Magic Rack and Joshua Filler's 7-pack

JAM

I am the storm
Silver Member
Though today I am a railbird, I used to play, competing on the leagues and in local tournaments., I also went on the road a few years in the '80s with a road player. As such, I really do understand all games of pocket billiards.

I made a thread on my Facebook page about Joshua Filler's 7-pack, and much to my surprise, my other half posted on my thread he thought the Magic Rack shouldn't be allowed. I asked him privately why. Well, I thought about it. Doesn't the Magic Rack create the perfect rack with no cracks? Doesn't a pool player have to break perfectly each time in order for the wing ball to fly in the side? In comparison, when pins are racked in a bowling alley, doesn't the bowler have to hit them perfeclty in order to make a strike?

Some pros today practice their breaks. I saw Earl Strickland do it over and over again at many tournaments. Shane Van Boening is also a break mechanic. The break, at least in my eyes today, is just as important as having the ability to run out. Without a good break, even if you can run out, you will never be able to dominate. The break is THAT important.

In my eyes, the only way the Magic rack cannot be perfect is if the placement is off a few millimeters on the spot. By my own admission, I've never played pool with a Magic Rack and would enjoy hearing thoughts from others who have.

magic-ball-rack-matchroom-nineball-official-rack~3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yep, I'm still waiting on that list of players running out the set - doesn't happen
As I agree, it is a rare occasion in the derby race to 9, bar table is a different thing.
I agree with all of your points except a player getting to reply to their opponent running out the set. Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from. But, and I do not have numbers to back this up - just my gut, I don't feel that it happens enough to warrant a rule. And if a player is good enough to run out the set consistently enough, I think they're deserving of the win. I mean, back when 14.1 was the thing 150 and out was a celebrated occasion. And again, just my gut, I'd suspect that happened more often than players running out sets of 9 ball. Sure, there was more than likely a safety battle of some sort leading up to it. But still... At some point the losing player sat down and became a spectator for every following rack.
I get your point as well. It is a rare occasion for sure, but by putting in the rules, we have the opportunity to see something spectacular. Without it being in the rules, it will never happen.

Baseball recently changed the rules so you can automatically walk a player without pitching to them. I disagree with this rule and many others that MLB has done. When we limit the possibilities, we rob ourselves and the fans of something unbelievable.

 
Maybe the real solution is a Magic rack with a specified different random rack order for every rack that is handed out by the tournament director at the start of play. They could just hand out little cheat sheets with the rack order for every game at the start of every match.
I saw that somewhere recently, but my memory fails me. It might have been a money match, and they had a monitor that randomly chose the rack positions. How about doing the same thing with the cue ball position on the break?
 
I've blanked the ghost many times at home to 5 and 7.

I am not as good as filler (maybe when I grow up).

The ability is there for a filler and the format discourages the absolute you demand as proof.

If only there was a hi-run contest and a Jayson...

While no small feat, beating the ghost in the comfort of your own home is a completely different animal than running out a set at at tournament for your livelihood.

And maybe Filler is just that good. I don't think a rule or format change is warranted because one guy is playing as good as anyone ever has. That's just greatness shining through in the moment. Now, if a significant percentage of the field was running out the set every match, it might be a different story.
 
Good discussion here. I'm not on the side of alternate break-even though I believe it is fair. I like seeing packs put together like many of us, and when players catch a gear, that’s exciting to watch.
 
Adding a rule is still limiting a possibility. It's just a different possibility that's being limited. In this case, it would limit a player being able to run out a set. Which, and maybe my standards are lower than others, is pretty darn spectacular.
 
I saw that somewhere recently, but my memory fails me. It might have been a money match, and they had a monitor that randomly chose the rack positions. How about doing the same thing with the cue ball position on the break?
Probably the Gorst v. SVB 10-ball Race to 120?

They had a random racking widget that displayed the layout on a monitor at the head of the table. It's a cool concept.
 
