That makes the Table Difficulty Factor around 0.82??
That's about the easiest GC in the world, but I think everyone already knew that.
Eagle Eye Takes Aim at 14.1 High Runs
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
That's about the easiest GC in the world, but I think everyone already knew that.
Honestly, there’s a level of logic here that is beyond belief.
Why would anyone contact Street Lights to see if their table is eligible for a world record attempt? Do you think Hathor rang Eddie Hall to make sure his equipment would count when he tried to break the deadlift world record? Of course he didn’t. He would have contacted the appropriate powerlifting organization that is responsible for ratifying the attempt.
This conversation is like a freaking Benny Hill skit, minus the 70’s babes.
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE TABLE SPECS ARE !!!!!
It doesn’t matter if they are 6” pockets. It doesn’t matter if the throats are 7”. If the BCA approves the run, that’s all you need to know. It was the same for Schmidt’s run, and it will be the same for this run.
Do you want to break the record? Contact the BCA and ask them what the limits are for table specs used in solo exhibition straight runs. Then make your table to those limits and go at it to your heart’s content. It’s not up to Street Lights to prove shit to anyone here. They only have to satisfy the BCA. They’ve already been more transparent than they ever needed to be. They could have done this whole thing behind closed doors, turned in the evidence to the BCA without anyone knowing, and the first thing you hear about it is that Jayson Shaw now holds the new world record of 714 balls.
Muppets.
Why would anyone contact Street Lights to see if their table is eligible for a world record attempt? Do you think Hathor rang Eddie Hall to make sure his equipment would count when he tried to break the deadlift world record? Of course he didn’t. He would have contacted the appropriate powerlifting organization that is responsible for ratifying the attempt.
This conversation is like a freaking Benny Hill skit, minus the 70’s babes.
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE TABLE SPECS ARE !!!!!
It doesn’t matter if they are 6” pockets. It doesn’t matter if the throats are 7”. If the BCA approves the run, that’s all you need to know. It was the same for Schmidt’s run, and it will be the same for this run.
Do you want to break the record? Contact the BCA and ask them what the limits are for table specs used in solo exhibition straight runs. Then make your table to those limits and go at it to your heart’s content. It’s not up to Street Lights to prove shit to anyone here. They only have to satisfy the BCA. They’ve already been more transparent than they ever needed to be. They could have done this whole thing behind closed doors, turned in the evidence to the BCA without anyone knowing, and the first thing you hear about it is that Jayson Shaw now holds the new world record of 714 balls.
Muppets.
I agree, and I thought the valuable thing was that a bunch of top players were using the same table, whatever it was.
Jayson did a 714, and given time, there's a bunch of players in the world who could do the same if they put in the time. The most interesting thing I got from the whole event was the difference in style between Ruslan and the others. Would like to see more of that.
And to add to your point, the BCA obviously doesn't care if it's an 8' table or a 9' table, so they really only care about someone sinking a bunch of balls, on whatever table.
John Schmidt also wrote on his FB
"Great run 407 by Jason Shaw I watched a lot of it and I think his patterns are fantastic shot making fantastic Pace fantastic he breaks the balls correctly one of the greatest players who ever lived and I saw him do a few things pattern wise that I really liked that I might even put into my game"
"Great run 407 by Jason Shaw I watched a lot of it and I think his patterns are fantastic shot making fantastic Pace fantastic he breaks the balls correctly one of the greatest players who ever lived and I saw him do a few things pattern wise that I really liked that I might even put into my game"
he wrote other things as well.......
i think its just HILARIOUS that people keep posting on johns page about it lmao
pool players geeez man
pool players geeez man
The secrecy and general attitude also rubs me the wrong way. They had a huge opportunity here and they blew it because they're doing it out of spite
Yeah....that's called class
Oh I'm glad he did.
Shane had great things to say about Fedor' s game recently after winning Arizona Open again and a 2nd to Shaw at Turning Stone.
One thing that I have not seen in this discussion is that (supposedly) Mosconi did not miss after running 526 balls in exhibition but simply stopped shooting (perhaps he ran out of time in the exhibition or was tired).
No, the better evidence is that he missed on the 527th shot.
