JAYSON SHAW BREAKS 626!

[ShootingArts]

We will have to see what becomes standards for video going forward. With a single low angle camera view it is very possible for the view of many shots to be blocked by the player's body. As an example, that was a deliberate shark move of mine when the other player was sharking, I would play shape where my my body blocked the view of many of my shots when sitting in my opponent's chair or standing by it. Hard for it not to get in my opponent's head when they realized I was deliberately hiding shots!

I don't think anyone going for a world record would do that but the effect would be much the same with a camera on a tripod. I think somewhere along the line two cameras should be required, both at high angles from opposite sides or ends of the table. If the room configuration allows it, one camera mounted high and center table might be adequate. There are other possibilities too but for video to be definitive proof, every shot should be visible on a video. From what I saw this video is much better than the one from the earlier record the BCA accepted but I'm not sure if all shots could be seen or not. The incidental and minor fouls such as a sleeve or other part of a shirt brushing a ball or two would end a run but might be impossible to see on some shots.

It would be unfair to accept earlier video and reject this better video for a record attempt but going forward I think future attempts after this event certification video should have some specifications. I think two unedited videos from opposite high angles would be a reasonable requirement.

Hu

 

[Dimeball]

Hope this stands up and congrats to Shaw!
Now finally the moderator can delete to legit or not thread... if I never see that one again, I'll be happy

 

[ChrisinNC]

When Bobby sent me a full set of pocket photos I looked at them, saw no problem, and actually thought he was sending them to me for release into the wild (that would be here : -)

But he said no, that it was his preference they not be released. I argued to the contrary but as I've said many, many times: it's his event, his dough, his call. And I'm good with it.

Lou Figueroa

Lou, based on your above statement, if there’s absolutely nothing to hide, it just seems strange to me why they wouldn’t want to release a simple close-up direct overhead photo of a corner pocket, with two balls set frozen at the mouth, for us to make our own judgments as to the mouth measurement and the throat measurement/angle. It just seems like they are intentionally desiring to invite controversy by resisting reasonable, polite requests to provide this?

 

[alstl]

If its a WPA sanctioned event then yes.

I wasn't aware of that. Why is he banned?

 

[alstl]

Lou, based on your above statement, if there’s absolutely nothing to hide, it just seems strange to me why they wouldn’t want to release a simple close-up direct overhead photo of a corner pocket, with two balls set frozen at the mouth, for us to make our own judgments as to the mouth measurement and the throat measurement/angle. It just seems like they are intentionally desiring to invite controversy by resisting reasonable, polite requests to provide this?

What difference does it make? Schmidt's run was on buckets. Mosconi's run was on buckets. If Schmidt or anybody else thinks they can run more than 714 on that table I'm guessing Bobby would be open to allowing them to try.

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou, based on your above statement, if there’s absolutely nothing to hide, it just seems strange to me why they wouldn’t want to release a simple close-up direct overhead photo of a corner pocket, with two balls set frozen at the mouth, for us to make our own judgments as to the mouth measurement and the throat measurement/angle. It just seems like they are intentionally desiring to invite controversy by resisting reasonable, polite requests to provide this?

Chris, how many times do I have to say it?

It's not my call. It's how Bobby wants to do it. It's his event, his dough, and his call. He has also addressed this numerous times and said nothing will ever make everyone happy so he chooses not to release anything further.

Lou Figueroa

 

[garczar]

I wasn't aware of that. Why is he banned?

Search it. Weed i think.

 

[ShootingArts]

Lou, based on your above statement, if there’s absolutely nothing to hide, it just seems strange to me why they wouldn’t want to release a simple close-up direct overhead photo of a corner pocket, with two balls set frozen at the mouth, for us to make our own judgments as to the mouth measurement and the throat measurement/angle. It just seems like they are intentionally desiring to invite controversy by resisting reasonable, polite requests to provide this?

Chris, the problem is that cameras lie when expected to give accurate detail. A photo duplicating rig sold is a good example. The distance between the camera and a flat photograph has to be precise, a certain lens has to be used, the angle of the photo and camera has to be exact. Taking photos of surfaces that aren't flat then people looking at them or trying to measure things with precision instruments doesn't work but many would think it did. A table mechanic that knew his business would have to come in and measure everything mentioned and a couple things that haven't been that affect how a pocket plays. Indeed almost impossible to please everyone and somebody would be demanding one more hoop to jump through no matter what the organizers did.

Hu

 

[ChrisinNC]

Chris, the problem is that cameras lie when expected to give accurate detail. A photo duplicating rig sold is a good example. The distance between the camera and a flat photograph has to be precise, a certain lens has to be used, the angle of the photo and camera has to be exact. Taking photos of surfaces that aren't flat then people looking at them or trying to measure things with precision instruments doesn't work but many would think it did. A table mechanic that knew his business would have to come in and measure everything mentioned and a couple things that haven't been that affect how a pocket plays. Indeed almost impossible to please everyone and somebody would be demanding one more hoop to jump through no matter what the organizers did.

