So ALL of them were for, 'Funnzies' Really! Except maybe, Willie's! It was his JOB! One of many exhibitions on ONE night!
Shaw did it for much more than funsies ;-)
Lou Figueroa
So ALL of them were for, 'Funnzies' Really! Except maybe, Willie's! It was his JOB! One of many exhibitions on ONE night!
Yes, standards for record breaking attempts would be good. For tournaments, not such a big deal since everyone is playing on the same table.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'm sorry, but is that your way of apologizing for being wrong about the football size used by the NFL and CFL when I didn't mention the CFL, and that they DO in fact play with the same size football, but you felt the need to correct me anywayI was giving you the benefit of doubt for your use of word continent. My mistake for extending that courtesy.
The size of the field has nothing to do with the size of the football, or the pocket size based on the size of the table. Again, I'm only referring to the size of the pockets being standardized at 4 1/2" and 5" that way ALL tables for the most part by size of table present the same relative playability.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.
Of course there will be a gazillion negative things said, but it will be no different than this situation. Most are going to say that 6" pockets are way oversized, and we both know that's correct, but the BCA doesn't have a standard so there's no definitive answer to the question if the table is legit. Setting the record on a table with 6" pockets is like being crowned the tallest midget.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?
Man, you are exhausting...The size of the field has nothing to do with the size of the football, or the pocket size based on the size of the table. Again, I'm only referring to the size of the pockets being standardized at 4 1/2" and 5" that way ALL tables for the most part by size of table present the same relative playability.
There’s an important thing called nuance. Does it fit in here? Don’t know. Tact - that one is also important & stuff, and fits.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?
I know that has always been the belief (that tighter pockets favor the better player). Personally, that has not been my experience. I just think better players prefer tighter pockets.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.
It may turn out to be profitable, but it DIDN'T start out that way!Shaw did it for much more than funsies ;-)
Lou Figueroa
Like everything else, it's what you make of it. Guys like Mcready and Searcy to name just two have thoroughly demonstrated the advantage of deadly accuracy.I know that has always been the belief (that tighter pockets favor the better player). Personally, that has not been my experience. I just think better players prefer tighter pockets.
No, the next post was.... the apology. I don't have a problem publicly stating that I was wrong about something. Try it, it's freeing....lolI'm sorry, but is that your way of apologizing for being wrong about the football size used by the NFL and CFL when I didn't mention the CFL, and that they DO in fact play with the same size football, but you felt the need to correct me anyway
The CFL is a professional football league is on the same continent you were referencing. So when you say 'pro teams' and 'continent' then the Canadian Football League is implied. Even if you didn't mean to. The fact that they changed the ball to match the NFL specs back in 2018 was unknown to me. I'd be extremely surprised if you had known that prior to making the claim. Sun shines on dogs ass from time to time I suppose.Our pro regulation footballs are made with the same materials and dimensions as the balls used by pro teams all across the continent
I really don't disagree with this. I'm all for standards. However I just struggle with the notion that 'one size fits all'.The size of the field has nothing to do with the size of the football, or the pocket size based on the size of the table. Again, I'm only referring to the size of the pockets being standardized at 4 1/2" and 5" that way ALL tables for the most part by size of table present the same relative playability.
It may turn out to be profitable, but it DIDN'T start out that way!
That's the rumorShaw did it for much more than funsies ;-)
Lou Figueroa
A good friend once shot 58 on a local Tulsa city track. Regular tees(probably 6,200yds) and fairly easy greens. Still, he made 10 birdies, 6 pars and two eagles. WTF??? That's golfin your rock boys. This 714 is a helluva deal regardless of pocket dimensions.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.
Who paid Him and how much was He 'guaranteed?'No, no, no -- you know not of what you speak.
Shaw got paid for his run. Will there be more jelly to come? You bet.
Lou Figueroa
Who paid Him and how much was He 'guaranteed?'
The Rumor is that you're in the 'Loop!' Shouldn't be too difficult to answer.
Only thing that matters apparently is balls in the pockets when setting the hugh run record.Man, you are exhausting...
I really don't think anyone cares about the larger pockets for something like this, as long as you don't take it to extremes like the 6inch pocket comments you've been making. Players are going to want to have a more forgiving table for a record attempt like this one, but they are not going to go to extremes like 6 inches for the very reason of your comments in this thread. If someone broke the record on 6 inch pockets, there will be someone else out there saying "Why not just make them 7 inches?" and attempt to discredit it for making it "too easy".
I really don't see how you are going to get everyone to make pockets the same size, especially when player preference varying so much. Players want certain sizes for tournaments, certain sizes for action, certain sizes for records, certain sizes for practice, certain sizes for particular games and certain sizes for other games. When it comes to standardization, the pocket size is just the tip of the iceberg. Pool balls are another thing with a lot of variance. Top rail width... at what point does it come down to cues? Must use a certain tips? No CF shafts, like Pro Baseball can't use aluminum bats. Must use a granular style chalk next... instead of the Kamui cream style lol...
I detect sarcasm.Only thing that matters apparently is balls in the pockets when setting the hugh run record.