Shuddy’s take on 14.1 high runs

Shuddy

Diamond Dave’s babysitter
Silver Member
I’m making a new post on this topic because it’s probably going to be a long read. If that isn’t your thing, fine. Move on. If you do read this post, and you have information that I don’t have, or that contradicts something I’ve said, feel free to correct me. However, please don’t do so with anecdotal evidence. We’re talking about world records, and, “I touched the edge of the table with my pinky finger,” means nothing when it comes to logical, evidence based reasoning.

I’m also writing this with zero regard for any personal issues between John Schmidt, Street Lights, and anyone involved in the straight pool community.

If you want to read my thoughts on Schmidt and Shaw, and the game of pool, skip to the end.


There’s several issues I have thoughts on:

1. Some people argue that John Schmidt should be invited to Street Lights and given the chance to challenge Jayson Shaw’s run of 714.

First, no individual has any obligation to invite any other competitor to attend any event whether it is designed to set a world record or not. Florian didn’t invite anyone to attend his house and, under the same conditions, attempt to beat his world record for spinning a cue ball on the spot. I have spun a cueball on the spot for 27 seconds, which I’m pretty sure is longer than his previous world record. Even if that was public knowledge, I would have zero expectation that Florian would invite me to attend his event and attempt to beat his new record. If I genuinely wanted to challenge Florian’s new record, the onus would be on me to arrange the ideal conditions required, the witnesses required, and any other requirements to enable me to set a new world record.

John Schmidt set his world record run of 626 under the same circumstances Florian did. He arranged conditions for him and him alone to set a new high run. He didn’t invite anyone else to run balls using the conditions that he organized, using the resources that he, his team, and his sponsors expended, and he certainly had no obligation to do so.

Street Light Billiards and their team have, exactly as John Schmidt did, organized a private event using their own resources, their own sponsors, their own venue, and the equipment of their choosing. They, just like John Schmidt, are under no obligation to invite any individual to participate in their event. Regardless of whether the intention of their event is to provide a venue for players to break their personal bests, entertain pool fans, or set a new world record. In fact, for obvious reasons, typically, individuals attempting to set a new world record in any category intentionally do not invite other competitors to attend their event.

Secondly, to address an issue that I think is irrelevant, some people will argue that it would be “the right thing” to do to invite John Schmidt. Would it have been the right thing to do for Eddie Hall to wipe the blood away from his nose and eyeballs, pick up his phone and immediately call Hathor to come and attempt the same deadlift with the same equipment to beat the record he just set? Of course not. Eddie Hall’s world record deadlift had nothing to do with Hathor. And Jayson Shaw’s new world record and the event being run at Street Lights has nothing to do with John Schmidt.

Any individual wishing to run balls under conditions that would recognize a world record can organize those conditions themselves and invest as much time and as many resources as they are wiling to.

2. Some people argue that the table being used at Street Lights calls into question the validity of any runs made on said table.

The queries about the table appear in several forms.

A. On Facebook in comments and on stream, some people said things to the effect of, “How big are these pockets? 5 inches?!? Wow, too easy. Why don’t they use a normal table with 4.5 inch pockets?” I assume these people don’t have any knowledge of the history of straight pool or recognized high runs made playing straight pool. These comments don’t need addressing here. We all know that 5 inch pockets are not unusual for straight pool and the previous recognized straight pool records.

B. On here, the AZB forums, and on the more knowledgeable billiards related Facebook groups, some people have suggested that the table seems to play easier than other tables with 5 inch pockets, without specific details. Briefly, this is opinion, and none of those people have played on the table Mosconi used, John Schmidt used, and Jayson Shaw used, and not even the latter of the two. New cloth, type of cloth, condition of the balls, atmospheric conditions to name the most significant can all affect how a table plays, and specifically, how the pockets play. No one has knowledge of all these factors with regards to the three recognized straight pool world records, and it wouldn’t matter if they did.

C. On here in particular, the AZB forums, and on the more knowledgeable Facebook groups, some people have suggested the Street Lights table is a “gaff” table. The claim is based on their belief that the corner pockets’ throats and mouths have a similar width as opposed to the throat being more narrow than the mouth. This claim can be taken a little more seriously (or can it?).

First, what do we know about the tables used for the three widely recognized high runs? (And this is where people probably have more information than I do, and I’d invite those people to comment below.) (Also, the bourbon is kicking in, so the quality of this post may start to degrade 😂)

Mosconi’s 526

Table specs: The table was 8’x4’, of that, everyone is certain. With the regards to the size of the pockets, numbers range from 5.25” (this seems to be considered a mistake) to 4.75”, though it’s generally accepted that the table had 5” pockets. What was the angle of the pockets? We can assume they narrowed from the mouth to the throat, which is regarded as a requirement by BCA and WPA for sanctioned events, but given that we don’t know any facts about the table other than the bed dimensions and it’s make, a Brunswick, that’s all we can base the discussion on.

Other conditions: We don’t know anything else as far as I’m aware. People have mentioned that Mosconi used to bring his own balls to the venues he played at, certainly at least his own cue ball. Someone on AZB, no names, mentioned they pocketed one of his cue balls while he was distracted, and that the cue ball had a blue measle dot. I don’t know anything about the balls used at the time, and I assume Mosconi used his own balls as one of the only ways he could control the quality of the playing conditions. There’s also talk of balls hopping out of pockets and the run being allowed to continue. This comes from people that were apparently there but can’t be verified.

Known facts: 8’x4’ Brunswick table with (probably) 5” pockets (angle unknown).

John Schmidt’s 626

Table specs: The table is a 9’x4.5’ Rebco. Someone on Facebook told me they have played on the 8’x4’ table that John Schmidt used. I assume this was a mistake on their part. Photos provided by Bob Jewett show the corner pockets to be 5” or a smidge under. The photos appear to show a slight narrowing towards the throat. I don’t know the exact angle.

Other conditions: Although I haven’t seen the 626 video, other videos from Easy Street appear to show John Schmidt using standard Aramith Pro balls (non-TV version). I’m fairly certain he was using 760 cloth, and he was using a Sardo Rack. I’ve never used a Sardo Rack, but my understanding is that it forces the balls down onto the table, and I therefor assume that after a reasonable amount of time, it ends up training the table somewhat. I could be entirely wrong about this. The table also had a racking triangle drawn in place.

Known facts: 9’x4.5’ Rebco table with 5” pockets, slight narrowing of throat (angle unknown), 760 cloth, Aramith Pro balls, Sardo Rack

Jayson Shaw’s 714

Table specs: The table is a 9’x4.5’ Brunswick. Photos provided by Easy Street show the corner pockets to be 5” or a smidge under. Images from the stream and photos taken throughout the event appear to show a slight narrowing of the throat. I don’t know the exact angle.

Other conditions: Videos and photos appear to show Aramith Tournament Duramith 4 balls. The cloth was new 760. The rack appears to be a PermaRack; a system that provides a template used to place very thin donut stickers for all 15 balls to be racked. It’s basically a permanent template that allows the balls to be easily racked without gaps but with less interference than a removable template. The table also has a racking triangle drawn in place.

Known facts: 9’x4.5’ Brunswick table with 5” pockets, slight narrowing of throat (angle unknown), 760 cloth, Aramith Duramith 4 balls, PermaRack

Below is a collection of various photos of the tables used by Jayson Shaw and John Schmidt. Each pair of pink lines on a single pocket is identical in length. This is obviously not scientific, and we’re dealing with perspective distortion, etc, but it’s all I have:

42A6FD7F-1208-4A1D-BAC7-C8078F6E5191.jpeg


Photos A and D are views of Schmidt’s and Shaw’s streams respectively. They both show the corner pockets to be parallel. The camera is obviously distorting the table because photos C (Schmidt) and F (Shaw) both show the mouth of the pocket being wider than the throat. Photo C appears to be a fairly accurate photo of Schmidt’s table. Photo E is obviously distorted quite severely by the phone’s camera, as it shows the throat being wider than the mouth. Other photos and streams show this to simply not be true. Photo F appears to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the table Shaw played on, with minimal distortion. Photo B is another example of distortion and is taken from a news piece on Schmidt’s 626.
 

