Dandelions?
JAYSON SHAW BREAKS 626!
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
St Augustine
They could have headed off this entire debate.
When Bobby did the original introduction video on Facebook, he could have stood in front of the table, described the table, walked around it showing off the room, and then had the video close in on a pocket with a couple of balls in it, as well as a tape measure. He could have even rolled some balls down the rails to show if it was level.
Instead some images were provided of a pocket on some table somewhere, without a clear view of it's shape and size. Even then, according to Lou, he wasn't supposed to show those images.
Only one of the ways they shot themselves in the foot in setting this event up, and introduced unneeded controversy.
The camera doesn't lie about a ruler. Showing the throat measurement would be easy and quick. I wonder why not and I don't even care.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
You should care. That's a bucket pocket, pretty much five inches at the edges. Not sure where this table is, but it's easy for sure.
All the best,
WW
From what I gather, there is a group of folks who never acknowledged or accepted scmidt's record...whether it be because if no video released to the public, no table specs, etc.
Some of these folks got together and decided to put on an event to get schmidt"s record off the books. Only they decide, just as schmidt did, to keep certain details from the public.
Then a guy ( albeit one of the world's straightest shooters) not known for his straight pool prowess comes in and obliterates a record that had recently obliterated one of the most revered and long standing records in pool.
This is what I gleened from both the 626 legit thread and this one. I readily admit I could be completely off base.
Maybe Schmidt will get the opportunity to reclaim his record on the exact same table under the same conditions. Could be that is the only way everyone involved is satisfied.
Congrats to Shaw, Lou, and all involved, who are at least "getting off the porch" and doing something tangible to promote pool.
Some of these folks got together and decided to put on an event to get schmidt"s record off the books. Only they decide, just as schmidt did, to keep certain details from the public.
Then a guy ( albeit one of the world's straightest shooters) not known for his straight pool prowess comes in and obliterates a record that had recently obliterated one of the most revered and long standing records in pool.
This is what I gleened from both the 626 legit thread and this one. I readily admit I could be completely off base.
Maybe Schmidt will get the opportunity to reclaim his record on the exact same table under the same conditions. Could be that is the only way everyone involved is satisfied.
Congrats to Shaw, Lou, and all involved, who are at least "getting off the porch" and doing something tangible to promote pool.
As long as the specs are hidden, neither Schmidt, nor anyone not specifically invited to this table, will get that chance.
The group that never acknowledged or accepted Schmidt's record and decided to put on an event to get Schmidt's record off the books now tries to keep the table specs hidden. This will permit them to later claim that any table similarly set up is "gaffed."
As long as they keep this information hidden, they prevent any other player from having a level playing field unless they deign to invite that person to their special field.
Again, I made a very long post about this, Shuddy’s take, and I get that people won’t read it because it’s very long, but I fail to see how this is even a discussion. Level playing field? Here’s the level playing field; BCA accepts it or they don’t. That’s it. No one needs to know the specs. They just need to know that the BCA accepted it. If the BCA takes table specs into consideration, then they can go and ask the BCA what those requirements are and then push them to the limit. Then they can spend as much time as they want running with the necessary requirements. When they beat 714, they can submit it to the BCA and they will the new record holder.
The end.
The end.
Why do you object to everyone knowing the table specs so that anyone can create the same conditions to try to break the record?
I would think any great player like Josh Filler, Niels, the Ko brothers, or many others would want to make sure they're making their attempts to break 714 under the same conditions as it was set. What is your rationale for denying them this information?
I have no objection to the specs being known. I have an objection to people pretending they respect everything being done, and then continue to cast a shadow over the event with demands for something they have no right to, and that the event oprganizers are under no obligation to provide. The only thing that matters is if the BCA accepts it.
If table specs matter, then anyone in the world, Ko brothers, Filler, anyone, can ask the BCA. I don’t need rationale for denying the information, and neither do they.
People are acting like Legends is denying people a level playing field. This is utter nonsense.
They are denying people a level playing field if they won't release the full specs on the table.
The honest and transparent thing to do would be to let a reputable mechanic, such as Ernesto, examine the table and record all relevant specs. Then publish those specs so that anyone who wants to attempt to beat 714 can create the same conditions. Why should a legitimate contender have to invest substantial time into breaking the record, not knowing the specs, hoping that maybe the BCA would approve their results once they broke the record, and knowing they'd face the same questions as to whether their table matched the table Jayson used to set the record.
The real reason Chamberlain, et al., don't want to release the specs is to avoid questions about whether John Schmidt's record has really been broken. But that concern is now irrelevant because Schmidt himself has acknowledged that Jayson has beaten his record. Sure, some people still raise questions. But those questions are meaningless when the man who set the record has publicly acknowledged his record has been beaten.
The only thing accomplished by refusing to release the specs is to prevent anyone coming after Jayson from being able to set up the same conditions in an attempt to beat 714. Unless, of course, they get Bobby Chamberlain's permission to use his special table. Heck, I'd like to set up a similar table and see if I could finally break 100. I bought a Diamond pro cut for the same reason, to see how my run capabilities compared to the pros.
