Jayson Shaw's 714 becomes 669?

As I process this more, it is nice to see our governing bodies get involved and help set official standards. Requiring a black rack outline makes sense so that these high-rack issues are prominent.

But I do think John and then Bobby created something that BCA wasn’t doing anything with. So I think BCA should not be too nitty as we are basically defining a new discipline of pool.

I think if Bobby is good with cue ball fouls only then BCA really should endorse what movers and shakers are doing and not be nitty about something they were doing nothing with in the first place. I’m good with the 714. BCA should have either (A) supported it for the sake of supporting pool or (B) just stayed out of it as outside the purview of their interest. In this space all they had was a diminishing influence instead of a signal boosting influence. That’s a job poorly done.
 
Shuddy said:
Agree, re cue ball fouls only; it’s bar bullshit.
Click to expand...

Plenty of pro matches outside of tournaments are cue ball fouls only. I know I just watched SVB tell somebody (Pagulayan?) that he touched a ball, then played on. Can't remember the match. All balls is hard to do without a ref.
 
jay helfert said:
Still a bad sign imo. That would indicate a prediliction for favoring himself while racking the balls. And that's not kosher. ;)
IMO, now any observer (BCA or otherwise) of his record high run should now observe carefully how the balls were racked in each and every rack!
Click to expand...
Trying to turn that confirmation bias off.

In his 626, he used the Sardo rack, which would be pretty impossible to rack differently. In yesterday’s runs, John was at times mic’d up to interact with viewers. I only wish that at that particular rack, we could hear what he was saying. He at times after missing would just go right from there rather than starting at a break ball. None of this week’s seemed like a fully serious attempt to me. But when that particular shot came up, he knew it didn’t go, he pointed at it, and the racker racked them higher. With 200 viewers. I’m definitely not condemning him for that, and not know making that some kind of habitual thing. That’s too much narrative.
 
Shuddy said:
Relax.

1. He’s being a little tongue in cheek.

2. He’s saying he has a world record for all ball fouls, and one for cue ball fouls only; not that he legitimately believes he can claim two world records.

Also, the most surprising thing for me in that video was John S racking the balls like this to get a clean shot on his break ball :

View attachment 642695
Click to expand...
John didn't rack the balls. My understanding is it was a local Canadian player.
 
loggerhead12 said:
Plenty of pro matches outside of tournaments are cue ball fouls only. I know I just watched SVB tell somebody (Pagulayan?) that he touched a ball, then played on. Can't remember the match. All balls is hard to do without a ref.
Click to expand...
I know, which is why I presented the hypothetical nipple in a televised environment. I didn’t mean it’s only used in bars. I meant the idea itself is bar bullshit, like putting your cue between the rail and cueball if you land too close.

It’s not really hard to do without a ref. You just tell your opponent you fouled. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen a pro snooker player have a fouled called on him that he wasn’t aware of and didn’t immediately call on himself first, whether it be feathering the cue ball or ball being bridged over or near, touching a ball with their hand, and even playing push shots. Unfortunately, playing pool, I think I’m the only person I’ve seen call a push shot on themselves. This is not a superiority thing re snooker. It’s just a different culture for two sports that have different origins and historical environments. Basically all snooker players I know instinctively call fouls on themselves.
 
Shuddy said:
I know, which is why I presented the hypothetical nipple in a televised environment. I didn’t mean it’s only used in bars. I meant the idea itself is bar bullshit, like putting your cue between the rail and cueball if you land too close.

It’s not really hard to do without a ref. You just tell your opponent you fouled. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen a pro snooker player have a fouled called on him that he wasn’t aware of and didn’t immediately call on himself first, whether it be feathering the cue ball or ball being bridged over or near, touching a ball with their hand, and even playing push shots. Unfortunately, playing pool, I think I’m the only person I’ve seen call a push shot on themselves. This is not a superiority thing re snooker. It’s just a different culture for two sports that have different origins and historical environments. Basically all snooker players I know instinctively call fouls on themselves.
Click to expand...

Are you comparing pro snooker to amateur pool? Or are you a pro pool player talking about pro pool? Because I’m pretty sure I’ve seen pro pool players call their own fouls. But I’ve never seen amateur snooker in my life.
 
This seems like some kind of karmic retribution for all the nitty, obsessive, obnoxious, and conspiratorial nitpicking the anti-Schmidt crew did of his 626 run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SBC
Cornerman said:
Trying to turn that confirmation bias off.

In his 626, he used the Sardo rack, which would be pretty impossible to rack differently. In yesterday’s runs, John was at times mic’d up to interact with viewers. I only wish that at that particular rack, we could hear what he was saying. He at times after missing would just go right from there rather than starting at a break ball. None of this week’s seemed like a fully serious attempt to me. But when that particular shot came up, he knew it didn’t go, he pointed at it, and the racker racked them higher. With 200 viewers. I’m definitely not condemning him for that, and not know making that some kind of habitual thing. That’s too much narrative.
Click to expand...
My problem is I can't unsee that. The rack was deliberately racked high to allow him a better look at the break shot. The balls were racked 45 times in that record run. Sardo rack or not, the rack can be manipulated to favor the shooter.
 
jay helfert said:
My problem is I can't unsee that. The rack was deliberately racked high to allow him a better look at the break shot. The balls were racked 45 times in that record run. Sardo rack or not, the rack can be manipulated to favor the shooter.
Click to expand...
Other thing is that in that screenshot, there was a large black head spot. The next day, that headspot was gone and I became aware that he was using a perma-rack with clear hole stickers.

