Why would it? The JS '626' didn't last that long!714 as in Babe Ruth? Could this record hold for as long as the Babe’s did?
Why would it? The JS '626' didn't last that long!714 as in Babe Ruth? Could this record hold for as long as the Babe’s did?
The relative depth or shallowness of the shelf also a factor in the pocket-forgiveness equation as well. That can vary a good amount between tables, especially cheaper or poorly designed ones (which thankfully wasn't the case with this startling, pleasureable-to-watch run).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 understand 100%.Has been said on here many times, it’s not the 5 inch mouth that makes this table play so forgiving, it’s the parallel pocket facing angles!
It is an amazing accomplishment. Truth be told, someone would have something to say about it even if everything was laid out perfect.It’s just a shame that such an incredible accomplishment will now be scrutinized because of this. Still without question, the best 14.1 shotmaking performance in history - 51 consecutive racks, 51 consecutive successful break shots!
714! 714! 714!
Who is next up Lou??
they could set up a star trek holodeck where you can physically go and inspect the pockets with a Tricorder yourself and there would still be people saying that the holodeck was rigged.I understand 100%.
It is an amazing accomplishment. Truth be told, someone would have something to say about it even if everything was laid out perfect.
No way, not falling for this one twice!. . . catch me in the parking lot and I’ll make you a good price.
The difference between 135 and 142 is 7 degrees, thats 7/16" per side bigger in the throat, a little over 3/4' not a 1/2".
Lol get your calculator. 3/4 would be 12/16. C’mon man! 1/2 is 8/16, so 7/16 is LESS THAN 1/2.
You are smart enough to know that……
No way, not falling for this one twice!
We used to call them 'Disco Biscuits'.
Me too Rich! The Cobra overrates himself in ALL measures!id take that bet
Wow. Now we've gone to the straight-up sci-fi nerd replies.they could set up a star trek holodeck where you can physically go and inspect the pockets with a Tricorder yourself and there would still be people saying that the holodeck was rigged.
Christ the guy runs 714 balls, smashes a record that’s older than I am
AND ALL TOU CAN DO IS ARGUE OVER THE POCKETS?
RIP Pool,
Can’t celebrate a historical moment, have to argue. I left for 7 years, come back to the same shit show. Ifs shameful, absolitly shameful.
Fatboy in his early days was a "Speaker Dude"!No way, not falling for this one twice!
Hey Eric, and it's ALWAYS the SAME ASSHOLES! Guys that couldn't run 3 racks with a 45 to their head!Christ the guy runs 714 balls, smashes a record that’s older than I am
AND ALL TOU CAN DO IS ARGUE OVER THE POCKETS?
RIP Pool,
Can’t celebrate a historical moment, have to argue. I left for 7 years, come back to the same shit show. Ifs shameful, absolitly shameful.
Honest to God I got the brinks for $50Fatboy in his early days was a "Speaker Dude"!![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Bose or Bricks? You find out once you open the box at home!
Ah --- fair enough. My reading skills need to be sharper! I do not notice the PER SIDE comment. So I was wr .. .wrrr.... wrrrong!I will defend him on this just because I though the same thing at first. So for the purpose of being accurate:
7/16 per side of the pocket opening at the throat. X 2 = 14/16
The rest of his act here is pretty regrettable.
It is an easy mistake to make.Ah --- fair enough. My reading skills need to be sharper! I do not notice the PER SIDE comment. So I was wr .. .wrrr.... wrrrong!
Reminds me of the old saying - I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken!