John Schmidt- live 14.1

lfigueroa said:
You mean like the table he used for his 626?

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
Same as Shaws run.
Generous table.
All these runs are exhibitions, still great achievements.
Simple as that.

Remember, with your history of bashing John, knowing all the gaps in data you had a very clear idea of what to do leading into assisting the organisers with the new runs.
But somehow still managed to not publish full table specs to the public before the event started and you then found yourself in the same defensive position and several mega threads on here...

I would let it go if I were you.
You are on a foundation of sand...
 
I don’t believe in phony runs.

Any table, any pocket size, any balls, any cue is fine by me. You get to Shaw’s number-you now have the record.

What I have a problem with are runs that didn’t happen but we’re claimed to have happened. I’m not referring to the 626. Or implying it didn’t happen. Same as Babe Crainfields run. Not sure but probably did happen.

It’s not a equipment based record. It’s a “balls pocketed” run. Hells bells Ronnie might do it on a 12’ box. Would that be a “phony” run? It’s clearly NOT a pool table, but it’s harder-so would it count? Or not.

Can’t have it both ways.

Fatboy<———giving the world the 5 in critical thinking. And yes the window for a iq test bet is WIDE open.
 
arnaldo said:
Maha, you do realize that phrase inarguably equates to: "Mosconi's 526 was a phony run."

No way around it. However, it does confer on you the distinction of being the only person in the nominal 172-year history of professional pool to have permitted -- by inference -- such a conclusion for the general readership.

A rough estimate of 43,000? combined members and non-members reading a comment that dismissively slams other great record setters and assuming the experienced poster knows what he/she is talking about.

May we infer that Jayson's astonishing 714 is phony and logically dismiss-able according to your arbitrary metrics for appropriate conditions?

Arnaldo
Click to expand...
Would you concede that the conditions John is playing under are more difficult then that of Jayson? It only takes a short time watching to see it if you are honest.
 
telinoz said:
Same as Shaws run.
Generous table.
All these runs are exhibitions, still great achievements.
Simple as that.

Remember, with your history of bashing John, knowing all the gaps in data you had a very clear idea of what to do leading into assisting the organisers with the new runs.
But somehow still managed to not publish full table specs to the public before the event started and you then found yourself in the same defensive position and several mega threads on here...

I would let it go if I were you.
You are on a foundation of sand...
Click to expand...

I have been on pool forums for almost three decades -- I challenge you to show me where my "history of bashing John" exists.

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
I have been on pool forums for almost three decades -- I challenge you to show me where my "history of bashing John" exists.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
Many others have, you end up waving them off or saying they are a nobody...
So, this reply ends here as I am not wasting more time on you.

Get over your bitterness and grudge, it is not healthy.
 
telinoz said:
Many others have, you end up waving them off or saying they are a nobody...
So, this reply ends here as I am not wasting more time on you.

Get over your bitterness and grudge, it is not healthy.
Click to expand...

And of course you can't back up your accusation because it is patently false.

You make a very dark accusation, cannot back it up with a sintilla of evidence, and then run without apology. Pretty clear who was "standing on a foundation of sand" from the get-go. Now you can go pound some of it, lmao.

Lou Figueroa
 
There will never be an absolute agreement as to what the "correct" conditions are. So better to publish as much data regarding pockets, table etc as possible and let those speak for themselves.

I can't wait until a pocket measurement set is agreed upon. It will sure make things a lot easier regarding world records and the like.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
There will never be an absolute agreement as to what the "correct" conditions are. So better to publish as much data regarding pockets, table etc as possible and let those speak for themselves.

I can't wait until a pocket measurement set is agreed upon. It will sure make things a lot easier regarding world records and the like.
Click to expand...

I feel relatively confident saying 5" corners and 5.5" sides as the max allowable will be the standard for high runs.

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
I feel relatively confident saying 5" corners and 5.5" sides as the max allowable will be the standard for high runs.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
Well, at the moment it seems that is what has been adopted, but when Matchroom gets the standard pocket templates, I predict a new rush to set a record on those.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
Well, at the moment it seems that is what has been adopted, but when Matchroom gets the standard pocket templates, I predict a new rush to set a record on those.
Click to expand...

Maybe but I suspect that what the BCA has to say about it will hold more sway than anything MR comes up with.

Lou Figueroa
 
It's essentially batting practice. A home run derby. Not a game 7 walk off. Does the table and it's dimensions really matter that much?
 
Straightpool_99 said:
Well, at the moment it seems that is what has been adopted, but when Matchroom gets the standard pocket templates, I predict a new rush to set a record on those.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but MR is specifically focused on 9 ball and wants to set the standard for 9 ball equipment. Although the prospect of 14.1 on 4.25” pockets intrigues me, I recognize that I’m in the minority here.

And frankly, we don’t have a good history of differentiating pocket specs, conditions or even circumstances of high runs anyway. I don’t expect that to change unless 14.1 makes a spectacular comeback as a competitive force in pool. I think that’s probably what it would take to standardize 14.1 pockets, and until then people will make the conditions as favourable as possible to get bigger runs.
 
Idea: Let's start a new high run record on standardized pocket dimensions and equipment. My second thought is to make the pockets really tight so we don't have to watch for several hours only to have someone miss before the record it broken. Tighten up the pockets to where a 100 ball run is an impressive run by a pro. A top pro may run 200 after several days of attempts. The record may be 250. IMHO, when runs start getting up over 600 or 700 hundred, time to tighten the pockets.
 
fjk said:
Idea: Let's start a new high run record on standardized pocket dimensions and equipment. My second thought is to make the pockets really tight so we don't have to watch for several hours only to have someone miss before the record it broken. Tighten up the pockets to where a 100 ball run is an impressive run by a pro. A top pro may run 200 after several days of attempts. The record may be 250. IMHO, when runs start getting up over 600 or 700 hundred, time to tighten the pockets.
Click to expand...
It will become self limiting after a certain point. You can make 3.75 inch corner (pool) pockets playable, but after that you'll need some serious modifications to angle and slate depth. Also, even at the 3.75 inch mark, the game will be changed in a way that will make it unrecognizable. Certain shots will become unviable. You may see someone choose side pocket breakshots over corner pocket ones, depending on how the sides are cut, you may see people pass on what today is a perfect breakshot and choose something else entirely. Rail shots will need to be shot with extreme care and only 45 degree shots into an open corner or shots straight into the side can be blasted. All other shots must be shot with restraint.

Yes it will be impressive, but it won't be straight pool as we know it today.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
Yes it will be impressive, but it won't be straight pool as we know it today.
Click to expand...
Correct. We could set Olympic archery targets to a distance of two football fields away from the archer (not Johnny) and see how the wagering goes for that.

Arnaldo
 
Quite honestly, it's a little ridiculous. At 188 John just shot a classic break shot and one ball went past the side pocket. He bumped a cluster and the balls went nowhere and he ultimately missed a very hard cut in the side. It's actually shocking he's running the balls he is.
 
middleofnowhere said:
Quite honestly, it's a little ridiculous. At 188 John just shot a classic break shot and one ball went past the side pocket. He bumped a cluster and the balls went nowhere and he ultimately missed a very hard cut in the side. It's actually shocking he's running the balls he is.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he's just lucky to get up there and run a hundred balls a few times a day.
I have to study the tape when this is over.
Maybe I will learn to get that lucky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top