Was he using the perma-rack when the headspot was on the table? I dunno, haven’t watched enough and listened to enough of his runs.

To be clear, I don’t care about using donuts, trained tables, racks, whatever gets they balls as tight they should be with as little hassle as possible. As long as the balls are racked where they should be, and cornerman said he actually directed the racker to shift the balls up.

I love watching John play, and love his dedication to 14.1, but that leaves a bad taste.
 
JB Cases said:
They have tried to invalidate John's run using plenty of unethical tactics.

Even during the event Bobby held they refused to ever state clearly that John had the official world record.

It was sick gaslighting in my opinion. To me Bobby should be barred from ever getting any certification for anything that comes from any event he promotes.

He is lucky that the bca even allowed the 669 when his own rules stated that runs have to start with a break shot

John Schmidt graciously said that he considers 714 the number to beat.

In my opinion if Jayson's touching of the ball didn't result in any ball movement then the run is still 714 but cannot be certified as the official record based on the general rules of pocket billiards.

Precedent has been established that high run attempts in high run events start from the break. All of the high runs in those events started from a break shot.

Another poster made a really good point about starting in the middle of a rack. Essentially a player could take a miss but just opening a problem cluster , or just set up a Cosmo pattern and start from there essentially giving themselves all the open balls while avoiding the risk of an unfavorable layout after the break.

It makes the most sense to agree that high run attempts start with the break. And in the interest of reducing controversy it should be all ball fouls rather than having an argument about whether a touched ball moved or not.

That seems to be the cleanest way to do it imo.
Click to expand...
John anybody that every played 10 racks of straight pool know most runs end off the break shot....either by missing a tough break shot, scratching off the rack, sticking the cueball where you don't gave a shot or leaving a shot that is missed after the break shot.

Starting midrack is absolutely an advantage.

Really don't matter. It was a tickytac foul. Everyone will know he put up an amazing number. Maybe Lou's cloth sales will suffer...
 
JB Cases said:
Lol, you all have cast aspersions constantly despite the fact that there is video that has been reviewed by the bca and other well respected and knowledgeable people in this sport. You have essentially dismissed all of the first-person testimony on this subject and implied that their statements attesting to the validity of John's run is not conclusive.

You all whined about the run being only available through paid admission to John's shows and yet you immediately made Jayson's run only viewable if one pays for it.

So try harder Mr. Public Relations Officer (propaganda shoveler imo). This bit of bs stinks as much as the rest of the steaming piles you drop.
Click to expand...
You guys gotta run back that set you played already.
 
SBC said:
See...knew you couldn't
Click to expand...
I take it you've gleened your debate tactics from watching children squabble in school yards...?

So how about we start again. This time I'll make the founded claim first.

Not every high run exhibition has a rule that states you must start from a break shot.

Now you have to prove me wrong and I don't need to back my claim....lol. You're ability to form an argument is so weak I'm almost taking pity on you. Fortunately I'm a fan of natural selection so I'll entertain the AZB lurkers with your pre-school logic.
 
Shuddy said:
I know, which is why I presented the hypothetical nipple in a televised environment. I didn’t mean it’s only used in bars. I meant the idea itself is bar bullshit, like putting your cue between the rail and cueball if you land too close.

It’s not really hard to do without a ref. You just tell your opponent you fouled. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen a pro snooker player have a fouled called on him that he wasn’t aware of and didn’t immediately call on himself first, whether it be feathering the cue ball or ball being bridged over or near, touching a ball with their hand, and even playing push shots. Unfortunately, playing pool, I think I’m the only person I’ve seen call a push shot on themselves. This is not a superiority thing re snooker. It’s just a different culture for two sports that have different origins and historical environments. Basically all snooker players I know instinctively call fouls on themselves.
Click to expand...
Seen fights dozens of times in all ball fouls.
No way to do it without refs.
 
AtLarge said:
I forget whether yours was the Perma-Rack or something else that is similar. Schmidt is using the Perma-Rack. Obviously, the balls were positioned a bit north of the doughnut holes for that break.
Click to expand...

Perma-rack.

Lou Figueroa
 
The_JV said:
I take it you've gleened your debate tactics from watching children squabble in school yards...?

So how about we start again. This time I'll make the founded claim first.

Not every high run exhibition has a rule that states you must start from a break shot.

Now you have to prove me wrong and I don't need to back my claim....lol. You're ability to form an argument is so weak I'm almost taking pity on you. Fortunately I'm a fan of natural selection so I'll entertain the AZB lurkers with your pre-school logic.
Click to expand...
Natural selection....You wouldn't last 5 minutes with me talking like that in person.

You can't show me a high run competition starting midrack off a miss. Its been the standard for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top