Pretty sure no two golf courses are the same.
Statement from The Legends of Pocket Billiards
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
But the size of the cups on the greens are the same.
But it’s harder to make the ball go in those holes depending on the course.
I think the cup size is more akin to the pool balls being the same size.
Something occurred to me about Schmidt and the 626 that I haven't seen mentioned before. It's kind of like the 4 minute mile. It was considered impossible until someone did it and then a lot of people followed suit. I think being the first to break Mosconi's official record is a big thing, and might have helped grease the skids for others to follow. Just wanted to throw that out there.
So you’re saying if you shoot a 69 at Augusta it’s the same as shooting a 69 at some cow pasture course? Of course not. Just like running 714 balls on a 4 1/2” pockets isn’t the same as 5” pockets, but for me it doesn’t detract from the accomplishment. If it’s such a big deal and so easy why didn’t Shane shoot a higher number?
It seems to me most of the people screaming the loudest would be the last to actually try to do something about getting BCA to adopt standards for tournaments and record breaking attempts. As a longtime room owner who’s worked hard and studied the equipment to protect your investment I don’t lump you in this category, but to me it just seems odd to argue over something where it’s impossible to have a clear winner. I think everyone agrees it was a gully bucket of a table and I wouldn’t want to play one pocket on it, but for an attempt to break John Schmidt’s record run I think it was a very similar set up table.
I had the same thought here.
Anyone have any information on Babe Cranfield’s 768
I‘ve heard the story of Authur Cranfield’s 768 rumored ball run during a practice session, does anyone have any information of this? No doubt he was a great player (anyone who could beat Lassiter 1,200 to 700 plus in 1964 I believe) had be to a...
forums.azbilliards.com
Then not one person should have a negative thing to say when I set up a 9ft with 6" corner pockets and 6 1/2" side pockets, install a cloth on the table that helps provide the balls the ability to slide across the playing surface before they start rolling, and John runs past 714 with little effort, balls IN the pockets, right?
Yes, standards for record breaking attempts would be good. For tournaments, not such a big deal since everyone is playing on the same table.
It would just be a nice fantasy if the BCA requested the pocket specs be provided for this record run. Then, (as I believe we can all agree they were certainly on the generous side) those specs could be used as the maximum pocket specs allowable for future attempts at breaking the current high run.
You miss the point of the cups being the same size no matter what course golf is being played on, but if that makes a difference to you, then the same can be said about the different levels of skills being played on 7ft, 8ft, 9fts, and 10fts. There's your comparison of golf course differences, same cup, same pockets.
That's the truth. That's the issue with there not being a "real" standard, ever in this game.Then not one person should have a negative thing to say when I set up a 9ft with 6" corner pockets and 6 1/2" side pockets, install a cloth on the table that helps provide the balls the ability to slide across the playing surface before they start rolling, and John runs past 714 with little effort, balls IN the pockets, right?
On the other hand, not having a standard allows us a lot of choice. Buckets for bars to make money. Tight for one pocket. Loose for straight pool. Medium for 9 ball. And buckets for me at my house so I can beat the ghost once in a blue moon.
If all pockets are 4 1/2" and 5", don't both players have the exact same advantages and disadvantages??? Why should pockets be made bigger for weaker players, but tighter for better players? How about if the weaker players don't feel they have a fair chance to win against the better players, then they DON'T play against the better players!!
That wasn’t my point. My point was one advantage to our sport’s disorganization is there are lots of choices on table setup.
Sometimes too much organization takes away freedoms. Look at Billy T for a recent example in our sport.
It's often said the stronger player has a distinct advantage on tight pockets. Be that as it may, I think stronger players have distinct advantages on looser pockets as well. They have instantly more options/headroom while the weaker player will still be mired in pocketing.
If gambling, adjust the spot, don't handicap the damn table!!!
That said, for my purposes I still prefer the pockets be super tight.
That's on Billy Thorp, not the sport.
Purpose being??That said, for my purposes I still prefer the pockets be super tight.
Simply technical refinement. Headroom. You've probably seen and ignored the posts I've made on jawless pockets. These would have the rails cut flat, perpendicular to the cushion nose. Reason being you could now have the minimum possible aperture (I estimate 3.5" give or take) yet unlike snooker pockets, shots down the rail would go. Perfecting pocketing to that degree would free anyone to play the pool at a new level. That's all.
I was giving you the benefit of doubt for your use of word continent. My mistake for extending that courtesy.
Right on, I stand corrected. Goes to show how much I care about the CFL. Everytime they start advertising the Grey Cup I wonder how it's managed to stay afloat. If they finally adopt a 4th down, I might even make the effort to pause my thumb while channel surfing. Still wouldn't be as entertaining the USA college game.
Looks as though the playing field is still larger though. Probably a closer comparison to the argument about playing pool on random spec'd tables.