A new model for 14.1 High runs?

gerryf

Well-known member
The latest high-run challenge exposed a slew of problems and controversies, simply because of the way it was set up.

The difference in the standard of play between Ruslan and the rotation players was so stark, that it makes me wish there were more 14.1 players involved.

Would it be workable to have 14.1 High Run Challenges operate under a different model?

1. Prize money
Either​
a. a straight cash commitment in a GoFundMe or other fundraising site. or​
b. a pledge of so many cents/ball for the record run.​
If there were say, 1000 people who would pledge say, $0.05/ball for Player X to attempt a new high run record that works out to $50/ball, and for an 800 ball run, that means the prize money is about $40K​
  • Whichever way it's funded, the pot could accumulate until it was worth Player X's time to make the attempt. There would have to be some kind of expiry date on the offer, maybe six months??
  • Pledge's of more than $50 (say) would receive a download link to the record breaking video, and the video would have commentary and analysis by either the player or another 14.1. expert to provide added value.
  • All pledge's could receive a signed certificate, and a signed image of Player X standing on the pool table with his arms raised in celebration
  • Gofundme charges 2.9% + $0.30 per donation, so an $50 pledge means $1.45 in processing costs
2. Conditions could include.
  • The high run attempts are live streamed on Youtube, and archived on Youtube for all to see. The video provided to $50 pledgers is value-added with commentary and analysis.
  • the table must be 9'x4.5' and meet the BCA specs for high runs. (as described by Shuddy in another thread) https://cdn.ymaws.com/bca-pool.com/resource/resmgr/imported/BCAEquipmentSpecifications_2008.pdf (Not sure about some of these specs ??)
  • before the high run, the camera is walked around to show the table from all sides, and show the pockets with two balls inside, and rulers or tape measure showing the pocket dimensions (width, throat, shelf).
  • a dedicated score keeper, and a dedicated racker.
  • a template rack as used by the Legends group.
  • Either the Youtube Home page keeps a current list all the runs for the current stream, or better yet, a detailed summary of each run in a downloadable document (Google docs).
3. Logistically, maybe the simplest approach is to just have the prize money open to anyone (except the current record holder), but there might be 'shenanigans'. Otherwise, targeting the prize money for certain top players and reputable clubs around the world would help ensure everything was on the up and up.

This model would make it easy for European, Asian, African players to compete.

This is also really transparent.

I would happily support such an attempt for certain players.

In the hours since I proposed this, I've heard from players and there's about $3000 available from a group of players for Schmidt, SVB, Orcollo, Ruslan, Fedor, and Hohmann, and about $5000 for Filler.

Now just need to find someone to manage it.
 
Last edited:

7stud

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
1000 certificates printed out at $0.01/page = $100
Check your math.

the table must meet the BCA specs for high runs. (as described by Shuddy in another thread)

Who cares what the BCA does? It's your event, set your own specs. In my opinion, no 5" pockets. I thought it was embarrassing to watch Jayson Shaw shoot at such wide pockets. It's modern times, and modern specs should be used. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if modern players beat the old records: it's time for the record books to record modern records on a standardized table.
 
Last edited:

gerryf

Well-known member
Check your math.



Who cares what the BCA does? It's your thread, set your own specs. In my opinion, no 5" pockets. It's modern times, and modern specs should be used.
I was thinking of the BCA specs simply because they will sanction a high-run record. Otherwise you have a bunch of different records all done on different spec tables and only certain ones would meet the standards for any kind of international record.

I'm guessing that BCA doesn't specify 8' or 9' tables, since they did sanction Mosconi and Schmidt. But maybe that should be a condition as well - only 9' tables.

Oh yeah. The math!! To print up a 1000 certificates is only $10 at $0.01/page.
 

fjk

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think it's a great idea. Pool players are notoriously cheap (or broke), but it's a big world. What about having to pledge something to be able to view it?
 

gerryf

Well-known member
The BCA has shown no leadership in standardizing table specs. If your event is offering $80,000 to a record setter, you can set the standard.
I gather there is wide latitude in the specs so players would undoubtedly pick the easiest table they could find, but the BCA does have specs that they look for before sanctioning a record. A table with 7" pockets would likely not qualify.
 

gerryf

Well-known member
I think it's a great idea. Pool players are notoriously cheap (or broke), but it's a big world. What about having to pledge something to be able to view it?
Yeah, pool players are notoriously cheap, and maybe there doesn't have to a minimum pledge. Maybe some people would only be willing to pledge $0.05/ball or $0.01/ball. ($40 or $8 for an 800 ball run).

Only allowing pledgers to view it restricts the audience in a big way. But it's cheap and easy to give the pledgers a download link so they can download a custom video maybe reviewed and commentated by the player or a 14.1 expert?
 

gerryf

Well-known member
No, it will never happen. Schmidt did it because he was obsessed.

Shaw did it because Bobby funded the whole thing and made it lucrative.

You will never find enough backers at a few bucks each to equal what Bobby put up.
Maybe. But Shaw set a new record in about 50 hours. Maybe the total pledges would amount to $10K for an 800 ball run. That's still pretty good pay for a weeks work.
 

gerryf

Well-known member
After talking this model over with some friends, they like the straight cash commitment rather than the per ball commitment. They also liked the idea of pledge's of more than $50 (say) getting a commentated video, signed image, certificate, etc.

