JAYSON SHAW BREAKS 626!

ChrisinNC said:
It’s already happening. As amazing as this run is, there are some legitimate questions particularly in regards to the pocket facing angles.

The best thing the organizers of this event could do is to be perfectly open and honest as to the exact pocket specifications, which we know they are fully aware of. Dodging around it certainly creates even more speculation.
Click to expand...
Aside from RKC's antics, I actually have mixed feelings about the run because of the question about the pockets. I know I'm just a nobody and it doesn't really matter what one random dude thinks about this. But....I just think there is a difference between a big pocket and a gaffed one. So is this a gaffed pocket or not?

Look I like Shaw and I like Schmidt, I even love the nostalgia associated with Mosconi, so I don't have a dog in the fight. I really just want to celebrate this achievement and look forward to others trying to top it. But the question will remain, until it's answered definitively, or until someone gets close enough to the table to take some measured pics of the pockets. Big or gaffed?

I know many of you don't care and that's fine but I bet most of you are at least a bit curious.
 
lfigueroa said:
It's going to take a bit to work things out.

Honestly, I don't think anyone on the team expected this to happen so fast so everyone's scrambling.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
I didn't expect it but it is great. Best news in the world of pool in a long time.
 
book collector said:
Congratulations Jason , has any major news media announced this yet , I can't find anything.
Click to expand...

Well, the lads are celebrating and it's been tough for me to get what I need but one way or the other I'm putting it out tomorrow.

Whether any of the outlets picks it up is unknowable. We are, at this point, a niche sport with an even nicher accomplishment. But, we'll see. Dealing with the media is a dual-edged sword.

Lou Figueroa
 
BasementDweller said:
Aside from RKC's antics, I actually have mixed feelings about the run because of the question about the pockets. I know I'm just a nobody and it doesn't really matter what one random dude thinks about this. But....I just think there is a difference between a big pocket and a gaffed one. So is this a gaffed pocket or not?

Look I like Shaw and I like Schmidt, I even love the nostalgia associated with Mosconi, so I don't have a dog in the fight. I really just want to celebrate this achievement and look forward to others trying to top it. But the question will remain, until it's answered definitively, or until someone gets close enough to the table to take some measured pics of the pockets. Big or gaffed?

I know many of you don't care and that's fine but I bet most of you are at least a bit curious.
Click to expand...
Even moreso than a pocket mouth measurement, a pocket facing angle is the most underrated and critical variable in determining how hard/easy a corner pocket will play.

If you don’t believe RKC, just consult Ernesto Dominguez, the most well respected and most experienced pool table mechanic in the business. Ernesto’s calling card has been his expertise in extending sub rails to reduce the sizes of pockets, sometimes drastically, but at the same time, altering the pocket facing angles to make those tiny pocket mouths play much more forgiving than the standard accepted 142° angle that Brunswick and Diamond currently use.

Based on altering the pocket facing angle, a skilled mechanic could conceivably make a 5 inch pocket play tougher than a 4 inch pocket.

It certainly appears to me that in this case, regarding the table being used for this contest and the alterations obviously made by the fitter, the players have been blessed with the best of both worlds in terms of making the pockets play easy – a nearly 5 mouth opening with an extremely forgiving pocket facing angle.

Unless and until they release the exact pocket specs and I’m proven to be wrong, I have no choice but to stand by my assumptions, based on what I know about pockets from having Ernesto working on our pool tables here for the past 25 years and based on the photos I’ve seen of this pocket.

I have no doubt as to this being an absolutely incredible world record feat by Jayson Shaw. I witnessed a lot of this marathon session in absolute astonishment. All I ask is the organizers to be honest about the pocket specs. They had to know these questions as to the table / pockets would be coming if a new world record was set.
 
Last edited:
ChrisinNC said:
Even moreso than a pocket mouth measurement, a pocket facing angle is the most underrated and critical variable in determining how hard/easy a corner pocket will play.

If you don’t believe RKC, just consult Ernesto Dominguez, the most well respected and most experienced pool table mechanic in the business. Ernesto’s calling card has been his expertise in extending sub rails to reduce the sizes of pockets, sometimes drastically, but at the same time, altering the pocket facing angles to make those tiny pocket mouths play much more forgiving than the standard accepted 142° angle that Brunswick and Diamond currently use.

Based on altering the pocket facing angle, a skilled mechanic could conceivably make a 5 inch pocket play tougher than a 4 inch pocket.

It certainly appears to me that in this case, regarding the table being used for this contest and the alterations obviously made by the fitter, the players have been blessed with the best of both worlds in terms of making the pocket play easy – a nearly 5 mouth opening with an extremely forgiving pocket facing angle.

