Pathetic Shark
Banned
Actually, yes. There are a number of people on here that can do it.
Really? Like who?
Actually, yes. There are a number of people on here that can do it.
This thread's pretty entertaining. Some thoughts:
Helfert vs. Wiley Debate Bet
• Easy to set this up:
1. Helfert and Wiley each write their "essay" on why they think their game is more strategic. email it to AZB staff.
2. A mod or whoever posts a poll, and the very first post in the poll contains BOTH player's prepared essay.
3. The poll is simple: which game is more strategic, 1p or 2-shot rollout. Pick one.
4. A mod blocks or deletes any comments EXCEPT those made by CJ or Jay. Those 2 can go back'n'forth.
5. They get 2 days to make their case and then the poll closes.
Readers can vote any time after the poll opens, but the very first words in the poll's post
encourage readers to A: stay out of it and B: withhold judgment until the final day.
Whoever gets more votes is the winner.
• SJD = 'San Jose Dick' McMorra if anyone missed AtLarge's broad hint. Sounds like someone who can play a lil!
• I think someone in this thread asked "so I can screw up shape and get hooked late in my run,
then just push out to get out of trouble? That's lame"... I haven't played much but think about this one and you'll see it's not really a "get out of jail free" card. You screw up, roll out so it's not hooked.
If I can see the ball then I can play a legit safety on you. You then must make a good hit or it's BIH.
CJ -- Have you forgotten? When your video of 29 in a row in one pocket was posted seven months ago, your claim that the pockets were a halr over 4" was thoroughly debunked. When one number is used to describe a pocket's size, conventionally it is the mouth dimension (nose to nose). Many other factors also affect a pocket's degree of difficulty, but the mouth on those corner pockets is about 4 ½". Here's a paragraph from one of my posts at that time:
"But here's why I chimed in. This, apparently, is the table on which Earl performed his million-dollar magic. That is an historical event. CJ is making a documentary about it that will become part of pool's historical record. CJ has mentioned a number of times how tight the table is. He has used the term "triple-shimmed" a number of times to describe the table. Well, "triple-shimmed" really doesn't mean much in terms of a table's degree of difficulty (how wide was it before shimming? how thick are the shims?). Now, with this video, we have actually gotten a look at this table. And, in the video, CJ says the table has "just a hair over 4" pockets." By conventional standards, that is an incorrect statement, and I think CJ should be aware of that, and not repeat the mistake, when he creates the definitive documentary on Earl's historical feat."
Really? Like who?
If the pocket was 4 1/2" wide, wouldn't the balls (being 2 1/4" apiece) fit into the pocket easily?
To me (in the video), they look like they are only slightly over 1/3rd into the pocket with the center of the balls on the bed of the table, outside the mouth of the pocket.
"REAL EYES, REALIZE, REAL LIES"
'The Game is the Teacher'
Really? Like who?
With only ten seconds thought into it, I can come up with at least 5. Try giving it some thought.![]()
Can anyone else here post a video of themselves running 29 balls into one pocket of any size like this?
I think those pockets look just about like mine. Mine are 4.5 inches.
I do think I could run 15. It would probably take me a while. I don't think I could ever run 29 in a row. I'm not so sure these were run consecutively, but I guess we will just have to take CJ's word for that. He's certainly good enough to run 29 in a row so I don't see why it's that big of deal either way.
Probably not. And neither could CJ.
The balls were run on two separate occasions, not consecutively. Not to try to take away anything from the individual runs, but why gild the lily to make it seem more amazing than it really is?
I think those pockets look just about like mine. Mine are 4.5 inches.
I do think I could run 15. It would probably take me a while. I don't think I could ever run 29 in a row. I'm not so sure these were run consecutively, but I guess we will just have to take CJ's word for that. He's certainly good enough to run 29 in a row so I don't see why it's that big of deal either way.
He ran the first rack and then left. Presumably Mary was reviewing the video and probably messing around on the table. Then CJ comes back and she tells him he has to try it again because he only ran 14. He steps up and runs 15. Thus consecutively.
That's what I got out of the video.
Anthony and Neil are simply nitpicking.
Probably not. And neither could CJ.
The balls were run on two separate occasions, not consecutively. Not to try to take away anything from the individual runs, but why gild the lily to make it seem more amazing than it really is?
Even if it took him 10 tries to do it, I bet it will take MANY more than that before the average shortstop does it.
If a guy in a tournament runs a rack then takes a five minute break and comes back and runs another rack did he run them consecutively or not?
No need to gild the lily or fabricate anything.
Can you name them please? I'm not questioning there are people here who can do it (I have no idea) but am genuinely interested.