Statement from The Legends of Pocket Billiards

"Freds": That's a marvelous video you pointed us to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hMeva70yz0&t=540s

Totally on-target, informative and respectful about the several players he mentions. This "Shortstop" fellow really knows Straight Pool. Bobby C should think about a dreamteam of "Shortstop" and Jayson doing a voice-overed player review/commentary about the entire 714. Who wouldn't buy that DVD? Boggles the mind thinking about how instructive it would be for longtime and emerging 14.1 players alike.

Oddly enough, Jayson would be excitingly enlightened and entertained by Shortstop insightfully revealing to Jayson himself (peripherally) exactly and explicitly how Jayson's well-trained subconscious decision-making instincts increasingly controlled . . . Mosconi-like . . . his instantaneous decisions governing force, spin, aim, and perhaps most important to high runs: nudging and optimally separating clusters, quickly addressing all problem balls and getting so perfect on his break balls.

I consider this short video a real gift and an eye-opener regarding how deeply and instructively -- redolent of Dave Sapolis -- a post-facto, quality run analysis can go.

Arnaldo ~ Always been admiringly fascinated by Evolution's subconscious neuro-muscular instinctive linkage we see in top athletes' performances, and even our own when we occasionally get into the zone. There'd be no useful fight-or-flight reflexes without that linkage IMO.
 
Last edited:
I used to think big pockets made a table play more easy but the last half dozen or so posts have taught me that it really doesn't matter.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Bob Jewett said:
The head of the table at Easy Street is near the seating and table where the camera went. In the first two series of attempts, the balls were racked at the head of the table so the camera could see things better. It made more or less no difference on that table, since it had no ball return. For the fourth and last set of attempts, the balls were racked at the foot end of the table -- where they are "supposed" to be -- which at that point had the less-worn cloth.

I wonder what kind of ruckus would have been raised had the 626 occurred on the "wrong" end of the table (which had two identical ends).
Click to expand...
What does the 'Ball Return' have to do with whatever "I" asked?

BTW, they could have just repositioned the table.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The head of the table at Easy Street is near the seating and table where the camera went. In the first two series of attempts, the balls were racked at the head of the table so the camera could see things better. It made more or less no difference on that table, since it had no ball return. For the fourth and last set of attempts, the balls were racked at the foot end of the table -- where they are "supposed" to be -- which at that point had the less-worn cloth.

I wonder what kind of ruckus would have been raised had the 626 occurred on the "wrong" end of the table (which had two identical ends).
Click to expand...
And your point? What difference does it make what end of the table, as long as you are not switching racking ends in the middle of the run because a break ball is setting in an ideal break position on the head end of the table?
 
xradarx said:
Pay close attention! For you novices the mouth opening is measured at the rail nose points where the cloth covering changes directions from both rail openings. Looks more like 5-3/8 inches. Find a new mechanic.
Click to expand...



Patrick Johnson said:
I get about 5 1/4" using rulers and comparing with the balls. Maybe you measured the mouth at a different place? If not, then this is a lesson in how much a pic can distort things even when carefully taken from straight above like yours.

pj
chgo

View attachment 626142
Click to expand...

Not that what my table measures means anything but I took a little more time and it is about as close to 5" as can be measured with what was handy.
2000df0da690b45cebcf129261724e7f.jpg


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
1e4e41e9aecc4afc8c63f1a1cce6e452.jpg
 
Last edited:
logical said:
Not that what my table measures means anything but I took a little more time and it is about as close to 5" as can be measured with what I had laying around.
45ae5bdbcb88ce0c911e81c5b9513b09.jpg
2000df0da690b45cebcf129261724e7f.jpg


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don’t really understand why you don’t just show a tape measure extending across from mouth point to mouth point and leave it at that, which I would think would be much easier for most of us to comprehend? Perhaps you already have.

I’m not really sure what your table has to do with the 714 table? As I recall you were trying to demonstrate that what a computerized measurement from a photo comes up with is not always an accurate measurement. Some people new to this thread don’t go back and read the entire thread, so clarification of exactly what you are doing and why I think would clear up some confusion among people who are late to the thread and viewing your photos.
 
Last edited:
ChrisinNC said:
I don’t really understand why you don’t just show a tape measure extending across from mouth point to mouth point and leave it at that, which I would think would be much easier for most of us to comprehend? Perhaps you already have.

I’m not really sure what your table has to do with the 714 table? As I recall you were trying to demonstrate that what a computerized measurement from a photo comes up with is not always an accurate measurement. Some people new to this thread don’t go back and read the entire thread, so clarification of exactly what you are doing and why I think would clear up some confusion among people who are late to the thread and viewing your photos.
Click to expand...
Yes, you have missed much. It isn't an attempt to prove anything, there was some earlier discussion about pocket size that you may have missed. The problem with a ruler (scale) or worse yet digital calipers is the the point you're trying to find is a theoretical point in space. My little sticks and lines finds those points.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
logical said:
Yes, you have missed much. It isn't an attempt to prove anything, there was some earlier discussion about pocket size that you may have missed. The problem with a ruler (scale) or worse yet digital calipers is the the point you're trying to find is a theoretical point in space. My little sticks and lines finds those points.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You must be deep in to math / geometry? I have kept up with this entire thread, but don’t make the assumption that everyone has.
 
logical said:
Not that what my table measures means anything but I took a little more time and it is about as close to 5" as can be measured with what was handy.
2000df0da690b45cebcf129261724e7f.jpg


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
1e4e41e9aecc4afc8c63f1a1cce6e452.jpg
Click to expand...


I have heard of generous pockets but this is ridiculous. According to that architects scale your pockets measure five feet!

Hu
 
mr3cushion said:
What does the 'Ball Return' have to do with whatever "I" asked?
Click to expand...
The balls would have to be moved from one end to the other if there was a ball return. With drop pockets, they mostly end up at the racking end.
BTW, they could have just repositioned the table.
Click to expand...
That would require extra work, and re-leveling. Probably not practical.
 
Shuddy said:
Right, but if a bunch of bored dudes with their laptops showed up to drug test me, I’d call the police 😂
Click to expand...
😅 fair, I get your point.

But we didn't show up at his door. We were just comparing his world record "100m" track with objects of known length on video. Since our thought was, that IF the 100m were measured wrong (and it's ok to make the track shorter and still get approved for the world record), then the next record could be run on "100m" that were actually 95m, the one after that only 90m and so on. And before long someone would break 9 seconds for the world record.

Records are there to be broken, and if someone can run faster than Usain Bolt, he should hold the world record title. But not altering the running track length to reach this.

(And for everyone repeating "How can you still argue about the length of the track? This guy was really fast. He had the most beautiful running technique I ever saw. Why does it matter, how long the running track was?"
Well, we do agree that he had a nice running technique and was really fast. But we think that for the world record sprint title over 100m it does matter, if the 100m were measured correctly.)
 
Last edited:
Sheldon said:
The balls would have to be moved from one end to the other if there was a ball return. With drop pockets, they mostly end up at the racking end.

That would require extra work, and re-leveling. Probably not practical.
Click to expand...
Sheldon; if the guy spent the better part of a year attempting to break a decades long world record, I'm sure a little inconvenience should have been tolerated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top