Eagle Eye Takes Aim at 14.1 High Runs

[jeagle64]

Well he shot that back cut, I was just saying more about how fast he took the shot on, didn't much take a step to the side and look at it at all, just fired it.
Ad he's made nice up table back cuts that made me go ohhhh no several times, but he took a good look at it before

Sucks was rooting for him all the way, he's been highly entertaining this past week

I thought he shot the ball off the rack. I guess I’m talking of a different shot.


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[realkingcobra]

Against your principles? Yep, you got a lot of those. Morals and scruples too I bet. lol

You couldn't afford to hire me so what difference does it make to you

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Those are number 6 pocket irons in the corner pockets. In order to open the throat of the pocket, doing so would shorten the wood at the end of the rail where it lines up with the pocket iron, leaving a step from the facings to the leather pocket liner, and the step would be noticeable. The throat of those pockets are clearly not wider than they're suppose to be.

A 142-143° facing angle (WPA specs) on a 2" cushion reduces the opening 3/4" from mouth to throat. Given what you say above about throat width, it's impossible to have a 5" mouth and facing angles less than 142-143° - with smaller (more parallel) angles and that mouth width the cushions wouldn't reach the ends of the rails on either side.

pj
chgo

 

[realkingcobra]

A 142-143° facing angle (WPA specs) on a 2" cushion reduces the opening 3/4" from mouth to throat. Given what you say above about throat width, it's impossible to have a 5" mouth and facing angles less than 142-143° - with smaller (more parallel) angles and that mouth width the cushions wouldn't reach the ends of the rails on either side.

pj
chgo

Thats right, but a CG3 uses a pocket casting, and that's a whole different story.

 

[kanzzo]

Simply releasing the corner pocket facing angles would go a long way towards settling this issue.

The decision not to simply measure them with a protractor and release that finding leads some of us to believe that angle must be closer to 135° as opposed to the 142° BCA standard recommended PFA specs.

Dr Dave is extremely knowledgeable as to how critical PFA’s relate to how easy/hard that angle makes pockets play, but he has wisely chosen to stay out of this discussion.

the table is made as easy as possible to enable huge runs. Table Difficulty Factor would be something like 0.84
But all the huge runs were made on easy tables and since there are no regulations, what pockets have to look like (except for some personal opinions)...

It's a very easy GC III with new cloth but still less then 5 inch pockets.

Approved by me and obviously by the players that played so far...

 

[cueman]

Perspective distortion -- think of how a vanishing point works. Here is a better picture of one of the corner pockets on that table with less distortion but still some.

View attachment 624943

Here's a different pocket on the 626 table. Maybe the camera is a little more vertical.

View attachment 624945

From this it looks like John's table and this event table are pretty equal on pocket size.

 

[realkingcobra]

the table is made as easy as possible to enable huge runs. Table Difficulty Factor would be something like 0.84
But all the huge runs were made on easy tables and since there are no regulations, what pockets have to look like (except for some personal opinions)...

It's a very easy GC III with new cloth but still less then 5 inch pockets.

Approved by me and obviously by the players that played so far...

Did you do the pocket work on them, if so what are the miter angles?

 

[realkingcobra]

the table is made as easy as possible to enable huge runs. Table Difficulty Factor would be something like 0.84
But all the huge runs were made on easy tables and since there are no regulations, what pockets have to look like (except for some personal opinions)...

It's a very easy GC III with new cloth but still less then 5 inch pockets.

Approved by me and obviously by the players that played so far...

Less than 5" pockets? Seems like you guys measure pocket size like you keep track of the scoring. Lou showed this picture claiming 5" pockets, so what are they really?

 

[jasonlaus]

You pocket people should start your own thread or high run contest and F OFF outta this thread. Bunch of crybaby losers

 

[realkingcobra]

See how far back the miter angle is at the throat of the pocket, it don't even come out past the pocket liner, which means even the pocket liner has a smaller throat than the pocket facing have at the back of the throat. With a stock 5" corner pocket, the pocket liner fits behind the pocket facing, but on this pocket, the end of the rail right there is to wide to sit in front of the pocket liner.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Can someone post links to shots Jayson has made in any of his 200+ ball runs that wouldn't have gone on a standard Diamond or Rasson?

Personally I don't care about the pockets on the table. Mosconis record was set on large pockets and so was John Schmidts. Now people are trying to move the goalposts to avoid the record getting broken...Also the whole question is rather bad. If he WERE playing on a Diamond, he might not have played the shots that way, so it's not like the table "saved" him on most of those shots. I think can remember one breakshot that wobbled in on his 397 I believe. That's one shot that may be an example of an actual "save by pocket design". Otherwise, it's hard to single out particular shots. I believe it was the breakshot on rack number 21, severe cut on the 14.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=727378308188487

(2:13:57).

HOWEVER there are several shots that wouldn't have been possible to shoot in a high percentage way on a standard Diamond or Rasson. Most of the shallow angle side pocket shots, for instance. The side pockets on Rassons are just stupid and make the side pocket shots nearly useless. Diamonds are only marginally better and still bad.