Shuddy

Diamond Dave’s babysitter
Silver Member
What do I personally take from these photos? Based on these photos and the streams I’ve been able to see, both tables have pockets bigger than anything I’ve ever played on.

However, anyone who believes the streams or photos they’ve seen have given them enough information to question the validity of either run based on table specifications is clearly not thinking rationally or objectively.

I don’t care if the castings are narrower than the pocket throats. I don’t have enough information about the casting dimensions on either table for that to be relevant. I don’t care if someone says they saw Schmidt’s table and it looked harder than the Street Lights table they’ve seen on stream. That’s not relevant.

I’ve seen photos of Schmidt’s table that show both parallel and narrowing mouth to pocket ratios. And I’ve seen the same for Shaw’s table. I’ve seen photos for both tables that appear relatively distortion free and appear to show a narrower throat than mouth.

BUT HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT WITH REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE (I pressed all the options for this text!!)

People discussing pocket measurements and angles are doing so if there is some kind of standard to be adhered to regarding solo exhibition high runs in straight pool. To my knowledge, there is no such standard. When the BCA reviewed Schmidt’s 626 footage, what standards did they use to assess the validity of the run? Did they have the exact measurements and angles of the pockets on his table? When for decades we accepted Mosconi’s 526 as the official high run, what standards did we apply to our acceptance of that? As we accept Florian’s cue ball spinning on the spot for 40 seconds, what standards do we apply to that? Do we know how heavy his cue ball was or what kind of cloth he used?

American pool has enough trouble applying standards to it’s most popular formats, and just as much difficulty making the game a professional sport, but somehow, people think they have enough information about both tables in question to determine one run’s validity over the other based on some kind of intangible standard they’ve created for the acceptance of solo exhibition straight pool runs.

Finally, from my point of view, here’s what matters.

John Schmidt set himself the goal of beating Mosconi’s recognized world record high run of 526. He spent months, not to mention the years leading up to that point, dedicating himself solely to the pursuit of that goal. When he missed on a 300, he picked up his cue and started again. When he missed on a 400, he picked up his cue and started again. I can’t imagine how he must have felt and the determination he must have mustered to continue fighting to achieve his goal. He surely battled demons that tried to stop him. He overcame those demons and achieved his goal. And no one can take that away from him. He beat Mosconi’s officially recognized word record run of 526, a record that stood for decades, and that will always be his achievement, in his life, and in the record books that persist after him.

Jayson Shaw, in this last week, has displayed a ruthless bullheaded focus and persistence that I’ve never witnessed before, culminating in a 12 hour session that ran from 9PM to 9AM, with his final inning resulting in the consecutive potting of 714 balls. Jayson Shaw set himself a target of beating 500. When he missed on 200, 300, and 400, he didn’t even falter. He pulled the balls out of the pockets, picked up his cue, and started again. He couldn’t even bring himself to drive away from the table, turning his car around, checking his family back into the hotel, and coming back to the venue for one final push. After his run of 714 balls, he had blisters on his fingers and he commented to the viewers that they would not believe how sore his back was. The improvement he displayed from day to day, even session to session, was obvious to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the game. He too must have battled demons that tried to stop him, and he too overcame those demons.

Pool is a sport of determination, will, endurance, physical and mental precision, doubt and fear, confidence and certainty, elation and despair. And both John Schmidt and Jayson Shaw experienced all of these things in the pursuit of their goal. They are both Legends of the Game that we all love.

