I was with you for a minute, but it seems more like mental gymnastics
Shane Van Boening's World Record
- Thread starter raise1
- Start date
I rambled on for too long, I know.
I'll say it simpler. .... there are no shots on a 9 that is different then a 7... same angles...same shots.... just speed difference. If you have a 8 1/2 foot shot, you probably pissed away your cue ball control. If it happens, it's at least unlikely.
Anything else is all in your head. That's the way I try to look at it every time I get the pleasure to play on a 9foot.
I don’t think he was saying that he runs out 75 percent of the time-he was stating he runs out 75 percent more frequently on a 7 vs 9 footer
Well said. You could take this argument one step further and say that only records set on a 10' table should count, becauise that's what they played tournaments on for decades (up until the late 40's in fact). Perhaps back then when the 9' table became more popular, many people scoffed at it as a little too easy.
The pros will play on the floor if the money is there!
They are both rightly recognized as exhibition runs and are valid runs in my book, and BCA certification represents ample substantiation of John's run in my books.
My point has always been "why have an exhibition run record on the books at all?" The billiard press quite rightly reported Appleton's 200 and out vs Bustamante as a world record when it happened, breaking Joe Procita's record of 180-something. I've always felt that pool against the ghost is not the same as pool against an opponent. Achievements in practice are just that and are not to be confused with what is accomplished in the true arena of battle with pro specifications, pro opponents, and tournament pressure.
I've always believed it's a bit like the difference between succeeding on the pistol range and succeeding in actual combat. It's a different situation when someone is shooting back.
Totally agree on all points.Well put and I can say for myself and probably many others in this forum that we don’t hate bar boxes. I love 9’ because they are challenging and requires a hard and a soft stroke and you can play with either almost exclusively if you know how to play proficiently at either. Some days I hate them.
I really enjoy bar boxes for entertainment. They are fun as all hell coming from a 9’.
I commonly play at our local bar which serves good food and me and the family go to eat and have a few beers. My goal is to try to hold the table all night long till closing. Doesn’t always happen but I try every time.
Now as far as competition, meh. It’s too easy to run out. If I had to gage the amount of times I run out on a 9’ and a 7’ I would say I run out 75% more of the time on a 7’ vs a 9’. That’s huge and not exaggerated. So if I can do that then the pros are obviously running the same or more. That’s why you can see 28 break and runs. Somewhere in the world although probably not documented someone has ran more.
Sure it’s an enormous achievement for Shane or any player. But, let’s be realistic for a moment. In no way is a 7’ tougher than a 9’. Although 7’ tables are more popular right now and possibly forever who know’s, it’s not considered mainstream professional.
Maybe I'm just not that strong a 9ft player, but throw me on a barbox and look out. I play that game a few times a year and my runout rate is well North of 60%. Packages of 5/6 are not uncommon. However, and I've said this once already in this very thread. There is a massive difference between an actual barbox and smaller 7ft version of a 9fter. Diamond 7fters can be just as tough as any 9ft. My personal success rate on a diamond-ish 7ft is still stronger than 9, but no where near a true to form barbox.
Wait, what? You probably meant to analyze shooting at the range for practice, or shooting in competition against an opponent. Lets not think shooting pool is akin to going to war. You don't need someone shooting back at you to determine if you can hit the broad side of a barn. just saying.
Also, there is a book on world records, most of which were not involved during any competition. Pool is not like mainstream sports, so we got to take the records where we can get them
Last edited:
Not entirely true..
CB control goes beyond just spd. The way you utilize the rails to funnel the CB into the correct zone for the next shot changes as well.
I'm probably 95% 9ft play. Pure potting for me on a barbox is comically easy. It's the finer CB control of spinning off multiple rails that may give me issue. Usually I'll bail myself out with shot making, but the point remains.
Agreed... The heat of battle, and the potential consequences for mis-steps changes how a player manages their play.
I've been 'practicing' a lot of straight pool in the last year or so. Most of my high run efforts (which is every turn at the table when you play solo) ends with some dumb risk. A risk I would never take if in competition.
Last edited:
My previous post is how I go about playing on a 9 foot. It works for me. I have to preach what I practice.
Try this.... when you play on a 9 foot, use 1 to 1 1/2 ounce heavier cue.
Try this.... when you play on a 9 foot, use 1 to 1 1/2 ounce heavier cue.
I reread the previous post... With all due respect, I think the heavy cue for larger table play is an effort to quell something that's all in your head.
What does adding this extra cue weight do for you in terms of determining the required CB englsh and rail management on a 9ft as compared to a 7...?
I'm not sure why. I switched to my spare cue and I started playing better on the 9 foot. Its 1.2 ounces heavier.
I do the same for slow/fast tables. Lighter cue for fast tables, heavier for slow tables.
Yes, yours is a better comparison.
I tend to agree with you here for the most part. Records made in exhibitions should be labeled as such, opposed to those made in a tournament setting. For example someone may have broken the record for the Mile during a practice run and without the proper certificatrion it will not be recognized as a new world record.
I will point out that Mosconi's record run did come while playing an opponent and was witnessed in its entirety by over thirty people. He did not start with BIH on a break shot. On the other hand, John's run came after hundreds, if not thousands, of attempts playing against the "Ghost" if you will. He had the benefit of using the same table over and over again. Unlike Mosconi who had to adjust to a different table in every poolroom he entered. Big difference in the two imo. Put Willie on one table and let him go out it over and over for days or weeks and what would his high run have been? Maybe 1,000 or more!
I have said that repeatedly.I tend to agree with you here for the most part. Records made in exhibitions should be labeled as such, opposed to those made in a tournament setting. For example someone may have broken the record for the Mile during a practice run and without the proper certificatrion it will not be recognized as a new world record.
I will point out that Mosconi's record run did come while playing an opponent and was witnessed in its entirety by over thirty people. He did not start with BIH on a break shot. On the other hand, John's run came after hundreds, if not thousands, of attempts playing against the "Ghost" if you will. He had the benefit of using the same table over and over again. Unlike Mosconi who had to adjust to a different table in every poolroom he entered. Big difference in the two imo. Put Willie on one table and let him go out it over and over for days or weeks and what would his high run have been? Maybe 1,000 or more!
John “conditioned” the atmosphere for a “perfect storm”.
He didn’t walk in cold to a strange table, hit a few balls, play an exhibition, and then continue a run.
What were the table conditions for JS run, pocket size etc?I tend to agree with you here for the most part. Records made in exhibitions should be labeled as such, opposed to those made in a tournament setting. For example someone may have broken the record for the Mile during a practice run and without the proper certificatrion it will not be recognized as a new world record.
I will point out that Mosconi's record run did come while playing an opponent and was witnessed in its entirety by over thirty people. He did not start with BIH on a break shot. On the other hand, John's run came after hundreds, if not thousands, of attempts playing against the "Ghost" if you will. He had the benefit of using the same table over and over again. Unlike Mosconi who had to adjust to a different table in every poolroom he entered. Big difference in the two imo. Put Willie on one table and let him go out it over and over for days or weeks and what would his high run have been? Maybe 1,000 or more!
Let's just say they were generous.
Here's the equipment list posted by Bob Jewett a year and a half ago:
is the schmidt record legit or not
does anyone but danny dispute the record i got tired of reading the thread,but i am curious if any reasonable doubt exist
forums.azbilliards.com