I can't figure out why I read through so much of this thread, but it is kind of fun. I appreciate anything that promotes pool and enjoy watching great players play. I followed the JS high run thread for a while, but finally bailed out...
I don't think there is any chance that new pocket details will be revealed for the JS run. I think it would be interesting, but don't think it can or will happen. I also don't really understand why there was a steady thread of anger before, during, and continuing till today regarding the attempt. He/they decided to try to beat a 5XX run, worked hard at it, and eventually pulled it off. Nicely done.
Now another party - some of which were definitely among those disparaging JS's attempt - are essentially doing the same thing, but with a different format. This is a fun idea that should provide some great viewing, so kudos, but, it seems rather a stretch to pretend is it NOT an attempt to one-up JS. I have no problem with anyone or any group deciding to one-up another. This is pretty common, and I see nothing wrong with it. But pretending that JS's high run isn't the target or reason for this attempt is VERY hard to believe. What JS did was pretty interesting and focused. He/they stated their objecive, then set about trying to accomplish it. As far as I know, nobody had ever really done this - at least not in a planned, organized way before.
I think this new effort sounds like a great idea. Whether the idea is actually to beat JS's run or just to "see what some great modern players can pull off" is not really my concern - I'm in it for the entertainment and love watching straight pool. But I don't think this effort would ever have happened if the JS group had not done their thing first and garnered lots of attention (way too much of it bad in my opinion).
I like Lou, but he sometimes seems to just throw gas on fires that don't really need it. Or maybe let fires grow out of control when he has a perfectly functional fire extinguisher at hand. Regarding the corner pockets, there are only a few possibilities.
1) The pockets are, in fact, normal or near-normal, but the camera angle/lens distortion make the angles "look funny". This is a real possibility - wide angle lenses and close focus do tend to exaggerate the "vanishing point" effect.
2) The pockets are not exactly normal, but aren't way out or intentionally gaffed up. This could be accidental, and might not be that big of a deal - but the camera angle may make it look more severe.
3) The pockets are gaffed up (intentionally or not) and the angles are, in fact, "considerably more "accepting".
I don't think the correct answer can absolutely be discerned from the picture I've seen, but there is a 100% chance that Lou (or whoever) could clear this up easily. Since he has clearly avoided showing any pictures of the table/pocket with multiple measurements (or balls at different depths), it is (in my opinion) somewhat unlikely that the answer is "1". If the answer was "1", I (at least) would have let everyone get reved up, then posted the picture/measurements just for fun (for extra fun do it from the same perspective as the first, but with balls deeper in the pocket). Since no pictures, videos, or measurements have been provided, answers "2" or "3" seem more likely.
Disclaimer for Lou - I know that you understand that posting a picture showing "1" would only satisfy MOST of the detractors/interested parties. I get that. There are others that would still complain - in spite of the evidence - or would just find something else to complain about.
bes