I doubt seriously that Jayson is afraid of others beating his record under the same conditions he set the record. I'd bet he would welcome anyone making an attempt under the same conditions and believes he can run a thousand if he puts his mind to it. Publish the specs. Let anyone who wants come after the record under the same conditions. If it's broken, I'm betting Jayson is perfectly willing to put up a higher number. Full disclosure can only further competition.
I challenge anyone to offer a sound reason this information should be hidden from Jayson's peers desiring to make a run at 714, or for that matter from any schmuck such as myself who might want to set up such a table and see how far they can go.
You’re not listening to me.
The only group that matters is the BCA. Do they have requirements for recognizing a solo exhibition high run? I don’t know. Call them and find out. If they do, you’ll then have that information, and you can setup a table to the limits of those specifications. Legends is not denying anyone anything.
There is no sound reason it’s hidden because it’s not hidden.
EDIT: If anyone is denying people a level playing field, it’s the BCA. They are the ones responsible for recognizing a world record high run, and they are anything but transparent about how they do that.
DOUBLE EDIT: Given the amount of effort, time, and resources Bobby has dedicated to this event, I would be very surprised if there wasn’t some effort made to ensure the table being used would meet whatever standard is required for the BCA to recognize high runs made on said table.
TRIPLE EDIT: I’ll tell you what, I’ll email the BCA and ask them what the requirements are for setting up a table that is eligible for a world record high run. Then we’ll all know.
QUAD EDIT: Email sent. If they don’t answer me, then you can stop blaming Legends for ruining everyone’s fun and start blaming the BCA.
Last edited:
(This is a techno geek post for PJ. Others might be well advised to skip it as it is only marginally on topic at best!)
This picture that you like is a fine illustration of cameras lying. What happens if somebody comes along and starts examining and measuring this picture? The throat angle looks bogus, the shelf looks bogus, the undercut/overcut on the relief angles looks bogus. Start measuring this picture, as some will do, and there is "proof" the pockets were cut very strangely on this table!! No, really the camera was at a compound angle that gives a false picture. The pictures taken by a camera lie unless a precision set-up is used and even so, when pictures of something that isn't flat are taken you need a standard piece there to calibrate the image in several places. Those measuring images often don't understand these things.
I created some large patterns for use in the nuclear plant many years ago. The catch was that neither the scanner(a form of camera) or the copier were calibrated properly. The error was large, 1/4" total in 24". Nobody saw that as a problem in an illustration with dimensions. The problem comes in when the people in the field try to measure pictures or illustrations, or use them as patterns. I had to draw patterns with error in the lines then specify exactly how they had to be printed and copied. Printed once and copied once and to use a technical term from the nuclear industry, they were accurate to half a gnat's ass. Don't work off of a original print or work off of a copy of a copy or the lines would be 1/4" off. Often people would try to work from images that had been copied multiple times and each generation had a quarter inch more error in it than the generation before.
We are looking at two generations of error from the real pocket in this image, the error of the camera and the error of the output device, monitor, phone, or whatever. Put a precision scale on the image and each of us may get a different measurement and all of us will get a wrong measurement because of the pee poor positioning of the camera taking this image and the normal errors a camera introduces at best. When creating technical drawings on the drawing board or computer we always include a note, "NTS" or typed out, "Not to Scale". We know that people in the field needing a measurement that isn't on the drawing will still try to measure it and it was to scale when we drew it. Even the first generation print out had errors if the output device wasn't perfectly calibrated and every generation afterwards adds to the error, again, if the copier isn't perfectly calibrated. I have never seen a printer or copier being calibrated unless I was the one doing it.
Hu
Pales by comparison to bikers becoming aware that no kisses were called and shots randomly grazed the cushions going in.
Sorry, what?!?
Some things it is best you don't know! Just mentioned that because they had large toys for me to play with back in the nineties. A sixty inch by yards roller scanner and a sixty or seventy-two inch printer. Dinosaurs now, pricey toys when they were purchased. Right before I left they purchased one gig of storage, cost us nine thousand dollars for that array and it wasn't even redundant.
Hu
When the tape of this entire 714 run is finally released for sale or whatever, I viewed enough of this session to see for myself that there will be roughly one shot about every 5 racks (likely around +\- 10 shots during the entire run) that most of us will watch and say wow, that ball really should not have gone in. That may indeed also be the case if Schmidt ever releases the video of his entire run.
However, if Jayson is providing commentary during this run, I also assure you, if he’s completely honest, he may likely comment that he thought there could be a chance that ball might not drop, but he knew exactly how much margin of error he had to work with, which is indeed true.
Many of those marginal shots were hit at pocket speed, which most of us know, particularly on a table with new cloth, provides maximum forgiveness. I think we can all agree that Jayson took full advantage of the table he was playing on!
Last edited:
I beg to differ -- from what I watched Jayson was basically hitting center pocket on the majority of his shots.
Did a few dribble in off a rail? Yes. Every 3-4 shots? No way.
Lou Figueroa