Jayson Shaw's 714 becomes 669?
- Thread starter loggerhead12
- Start date
At least he partially owns it. Though I don’t buy the whole idea of the racking rules not being clear.
Please post a link to the video you're referencing.
telinoz
Registered
On the same page as my comment, sorry, thought it was obvious.
Linked on this post above, it is funny and well done.
If you view on Youtube, you'll see John's comments (2 of them).
Ok, Schmidt's relevant comment on YouTube is "The rocking rules are not set in stone you can rock a little high in a little low but I think we push the limits on that one"
So it appears that Schmidt actually is ignorant of the rules. The balls are to be racked with the apex ball (or the missing apex ball after the opening rack) on the foot spot. But the foot spot is not the gummed sticker, it is a point -- the intersection of the long string and the foot string. So the rules do not permit racking a little high or low.
Maybe that's something YOU would do. Don't lump the rest of us in there. I know better than to try to cheat my way through things in life from learning the hard way as an adolescent. Karma, what goes around, call it whatever you will... it will come back to bite you.
I don't know why you are so angry at this? Playing around in your basement should be ok, that's the whole idea of having a basement, isn't it? In competition, friendly or not, or if you are setting a high run, of course the rack should be perfect at all times. Experimenting, at home, will teach you what to look out for in competition. High racking, low racking and twisting can all be used, sereptitiously, to gain an edge. You're a little straight? Twisting the rack to get more "under" the side break ball will help you open them. Likewise, your opponent or racking person can twist the rack away to give you even less to shoot at. So look out for that. High and low racking are obvious in most cases, but in some cases, even a few mm can help you hit the right part of the object ball, if the object ball is close. You have no way to adjust the tangent in these cases, so the position of the rack becomes extremely important. The person racking can also screw you over this way. There is a cueball spin answer to this, of course, but if you are ignorant of it, it can really bite your posterior.
I don't really advocate studying this at length, but trying it a couple of times will let you see why people make such a big deal over this. And doing these experiments in the basement or wherever, alone, will teach you something, reading this won't.
From a pro, and a serious competitor, you should expect flawless positioning of the rack, every time. If you are on very worn cloth, the rack may not set up in the precise area. In competition it should be gently tapped down if that is the case, in a training match you might not want- or be allowed by the table owner to do that. In that case, you agree to rack where it settles if it's not too far off, and keep it consistently there, with no variance.
i'm leaning towards this too. and if that's the case were scrutinizing a guy who at that point was just balling around, which to me seems completely pointless.
Not angry at all. Sometimes that's difficult to get across in text. Newly passionate is what I'm thinking. I've been taught to practice how you play. If i'm practicing a high run at my table at home and I brush a ball or move a ball or any other type of foul I immediately stop and re-rack and start over. Why? Because I know in my heart I messed up and if I kept going and that it's wrong and I just don't live that way. Sorry if I got a little carried away.
Foul is on cue ball only. Why would not follow the rules of the game practicing the game?
Bologna sandwich with the rerack please.
Nick
Edited to add the word please.
Bologna sandwich with the rerack please.
Nick
Edited to add the word please.
Those who live glass houses.....
You guys demonizing John Schmidt is laughable....and detracts from the work you have done.
Show some class. Let this go.
People wonder why pool goes nowhere.
There is no comment that he can make except he 100% cheated. Just goes to show how far he will go to run balls. He has been doing things like this forever. Time to have the 626 reviewed by a neutral video production Company and committee to expose any and all issues if any exist.
High runs on video are accepted because there is a presumption that the video will show any misses or fouls that would end a run. The reality is that those errors might be minor and hard to catch. Review by 3 or 4 guys of unknown video expertise seems arbitrary and not sufficient to validate such runs. IMO, any high run should be made available to the general public for review. I know that causes problems with monetizing a run but maybe that should be taken care of with a prize for the high run pending public review, and not from selling the run.
Some of us have seen a far different side of john than his public persona. For me honor. and john schmidt don't even fit in the same sentence. Strong indications that his squeaky clean image about drugs is BS or he is mentally unbalanced also. He knowing that his skills are declining with age, he bent everything possible to try to claim the record he sought for decades. Did he also go beyond all acceptable means? I don't know but I do remember a magic cue ball that defied physics to scratch.
