I think he showed tremendous determination which was as impressive as the number of balls he made
Eagle Eye Takes Aim at 14.1 High Runs
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
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.
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
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
Pool players are just the worst 
Just look at Schmidtys page
Just look at Schmidtys page
But you do admit they're not within BCA specification, according to the BCA specs for the pocket miter angles, right?
Bur the BCA was founded in 1948
So was that a yes or no?
Im gonna say probably not
Is this another deflection from avoiding the truth?
No, not a chance in hell.
Reminder here is the last approximate 300 balls of the run if anyone hasn't seen it yet. Skip ahead 5 minutes the beginning is fixing the camera.
fb.watch
Discover Popular Videos | Facebook
Video is the place to enjoy videos and shows together. Watch the latest reels, discover original shows and catch up with your favorite creators.
fb.watch
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:
What tables did they play on???even the 2000 U.S. Open Straight Pool Championship was played on 5 inch pockets and would not qualify for the above pocket measurements. Pool got played on easier equipment back in the days
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:
Well then at least ask Bobby if he'll let John Schmidt defend his title on this table, He subject to run a 1000 balls on the circus table!!
If you know the answer how about you post it instead of being a complete idiot, like usual.
We all know what point your childish antics are getting at, spit it out, make your point, then go away. You're not needed here.
For the BCA and later WPA pocket specs, its my opinion that they didn't actually "set" the specs. What they did is measure the most popular professional tables at the time, and made the "specs" to that. The old BCA specs were in the 5" range, which is a standard GC pocket. The more modern WPA specs are in the 4.5" range, which is the standard Diamond Procut pocket. Lets face it, Brunswick drove pool for the past 100 years, and Diamond drove pool for the past 20 years. The BCA and WPA did NOT.
Hanging our hats on anything they publish as "gospel" is BS IMO. For years, even the specs had huge typos on them, and no one even cared from their specs department. The typo had to do with the tolerance. It was something like 5" +/- 1/8", and got retyped years later as 5" +1/8". That typo was in all the dimensions that had tolerances, and was around for a good 20 years, probably longer.
We, as players, are more in tune with what's a factory pocket and what's a modified pocket, what's a hard pocket, and what's an easy pocket, than the BCA or WPA is, IMO.
Hanging our hats on anything they publish as "gospel" is BS IMO. For years, even the specs had huge typos on them, and no one even cared from their specs department. The typo had to do with the tolerance. It was something like 5" +/- 1/8", and got retyped years later as 5" +1/8". That typo was in all the dimensions that had tolerances, and was around for a good 20 years, probably longer.
We, as players, are more in tune with what's a factory pocket and what's a modified pocket, what's a hard pocket, and what's an easy pocket, than the BCA or WPA is, IMO.