Eagle Eye Takes Aim at 14.1 High Runs

realkingcobra

Well-known member
Silver Member
Dude, really?!

How many times to I have to say that Bobby chooses not to release additional photos and specs. I’ve see 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
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!!
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.
 

realkingcobra

Well-known member
Silver Member
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.
Brunswick has been producing pocket angles the same today as they did a 100 years ago
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
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.
The process was to my knowledge as you described, though I haven't done a whole lot of research.

The fact that the organizations are completely incompetent is not an unavoidable thing, but a result of lazyness, corruption, greed and general idiocy. In pool we are so used to this, that we believe that is how everyone operates. The lack of respect for the guidelines is not from any inherent problem with governing bodies, but the fact that the governing bodies have had the above qualities for so long that any respect has been eroded away. Other sports have governing bodies that actually do their job, so people do in fact listen to them. We could have had that in pool as well, but we'd probably need a firing-squad type of solution and start all over again.

My proposal would be as follows: Elected representatives from the pro players would agree on the specs and have a template made. For leagues a similar system. Testing period one year, if needed an adjustment, then a five year moratorium on changes (to benefit manufacturers). The template would be such that every angle of the pocket would be locked in, along with shelf depth.
 

7stud

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This is not to add any controversy but I just went on YouTube and I watched one of John's 400 plus runs. There is no doubt he plays beautifully and the table he was playing on the balls didn't break exceptionally easy they just looked like playing pool in a pool room.

Here's the thing I noticed though that I found a little odd. There's people in the room watching The run and they're talking and John's talking.

At points they actually discuss what to do on the table. In other words at one point John got too long and had a long straight in shot and they were discussing the possibility of different balls that might be dead in the rack.

I don't know about this, I know if you catch a record-breaking fish nobody else better touch that rod. The run I'm talking about on YouTube is something like 426 or 436 but there's points in the run where there's like collaboration on how to get out of rack.

I don't really know what to think about that. Set a records playing with coaching? Is his 600+ ball run up anywhere to watch?
He also fouls occasionally, but what's a couple of fouls among friends?
 

xradarx

You may win a few, but, You will lose many
Silver Member
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!!
Pony up that now useless unedited video along with a personal request for consideration might get some notice. Absence does not make us any fonder.
 

realkingcobra

Well-known member
Silver Member
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...
That's because you don't understand pocket geometry. The closer to parallel the miter angles are, the further back in the throat the balls get deflected, which means less rejection and more accepting the pockets are to pocketing balls!!
 

realkingcobra

Well-known 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!
Probably just a disclaimer to keep from getting paid. "You have to break all the records kid not just the one JS set"😅🤣😂
 

realkingcobra

Well-known member
Silver Member
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.
I can't believe Patrick Johnson got it right before I did😆😅🤣😂
 

kanzzo

hobby player
That's because you don't understand pocket geometry. The closer to parallel the miter angles are, the further back in the throat the balls get deflected, which means less rejection and more accepting the pockets are to pocketing balls!!
Are you sure, you don't have some reading comprehension difficulties? This is what I wrote:

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.

pocket plays easier if angle is smaller. Sorry, but I this is not rocket science.

HaHa! I know a 7 year old who makes stuff up like that after they are wrong, he also invents stuff he didn't say.
^^ this is spot on.
 
Top