Thank you, John Schmidt, for doing what many thought was impossible in the modern age. Thank you, Jayson Shaw, for inspiring me and I’m sure many others with your incredible display of determination and downright stubborn refusal to give up. And thank you to Street Lights and Legends for giving us railbirds the opportunity to enjoy every moment of this event.

This is pool distilled; one man and a table.
 
Last edited:

middleofnowhere

Registered
John could possibly set up a table and do it again. Say a Diamond with 4.5 inch pockets and establish a new stand alone record on a certain type of equipment. I don't know the politics of this but I think John should be invited to try. If they don't then it puts a cloud over the thing. Like I said, I don't know, may be there is a good reason they haven't. In that case John could set up the exact same conditions, table and so and do it live on line for as long as he chooses. From watching Johns runs on youtube he has great table management. I think on the table they used John could over time beat it. For sure he would rain 3 and 4 hundreds and who knows.
I'm just brain storming.
 
Last edited:

kanzzo

hobby player
This is pool distilled; one man and a table.
I'll read the whole post later 😅
(edit: read it)

But this sentense is great. Since I started pool back in 1999 I was only interested in straight pool and in high runs. I learned the other games, I had some success in 9 Ball and 8 Ball. I even started learning some One Pocket.

But in the end, this is what pool is for me. One man and a table. Since Covid I probably spend over 1000 hours alone at the table (while most of the pool halls were closed for long periods because of the pandemy). I train, I play other drills, I get coaching, I watch tapes from other players. Since I don't think that just playing straight pool the whole time is the fastest way to improve. But the end goal is and alway was to be able to run 100s in straight pool alone on my table.
 
Last edited:

middleofnowhere

Registered
I'll read the whole post later 😅

But this sentense is great. Since I started pool back in 1999 I was only interested in straight pool and in high runs. I learned the other games, I had some success in 9 Ball and 8 Ball. I even started learning some One Pocket.

But in the end, this is what pool is for me. One man and a table. Since Covid I probably spend over 1000 hours alone at the table (while most of the pool halls were closed for long periods because of the pandemy). I train, I play other drills, I get coaching, I watch tapes from other players. Since I don't think that just playing straight pool the whole time is the fastest way to improve. But the end goal is and alway was to be able to run 100s in straight pool alone on my table.
I'm going to assume you got there.
 

kanzzo

hobby player
I'm going to assume you got there.
i hope i get there. didn't get there yet 🤷‍♂️

But the determination of Jayson and some of the very mortal attempts from Strickland did motivate me a great deal. (I'll post my progress on AZ straight pool challenge thread)

edit: high run of the day so far: 47
 
Last edited:

kanzzo

hobby player
to much to read just give me the gist of it
arguing over table specs is stupid, all 3 (Mosconi on random easy exhibition table, John Schmidt and Jayson Show on purposely easy tables to enable high runs), the only thing in common are the 5'' pockets, other specs mostly unknown and if known, seem very comparable

And no need for John Schmidt to be able to get invited to this event. If he wants to beat the record from Jayson, all he needs is a table and a camcorder. And some crazy determination to go for the record.

and the essence:
... here’s what matters.

John Schmidt set himself the goal of beating Mosconi’s recognized world record high run of 526. He spent months, not to mention the years leading up to that point, dedicating himself solely to the pursuit of that goal. When he missed on a 300, he picked up his cue and started again. When he missed on a 400, he picked up his cue and started again. I can’t imagine how he must have felt and the determination he must have mustered to continue fighting to achieve his goal. He surely battled demons that tried to stop him. He overcame those demons and achieved his goal. And no one can take that away from him. He beat Mosconi’s officially recognized word record run of 526, a record that stood for decades, and that will always be his achievement, in his life, and in the record books that persist after him.