Hu

Agreed, if cameras do lie, which they do, he could take a number of photos and then choose to post the photo that appears the most favorable in terms of making the pocket look closest to a standard acceptable pocket.

This will be my final post on this topic at least until and if an overhead pocket photo of the table is released. Unlike RKC, I will follow through on my commitment to not comment further on this.

 

[jtaylor996]

I hate all this table talk. Pyramid tables are different than snooker tables are different than chinese 8 ball tables and so on.

Rotation tables are different than straight pool tables.

And as far as I've been aware for the last 20 years or so I've been playing, 5" is generous but acceptable for a straight pool table. Sure people would complain about such a table in tournaments... because almost all tournaments are rotation now.

How many times on AZB have we heard from straight pool players complaining that 4.5" rotation tables take away too much of the position game in straight pool?

The tables most companies are making now are optimized for rotation. Adjusting one back to straight pool for a straight pool challenge shouldn't surprise as many people as it seems to have done.

Once the video comes out I'd like to see the naysayers pointing out shots that would not have gone on their preferred pocket geometry. I didn't see any on the attempts I watched. Jayson shoots lasers. From what I saw only a few percent of his balls even touched the pocket facings in the first place.

I'm no expert: I know what I don't know could fill a library, but Jayson's record should be accepted with no asterisks IMO.

 

[JazzyJeff87]

There’s a 5 ball that went in somewhere around 600’s that made my butt cheeks clench. It was like ooooommggg nooooo but then it wiped its feet a time or two and slowly rolled over the edge.

The picture that diamond Dave posted in another thread looks like a legit pocket to me though. A generous 14.1 pocket but definitely not parallel.

Technically I guess Shuddy posted the picture but a like saying Diamond Dave.

 

[sjm]

We will have to see what becomes standards for video going forward. With a single low angle camera view it is very possible for the view of many shots to be blocked by the player's body. As an example, that was a deliberate shark move of mine when the other player was sharking, I would play shape where my my body blocked the view of many of my shots when sitting in my opponent's chair or standing by it. Hard for it not to get in my opponent's head when they realized I was deliberately hiding shots!

I don't think anyone going for a world record would do that but the effect would be much the same with a camera on a tripod. I think somewhere along the line two cameras should be required, both at high angles from opposite sides or ends of the table. If the room configuration allows it, one camera mounted high and center table might be adequate. There are other possibilities too but for video to be definitive proof, every shot should be visible on a video. From what I saw this video is much better than the one from the earlier record the BCA accepted but I'm not sure if all shots could be seen or not. The incidental and minor fouls such as a sleeve or other part of a shirt brushing a ball or two would end a run but might be impossible to see on some shots.

It would be unfair to accept earlier video and reject this better video for a record attempt but going forward I think future attempts after this event certification video should have some specifications. I think two unedited videos from opposite high angles would be a reasonable requirement.

Hu

Excellent post here, Hu, that cuts to the crux of the matter. Perhaps there is a need for a more rigid set of conditions governing the setting and corroboration of world records in pool. You and many others feel it's time to establish such guidelines, but to establish them now and apply them retroactively in a way that defies guidelines applied to date is no fairer than redesignating a street as a no-parking zone today and giving out tickets to those that parked there yesterday.

That said, I'm still not on board with those who feel that the public does or ever should have any say in certification of records in pool unless the WPA/BCA mandates it.

 

[ShootingArts]

I hate all this table talk. Pyramid tables are different than snooker tables are different than chinese 8 ball tables and so on.

Rotation tables are different than straight pool tables.

And as far as I've been aware for the last 20 years or so I've been playing, 5" is generous but acceptable for a straight pool table. Sure people would complain about such a table in tournaments... because almost all tournaments are rotation now.

How many times on AZB have we heard from straight pool players complaining that 4.5" rotation tables take away too much of the position game in straight pool?

The tables most companies are making now are optimized for rotation. Adjusting one back to straight pool for a straight pool challenge shouldn't surprise as many people as it seems to have done.

Once the video comes out I'd like to see the naysayers pointing out shots that would not have gone on their preferred pocket geometry. I didn't see any on the attempts I watched. Jayson shoots lasers. From what I saw only a few percent of his balls even touched the pocket facings in the first place.

I'm no expert: I know what I don't know could fill a library, but Jayson's record should be accepted with no asterisks IMO.

There was a shot that hit the rail a bit more than two diamonds out then fell in I think the 406 video. However, it was shot at pocket speed and I didn't notice what spin was on it. It hit the pocket rail of the corner pocket about halfway out, no surprise it fell! I am not dissatisfied with the table. I don't think it was heated and all of the games john schmidt played trying to get a record. This table seems to be very much like the tables the old timers played on with the exception of cloth and possibly cushions. Both of those might have favored the old time players so if anything this table is tougher than high run tables from a generation or more ago. I think only an incidental and unnoticed foul could possibly derail Jayson's record and I am not expecting that!

