Eagle Eye Takes Aim at 14.1 High Runs

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Using your math does not add up unless i am missing something. 5 inch pockets at the mouth and 4.25 in the throat would not allow two balls to fall at the same time. All stock table I saw growing up playing pool in the sixties and 70s until the 90s would allow two balls to drop easily at the same time.
Whatever the mouth opening is, 142-143° facing angles dictate a 3/4" reduction in size from mouth to throat. There's no math error - if the mouth is 5" wide, then the throat must be no more than 4 1/4" wide or the angles are not 142-143°.

pj
chgo
 

kanzzo

hobby player
Because we know what that measurement is on this table. It's the facing angle that's unknown.
yes, but because of the size of the pockets the table wouldn't qualify for "recommended equipment specifications" from WPA anyhow. So if the angle is just 138° instead of 142°, I don't see how it changes things. Yes, this table plays easy. I posted this before...
4.95 is less than 5.0 last time I checked. But yes, these are basically 5 inch pockets.

PSF is 0.91 since it's <= 5''
View attachment 625048

I did not set up the table. From the photos provided I would guess the Pocket Angle Factor to be somewhere between 137,0 and 138,6 degrees. (PAF 0.97)
View attachment 625046

The small pocket shelf depth is typicall for GCIII (I owened one for years), so this factor makes the pockets more forgiving, then the pocket angle. (PLF 0.95)

View attachment 625047

These numbers make for a Total Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) of about 0.84 (0.838565), so it's a very easy table, even more so with new cloth.
View attachment 625049
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I donno... Eagle Eye is pretty badass...
Some people are questioning his pace of Play as being way too fast, but I would say if he was not playing as fast as he was, he wouldn’t of had so many chances at high runs.

Think about it, as soon as a run ended, he was able to get right back to 200+ in less than 40 minutes! Simply amazing!

I can’t wait to hear how long it took him to run the 714. My guess is it was under 2 1/2 hours!
 

JazzyJeff87

AzB Plutonium Member
Silver Member
I forgot to quote the post but someone brought up crainfield 768. On the stream the guy Deon said jayson got the world record, then he talks to Bobby for a minute and comes back saying never mind maybe it’s not the world record.

I heard mention of the 768 during that side conference so it seems like that’s still considered the one to beat in general - to be top runner dawg of the world and all time till next time - but as far as I’m concerned it’s the bee’s knees cuz I seen it happen!
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
...because of the size of the pockets the table wouldn't qualify for "recommended equipment specifications" from WPA anyhow. So if the angle is just 138° instead of 142°, I don't see how it changes things.
5" corner pockets are at least common. Parallel facings aren't.

And, again, the pocket width has been clearly shown, avoiding questions and suspicion about that.

pj
chgo
 

kanzzo

hobby player
WPA pocket specs say ...
on wpapool.com they don't say, tables have to be like this. The say "recommended equipment specifications"

table angles.JPG

this is from Table Difficulty Site from Dr. Dave, so there must be tables with Pocket Angle of less then 141°

I agree that if would be fair to provide all the relevant table specifications for the table so the runs are better comparable. And a Pocket Angle of 138° does make the pocket more forgiving, then 142°.

But it's not enough for an asterix for the world record in my opinion.
 

cueman

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Whatever the mouth opening is, 142-143° facing angles dictate a 3/4" reduction in size from mouth to throat. There's no math error - if the mouth is 5" wide, then the throat must be no more than 4 1/4" wide or the angles are not 142-143°.

pj
chgo
I am going to do something that rarely happens around here. I will admit you are right. I just measured my double shimmed gold crown pockets and they are almost exactly 3/4 smaller at the back. Also the two balls will barely fall at the same time. I was not considering that the poket edges sit higher than center on the balls thus making the opening a little wider at the center ball height. It took the extra shim on each side of my pockets on my table to make them 5 inches at the opening. All the Brunswick bowling alleys around here in the 70s and 80s had pockets like mine had before I tightened them up.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Has the full quality version been posted yet? Sorry if I missed it I’m at dayjob. Watching the low quality version live was amazing!
 

kanzzo

hobby player
Then why not say whether or not this one is?

pj
chgo
I have no idea why the organisators don't provide the exact measurements. I had guessed from the photos that the angle is around 137-138°
(135° would made for absolutely parallel facings, so the angle must be a little above 135° but probably less then 142° that are normally on a Brunswick table. I had a GCIII for 5 years and owe a GCV and the angle is 142° on my table at home)

Dr Dave provided a nice system with TDF to compare, how different variations in pocket measurements change the difficulty of the table.
The 5'' pockets make it 9% easier
The flat shelf makes it 5% easier
The pocket angle makes it 3% easier.

Combined (since you have to multiply the numbers) it makes for an 16% easier table. So the pocket angle is a relevant factor but it's the smallest one.
 
Last edited:

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
Maybe - but we don't yet know what this table's specs are... and if the facings are parallel, then it's gaffed. By the way, I'd say the same thing about Schmidt's pockets if the question arose.
If only we knew those specs as well. That's really why I think critiquing this table is pointless. If we're happy pretending the John S. table was in "spec" (whatever that is) without actually knowing the numbers, then why do we care this time around...?
 

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Easy is relative. It's still a very hard game. Shane, one of the best on the planet didn't break 400 on the same table. I'd like to see the pocket angles as well just to satisfy my own curiosity but it would by no means place an * next to his run. 714 is incredible and for the sake of pool, I hope it gets a lot more publicity that 626. Lie I said, most here on AZB couldn't run 51 balls on that table let alone 51 racks. Amazing.
 

xradarx

the pocket billiards database is mostly erroneous
Silver Member
John Schmidt Equipment List
14.1 Challenge IV

Easy Street Billiards
Monterey, California

  • Rebco Pocket Billiard Table 4-1/2 x 9
  • Drop Pockets - No Ball Return
  • Simonis 760 Tournament Cloth Green
  • 5-inch Corner Pockets
  • 5-1/2 inch Side Pockets
  • Sardo Rack
  • Super Aramith Pro Belgian Billiard Balls
  • Predator P3 Red Butt
  • Predator Revo 12.4mm Carbon Composite Shaft
  • 19.5 oz and 58 inches
  • Techno Dud Tip by Outsville
  • Taom Pyro Blue Chalk
  • Predator Second Skin Billiard Glove
  • Predator Urbain 3x5 Hard Case Red
There are no rules. JS proved that beyond a doubt. Gimmicked everything involved. Been given a 2-1/2 year free pass. Same professors of
faith for one player, but not for any others, who just went to a venue and played what was there.
Just saying!...
I've said my piece. Call me whomever you wish.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
If only we knew those specs as well. That's really why I think critiquing this table is pointless. If we're happy pretending the John S. table was in "spec" (whatever that is) without actually knowing the numbers, then why do we care this time around...?
I don't much care - but it makes all this high run stuff just entertainment, not really setting "records".

pj
chgo
 
Top