Jayson Shaw, in this last week, has displayed a ruthless bullheaded focus and persistence that I’ve never witnessed before, culminating in a 12 hour session that ran from 9PM to 9AM, with his final inning resulting in the consecutive potting of 714 balls. Jayson Shaw set himself a target of beating 500. When he missed on 200, 300, and 400, he didn’t even falter. He pulled the balls out of the pockets, picked up his cue, and started again. He couldn’t even bring himself to drive away from the table, turning his car around, checking his family back into the hotel, and coming back to the venue for one final push. After his run of 714 balls, he had blisters on his fingers and he commented to the viewers that they would not believe how sore his back was. The improvement he displayed from day to day, even session to session, was obvious to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the game. He too must have battled demons that tried to stop him, and he too overcame those demons.

Pool is a sport of determination, will, endurance, physical and mental precision, doubt and fear, confidence and certainty, elation and despair. And both John Schmidt and Jayson Shaw experienced all of these things in the pursuit of their goal. They are both Legends of the Game that we all love.

Thank you, John Schmidt, for doing what many thought was impossible in the modern age. Thank you, Jayson Shaw, for inspiring me and I’m sure many others with your incredible display of determination and downright stubborn refusal to give up. And thank you to Street Lights and Legends for giving us railbirds the opportunity to enjoy every moment of this event.

This is pool distilled; one man and a table.
completely agree. Both are legends and big inspirations.
 

philly

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It has been said that the toughest thing in all of pool is staying at the table in 14.1.
The unwavering focus necessary to run 714 balls is astonishing.
Every rack in 14.1, after the making the break ball, is a jigsaw puzzle.
I don't care what the conditions were.
His focus was amazing.
Great job Jayson Shaw!
 

evergruven

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
thoughtful post, thanks-
definitely big congrats to jayson- 714 is a nutty number, and what an amazing cueist, he is.
reading your post reminded me of john, especially- a literal lifetime separated his achievement from mosconi's,
and I'm now thinking- if john *hadn't* broken the record, would jayson, or anybody have even seriously attempted to break it in the first place?
I don't know, but I think that's worth considering. in any case, john's quest, and success, have clearly inspired those who follow him (and willie, etc...)
props to players who put their soul and sweat into the great game of pool-
 

kanzzo

hobby player
if john *hadn't* broken the record, would jayson, or anybody have even seriously attempted to break it in the first place?
I doubt it 😅

John Schmidt showed, it's possible and now other people go for 526.

It's like people thinking you can't run a mile in under 4 minutes. And once it was achieved, the record got broke over 1000 times...
You need this one special person to show the world it's possible
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What do I personally take from these photos? Based on these photos and the streams I’ve been able to see, both tables have pockets bigger than anything I’ve ever played on.

However, anyone who believes the streams or photos they’ve seen have given them enough information to question the validity of either run based on table specifications is clearly not thinking rationally or objectively.

I don’t care if the castings are narrower than the pocket throats. I don’t have enough information about the casting dimensions on either table for that to be relevant. I don’t care if someone says they saw Schmidt’s table and it looked harder than the Street Lights table they’ve seen on stream. That’s not relevant.

I’ve seen photos of Schmidt’s table that show both parallel and narrowing mouth to pocket ratios. And I’ve seen the same for Shaw’s table. I’ve seen photos for both tables that appear relatively distortion free and appear to show a narrower throat than mouth.

BUT HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT WITH REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE (I pressed all the options for this text!!)

People discussing pocket measurements and angles are doing so if there is some kind of standard to be adhered to regarding solo exhibition high runs in straight pool. To my knowledge, there is no such standard. When the BCA reviewed Schmidt’s 626 footage, what standards did they use to assess the validity of the run? Did they have the exact measurements and angles of the pockets on his table? When for decades we accepted Mosconi’s 526 as the official high run, what standards did we apply to our acceptance of that? As we accept Florian’s cue ball spinning on the spot for 40 seconds, what standards do we apply to that? Do we know how heavy his cue ball was or what kind of cloth he used?

American pool has enough trouble applying standards to it’s most popular formats, and just as much difficulty making the game a professional sport, but somehow, people think they have enough information about both tables in question to determine one run’s validity over the other based on some kind of intangible standard they’ve created for the acceptance of solo exhibition straight pool runs.