Unless and until they release the exact pocket specs and I’m proven to be wrong, I have no choice but to stand by my statement, based on the photos I’ve seen of this pocket.
Click to expand...
That's a very reasonable take. That's always been the thing about big pockets, especially Gold Crowns -- they will spit those hard hit balls down the rail right out. I've never actually played on a gaffed table that played easier than factory specs. Gaffed tables were ALWAYS more difficult. So this table may be quite unique in that regard.
 
BasementDweller said:
That's a very reasonable take. That's always been the thing about big pockets, especially Gold Crowns -- they will spit those hard hit balls down the rail right out. I've never actually played on a gaffed table that played easier than factory specs. Gaffed tables were ALWAYS more difficult. So this table may be quite unique in that regard.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Cameron Smith said:
I hope that is the case. I’ve enjoyed these challenges and still want to see Filler get on the table.
Click to expand...
It is the case. Babe was as honest a player as there is, and if he said he ran 768, then he ran 768. Not that it matters, but he told me this personally. I do like that these challenges are back; it gives straight pool some life. Best of luck to anyone who breaks 768.

All the best,
WW
 
Last edited:
Now will the gaffe table specs be publicized so others can attempt to match, or will we see 6 hula hoops around a table for the next guy's high run challenge event?
 
Last edited:
BasementDweller said:
I know many of you don't care and that's fine but I bet most of you are at least a bit curious.
Click to expand...
I'm not curious in the least about the facing angles and neither is the BCA, which, quite correctly, certified John Schmidt's run without ever inspecting the table on which the run was made. Rest assured that they will do the same here once they review the video of the run.

I've watched enough play on this table to know that it offered a fair test for the world's best. Well done, Jayson, and I, for one, take a dim view of those who are trying to raise suspicions in the absence of any evidence that the table was somehow rigged.

Is there anybody out there that even knows what the necessary table specifications are for an exhibition, which this was? Personally, I don't think such specifications even exist.
 
ideologist said:
Now will the gaffe table specs be publicized so others can attempt to match, or will we see 6 hula hoops around a table for the next guy's high run challenge event?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that is the case. Once a record is approached, or maybe broken, all the wannabes come in with the spec argument about it. I think they may still be arguing about the baseballs that Babe Ruth hit, they weren't as lively as today's. They're still arguing about golf records, with equipment and course length changes. And they will argue about pool table specs every time this record is approached, or even beat, which it hasn't yet. It's part of life.

They'll be watching very closely the football inflation a few weeks from now too.

And Cranfield's record is still the record.
 
sjm said:
I'm not curious in the least about the facing angles and neither is the BCA, which, quite correctly, certified John Schmidt's run without ever inspecting the table on which the run was made. Rest assured that they will do the same here once they review the video of the run.

I've watched enough play on this table to know that it offered a fair test for the world's best. Well done, Jayson, and I, for one, take a dim view of those who are trying to raise suspicions in the absence of any evidence that the table was somehow rigged.

Is there anybody out there that even knows what the necessary table specifications are for an exhibition, which this was? Personally, I don't think such specifications even exist.
Click to expand...
Stu, I I think you likely know how much I value and respect your opinions and your knowledge you add to this forum. I agree these specifications for such an exhibition don’t exist, which is precisely why the organizers made every attempt to make this table play way easier than it should have for these level of players.

They’ve been successful in achieving exactly the goal they set out to achieve, a new high run world record, and it may not be done yet. I applaud all their efforts for bringing excitement and interest to pool, and particularly to straight pool, the pool game I grew up loving and playing.

Stu, to say that we can’t enjoy this moment and this accomplishment without being able to have a honest discussion / debate here about how easy and forgiving the pockets obviously appeared to play to many of us who watched it, and exactly why we think they did play so loose, is a bit shortsighted, controlling and I dare I say naive, particularly from someone as wise as yourself.
 
Last edited:
some world records are just a number and dont reflect playing conditions. such as this high run.
some are disqualified because of playing conditions. like the worlds longest drive. it could be made on a frozen lake and be a mile long.
or on a golf course with a 50 mph wind behind him.
or with a special golf ball.
so worlds longest drive has to have certain conditions involved.

home runs are just a number, so the argument will never end with stadium size, liveliness of the baseball. kind of bat, number at bats in the season, etc.

this number 714 will be recognized as the high run. but still must, or will be argued, because of possible favorable conditions.

that is just the way things work. whether you like it or not.
 
I don't take a dim view of anyone who has an honest discussion on this board, but anyone can feel free to take a dim view of me as I continue discussing pool subjects honestly and reasonably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top