Shane Van Boening's World Record

gregcantrall

Center Ball
Silver Member
Not a record. Dave Matlock not only won 28 straight racks, but he ran a 28-pack in doing so in bar table eight ball. That said, I don't think any feat performed on a bar table belongs in the record books.
Mosconi’s record was set on a 4 × 8 foot Brunswick table with 5 1/4 inch corner pockets
 

jokrswylde

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The problem is, and it's not only him, but SJM and others, as beloved as they may be, disparage a large part of the pool playing population when they refer to 7 ft. Tables as "kiddie tables".

As much as they believe that 7 footers do nothing for pool, the constant belittling of THE ONLY type of pool a large majority of the population plays is even worse.

It is well documented that pros for the past several decades have no problems playing tourneys, challenge matches, gambling matches, etc., on 7 foot tables. I do not understand why some feel it is necessary to disparage these tables. "Kiddie tables", or " real pool is played on 9 footers", or " the world's best shouldn't play on bar boxes "... it's all horse crap.

Many REAL POOL PLAYERS never have the opportunity or desire to play on 9 ft. Tables. It does not make them any less of a pool player. And it is a slap in the face to call them kiddie tables. Just my opinion.
 

skogstokig

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Mosconi’s record was set on a 4 × 8 foot Brunswick table with 5 1/4 inch corner pockets

iirc both 9ft and 8ft are considered regulation size pool tables. 7ft and 6ft are not, and for good reasons. it's a slippery slope if you ask me. i understand the bar league situation though, i would probably play on 7ft too if that was the only table available.
 

ThinSlice

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I’d like to say that my wife and I are huge Shane fans. We have a nice 7’ bar table in our dining room instead of a table for eating. The light was changed to a pool light. We have both played on a 10’ table; poorly and chose to go smaller.

Neither of us will ever be pros and pool can be frustrating enough without adding the extra 3’. We also figured, why not own and practice on what we always play out on anyway. All of the leagues and tournaments around here in northern Wisconsin are played on bar boxes.

I understand that the “greats” on this forum will look down on us for where we are coming from. We will never hold a candle to your abilities, but you’ve heard the truth.

We would gladly watch SVB on any size table. If I ever got a chance to shoot against him, I would consider myself fortunate to get a shot off, much less sink a ball.

Well put and I can say for myself and probably many others in this forum that we don’t hate bar boxes. I love 9’ because they are challenging and requires a hard and a soft stroke and you can play with either almost exclusively if you know how to play proficiently at either. Some days I hate them.

I really enjoy bar boxes for entertainment. They are fun as all hell coming from a 9’.

I commonly play at our local bar which serves good food and me and the family go to eat and have a few beers. My goal is to try to hold the table all night long till closing. Doesn’t always happen but I try every time.

Now as far as competition, meh. It’s too easy to run out. If I had to gage the amount of times I run out on a 9’ and a 7’ I would say I run out 75% more of the time on a 7’ vs a 9’. That’s huge and not exaggerated. So if I can do that then the pros are obviously running the same or more. That’s why you can see 28 break and runs. Somewhere in the world although probably not documented someone has ran more.

Sure it’s an enormous achievement for Shane or any player. But, let’s be realistic for a moment. In no way is a 7’ tougher than a 9’. Although 7’ tables are more popular right now and possibly forever who know’s, it’s not considered mainstream professional.




Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well put and I can say for myself and probably many others in this forum that we don’t hate bar boxes. I love 9’ because they are challenging and requires a hard and a soft stroke and you can play with either almost exclusively if you know how to play proficiently at either. Some days I hate them.

I really enjoy bar boxes for entertainment. They are fun as all hell coming from a 9’.

I commonly play at our local bar which serves good food and me and the family go to eat and have a few beers. My goal is to try to hold the table all night long till closing. Doesn’t always happen but I try every time.

Now as far as competition, meh. It’s too easy to run out. If I had to gage the amount of times I run out on a 9’ and a 7’ I would say I run out 75% more of the time on a 7’ vs a 9’. That’s huge and not exaggerated. So if I can do that then the pros are obviously running the same or more. That’s why you can see 28 break and runs. Somewhere in the world although probably not documented someone has ran more.

Sure it’s an enormous achievement for Shane or any player. But, let’s be realistic for a moment. In no way is a 7’ tougher than a 9’. Although 7’ tables are more popular right now and possibly forever who know’s, it’s not considered mainstream professional.




Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
But, that's the point others were making.....a 7 ft Diamond with Pro Cut pockets is not your run of the mill Valley. The tight pockets and deeper shelves make it play much harder.

And here's another point there hasn't been brought up in this thread yet... Many of you have said in the past that playing on a 9-foot shouldn't be any more difficult than a 7. If your cue ball position is good, there should be no shots on a 9-foot there any longer than on a seven. And if they have the same size pockets, a 4-foot shot on a 9-foot is identical to a 4-foot shot on a 7. It's all about cue ball position.

Next, you're going to say that cue ball position is harder on a 9-foot. No, it is not. Think of it this way... the adjustment is no different then playing on a 7-foot with slow cloth, and then shooting on 7 ft table with Simonis worsted, or something faster. Obviously you have to make an adjustment. You do exactly the same going from a 7 to a 9. Once you have the speed figured out, your brain should quit and your arm should take over. I'm not saying it wouldn't take some practice. It's all about speed, not distance. Given the same quality cushions and cloth, going for cue ball position two rails and rolling 5 feet, is the same on both tables.

The ones that are saying a 7 (or 9) ft Diamond plays badly, because the rails are to springy, or whatever, just can't make the adjustment required.. Or they don't want to. The pros don't seem to have a problem adjusting. I didn't have much problem adjusting on my brother's friends Diamond (9 ft Tournament w/drop pockets). Matter of fact, I played pretty well.
 
Last edited:

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
Mosconi’s record was set on a 4 × 8 foot Brunswick table with 5 1/4 inch corner pockets
Even though that run was made on a table having specifications within pro guidelines at the time, I have often posted that I wondered whether Mosconi's record should have been recognized at all. I consider Darren Appleton's 200 and out against Bustamante to be the true world record run, as it happened in tournament play.
 

Cuedup

Active member
iirc both 9ft and 8ft are considered regulation size pool tables. 7ft and 6ft are not, and for good reasons. it's a slippery slope if you ask me. i understand the bar league situation though, i would probably play on 7ft too if that was the only table available.
"Regulation size pool table" is an odd term and one that is not really applicable.
A 7 ft bar box is the most common table in America. Its standard. It's the normal table most are familiar with.
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
"Regulation size pool table" is an odd term and one that is not really applicable.
A 7 ft bar box is the most common table in America. Its standard. It's the normal table most are familiar with.
It used to be, and as far as I'm concerned, still is, an 8-foot table is standard. and 9 foot is regulation, tournament table.
 
Last edited:

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It used to be, and as far as I'm concerned, still is, an 8-foot table is standard. 8 foot is standard, and 9 foot is regulation, tournament table.
'Standard' is sort of a nebulous term here, means nothing really. I've never heard an 8ft. table being referred to as 'standard' size. If you you're in a joint and all they have is 7ft'rs then 7ft is their standard. As for regul./tourn. i agree the 9ft has been the size since the switch from 10ft'rs.
 
Last edited:

gregcantrall

Center Ball
Silver Member
Upon further review I see the interweb says a regulation table is one with a length to width ratio of 2 to 1.
Back in the’80s in the Seattle Tacoma area bar tables were predominantly 8’. The term ‘bar box’ applied to them as well as the occasional 7’.
So I guess “Big Table “ would be more accurate for the 9 and 10 foot tables. 😉
 

Cuedup

Active member
"Regulation size" implies there is a regulator.

