

lfigueroa

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Reading about the recent controversay over Diana Nyad's swim from Cuba to Florida

http://wapo.st/18NSAm6
http://goo.gl/ygaJJn

by, of all things, the Marathons Swimmer's Forum, got me thinking if we -- whomever that might end up being -- shouldn't try and set some standards for high runs at 14.1.

I'm thinking that maybe there could be an established a committee of six or so folks that were well enough regarded by the 14.1 community at large to evaluate and eventually bless high run efforts at the sport.

Now, I know that there would be no "official" status to such a group, but I think it is a idea worth throwing out there and chumming the waters with amongst the 14.1 aficionados. What say you?

Lou Figueroa
 
I have to agree with alstl, what exactly is being evaluated/blessed?

Are you concerned with the legitimacy of the run? I know some people here act a bit suspicious if a new member posts a very high (> 50 or so) run. And there has been talk in the past of whether people should decide if a high run is legit or the product of creative editing.

Are you just interested in evaluating whether or not the run was "good straight pool"?
 
What kind of runs are you talking about? In my estimation, there are three kinds:

1. Runs in Competition
The format in which Darren Appleton just set the world record of 200 and out. It was taped, but so what if it hadn't been, for it had been done in the presence of many?

2. Arranged Exhibitions with Spectators
The format in which Mosconi made his 526. Today's equivalent is the 14.1 challenge format used at Derby City, Super Billiards Expo, Southern Classic, and the BCAPL, where thousands and thousands of innings take place annually in the hope of a high run, possibly beating Mosconi.

3. Practice Runs
The format in which Babe Cranfield ran 768, believed by many, including me, to be one of two times that Babe broke 700. Another celebrated practice run in Engert's 491. These are runs that occur while one is training or playing pool socially.

Verfication in Category 1 unnecessary, and verification in Category 2 and Category 3 should be by witnesses that saw the run from start to finish, not, in my opinion, by a reviewer of videotape. Even a practice run should not require videotaped evidence that it occurred.
 
Last edited:
lfigueroa said:
I'm thinking that maybe there could be an established a committee of six or so folks that were well enough regarded by the 14.1 community at large to evaluate and eventually bless high run efforts at the sport.

Now, I know that there would be no "official" status to such a group, but I think it is a idea worth throwing out there and chumming the waters with amongst the 14.1 aficionados. What say you?

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

what would they do, either "bless" or "not bless" the run?

do they care what equipment was used?
 
michael4 said:
what would they do, either "bless" or "not bless" the run?

do they care what equipment was used?
Click to expand...

An example is the way snooker/billiards records have been recorded. Among other things, the governing body requires the tables to meet pocket size/shape standards. To help with that, they make available pocket templates of the correct shape and if a record is claimed, the table must match the templates.

Probably won't happen in pool for a while.

The BCA used to have a Records Committee which looked at the available info about records and accepted or rejected claims.
 
Bob Jewett said:
An example is the way snooker/billiards records have been recorded. Among other things, the governing body requires the tables to meet pocket size/shape standards. To help with that, they make available pocket templates of the correct shape and if a record is claimed, the table must match the templates.

Probably won't happen in pool for a while.

The BCA used to have a Records Committee which looked at the available info about records and accepted or rejected claims.
Click to expand...

Mosconi reportedly ran his 526 on an 8' table with buckets and non-modern cloth, balls or cue. How does that compare to today's equipment in terms of legitimacy?

Speaking only for myself, in this day with everybody owning a video camera I believe any claim of beating Mosconi's 526 or any other big achievement would need to be on video. They only thing to evaluate then is whether the equipment is "legitimate" but how do you determine that?
 
DTL said:
See highlighted red area above..........will never happen on the tables used at these events --> Diamonds with 4.5" pockets (although great for rotation pool/1-hole). Likely will never happen on < 5" pockets. JS's 400+ was on 5" pockets per his statement on his taped 245, an outstanding run on 4 5/8" pockets.
Click to expand...

Point well taken.

Things got even worse this year when ten footers with tight pockets were used at Derby City in the 14.1 challenge. Even 100 ball runs were near impossible. I'd like to see these 14.1 challenges contested on 9-foot tables with 5" pockets, which would make beating Mosconi possible, though still very improbable.
 
I was thinking of the controversy about the swim and in particular about The English Channel Rules mentioned in the NatGeo story, a portion of which read:


"English Channel Rules

Webb's feat, replicated by more than 1,000 people since, is honored today by a set of standards—referred to simply as "English Channel rules"—that have come to govern most swims of ten miles or more in the small and quirky sport.

According to these rules, swimmers should not wear or use anything that will aid their speed, buoyancy, heat retention, or endurance. That means no wetsuits, no fins, no sleeves. Swim caps can be latex or silicone, but not neoprene, which boosts warmth.

Above all, swimmers must have no physical contact with their boat or any person, other than moments when food and drink is shared. Clinging to a boat means automatic disqualification.

Channel purists have dismissed Nyad's attire—she wore a protective suit to ward off jellyfish stings. Others booed the streamer, attached to a boat, that she followed. Many were turned off by the lack of an outside, unbiased observer.

Under the English Channel rules, swimmers who want to be recognized for a successful crossing must have onboard an independent observer who marks their progress and records the course. (Most channel swimming associations require this.) Those notes create a record that not only provides proof of a swimmer's success, but also guides other swimmers on the best routes and the best tides, so that they too may cross successfully."


So after reading the story, my thought was that, at a minimum, there should be video documentation, no? And if no video, independent observer(s). Or would it be OK if someone runs a big number and says their best friend, or wife, or girlfriend was the only one to see it? I think there is also the issue of players themselves picking up CBs (or any other ball, for that matter) for cleaning -- does the run count? What about polishing the balls during a run -- once at the start, or is it OK to polish them every rack? Can you grease them up, or must they be kept free of polish/wax? What about fouls? CB fouls only, or all ball fouls -- is the run still good if the player accidentally moves a ball?

Admittedly, there is not a lot beyond that to consider. Tables, pockets, cloth, and balls are all over the place. But, perhaps there are a few key things to think about.

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:
lfigueroa said:
[...]
So after reading the story, my thought was that, at a minimum, there should be video documentation, no? And if no video, independent observer(s). Or would it be OK if someone runs a big number and says their best friend, or wife, or girlfriend was the only one to see it? I think there is also the issue of players themselves picking up CBs (or any other ball, for that matter) for cleaning -- does the run count? What about polishing the balls during a run -- once at the start, or is it OK to polish them every rack? Can you grease them up, or must they be kept free of polish/wax? What about fouls? CB fouls only, or all ball fouls -- is the run still good if the player accidentally moves a ball?

Admittedly, there is not a lot beyond that to consider. Tables, pockets, cloth, and balls are all over the place. But, perhaps there are a few key things to think about.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Lou:

Just curious, but is your suggestion targeted at the folks who post their high runs in the AZB Straight Pool Challenge? Or is it targeted at high runs in general -- i.e. anyone who claims a high run of "x" number of balls that puts them in very thin air / elite company?

If the former, I can see what you're talking about, in that someone can report a high run on ineligible equipment (e.g. SidePocket's run of 110 on a barbox that somehow made it to the upper tier of the AZB 2013 Straight Pool Challenge list). There should be minimum standards, like the run should be on at the minimum a 9-footer (the standard platform that 14.1 is played on), in order for the run to qualify for "placement" on the high run list. Otherwise, it's unfair to the rest who play and practice 14.1 according to standards.

However, video proof? I'm kind of on the fence about that one. While we (the readership) have been "had" by those unscrupulous people who either claim runs they're not capable of making, or else have modified their video to e.g. edit out a miss or move a break ball to a more favorable position, I think a couple witnesses to the run should be sufficient, or a single witness in good standing here in this forum, if the player or establishment is not equipped for video (which many aren't). E.g. if you say you witnessed so-and-so run a 100, I'm sure noone here would have qualms believing you. The same for Steve Kurtz, or Mike Grosso, or Bob Jewett, or Bill Maropolis, or Dennis Walsh, or any of a number of well-established folks. We know who those folks are -- you say their name (or screenname), and go, "oh yes, no problem there -- I believe him/her." Folks who'd never posted here before and suddenly spring out of the blue with some high number that is well above what any average straight pooler can run, needs to provide evidence in the form of video or witness(es). I think this is common sense.

-Sean
 
lfigueroa said:
Reading about the recent controversay over Diana Nyad's swim from Cuba to Florida

http://wapo.st/18NSAm6
http://goo.gl/ygaJJn

by, of all things, the Marathons Swimmer's Forum, got me thinking if we -- whomever that might end up being -- shouldn't try and set some standards for high runs at 14.1.

