Well, you’ve kind of made one of my points: you make the conditions favorable enough, Dan McGoorty’s apocryphal “drunk Girl Scout” might be capable of running balls.
Lou Figueroa
Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit
- Thread starter Dan Harriman
- Start date
- Status
Well, you’ve kind of made one of my points: you make the conditions favorable enough, Dan McGoorty’s apocryphal “drunk Girl Scout” might be capable of running balls.
Lou Figueroa
I just think it’s poor form to make such a commotion about his attempts to break the record, finally do it, call himself Mr. 600, have announcements from Predator, from the BCA, etc etc, and then not allow anyone to see it. Of course, he can do what he wants with the footage, it’s his.
However, can you think of any other world record holder who keeps footage of his effort from the general public? Imagine if Eddie Hall tweeted that he broke his own 1000 lb deadlift with an 1100lb lift, but said the only way you’ll see the video is if you sign an NDA and pay him $50 for a private viewing. Again, it would be his prerogative, but it would also be mine to call him a dick (not that I’d say that to Eddie Hall’s face).
He already did years ago with 1102. Of course that was with a different ruleset that can not be used in Powerlifting competition. Including Hand straps to aid the grip, and hitching the finish
As a former competitive powerlifter I rate his record as a sideshow at best.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As a former competitive powerlifter I rate his record as a sideshow at best.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Right..and if we find none of that actually happened then we have a pretty special accomplishment we should all applaud.
Sent from the future.
Don't always agree with this man, but I do agree that for the fans all the facts would be nice.
I hope to see the run some day only since I love 14.1. I will say that even if the pockets were 8", heated slate, sander and rounded slate, 760 cloth, I'd be lucky to run a rack or 2. Though I'm a fan of the game, my skills at it fall short (for now)...
If and when the video is released and shows nothing untoward, the small but fervent crew of naysayers will instead turn to one of the host of other reasons they believe the record is tainted, suspect, or irrelevant.
From a political messaging point of view, focusing on the video is by far the best option - which is why you see the most eloquent and practiced among the doubters honing in on that argument.
For now, at least.
From a political messaging point of view, focusing on the video is by far the best option - which is why you see the most eloquent and practiced among the doubters honing in on that argument.
For now, at least.
That wasn't the focus of my message. Remove it and my disapproval still stands.
Agreed.........
Yep — that DH sure does know how to turn a phrase, don’t he.
As to the rest, no I don’t believe that to be accurate or fair.
Lou Figueroa
I'm starting to fall into the - if we cant see it, does it really count crew.
It doesn't mean much anyway when Mosconi, Cranfield etc. didnt run around trying to beat the 526 back in the day.
If Willie and the boys had kept running balls after 150 or whatever to "break the record" and couldnt get past 526 then JS record would mean a lot more.
Since none of those guys put in days, weeks, or years trying to break 526 specifically, then this record doesn't mean much in my eyes.
Nobody else has tried this except JS and maybe a few others so it doesnt really mean much at all.
It doesn't mean much anyway when Mosconi, Cranfield etc. didnt run around trying to beat the 526 back in the day.
If Willie and the boys had kept running balls after 150 or whatever to "break the record" and couldnt get past 526 then JS record would mean a lot more.
Since none of those guys put in days, weeks, or years trying to break 526 specifically, then this record doesn't mean much in my eyes.
Nobody else has tried this except JS and maybe a few others so it doesnt really mean much at all.
The reward doesn't lie, does it?
It means a lot to me.
It means people where I play pool are getting excited about 14.1 again (me included).
I can't possibly stand to read 59 pages of this, so can anyone direct me to the official equipment requirements for 14.1? It seems that would be relevant to the conversation.
It means people where I play pool are getting excited about 14.1 again (me included).
I can't possibly stand to read 59 pages of this, so can anyone direct me to the official equipment requirements for 14.1? It seems that would be relevant to the conversation.
Herein lies an issue with professional pool, and pool in general. There is no standardization. The only requirements to equipment will be set by whichever body is governing the particular event at hand. At least to my observation....perhaps Bob Jewett will clarify this at some point.
I don't know of any written document from the BCA that sets out the exact requirements for an exhibition run at 14.1. Items I recall having been mentioned in the past are that it is pre-announced and open to the public. In the case of Eufemia's 625 there was evidently a lack of evidence, such as an affidavit.
There is a relevant previous example of an exhibition run that some rejected....
English billiards is played on what we would call a 6x12 snooker table. You score in several ways including making a simple two-ball carom. About 1905 they finally figured out that if you got two balls against the jaws of a corner pocket you could score indefinitely. Here is a diagram from Clive Everton's "A History of Billiards":
Five weeks without a miss by Tom Reece. On a 6x12 table. You could win bar bets with that.
It turns out that the crusty old men who ran the game at the time decided that the run of nearly half a million points should not count because the press and public were not present for the entire run. I don't think you could have kept the audience awake for five weeks (in sessions) without throwing cold water on them occasionally. The referee was present for the whole thing. The fact of the run having occurred was not really disputed. The rules were quickly changed to disallow the repetitive shot.
One spectator watched for a while and reported that the first ball struck rotated in position and made a full rotation in something like 200 shots. Reece is reported to have made comments to Chapman during the run like, "How do you like the table tonight?" and "What kind of chalk do you use?" (Of course Chapman was in on the deal from the start.) Each session was concluded by Reece and Chapman playing some other games.
this is very accurate
This above is true, also your correct bout knowing what to look for - I saw footage on one of john's attempts where the cue ball made a u-turn, the way that cue ball curled around can only happen on a heated slate table. Also this would be vintage john to try and heat the table and hide the tape there as well.
This above is true, also your correct bout knowing what to look for - I saw footage on one of john's attempts where the cue ball made a u-turn, the way that cue ball curled around can only happen on a heated slate table. Also this would be vintage john to try and heat the table and hide the tape there as well.
Last edited:
- Status