SVB runs a 305 in straight pool
- Thread starter robsnotes4u
- Start date
The old Brunswick Monarch cushions did not have as much bounce ?
Didn't those last for decades and still played great ? Lots of people swore by them. Same with the Manhattan cushions by AMF.
And not that difficult to understand for someone who plays well. Some here just can't seem to understand that.
I said I would not bother with you, but I must ask one question...
If anyone ran 527+ balls on a modern table, would you give them credit for breaking the record?
Why wouldn't anyone give someone credit for running 527 balls? That's a lot on any equipment.
But lets see how someone who can really play feels on the subject, and how much harder it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOlxow0l8bE
So, you would give them credit then. :wink:
My argument, earlier, was about table difficulty (new vs. old), not player skill. Your argument was that on the older tables, it was more difficult to break out the balls. While I agree, it definitely was more difficult, you missed my point entirely, as it had nothing to do with anyone's ability to break out the balls. You see, I am not speaking of Shane's or Willie Mosconi's ability to break out clusters, regardless of table difficulty; I'm speaking of table difficulty in general.
As you so eloquently put it, "Some here just can't seem to understand that."
I think most would. It matters not that equipment is better, etc., the record is potting balls. It never comes up that Babe Ruth hit against guys that throw about as hard as HS kids. So what, it was not his fault the 95mph arms were not around back then. You can't swing a dead cat in a stadium today and not hit a guy that throws 95mph as there are more guys today that throw 95 plus than at any time in history of baseball.
So, you would give them credit then. :wink:
My argument, earlier, was about table difficulty (new vs. old), not player skill. Your argument was that on the older tables, it was more difficult to break out the balls. While I agree, it definitely was more difficult, you missed my point entirely, as it had nothing to do with anyone's ability to break out the balls. You see, I am not speaking of Shane's or Willie Mosconi's ability to break out clusters, regardless of table difficulty; I'm speaking of table difficulty in general.
As you so eloquently put it, "Some here just can't seem to understand that."
I think it is more you are missing my point.
I made a statement about cloth. I did not make a statement about "equipment in general" as you call it. And of course it takes more skill to run more balls on slower cloth (as you agreed above). It is why Mosconi's record is quite extraordinary.
Yes, I agree that if you had the table Mosconi played on, it would be more difficult than on an identical table with Simonis.
However, where I disagree, is that we don't have Mosconi's table and today's tables have smaller pockets with a deeper shelf, different rails, and different cloth, where temperature changes the game like night and day.
So, we are back to speaking of equipment, in general.
I am not speaking of equipment in general. John complained the most about the cloth, not that he was playing on a Diamond, or ridiculous pockets. 95% of the shots in straight pool, if played correctly, are 4' or less so, as I have already said, it does not matter as much in straight pool on the pocket size as it does the cloth. Slow cloth is a huge thing to overcome in getting huge high runs like that. Try it. Is it really that difficult to understand? And if someone today run 600 on Simonis, that is a great and awesome feat, but not as tough as 526 on slow cloth.
But 300 is a long long way from 526 so it don't matter here in this thread.
Thanks, it's a shame it wasn't recorded.
I have understood your point since the beginning of the thread. It is my point (opinion) that you choose not to understand, because you disagree with it.
That is all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JCdJ08_M3Y
Look like Centennial balls to me .
Corner pockets had to be at least 5".
Look like Centennial balls to me .
Corner pockets had to be at least 5".
Valid point but Mosconi did have an opponent and an audience when he ran 526 and he claimed he had a higher run over 600 in practice - I think it was 609.
That run was the worst thing to ever happen to Mosconi. He was the best player to ever play straight pool, dominated the game for decades and was a multiple time world champ such as pool has not seen since, and all people ever talk about is the freaking 526. God forbid anyone ever beats the 526, everyone will forget Mosconi even existed. His high run overshadowed his far more impressive accomplishments, and that is sad as hell.
As a friend of Shane and this accomplishment I think it is very relevant. How many people have run over 300?
Proves there is more to his game than breaking.
So if you don't like the post and kudos for Shane just leave the thread
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nah, cause us Mosconi "fanboys" will accept if he loses his 526 mark, but our reply will be, "oh yeah, how many World Championships did Mr. 527 every win"
I think that his number of World Championships is the record that is unbreakable, regardless of the person, the equipment, whatever, just not gonna happen. But someone has to break 526 before we can begin discussing Willie's real accomplishments
YES! And that is my FINAL answer.
The Monarch cushions are better than a lot of modern rails, including Brunswick SuperSpeed.
And I played on lots of fast cloths when I was a kid.
...played 9-ball on a Granito carom cloth in Baker's long time ago....the spin would stay
on for the fifth rail.
A lot of people don't seem to understand...the CHEAP cloth was slow.....
....and played horrible.