I've always believed the rack is part of the game. Racking by hand means not every rack is perfect nor the same. The player breaking can inspect the rack and adjust their break based on what they see.

The magic rack makes the break WAY too easy and repeatable - even for novice players.
 
It has always been a rule at Derby that if someone runs the set out, that person has the chance to run a 9 pack in response. If that were to ever happen, then both players lag and play one game.
Holy hell... I did not know that. Thanks for the info. For anyone wondering, here it is straight from the site.

Running Out the Set Rule
In matches with a “Winner Breaks” format, if a player runs out the entire set without their opponent ever going to the table (other than the lag and to take the opening break shot of the match), the opponent will then have one opportunity to break and match the run. If the opponent can accomplish this, one more game will be played to decide the match with the players lagging for the break.
 
These players have come close to perfecting the game. I don’t believe the Magic rack is the solution or the problem. Great table conditions, an almost perfect rack, and the expertise of elite players will produce remarkable results. I think we must accept the game as it is. Extending the races, using imperfect racks, and tightening the pockets are not the solutions either. I believe we need to find a way to make the game more challenging, but I’m not certain how to achieve that.

I do believe that if a player runs 9 and out (if it happens), the opponent should at least have the opportunity to do the same. It should be written in the rules.
It used to be in the Derby rules that if a player ran the set out from the break, the opponent had the opportunity to do the same. I don't think this ever occurred. Not sure if this is still the rule or not.

I do agree with those who say that until entire sets are being run out from the flip, then 9 ball ain't broke enough to require fixing.

Derby has it right, don't just play 9 ball. That's why the master of the table award is so special to me.

Is 9 ball particularly interesting watch? Not relative to its ubiquity. Banks and especially onepocket have me rewinding the video to rewatch a sick shot however, so need more of those for sure.

9 ball is great to play, but sucks to watch.

All IMHO of course.
 
Maybe the real solution is a Magic rack with a specified different random rack order for every rack that is handed out by the tournament director at the start of play. They could just hand out little cheat sheets with the rack order for every game at the start of every match.
But the one would still be in the front. And that is what he was controlling. No pattern racking.
 
I only read the first post, but know how the whole thread will probably go...

Here are some points from me:

1) the magic rack makes the tournament run smoothly. No more staring at player's ass cracks for 5 minutes trying to get a good rack, which is impossible on much of our equipment. It eliminated the slug rack, the wired 9 ball, the arguments. Look at Zuglin's event for the last remnants of this.

2) the magic rack did NOT make the game too easy, even on the pro level. Josh's 7 pack was special. First, he is the BEST player in the world! Shouldn't the best player have a 7 pack on video somewhere in competition? Second, how often do we get high packages like this in modern days? Maybe once every 2-3 years by the top pros. It's not happening every match, tournament, or even year. Its not a problem.

3) The older players saying they had no arguments with the triangle is bullshit. I think they just don't remember. I saw 2 pros almost come to blows, and one was about the calmest person you could imagine, over a 9 ball that was heading towards the corner on the break.
 
I'm a huge fan for good pool, as I'm sure we all are. I just wanna see the 30-minute match bewteen Joshua Filler and Shane Van Boening at the 2025 Derby City Classic. It's epic. Where is it? I've searched everywhere. What a shame it was not recorded. These are the matches that not only make pool fun to watch, but they are poetry in motion!
 
I've blanked the ghost many times at home to 5 and 7.

I am not as good as filler (maybe when I grow up).

The ability is there for a filler and the format discourages the absolute you demand as proof.

If only there was a hi-run contest and a Jayson...
Ghost or Pro Ghost? Also no pressure without an opponent sitting across from ya.

Just sayin
 
I've always believed the rack is part of the game. Racking by hand means not every rack is perfect nor the same. The player breaking can inspect the rack and adjust their break based on what they see.

The magic rack makes the break WAY too easy and repeatable - even for novice players.
Again, where are the sets being run out? It's so easy 🤦‍♂️
 
Back
Top