Maybe I am a D player and have a little idea on what a B player is...but I do not think there is a chance in hell a B player could run 100 balls on that table. It is so damn easy to screw up a table and make the setup of the break ball hard to impossible. It's also not easy to break problem areas up, much less break them up with a solid safety ball to play. Finally, Jason puts down length of table shots like they are absolutely nothing, but I guarantee you, a B player is going to miss some of those length of the table cuts Shaw makes look so easy. All of that was just talking about the first rack...to do 7 times...just not gonna happen. Maybe I am wrong, but feel that anyone that thinks a B player runs 100 on this table, has not played much straight pool and experience the unbelievable frustration that occurs, and also how shots change as you reach goals and move into unchartered territory...
Could a B player run 100 balls on the world record table?
- Thread starter pw98
- Start date
Tight pockets in general is a fairly new to the world of billiards 20 or 30 yrs?
, it doesn't do the game justice, turns players into robots which is not entertaining viewing imo
Yeah, but I saw many of those up the table shots, even hit with pace, hit the long rail 1-2 sites up from the pocket and still go in. For a player of his skill level, that’s just way too much margin for error that simply doesn’t work on most tables. And he knew immediately the ball would still go in, even though he’d of missed it on most tables.
That margin of error was another reason he was able to play so fast. Yes, it could be argued that if he knew the pockets were a little tighter, he would’ve taken a little more time and likely still pocketed most of those shots much cleaner, but certainly not all of them.
Last edited:
I hear you for sure. Nothing like how my table is setup, that's for sure! (and I'd not change it either) Still, no way a B player runs 100.
dendweller
Well-known member
Watched it for a bit, saw the same thing. The place I play at has gc3s with standard gc pockets. Some people call them buckets. They will not accept a ball hit with pace that hits the rail that far up. For their size they surprise me what they'll spit out.
To be fair, it's not new cloth so there's that.
Agreed, the skill necessary not to just run through 7 complete racks but to leave yourself a perfect angle on the break ball 7 consecutive times, successfully executing 7 consecutive break shots without sticking yourself or without scratching.
I’ve played 14.1 for 50 years and I haven’t yet figured out how to do it. Watching Jayson string racks makes it look so easy - but it is most certainly not, not even on that table!
I saw one shot that hit the rail at the third diamond and went in. If I get time I might compile some of the runs and measure the angle in / angle out for those long shots that bounced off the rail before going into the corner, but it would be a messy project for sure.
No disadvantages?
Big pockets also make it easier to scratch.
dendweller
Well-known member
There are other factors at play, especially when you're talking about hitting 3 diamonds up and going. Pocket angle and facing hardness. If you have them set up like a valley with 137 degree angles and hard facings, balls want to go, whether you're scratching or shooting. Gold crown pockets don't have a lot of shelve to defend themselves.
Now I don't know either is true about the angles or facings but that's what is being questioned and could account for some of those balls dropping.
Yes, for pro level players that’s especially a huge factor on break shots, which finally caught up with Jayson on his 52nd break shot!
There is a huge net advantage.
I’ll take the added risk of a scratch if I get the advantages that come with. Yes, it got Shaw, but it got him after 714 balls. On a tight table he wouldn’t have scratched but his run would’ve ended for other reasons far earlier.
Clearly they set the table up that way to be advantageous. How are we debating this?
Can't agree here... that run would have ended on 4.125" corner pocket. It didn't slop in at all.
Absolutely not.
Hey JV, I can’t tell if I’m reading you correctly.
Are you saying his run would’ve been the same on a 4.125 table or that it would’ve been much shorter?
My entire posts have been stating it would have been shorter. So if you feel that way then we don’t disagree.
This isn’t diminishing what Shaw did. I just think it’s obvious that looser is easier.
I think I’m done posting on it. Debating whether bigger pockets are easier is surreal. If az’ers can’t agree on this that’s proof we cant agree on anything.
No way
I think the debate is that some people seem to think the bigger pockets is the ONLY reason Shaw broke the record.
I think it’s obvious he is the record holder for a reason. His firepower makes him the top gear player in the game today.
The loose equipment was a requirement to achieve this, as was his unmatched pocketing ability. Couldn’t get to 714 without BOTH.
I was reacting to the suggestion his run wouldn't have ended with that final scratch on a tighter table. It went nearly in the heart. Wasn't sloppy at all.
I haven't seen the full run yet. I was sleeping for most of it...lol.