I'm thinking that maybe there could be an established a committee of six or so folks that were well enough regarded by the 14.1 community at large to evaluate and eventually bless high run efforts at the sport.

Now, I know that there would be no "official" status to such a group, but I think it is a idea worth throwing out there and chumming the waters with amongst the 14.1 aficionados. What say you?

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

The Nyad controversy is retarded in the highest order.

So unless you get stung an inch from your life by box jellyfish, your marathon swim isn't valid? That's like saying you're not a real football player unless you play without a helmet and mouthpiece.

So she wears a suit to prevent herself from launching into anaphalactic shock from a barrage of jelly fish stings and people cry foul?

These same mongoloids were saying another swimmer's marathon feat was invalid because she used a protective shark cage. So if you risk getting swallowed by jaws... it's legit... if you get equipment to protect your nuts from turning into a hammerhead's gumdrops, your swim doesn't count? WTF???

The same people who knock Nyad for her ungodly feat wouldn't swim 300 yards unprotected in those shark and jellyfish-polluted waters let alone 90 frickin' miles...while looking like a top-water lure the whole time.

We should make a committee to analyze the legitimacy of posts making dumb comparasons. You seem like someone who would put an asterisk beside Nyad's name if she swam to Australia while protecting herself from being stung and being turned into a feeding frenzy.

Swimmer forum people are probably the same people who light bottle rockets from their asses on Youtube.

Let's put Lou in charge of legitimizing runs. I'm in.




Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
 
Sorry to interrupt this conversation. Just wanted to let everyone know I ran a 17 today.

It was recorded. Also got 6 witnesses to sign a paper stating they viewed the run from beginning to end, and that there was no foul play. There was a doctor on site as well for blood tests that were done before and after the run.
 
BeiberLvr said:
Sorry to interrupt this conversation. Just wanted to let everyone know I ran a 17 today.

It was recorded. Also got 6 witnesses to sign a paper stating they viewed the run from beginning to end, and that there was no foul play. There was a doctor on site as well for blood tests that were done before and after the run.
Click to expand...

But did you polish the balls between racks?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
 
sfleinen said:
Lou:

Just curious, but is your suggestion targeted at the folks who post their high runs in the AZB Straight Pool Challenge? Or is it targeted at high runs in general -- i.e. anyone who claims a high run of "x" number of balls that puts them in very thin air / elite company?

If the former, I can see what you're talking about, in that someone can report a high run on ineligible equipment (e.g. SidePocket's run of 110 on a barbox that somehow made it to the upper tier of the AZB 2013 Straight Pool Challenge list). There should be minimum standards, like the run should be on at the minimum a 9-footer (the standard platform that 14.1 is played on), in order for the run to qualify for "placement" on the high run list. Otherwise, it's unfair to the rest who play and practice 14.1 according to standards.

However, video proof? I'm kind of on the fence about that one. While we (the readership) have been "had" by those unscrupulous people who either claim runs they're not capable of making, or else have modified their video to e.g. edit out a miss or move a break ball to a more favorable position, I think a couple witnesses to the run should be sufficient, or a single witness in good standing here in this forum, if the player or establishment is not equipped for video (which many aren't). E.g. if you say you witnessed so-and-so run a 100, I'm sure noone here would have qualms believing you. The same for Steve Kurtz, or Mike Grosso, or Bob Jewett, or Bill Maropolis, or Dennis Walsh, or any of a number of well-established folks. We know who those folks are -- you say their name (or screenname), and go, "oh yes, no problem there -- I believe him/her." Folks who'd never posted here before and suddenly spring out of the blue with some high number that is well above what any average straight pooler can run, needs to provide evidence in the form of video or witness(es). I think this is common sense.

-Sean
Click to expand...


Sean, I wasn't really thinking about the piss ant runs you or I might put up, more about the 300 ball plus runs. But, having said that, there is no reason why a generally accepted set of guidelines should not apply to one and all.

My thinking was that if some general principles could be laid out, it might preclude controversy down the road.

Personally I don't think it's OK for a player to move balls -- accidentally or with purpose. I also think it wouldn't hurt to have standards of proof. And the ball polishing thing... well, let's just say that's probably more debatable.

Lou Figueroa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top