Finally, from my point of view, here’s what matters.

John Schmidt set himself the goal of beating Mosconi’s recognized world record high run of 526. He spent months, not to mention the years leading up to that point, dedicating himself solely to the pursuit of that goal. When he missed on a 300, he picked up his cue and started again. When he missed on a 400, he picked up his cue and started again. I can’t imagine how he must have felt and the determination he must have mustered to continue fighting to achieve his goal. He surely battled demons that tried to stop him. He overcame those demons and achieved his goal. And no one can take that away from him. He beat Mosconi’s officially recognized word record run of 526, a record that stood for decades, and that will always be his achievement, in his life, and in the record books that persist after him.

Jayson Shaw, in this last week, has displayed a ruthless bullheaded focus and persistence that I’ve never witnessed before, culminating in a 12 hour session that ran from 9PM to 9AM, with his final inning resulting in the consecutive potting of 714 balls. Jayson Shaw set himself a target of beating 500. When he missed on 200, 300, and 400, he didn’t even falter. He pulled the balls out of the pockets, picked up his cue, and started again. He couldn’t even bring himself to drive away from the table, turning his car around, checking his family back into the hotel, and coming back to the venue for one final push. After his run of 714 balls, he had blisters on his fingers and he commented to the viewers that they would not believe how sore his back was. The improvement he displayed from day to day, even session to session, was obvious to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the game. He too must have battled demons that tried to stop him, and he too overcame those demons.

Pool is a sport of determination, will, endurance, physical and mental precision, doubt and fear, confidence and certainty, elation and despair. And both John Schmidt and Jayson Shaw experienced all of these things in the pursuit of their goal. They are both Legends of the Game that we all love.

Thank you, John Schmidt, for doing what many thought was impossible in the modern age. Thank you, Jayson Shaw, for inspiring me and I’m sure many others with your incredible display of determination and downright stubborn refusal to give up. And thank you to Street Lights and Legends for giving us railbirds the opportunity to enjoy every moment of this event.

This is pool distilled; one man and a table.

wow, wow, wow, wow, wow.

What a great post.

Lou Figueroa
 

BasementDweller

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Distilling the pocket thing down:

Factory stock big pockets = good.
Mechanic calibrated big pockets = bad.

There's a significant difference between those two things and once miter angles change, tables quickly become hardened phenolic resin vacuums.

So there must be a line somewhere. If a table had corner pockets adjusted to 6" or more, almost everyone on this board would think the line was crossed, and rightly so. Here we're in more of a gray area as the event promoter has chosen to keep the pocket specs a secret (for now). For those that say they don't care, how are you going to like it when RKC creates a 5.5 inch corner pocketed table with parallel facings for John Schmidt to chase this new record on?

The BCA really needs to nail this down. Forcing runs to be completed on factory stock (or more difficult) pockets would HAVE been a good idea, but now that may not be possible. So now the BCA should at least force the specs to be made public and utilizing Dr. Dave's TDF formula or something similar, future runs should be completed on tables of equal difficulty. In other words, at least use Shaw's table as the baseline. This will also be important, because a Babe Cranfield like character ;) could come along and beat the run, most likely in Europe or Asia.
 

Shuddy

Diamond Dave’s babysitter
Silver Member
Distilling the pocket thing down:

Factory stock big pockets = good.
Mechanic calibrated big pockets = bad.

There's a significant difference between those two things and once miter angles change, tables quickly become hardened phenolic resin vacuums.

So there must be a line somewhere. If a table had corner pockets adjusted to 6" or more, almost everyone on this board would think the line was crossed, and rightly so. Here we're in more of a gray area as the event promoter has chosen to keep the pocket specs a secret (for now). For those that say they don't care, how are you going to like it when RKC creates a 5.5 inch corner pocketed table with parallel facings for John Schmidt to chase this new record on?

