Jayson Shaw's 714 becomes 669?

[straightline]

I'm even less enamored with the show but that's just downsmanship.
Maybe they should start record attempts from a break distilled from the immediately previous 15 balls. Inconsequential touching fouls should be allowed unless it escalates to touching yourself and other participants.

 

[skogstokig]

i'm onboard with the run being from the first legally potted ball to the last, but this entire high run debate has become so goddamn nitty and polarized it's a big joke. straight pool is one of my favorite games but give me 9-ball on grey cloth and miscolored balls any day over this bs

 

[JB Cases]

Azhousepro clarified in Billiard News that they decided to treat the 46th ball of the run as the first of a new run, thus the 669 record.

I'm not sure how that works, but that's the story.

There are no rules that a run has to start with a break shot.

They have a clean run of 669 on video.

 

[JB Cases]

I have never seen John Schmidt’s record run.

I HAVE seen Jayson’s, repeatedly.

Who here has seen John Schmidt’s video?
Anybody?

The bca saw it. Some of the board members are members here.

 

[sammylane12]

I’ve watched the video more than a dozen times and cannot discern any touching of the 45th ball.
Maybe autofocus comes into play with this-
Who else has purchased & watched the video?

"So, are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?"

 

[JB Cases]

Straight pool starts with a break shot.

If I run out from the 3 and then break and run 2 racks, is that a 3 pack?

No it would be 21 balls run in rotation in successive racks. Or, 3 balls and a two pack.

Another way to look at it is this. Two people are playing straight pool and the shooter fouls. The incoming player steps up and runs 600 from there. That's a 600 ball run.

 

[JB Cases]

And if the BCA seriously proposed to certify 669 I wonder about their credibility as judges.

pj
chgo

Why not,

On the other hand, since it's not a match, I suppose it it could be argued that match break rules don't apply and any run, even one started in the middle of a rack, is valid.

pj <- obviously don't know WTF I'm talking about
chgo

That's exactly the case. In match play a player's run starts when they legally pocket a ball until the last legally pocketed ball.

No rule states that a run has to begin with 15 balls.

 

[JB Cases]

The mid rack thing is interesting. On one hand a “high run attempt” traditionally starts with a break.

On the other hand it’s harder to start mid rack than simply with a break shot.

Back to the first hand, what is a mid rack run? Can you start with a pre-placed cosmo layout that leads to an ideal starter break?

Back to the second hand, or is it just fine because the mid rack was the result of a playing from a break shot and not from an intentional layout.

Back to the first hand, but doesn’t any illegal contact with any mid rack balls spoil the purity of the mid rack’s organic layout? Like what if someone “accidentally” moved problem balls apart and decided to start a run there?

All this back and forth makes me feel that a non-match “high run attempt” must start with a break shot.

There should be specific rules established for a discipline called 14.1 high runs.

Before 14.1 they used to rack all the balls and break them like 8 ball and keep a running count. It was called Continuous Pool.

We need high run competitions where the players are going to like 1500 and they play each other. So the match is played as 14.1 but with no run limit. The first player get to 1500 is the winner but they don't have to stop at the 1500th ball they can keep going to establish the highest run of the match and possibly break the world record.

I say Jayson vs John first match, $100,000.

 

[JB Cases]

These guys were in exhibitions....that start from breakshots.

When they miss, they rerack.
When they foul, they rerack.

Prove me wrong...

There are no "exhibition" rules.

If one were however to use high run competition rules then yes the run ends on a foul or miss and the balls are reracked.

Now that's just the way that these competitions have done it. I don't know that they actually had a rule specifying that a run had to start that way. Seems most practical.

But, I wonder how they would have handled it if no one noticed a foul and the player indeed ran 500 after the foul. It seems to me that it would be wrong to invalidate that run since the purpose of the event was to see how many balls could be run.

 

[JB Cases]

so technically this was a courtesy ruling?

in a normal run, a foul means the run is finished

could John have a case/avenue to dispute the record?

please correct me if I'm off base

I would say so. I think a precedent has been set by the high run competitions that the run starts with a break shot.

I think that's pretty much the defacto rule at this point.

However one cannot ignore that Jayson ran 669 balls on video. Really he ran 714 without a miss but not without a technical error.

That said, I think that this is a relatively new thing regarding high run records and video so it is going to be something that the record keeping bodies have to figure out.

 

[The_JV]

Personal high runs

168 here and 5 other runs over 100, practicing straight pool over a summer on a Diamonized Gold Crown 1. Every attempt, I restarted from a break shot.

7 racks of 9 ball on a 9 foot Gold Crown, ran the set from the coin toss.

12 racks of 8 ball on a Valley (could have continued, but my opponent quit).

I own a room and have a Diamond here at home I barely touch.

Regardless of all that. Denying players restart solo straight pool high run attempts is being intentionally obtuse. It was a rule in the Legends of Pocket Billiards event itself. The BCA gave extra credit of 11 balls to appease the situation to follow.

People wonder why pool goes nowhere? It's because it's the most Mickey Mouse sport where the rules and history are bent to suit the flavor of the day.

You're the one that implied the validity of opinion based on 14.1 personal high run. I know my extremely minor efforts don't make me special.

I think it far more likely pool goes nowhere because no one can seem to adhere to a common set of rules, and rather make crap up as they see fit. Much like your opinion (not fact aka: rule) stating that a high run starts with a break off of a full set of balls.

Comes to terms with being wrong.

 

[The_JV]

Maybe I'm alone in this but I actually give the BCA credit for declaring the 669 run. That said, I quite frankly couldn't care less about the BCA or some honourary oversight somebody gave them...?

