Eagle Eye Takes Aim at 14.1 High Runs

skip100

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Before they stopped recording, Bobby got Jason in front of the camera again. Jason said he has blisters on all his finger tips on his bridge hand, and that he had been trying his bollocks off all week, and he just had a feeling about breaking the record, so that's why he turned his car around and came back for another session(which went from 9PM-9AM). Somewhere they mentioned that he was scheduled to come back after the DCC.
I was shocked to see him pick up and start new runs again after the bad roll for 379. It was already past midnight. What an effort!
 

wayne

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Try all you want to discredit me, but you can't. I said Earl never ran over 400+ balls before this event, and would have a hard time making 200+ of which he did once, in a week!!!! I said Jason Shaw coming into this event would probably have a high run of around 318, he did.
Your actual quote "...high run of around 318 BUT NO HIGHER THAN THAT!" So, you were wrong by 396 balls. How does it feel to be that WRONG?????????
 
Last edited:

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
WPA pocket specs say corner pocket facing angles should be at least 142° - and that matters to shot making, especially when running hundreds of balls, scores of them down the rails.

Great run even with an asterisk - which it could reasonably have until pocket measurements are shown.

pj
chgo
I think history should be considered here....the WPA is ‘Johnny come lately’....so many of the greats, like Greenleaf etc, never heard of them.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
About the only thing I want to say on the pockets is this:

We do not know what all the pockets specs were on Mosconi's table. We don't know how deep the shelf was on that table or what Dr. Dave's TDF would be on it.

Same for John's table.

If you look up those accomplishments what you will find are:

A. The table size, and
B. The width of the pocket opening.

So I personally feel we're good, particularly after having seen additional photos of our pockets. It's Bobby's call on releasing them and it's his event and his dough. And by-and-large everyone (with a couple of exceptions) enjoyed the free live stream and is willing to happily acknowledge Jayson Shaw's monumental run of 714 balls. And eventually, we will have unedited video of the run to release.

Don't like it, I got nothin' for you.

Lou Figueroa
with apologies
to Jeff Probst
 

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Would Tony Choan, Josh Roberts, Oscar Dominguez, Tyler Styer, or Chris Reinhold break 500 on this table?
 

realkingcobra

Well-known member
Silver Member
About the only thing I want to say on the pockets is this:

We do not know what all the pockets specs were on Mosconi's table. We don't know how deep the shelf was on that table or what Dr. Dave's TDF would be on it.

Same for John's table.

If you look up those accomplishments what you will find are:

A. The table size, and
B. The width of the pocket opening.

So I personally feel we're good, particularly after having seen additional photos of our pockets. It's Bobby's call on releasing them and it's his event and his dough. And by-and-large everyone (with a couple of exceptions) enjoyed the free live stream and is willing to happily acknowledge Jayson Shaw's monumental run of 714 balls. And eventually, we will have unedited video of the run to release.

Don't like it, I got nothin' for you.

Lou Figueroa
with apologies
to Jeff Probst
But you do admit they're not within BCA specification, according to the BCA specs for the pocket miter angles, right?
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Is this another deflection from avoiding the truth?

Dude, really?!

How many times do I have to say that Bobby chooses not to release additional photos and specs. I’ve seen them and am good with them and that’s as far as I can go.

It’s Bobby’s event, his money. Don’t like it run your own event. I’ve said this a ton of times!

You’re like a little kid. Nothing is going to change because you’re throwing a tantrum on the floor. Get over it. Grow up.

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
Bur the BCA was founded in 1948
That's all fine, but the specs are almost entirely irrelevant to modern pool. Even WPA specs are subject to being ignored by WPAs discretion. Basically WPA and BCA have been asleep at the wheel for decades. They could have either enforced their specs or updated them to be more in tune with the times (then enforced them). But they did neither, and so everyone ignores them. That is what they deserve, but unfortunately it leads to everyone and their cusins-uncles-grandmothers-neighbours-friend having opinions on pocket specs and nobody to really set the record straight. So we get pointless bickering that goes nowhere.

Realistically, how hard would it f-ing be to make a pocket template, like in snooker? Heck, one could even have two, one for recreation and one for sanctioned tournaments. Then the BCA could put their stamp of approval on a table and collect their fee, or not. No stamp, no WPA/BCA tournament for you. You could then also have two separate records, if the recreational template became popular for league play etc. That would be fine and not really a problem, because everyone would know what the specs were, down to the last degree of pocket cut or milimeter of shelf, and if the table conformed to neither, the record would be unofficial or invalid.
 
Last edited:
Top