While the WPA is an authority and does offer some guidance as to regulation size 8 and 9 foot tables, it also defines a regulation pocket size that is larger than what many here would deem appropriate for an elite tournament.
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
'Standard' is sort of a nebulous term here, means nothing really. I've never heard an 8ft. table being referred to as 'standard' size. If you you're in a joint and all they have is 7ft'rs then 7ft is their standard. As for regul./tourn. i agree the 9ft has been the size since the switch from 10ft'rs.
Maybe it was the time and place I grew up. But eight foot were always known as standard size. What I can't understand is 8 foot oversized. I'm sure owners of 8 oversized will disagree, but what's the point. Either get an eight, or a nine.
 

Texas Carom Club

play 1cushion & balkline
Silver Member
Well put and I can say for myself and probably many others in this forum that we don’t hate bar boxes. I love 9’ because they are challenging and requires a hard and a soft stroke and you can play with either almost exclusively if you know how to play proficiently at either. Some days I hate them.

I really enjoy bar boxes for entertainment. They are fun as all hell coming from a 9’.

I commonly play at our local bar which serves good food and me and the family go to eat and have a few beers. My goal is to try to hold the table all night long till closing. Doesn’t always happen but I try every time.

Now as far as competition, meh. It’s too easy to run out. If I had to gage the amount of times I run out on a 9’ and a 7’ I would say I run out 75% more of the time on a 7’ vs a 9’. That’s huge and not exaggerated. So if I can do that then the pros are obviously running the same or more. That’s why you can see 28 break and runs. Somewhere in the world although probably not documented someone has ran more.

Sure it’s an enormous achievement for Shane or any player. But, let’s be realistic for a moment. In no way is a 7’ tougher than a 9’. Although 7’ tables are more popular right now and possibly forever who know’s, it’s not considered mainstream professional.




Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
Sorry, the pros don't have that high a run out rate and the numbers have been shown time and time again on the forum, the percentage of run out is near the same from 7-9ft table

Even bar box 9ball on standard valley tables I watch saez and Reyes, neither ran the set out and both had to play safeties on each other.
 

skogstokig

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
"Regulation size pool table" is an odd term and one that is not really applicable.
A 7 ft bar box is the most common table in America. Its standard. It's the normal table most are familiar with.

it's definitely the standard for the variety of the game called bar table pool. as long as that distinction is made, especially in the titles of youtube videos, i'm happy.
 

ChicagoRJ

EEEEEXCELLENT ;)
Silver Member
The problem is, and it's not only him, but SJM and others, as beloved as they may be, disparage a large part of the pool playing population when they refer to 7 ft. Tables as "kiddie tables".

As much as they believe that 7 footers do nothing for pool, the constant belittling of THE ONLY type of pool a large majority of the population plays is even worse.

It is well documented that pros for the past several decades have no problems playing tourneys, challenge matches, gambling matches, etc., on 7 foot tables. I do not understand why some feel it is necessary to disparage these tables. "Kiddie tables", or " real pool is played on 9 footers", or " the world's best shouldn't play on bar boxes "... it's all horse crap.

Many REAL POOL PLAYERS never have the opportunity or desire to play on 9 ft. Tables. It does not make them any less of a pool player. And it is a slap in the face to call them kiddie tables. Just my opinion.
Perfect post. Where would pool be without leagues. How many 9 footers you gonna stuff in a bar. How many bars are gonna buy GC's.

This is the equivalent of dismissing softball players because the fence is much closer than the in MLB. Well, no shit, they are amateurs versus pros. And yeah, some pro's have played in celebrity softball games and crush it. They don't compete on those but why should they, they have billion dollar stadiums and $250M contracts. Pool players don't know what they are eating for dinner the next day so if they want to play on 7 footers, just enjoy it.

By the way, how much pool stuff would be sold if no 7 footers. There would be no pool in the USA if you took the 7 footers out. League dry up. Then folks that sell billiard related stuff go out of biz, and then, soon after the pool rooms and then money for tournaments. I may dislike the APA rules and format, but I do know what they bring to the table in supporting pool and brining tens of thousands to the sport.
 
Last edited:
Top