Most peoples perceptions are skewed, anyways, because they are playing on worn cloth and humid conditions. Under the light, with new cloth, most tables play way easier than the typical pool hall table. Lights (or a properly ac'ed room) makes sure the ball slides instead of hanging up. Also, many, if not most, pool hall tables have cupped facings, beaten to shit, that will reject perfectly good shots if they have any speed or spin.

 

[Johnny Rosato]

You couldn't afford to hire me so what difference does it make to you

Doubtful anyone on this forum can afford a man with your "principles".

 

[realkingcobra]

Personally I don't care about the pockets on the table. Mosconis record was set on large pockets and so was John Schmidts. Now people are trying to move the goalposts to avoid the record getting broken...Also the whole question is rather bad. If he WERE playing on a Diamond, he might not have played the shots that way, so it's not like the table "saved" him on most of those shots. I think can remember one breakshot that wobbled in on his 397 I believe. That's one shot that may be an example of an actual "save by pocket design". Otherwise, it's hard to single out particular shots. I believe it was the breakshot on rack number 21, severe cut on the 14.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=727378308188487

(2:13:57).

HOWEVER there are several shots that wouldn't have been possible to shoot in a high percentage way on a standard Diamond or Rasson. Most of the side pocket shots, for instance. The side pockets on Rassons are just stupid and make the side pocket useless. Diamonds are only marginally better and still bad.

I personally don't care if they're playing with 6" corner pockets. What bothers me is BS'ing the viewing audience into believing something that isn't true just to cover up the fact that the pockets have artificially been made to take the balls much easier than the claimed STOCK pockets ever would!

 

[lfigueroa]

Simply releasing the corner pocket facing angles would go a long way towards settling this issue.

The decision not to simply measure them with a protractor and release that finding leads some of us to believe that angle must be closer to 135° as opposed to the 142° BCA standard recommended PFA specs.

Dr Dave is extremely knowledgeable as to how critical PFA’s relate to how easy/hard that angle makes pockets play, but he has wisely chosen to stay out of this discussion.

I have made that case but it's not my call.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

I personally don't care if they're playing with 6" corner pockets. What bothers me is BS'ing the viewing audience into believing something that isn't true just to cover up the fact that the pockets have artificially been made to take the balls much easier than the claimed STOCK pockets ever would!

Said Glenn Hancock aka realkingcobra, Mr Yum! Brand, lol.

Lou Figueroa

 

[sjm]

I find all this bickering over the table specs to be unnecessary. The pocket sizes were measured and disclosed prior to the beginning of this event. This table falls within BCA recommended table specifications and offers a legitimate test of 14.1 skills. It's easy to see how it's playing by watching a few racks.

Did anyone hear them mention what the pocket facing angles were during the just-completed Arizona event? Of course not, because no-one ever does that during any event.

Those who feel they need to know the pocket facing angles to be able to put the runs made in a proper perspective are, in my opinion, blowing unnecessary smoke here. Sit back and enjoy this great event, which is a private event to which you've all been invited to view on stream for free.

Bobby and Lou, keep up the good work.

 

[ChrisinNC]

I have made that case but it's not my call.

Lou Figueroa

Lou, thanks for your honesty and for your promotion of 14.1 - the game I grew up playing and loving!

 

[Straightpool_99]

I personally don't care if they're playing with 6" corner pockets. What bothers me is BS'ing the viewing audience into believing something that isn't true just to cover up the fact that the pockets have artificially been made to take the balls much easier than the claimed STOCK pockets ever would!

I disagree. They clearly disclosed the measurements and since there is no actual standard in pool, other than the BCA specs, which apparently nobody gives a rats derriere about, here we are. If the BCA specs were to be strictly agreed to for all tournaments, I'd be on your side in this. But they aren't, so...

 

[lfigueroa]

I find all this bickering over the table specs to be unnecessary. The pocket sizes were measured and disclosed prior to the beginning of this event. This table falls within BCA recommended table specifications and offers a legitimate test of 14.1 skills. It's easy to see how it's playing by watching a few racks.

Did anyone hear them mention what the pocket facing angles were during the just-completed Arizona event? Of course not, because no-one ever does that during any event.

Those who feel they need to know the pocket facing angles to be able to put the runs made in a proper perspective are, in my opinion, blowing unnecessary smoke here. Sit back and enjoy this great event, which is a private event to which you've all been invited to view on stream for free.

Bobby and Lou, keep up the good work.

Thanks, Stu.

Regrettably, there are some folks that will not let up. We knew this going in and are prepared to deal with it as best we can. In any case we will not lose any sleep over it -- there is more exciting pool coming. Anyone that wants to attempt to throw cold water on it is wasting their time. Fun things are coming.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou, thanks for your honesty and for your promotion of 14.1 - the game I grew up playing and loving!

Thank you for understanding, Chris.

Lou Figueroa
the PR guy is always
the first one to get fired : -)