Yeah but based on the best overhead corner pocket photos recently shown of the table with two balls frozen sitting just inside the mouth, and the work of some of the pool detectives on here, it is basically no longer a secret.The secrecy and general attitude also rubs me the wrong way. They had a huge opportunity here and they blew it because they're doing it out of spite
Whether they like it or not, we’re looking at a table with corner pockets that measure 5-1/4 inches at the mouth, 4-3/4 inches at the drop off point, and 139° pocket facing angles.
As far as I’m concerned until I hear otherwise from the organizers that have chosen to keep this a coveted secret, that’s is what it is.
Last edited:
This confuses me a little. In order to narrow from 5 1/4" to 4 3/4" (1/4" per side) with 139° facing angles, the throat would have to be more than 3.5" from the mouth, well past the slate drop off point (even past the far edge of the cushion, where I think the throat should be measured).
In order for the pocket to narrow from 5.23" at the mouth to 4.58" at the back of the cushion as shown in the pic, the facing angle must be ~141.5° (very close to WPA's recommended spec of 142-143°).
I don't fully trust these "photo measurements" anyway - too much likelihood of distortion. Camera perspective can't distort an actual ruler laid across the mouth and throat - I'd buy that without question.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Perhaps the 4-3/4” measurement was deeper in the pocket beyond the dropoff point. All I know is I used a protractor and using the straight line of the rail cushion and the extended red line of the pocket facings, I measured it a few times, both sides, and came up with 139°.
Lets face it, there is no table this record could be set on where nobody would whine about some aspect of it. 3.75 inch pocket GC modified for deeper shelves? "He's got more rail to work with, it's easier not to scratch". Diamond with 4.5 inch pro cut: "The cushions are to lively, he doesn't need to stroke the ball".
The only way some people would be happy is if the table was impossible to break the record on, and the players had to play with cue without a tip on it and no chalk.
If the table is too easy to break the record on, find a similar one, or better yet, play on the same one and see how you do. The very best thing would be to demand a pocket template be made by the BCA or WPA, but that's not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.
The only way some people would be happy is if the table was impossible to break the record on, and the players had to play with cue without a tip on it and no chalk.
If the table is too easy to break the record on, find a similar one, or better yet, play on the same one and see how you do. The very best thing would be to demand a pocket template be made by the BCA or WPA, but that's not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.
I haven't read a lot of the recent posts, but there was one post a few days back in one of the threads by I think RKC. I believe he said something to the effect that with a 5" mouth, and factory GC angles, two balls would touch at the throat of the pocket. (I'm paraphrasing and perhaps I'm remembering wrong...)
I went to my table, which is a factory GC4, with the factory pockets. When two balls are placed in the back of the jaws (throat), as far as they go before dropping off the slate, there is about 1/8" gap between them (by eye). I checked all 4 corners, in case the entire rail sub-assembly was shifted on the slate, making the shelf depth different on each pocket. All 4 were the same.
I'm the third owner, but it was always privately owned, never in a pool hall. I think its only had 3 re-coverings in its lifetime. I say this because I'm not 100% they are stock, but the probability is super high that they are.
When I saw the first pictures of the GC3 used here, I too thought the pocket facings were modified to be excessively easy, and excessively beyond a factory GC. However, seeing the more recent pictures, and going to my table and seeing its pocket, I now think they are at least in the ballpark of a stock GC.
Still, I agree a bevel gauge measurement would be nice to see.
I went to my table, which is a factory GC4, with the factory pockets. When two balls are placed in the back of the jaws (throat), as far as they go before dropping off the slate, there is about 1/8" gap between them (by eye). I checked all 4 corners, in case the entire rail sub-assembly was shifted on the slate, making the shelf depth different on each pocket. All 4 were the same.
I'm the third owner, but it was always privately owned, never in a pool hall. I think its only had 3 re-coverings in its lifetime. I say this because I'm not 100% they are stock, but the probability is super high that they are.
When I saw the first pictures of the GC3 used here, I too thought the pocket facings were modified to be excessively easy, and excessively beyond a factory GC. However, seeing the more recent pictures, and going to my table and seeing its pocket, I now think they are at least in the ballpark of a stock GC.
Still, I agree a bevel gauge measurement would be nice to see.