I look at it this way... Lets pretend the group at Legend's had some sort of house rule stating that attempts needed to start with a fresh break off. That 'house rule' does not alter the rules of the actual game. So as far as a "world record" is concerned, the standardized rules apply, and it's those rules that determined that the mid rack balls count after the touch foul. If we wanted to disregard the rules of the game then two things would happen. A) Shaw's run would have started at the next break off. B) There would be two world records. One for balls made continuously and another to make a couple of posters on AZB happy....lol

There's also a more improtant aspect of the actual touch foul. In some actual rule sets, it's CB fouls only. That would mean Shaw could have 3 world records:

1. Balls made continuously when playing CB foul only = 714
2. Balls made continuously when playing all ball fouls = 669
3. Balls made continuously following odd reset rule born of AZB forum self proclaimed authorites = 658

 

[SBC]

You're the one that implied the validity of opinion based on 14.1 personal high run. I know my extremely minor efforts don't make me special.

I think it far more likely pool goes nowhere because no one can seem to adhere to a common set of rules, and rather make crap up as they see fit. Much like your opinion (not fact aka: rule) stating that a high run starts with a break off of a full set of balls.

Comes to terms with being wrong.

It's part of the rules in every high run contest, including the one this was done in. I agree with you when you wrote, "pool goes nowhere because no one can seem to adhere to a common set of rules, and rather make crap up as they see fit."

 

[SBC]

714, Blasphemy! Off with his hand!
This thread is too funny, to much to do about nothing.
Whether you accept 714, 669 or nothing, it's all just a personal choice since these type of high run attempts are something relatively new to the game. As for me when someone ran over 200 balls on that tough Diamond table at DCC I was very impressed. It was done during some type of organized competition with prize money at stake. That adds pressure to the situation. These recent attempts to break Mosconi's record by making attempt after attempt for days and weeks is less impressive. That said, Schmidt's 626 and Shaws 714 are somewhat astounding, no matter how they came about. They are equally authentic to Cranfields' 768 imo.

I live in Syracuse and played with guys who played with Cranfield here. There is no doubt in their minds he was capable of that. The reason it's not recognized is as much political (not a Brunswick sponsored pro) as the lack of consistent witnesses because it wasn't a high run attempt.

 

[ChrisinNC]

There are no rules that a run has to start with a break shot.

They have a clean run of 669 on video.

The only practical reason why traditionally these players going for 14.1 high runs always start with a fresh rack is for simplification of counting / tabulation reasons as they string racks together - 14-28-42-56-70 etc. I also feel it does not matter when the run starts, but starting with a full rack just makes it so much easier to keep track / count of your run.

 

[SBC]

No it would be 21 balls run in rotation in successive racks. Or, 3 balls and a two pack.

Another way to look at it is this. Two people are playing straight pool and the shooter fouls. The incoming player steps up and runs 600 from there. That's a 600 ball run.

In solo high run attempts, everytime they miss, they rerack. Because starting with an open rack, without risking scratching or getting no shot off the break, because it's an unfair advantage.

 

[mikemosconi]

Yesterday John Schmidt moved a cue ball that appeared very close to the rack up into the kitchen without allowing the racker to place the rack in position to make the proper determination as to whether the CB should be moved. If you are going to use a rack, and a racker, they should be the person to make CB interference with a rack determinations.

Mosconi did not rack for himself during exhibitions and was not the judge on CB location within the rack - it was always an independent decision. BTW- this CB was behind the rack and the camera had no clear view of where anyone could see the CB location. This is not an accusation- it is just an observation of how stuff is going down during these attempts.

As for Cranfield, Mosconi, and Co. - come on- with these tables here they could have run 1,000 if they had incentive.I could drive my car through the side pocket on John's table

 

[The_JV]

It's part of the rules in every high run contest, including the one this was done in. I agree with you when you wrote, "pool goes nowhere because no one can seem to adhere to a common set of rules, and rather make crap up as they see fit."

Very powerful word. I would love to see you back up such a claim.

 

[lfigueroa]

Well, good morning ya all, I see everyone has been keeping busy.

So here's what I have to say:

As previously pointed out, players have traditionally start a high run attempt with a break shot, mostly because it's tradition and it makes keeping the count easy. In the case of Mosconi's run, his opponent made three balls and then Mosconi came to the table and ran 526 from an open rack. IOWs, there aren't rules for high runs, though I have reason to believe that's going to change real soon.

Back in March, Bobby flew out to Colorado to show Jayson's run to BCA officials. A committee of six watched in an executive suite Bobby had reserved, on an 70” screen. At one point someone thought there might have been an OB foul and they re-ran the tape over a half dozen times and there was still doubt. Regardless, at the conclusion of the review, a vote was taken and it was unanimously agreed upon, given the rules posted on the BCA website which clearly stated CB fouls only, the 714 would be certified as the new record.

Now it appears that after that first BCA meeting, a second committee was formed and a new vote taken. Bobby was not invited to attend. And, with a 3-1 vote, suddenly OB fouls were to be counted and the record was now 669. It is my understanding that the dissenting vote came from a professional player on the committee -- a very highly regarded Hall of Famer.

Bobby asked Jayson about the foul and Jayson said he did not foul any OBs during his run. I have watched the run and cannot tell conclusively if he rocked a ball back while jacked up over it or not. But here we are. And IMO that place is at the following coordinates: if you're going to accept the BCA moving the goal posts with a possible OB foul, then logic dictates that you must also accept his record at 669.

But there's one more thing: until someone can prove that other high runs where completed without OB fouls, that 714 still looks pretty good, IMO.

Lou Figueroa

 

[cjr3559]

I don’t care where the run started. When you run 600-700 balls the first 15 are 1-2% of the total. The guy ran nearly 50 racks without missing. Good enough for me.