I edited the description to match.

In the hours since I proposed this, I've heard from people and there's about $3000 available from a group of players for Schmidt, SVB, Orcollo, Ruslan, Fedor, and Hohmann, and about $5000 for Filler.

So the idea doesn't seem completely crazy.
 

pw98

Registered
BCA specs are still a problem:
Billiard Congress of America (BCA) Pocket Specifications
  • Corner Pocket. Mouth: 4 1/8” minimum to 5 1/8” maximum. ...
  • Side Pocket. Mouth between 4 7/8” minimum to 5 5/8” maximum. ...
The upper side is just too large, even if they require a 1 5/8" shelf and 140 degree angles.

The cat is out of the bag at this point and any player that is going to try to break the record will insist on a table as easy as shaws or even easier.
 

Shuddy

Diamond Dave’s babysitter
Silver Member
Th
I was thinking of the BCA specs simply because they will sanction a high-run record. Otherwise you have a bunch of different records all done on different spec tables and only certain ones would meet the standards for any kind of international record.

I'm guessing that BCA doesn't specify 8' or 9' tables, since they did sanction Mosconi and Schmidt. But maybe that should be a condition as well - only 9' tables.

Oh yeah. The math!! To print up a 1000 certificates is only $10 at $0.01/page.
They specified a 9’ standard table, and implied BCA specs.

I have no idea why it’s the BCA that approves the world record, but as long as it is, then it has to be by their standards.
 
Last edited:

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
Screw the BCA... However regardless of the organization. There's a range of acceptable numbers. Personally I'd lean toward the WPA.
Screenshot from 2022-01-22 08-07-49.png


The only people that may care about the BCA are those living within the USA. There's a bigger world out there.
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
No BCA specs are still a problem:
Billiard Congress of America (BCA) Pocket Specifications
  • Corner Pocket. Mouth: 4 1/8” minimum to 5 1/8” maximum. ...
  • Side Pocket. Mouth between 4 7/8” minimum to 5 5/8” maximum. ...
The upper side is just too large, even if they require a 1 5/8" shelf and 140 degree angles.
I don’t know where you got those BCA pockets specs. I just checked and it’s 4-7/8”to 5-1/8” for the corners and 5-3/8” to 5-5/8”for the sides, and 142° +/-1° for the angles.

Based on this range, the table used for the 714 record run certainly appeared to be extremely marginal on all accounts.

The record should not even be certified until someone from the BCA is allowed to thoroughly (in person) inspect these pocket measurements, before they are potentially altered.
 
Last edited:

Shuddy

Diamond Dave’s babysitter
Silver Member
Screw the BCA... However regardless of the organization. There's a range of acceptable numbers. Personally I'd lean toward the WPA.
View attachment 625614

The only people that may care about the BCA are those living within the USA. There's a bigger world out there.
Awesome graphic!!

I know, but what happens if we start having WPA world records, BCA, European organizations, etc? Or it ends up like boxing with 30 different world champions in the same weight division? I mean, WPA is the world association (right?), so I’d tend towards them, too.

And I’m not a proponent of the idea that straight pool isn’t about potting, it’s about huge pockets that allow you to run numbers and cheat pockets for angle. I think there should be pressure on difficult pots. I think if people want to leave massive angles so they get maximum velocity into the pack, they should be sweating the pot. Just the way I’d like to see it played, as a personal opinion.

EDIT: And, again just my personal opinion, but 4.5” and 4.25” is still big. You still have plenty of room to cheat pockets, particularly down the rails.
 
Last edited:

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
The record should not even be certified until someone from the BCA is allowed to thoroughly (in person) inspect these pocket measurements, before they are potentially altered.
Frankly... I think all those who are concerned have already either verified it or not, and the BCA will not sway those opinions.

...and now of course let me be the first to ask if the BCA inspected the Schmidt or Mosconi table...?
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Frankly... I think all those who are concerned have already either verified it or not, and the BCA will not sway those opinions.

...and now of course let me be the first to ask if the BCA inspected the Schmidt or Mosconi table...?
According to Bobby and Lou, the BCA is indeed the governing body that is solely responsible for certifying this run.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
EDIT: And, again just my personal opinion, but 4.5” and 4.25” is still big. You still have plenty of room to cheat pockets, particularly down the rails.
In my personal opinion you should have the ability to cheat pockets to generate angle. After putting the ball in the hole, that's the whole point of the game. Once you shrink the pockets down to the point where merely making the ball is questionable, then you neuter the rest of the game.

You also break the general public's association to the game. As it currently stands nearly anyone, nearly anywhere that has a table can take a stab at a comparable world record. Shrink the pockets to nearly unusable dimensions for the general public then all you have is even smaller niche game.

If a standard needs to be brought in, then use the WPA numbers. At least we all known what they are.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
According to Bobby and Lou, the BCA is indeed the governing body that is solely responsible for certifying this run.
I don't think that goes beyond using the same standard that the prior record holder used for sake of comparison. lol... Could you imagine the drama if they claimed the record but didn't bother with the BCA...?

Guess we need to determine if the playground is only as big as the USA, or includes the rest of the world.
 
Top