A long way of saying I agree, Jayson's record should be accepted with no asterisks IMO also.

Hu

 

[ShootingArts]

Excellent post here, Hu, that cuts to the crux of the matter. Perhaps there is a need for a more rigid set of conditions governing the setting and corroboration of world records in pool. You and many others feel it's time to establish such guidelines, but to establish them now and apply them retroactively in a way that defies guidelines applied to date, is no fairer than redesignating a street as a no-parking zone today and giving out tickets to those that parked there yesterday.

That said, I'm still not on board with those who feel that the public does or ever should have any say in certification of records in pool unless the BCA mandates it.

Yeah, we forget we are just the peanut gallery sometimes!(grin)

Hu

 

[maha]

yes its too late to use a new standard to judge a past record to be a qualifier.

however it is clear for any world record and his going forward there should be a definite detailed standard. so each that try to break it have to fit into that standard.

mosconi's record was set in different conditions and so it was always and still had people question it and rightly so. but it is accepted as this one of 714 should be.

at least mosconi had a table and balls and pockets that were sold as is commercially that weren't likely adjusted for the particular high run.

that is why a standard needs to be set. as with all official world records no matter who approves them.

no reason to take away on any of the high runs the recognized ability of the shooters and their determination.

 

[WildWing]

What year did that happen? Max Eberle told me about it years ago as well. My 14.1 history is not my strong suit.

Thx
Fatboy

I'm not sure of the exact year. Babe told me about it in 1977 when I was a grad student at Syracuse U. I don't recall him mentioning the year, but my impression may have been sometime in the 60s, give or take. There may still be some around who went back that far with the Babe and might know. Good question.

All the best,
WW

 

[Bob Jewett]

Dunno if anyone noticed but both world records have made with Taom Chalk. No skids or bad contacts..
That was not possible in the past.
I think anyone who uses normal chalk won´t get over 550+. It just be that with dirty chalk you will get that skid to wrong ball in wrong time.
I remember in past most of my higher runs ended with bad contact when stun or needed roll ball more.
Now i can´t remember last time since I got bad contact.

I wonder if anyone noticed that Earl complained every 10 minutes about skids. I wonder what kind of chalk he was using.

Back around 1990, a columnist for Billiards Digest, who was also a ceramics research scientist for IBM, named George Onoda calculated how often you could expect a skid considering the size of chalk spots he saw. He estimated that a chalk spot would be at the ball-ball contact point about one in 200 shots. Of course, lots of things affect that fraction including how many chalk spots you have on the cue ball at one time and whether the shot is one that's going to be seriously affected by a skid. Onoda's guess was kind of an average number.

With only 1 in 200 shots skidding, the number of shots missed will roughly double for top players like John and Jayson. John was missing something like 1 in 130 for balls excluding the break shot and the first shot after. I think Jayson must have been even more accurate, but he hasn't played enough to get a good estimate. I'll guess that Jayson misses fewer than 1 in 200 excluding the first two shots in the rack. The point is that skids for top players greatly change their odds.

For those of us who miss every 10 shots or so, skids aren't that big a deal.

Onoda's articles: http://www.sfbilliards.com/Misc/onoda_all_txt.pdf

 

[Bob Jewett]

Hell yeah, I did. This is a newsworthy achievement. It may be niche, but a record like this should get some airtime. Listen to an hour of sports-talk radio and you’ll hear the announcer repeat the same thing 6 times 3 different ways. I would think they would welcome new content.

They certainly should welcome new content, but I think if the typical jock-talk personality had to understand and talk about new things, his pointy little head would explode. Even so, it's worth a try. The local guy might play in a league. I wonder how the discussion of "what is straight pool" will go. Better keep it to, "51 racks of pool without a miss."

 

[8cree]

They certainly should welcome new content, but I think if the typical jock-talk personality had to understand and talk about new things, his pointy little head would explode. Even so, it's worth a try. The local guy might play in a league. I wonder how the discussion of "what is straight pool" will go. Better keep it to, "51 racks of pool without a miss."

Why leave it at anything other than the facts? Use the accomplishment to educate non-pool players and players alike. You tell the average person "51 racks" and they will immediately think 8Ball. Not a great way to tell the story either...

 

[Bob Jewett]

Why leave it at anything other than the facts? Use the accomplishment to educate non-pool players and players alike. You tell the average person "51 racks" and they will immediately think 8Ball. Not a great way to tell the story either...

I guess it depends on how long the talk item lasts. In 30 seconds, I don't think you can make the audience understand 14.1. With two minutes you can go into "every shot was called including the break shots" and "on a nine-foot table which is two feet longer than the typical pub table".