I forget where I read this and what the rule applied to but I did read a rule somewhere that said that the apex or one ball had to be placed somewhere on the spot. Working from memory here so the wording is not exact. I thought at the time that as big as most spots are this could allow a lot of leeway. I still believe that rule set said on the spot, not touching the spot. With no apex ball john apparently decided to stretch this rule to or beyond the breaking point.
I thought at the time that this rule could stir a world of crap if applied in competition or gambling. Moving the rack that far front to back can cause dramatic differences in a break. I never experimented with moving the rack that far side to side but I would suspect some major changes in the break if that was done too.
I don't think any rule set says touching the spot and I am sure that no ruleset intended for this to be excuse to game the rack position with missing spot and apex ball. Something not mentioned, a line is drawn around a narrow rack on tables used for straight pool including the one john was on. This lets a player see when balls will interfere with the rack, and also allows a rack to be positioned very exactly. john and company had switched to a thick wooden rack that looked like a Diamond rack. Even so, when the rack was removed it would be very obvious if the balls were positioned properly or not.
Would a record stand if something like this happened? Even those that paid to see john present the video watched a portion or portions of that video fast forwarded from what I understand. I thought then that john might have conveniently chosen which section(s) were fast forwarded.
Knowing john's ethics better than most people, I know that john's video needs scrutinizing every moment and even examination by video experts or software to check for editing before accepting his video proof of a record. When accepting video as proof of a record we may need third party proof by an accredited agent. Life gets complicated when dealing with people of very questionable ethics. No idea concerning the ethics of the people around john but I do know john's lack of ethics having had first hand demonstration of this.
Hu
I forget where I read this and what the rule applied to but I did read a rule somewhere that said that the apex or one ball had to be placed somewhere on the spot. Working from memory here so the wording is not exact. I thought at the time that as big as most spots are this could allow a lot of leeway. I still believe that rule set said on the spot, not touching the spot. With no apex ball john apparently decided to stretch this rule to or beyond the breaking point.
I thought at the time that this rule could stir a world of crap if applied in competition or gambling. Moving the rack that far front to back can cause dramatic differences in a break. I never experimented with moving the rack that far side to side but I would suspect some major changes in the break if that was done too.
I don't think any rule set says touching the spot and I am sure that no ruleset intended for this to be excuse to game the rack position with missing spot and apex ball. Something not mentioned, a line is drawn around a narrow rack on tables used for straight pool including the one john was on. This lets a player see when balls will interfere with the rack, and also allows a rack to be positioned very exactly. john and company had switched to a thick wooden rack that looked like a Diamond rack. Even so, when the rack was removed it would be very obvious if the balls were positioned properly or not.
Would a record stand if something like this happened? Even those that paid to see john present the video watched a portion or portions of that video fast forwarded from what I understand. I thought then that john might have conveniently chosen which section(s) were fast forwarded.
Knowing john's ethics better than most people, I know that john's video needs scrutinizing every moment and even examination by video experts or software to check for editing before accepting his video proof of a record. When accepting video as proof of a record we may need third party proof by an accredited agent. Life gets complicated when dealing with people of very questionable ethics. No idea concerning the ethics of the people around john but I do know john's lack of ethics having had first hand demonstration of this.
Hu
I wasn’t suggesting that one should be fudging their practice runs to inflate a false number. Only that you can do what you want in your basement and no one cares. A world record attempt isn’t the time to push the limits of the rules to gain an unfair advantage.
All I know is that the BCA gave Jayson’s run the equivalent of a protological exam — when we asked for John’s run to be re-reviewed with the same level of scrutiny, the BCA demurred for unknown reasons.
I also know the initial BCA review of John’s run was far more casual, and accomplished by a far less credentialed committee, than for their review of Jayson’s run. Twice.
Lou Figueroa
I also know the initial BCA review of John’s run was far more casual, and accomplished by a far less credentialed committee, than for their review of Jayson’s run. Twice.
Lou Figueroa
Well 1 of the best post so far.
Last edited: