John Schmidt runs 820

It's hard to respect a run like this when the pockets are so atrociously big. The shot on the 6, 5, and 15 ball are not what pool is. Those balls should never go, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This is not pool. There was never any pressure to miss a ball with pockets that size. Any APA 3 would run out a rack of 9 or 8ball on this table.
 
If they are offended by balls going in after hitting a rail a diamond+ out, they better not watch any pool from before the year 2000.

The knuckle foul was pretty bad. The “coaching” thing is laughable, as if Schmidt needs coaching.
 
The "coaching" at 2:00 in the foul video looks to me like it is the "ref" saying whether a ball overlaps the rack outline. The referee, if there was a referee, is supposed to do that. But I don't think Bob was a referee.
 
Players know when they foul so I guess my beef with this is it being advertised as an 820 when JS knew he fouled several times along the way.

Of course the table playing stupid easy is another thing. A couple of shots that went would not have gone on any legit table.

Lou Figueroa
 
iusedtoberich said:
I personally have Shaw at 714 (before he ran the 830 something). I understand all the hoopla about the touched ball and the BCA changing it to 669. Almost the entire country on every tournament plays cb fouls only. I watched his 714 live (the last hour or so), and I bought the zip drive that was advertised as 714.

Hell, he even got a 714 tattoo!

Same as I have Schmidt at 820. Yes, I saw the nudged OB.

To each his own. All of those runs were amazing.
Click to expand...
I with you here.

Before this latest stint of high runs by Schmidt and Shaw, how did we know that Willie Mosconi's run was without a foul? Does the affidavit address whether someone was watching for fouls or what defined a foul (cueball vs. object ball, coaching, breaks, ball cleaning, etc)? Does it say how big the pockets were?

I don't understand nit-picking clear feats of greatness on the table. All the runs from Schmidt and Shaw in recent times are remarkable achievements.

As I understand it, if John Schmidt fouled in his latest run, then his run ended at 672. O.k. even still, he is one of two people who have proof of twice running over 600 balls. The same for Shaw whether run is 669 or 714, Shaw has twice run over 600 balls. Running 600 once is bonkers. Twice is clearly double-bonkers.

kollegedave
 
Kris_b1104 said:
It's hard to respect a run like this when the pockets are so atrociously big. The shot on the 6, 5, and 15 ball are not what pool is. Those balls should never go, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This is not pool. There was never any pressure to miss a ball with pockets that size. Any APA 3 would run out a rack of 9 or 8ball on this table.
Click to expand...
I would bet a very large sum of money that an APA 3 would not run a rack of 9 ball or 8 ball on this table even given many tries.
 
The shooting is amazing. The catch is that these aren't runs when there are fouls along the way. My high run is well over a thousand, maybe over two thousand, if you don't count the misses!

Runs start at zero and end with a miss, foul, or somebody just quits. Bathroom and food breaks need to be defined. A one hour or longer break includes rest and in my opinion ends a run. A thirty minute break? I don't know. Ten minutes or less? Seems valid but how many and how often needs to be defined.

To call something a run it needs to be a true run or it cheapens true runs.

Hu
 
kollegedave said:
I with you here.

Before this latest stint of high runs by Schmidt and Shaw, how did we know that Willie Mosconi's run was without a foul? Does the affidavit address whether someone was watching for fouls or what defined a foul (cueball vs. object ball, coaching, breaks, ball cleaning, etc)? Does it say how big the pockets were?

I don't understand nit-picking clear feats of greatness on the table. All the runs from Schmidt and Shaw in recent times are remarkable achievements.

As I understand it, if John Schmidt fouled in his latest run, then his run ended at 672. O.k. even still, he is one of two people who have proof of twice running over 600 balls. The same for Shaw whether run is 669 or 714, Shaw has twice run over 600 balls. Running 600 once is bonkers. Twice is clearly double-bonkers.

kollegedave
Click to expand...

If the YT analysis is to be believed his fouls would have broken up this run into a 119, 25, 478, 125, and 73.

As to Willie, well, we will never know for sure but there was referee and Willie was used to playing all fouls world championships, in a coat and tie no less -- so the best we can do is give him the benefit of the doubt.

Lastly, I think we all can agree that a high run table can play a bit looser. But hitting the rail two diamonds up and having it drop is beyond the pale, IMO.

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
If the YT analysis is to be believed his fouls would have broken up this run into a 119, 25, 478, 125, and 73.

As to Willie, well, we will never know for sure but there was referee and Willie was used to playing all fouls world championships, in a coat and tie no less -- so the best we can do is give him the benefit of the doubt.

Lastly, I think we all can agree that a high run table can play a bit looser. But hitting the rail two diamonds up and having it drop is beyond the pale, IMO.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
I didn't realize there were 5 fouls now. I guess I should have read the thread closer or watched the video before commenting. Five fouls isn't the greatest.

However, if someone would give me the ability to run 820 balls on a loose table whilst committing five fouls, I would accept that ability and say thank you. I would also be proud of that run even on a super loose table.

kollegedave
 
kollegedave said:
I didn't realize there were 5 fouls now. I guess I should have read the thread closer or watched the video before commenting. Five fouls isn't the greatest.

However, if someone would give me the ability to run 820 balls on a loose table whilst committing five fouls, I would accept that ability and say thank you. I would also be proud of that run even on a super loose table.

kollegedave
Click to expand...
It would have been a "run" as much as my runs after going to Taco Bell.
 
kollegedave said:
I didn't realize there were 5 fouls now. I guess I should have read the thread closer or watched the video before commenting. Five fouls isn't the greatest.

However, if someone would give me the ability to run 820 balls on a loose table whilst committing five fouls, I would accept that ability and say thank you. I would also be proud of that run even on a super loose table.

kollegedave
Click to expand...

Sell the Diamond, get yourself a GC2, get it fixed up, run the balls through the polisher, and viola!

Dave runs big numbers.

Lou Figueroa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top