It's all right there in the name!
Jayson Shaw's 714 becomes 669?
- Thread starter loggerhead12
- Start date
I feel so relieved that US pool is in such capable hands as those of the BCA...Why would they play pool or be interested in it, when they could use the organization as a platform for selling hot tubs? Sure, they may be old and blind and not know the game, but they've got that glorious stamp of approval on a hair trigger. You may laugh, but eyesight and common sense are not as important as having that stamping arm good and ready. You may need that arm for the hot tub action later. Some may also think, hey, someone broke a record that has stood for over half a decade, that may be an opportunity to promote the crap out of the game. Well, you're wrong, dead wrong. STAMP, STAMP, STAMP, then go to lunch for 40 years. The hot tub organization of America: Where "straight pool" is least fabulous part of a water park.
Bobby,
Could you please elaborate on your statement "3 people only viewed John's claim to the 626?" Many people reportedly saw the presentations. Bob Jewett reviewed the video. How far was the camera from the table?
You say "Suggestion would be to have it re reviewed by video experts like jaysons run." Did the BCA have Jayson's run reviewed by video experts? Or was that something you had done? What were those video experts looking for?
"Reviewed by video experts" is really vague since video forensics encompasses a variety of different techniques. For example, attributes such as hash values could be evaluated for integrity. Metadata could be examined for numerous types of record data. Could you please be more specific as to what was reviewed by a "video expert." Could you please share who did the "review?"
Thanks.
Rack 19 low and rack 23 high.
Here’s a slower version.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No question that the racks weren't consistent.
AF's freeze frame of each rack position is really good and helpful. That should be a standard component of any type of record-setting event. Would be better if it was an overhead camera.
I liked the perma-rack that the Legends group used. I've been told that it can be fudged as well with the balls offset, but it must be pretty limited? An overhead view would eliminate that, but there are also things you could set up with a little optics that would show the rack is properly centred.
Someone suggested that together with a perma-rack, a projected image of the rack outline and ball outlines could be left on throughout the event.
All these things though are still pretty rough - an overhead view would be better I think.
I think Danny suggested that all the record-setting videos (except Mosconi's, well, umm...) should be submitted to Naval Intelligence and NASA for review.
Whatever is done, the whole idea of setting records seems to need standards. Minimum standards should be table size, cloth type, pocket size and shape, balls, racking templates, table markings, number of cameras and their position and viewing angles. More specific standards could include table height and cushion types, etc. You also need some policies on things like minimum/maximum play duration, rest breaks, and extended breaks - if someone runs a bunch of balls, do they get to leave the position overnight and resume in the morning?
Last edited:
How much more proof do you need to see the man is a liar and a cheat? He, and all that put on that charade have zero credibility. None.
Here’s a slower version.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The 626 will likely never be re-reviewed. Because it will trash the last thread of credibility the "BCA" has. Which is not much at all seeing as how they hidden they have become over all this.
I don't care if it was SVB who pulled a move like this.... he would lose his cred too.
This guy is officially washed up. Good riddance.
I suggest the hiring of a certified/reputable/unbiased referee/racker of unquestionable integrity should likely be mandatory. To thus accept the responsibility of maintaining adherence to all technical/rule aspects, and direct the proceedings.
It makes no sense to me that John would try to cheat on that break shot knowing that it was being videoed and knowing that every shot of his on any real long run would be scrutinized. Is it possible that he believes (or believed) the rack is fine so long as the (absent) apex ball would be touching the gummed spot (even though I'm not sure even that would have been true as high as the balls were racked).
I seriously considered that as well.
When you watch the video, you see his reaction and you know that he cannot see the shot through the ball placed on the corner spot. Then miraculously all of a sudden it's a shoot-able shot and he's perfectly OK with it. There's no way he didn't know that the rack was adjusted. You can see it yourself, don't take it from me.
Good points. I digress.
I don’t know what he was thinking but there is no way that he would think that it’s ok to adjust the rack position within a certain area. That’s something you might do alone and in your basement to see how far your run could have gone, not in an official world record attempt, whether it is steamed or not.
He didn't rack it
Here are some videos I did back in 2016. The question was how consistently were the pro players racking the balls.
The first video shows Hohmann. It's basically a baseline that shows the kind of consistency that should be seen:
This video shows a run from Schmidt. Focus on the yellow circle when comparing rack to rack and consider whether the rack placement made things more advantageous based on where the break ball is (not always visible):
Another run from Schmidt:
And, finally, a run from Schmidt where he was not racking:
Draw your own conclusions.
The first video shows Hohmann. It's basically a baseline that shows the kind of consistency that should be seen:
This video shows a run from Schmidt. Focus on the yellow circle when comparing rack to rack and consider whether the rack placement made things more advantageous based on where the break ball is (not always visible):
Another run from Schmidt:
And, finally, a run from Schmidt where he was not racking:
Draw your own conclusions.
What good is a rack outline if anyone is not gonna use it to exactly rack the balls the same way everytime.When using a permarack the balls set inside the dots the same everytime. John clearly had the racker rack the balls above the dots in each row. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. It was 100% cheating. Stevie Wonder could see John had the racker rack the balls high to give him a shot on the break shot. Why show a side camera view? The 2 answers are so no one can see the power cords for the heaters under the slate and also so no one can see how easy up table shots go in down the rails. SMFH.
Glad to see I was not the only one to see the low rack...Sad to see JS sink so low, even lower than his own, fudged low rack. I hope Jayson or someone else just sets a record so high that JS finally gives up, before JS permanently stains the name of 14.1, even though this high run circus isn't proper 14.1 as far as I'm concerned. I absolutely believe that Jayson was unaware of fouling. It's hard to even see the foul on camera. I think it's perfectly acceptable to count the balls from the first one after the foul. Even if you negate those balls from the racks in which the foul occured, it's laughable to say that the entire run is negated, and I can't see any reasonable person believing that sincerely. At the very least you should count from the first break shot after the foul. That's a given.
I love that video! You can't help but laugh with that guy, his laughter is so contagious and funny.
Last edited: