While I sort of agree with some of what you are saying, this IS straight pool. It's just not very instructional. There may be some nuggets here and there, but you have to really dig for them. I sat through an entire run by John Schmidt, which was over 400 balls. While it was entertaining, with insane shots every rack, I caught myself audibly gritting my teeth at times. What the hell was I supposed to learn from that video, I wondered. The answer is of course, nothing or at least very little, and maybe more general principles than concrete solutions. It's just a spectacle and somewhat entertaining at that. Not everything is supposed to be textbook. Shaw and Schmidt just played the game to their own strengths, which is what you have to do to get the best possible performance. They're good at making shots and have awesome touch, but planning is not really their strongest suits, so they play differently than the old greats. You can probably learn something, at least from Shaws rapid development of semi-decent pattern play in the latter stages of his attempts. He's not Sigel or Varner, but at least you can see, kind of, what works universally.
To a certain extent the textbook has been rewritten, at least on the easy tables. Theirs are, after all, the longest documented runs. Saying they're playing the game wrong sounds really stupid in that context. However, I suspect the person going for the high run on a super tight table might have to dust off the old textbook and read it cover to cover, because I can damn well guarantee that this circus stuff isn't going to fly on those. At a certain point of table difficulty, I believe the firepower won't be able to overcome the poor planning. I don't know what that point is, but I believe there is such a point. Others may disagree and think the straightest shooters will always be the best straight pool players. I don't agree, but dont' necessarily think it's a stupid sentiment, especially in light of these recent developments.