The BCA really needs to nail this down. Forcing runs to be completed on factory stock (or more difficult) pockets would HAVE been a good idea, but now that may not be possible. So now the BCA should at least force the specs to be made public and utilizing Dr. Dave's TDF formula or something similar, future runs should be completed on tables of equal difficulty. In other words, at least use Shaw's table as the baseline. This will also be important, because a Babe Cranfield like character ;) could come along and beat the run, most likely in Europe or Asia.
There is no good or bad. There is only within acceptable standards or not, as defined by the BCA. It doesn’t matter if they are factory stock (that would be a ridiculous definition of an eligible table) or adjusted by a mechanic.

Caring about something, and that thing mattering are two different things. Would I care if Schmidt, or anyone, started running balls on 5.5” pockets? Probably. Would it matter? That’s not up to me.

EDIT: This is completely irrelevant, but here are my personal views regarding my own accomplishments. I play 14.1 in a complete vacuum. I don’t know a single person that plays 14.1 and I’ve never played an actual game of 14.1. I play in my house, and nowhere else. When I started playing 14.1 runs, I knew nothing about how to play. My goal was to make a hundred. It was taking longer than I expected. I wanted to do it within 6 months of starting. I could have gone to a club and played on a table with pockets closer to 5” as compared to my table which has pockets between 4.3” and 4.4”. However, I felt that if my first hundred came on a 5” table, I would have cheated myself.

I’m yet to break 200. I say this as someone who started playing 14.1 from ground zero and made my first hundred+ roughly 18 months later. That is, I’ve experienced the process of realizing 14.1 is much much harder than it appears. I’m not speaking from ignorance. I’m almost certain I’d run 250+ on the Legends table within a day or two.

How would I personally feel about that? I’m not sure. I think all pocket billiards games should be played on tables with a maximum of 4.25” pockets, including straight pool, and if that was implemented, straight pool records before that should have an asterisk next to them.

And here’s the rub, no one gives two shits about any of that, and it doesn’t affect Schmidt’s or Shaw’s runs.
 
Last edited:

Heyyosteve

Registered
What do I personally take from these photos? Based on these photos and the streams I’ve been able to see, both tables have pockets bigger than anything I’ve ever played on.

However, anyone who believes the streams or photos they’ve seen have given them enough information to question the validity of either run based on table specifications is clearly not thinking rationally or objectively.

I don’t care if the castings are narrower than the pocket throats. I don’t have enough information about the casting dimensions on either table for that to be relevant. I don’t care if someone says they saw Schmidt’s table and it looked harder than the Street Lights table they’ve seen on stream. That’s not relevant.

I’ve seen photos of Schmidt’s table that show both parallel and narrowing mouth to pocket ratios. And I’ve seen the same for Shaw’s table. I’ve seen photos for both tables that appear relatively distortion free and appear to show a narrower throat than mouth.

BUT HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT WITH REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE (I pressed all the options for this text!!)

People discussing pocket measurements and angles are doing so if there is some kind of standard to be adhered to regarding solo exhibition high runs in straight pool. To my knowledge, there is no such standard. When the BCA reviewed Schmidt’s 626 footage, what standards did they use to assess the validity of the run? Did they have the exact measurements and angles of the pockets on his table? When for decades we accepted Mosconi’s 526 as the official high run, what standards did we apply to our acceptance of that? As we accept Florian’s cue ball spinning on the spot for 40 seconds, what standards do we apply to that? Do we know how heavy his cue ball was or what kind of cloth he used?

American pool has enough trouble applying standards to it’s most popular formats, and just as much difficulty making the game a professional sport, but somehow, people think they have enough information about both tables in question to determine one run’s validity over the other based on some kind of intangible standard they’ve created for the acceptance of solo exhibition straight pool runs.

Finally, from my point of view, here’s what matters.

John Schmidt set himself the goal of beating Mosconi’s recognized world record high run of 526. He spent months, not to mention the years leading up to that point, dedicating himself solely to the pursuit of that goal. When he missed on a 300, he picked up his cue and started again. When he missed on a 400, he picked up his cue and started again. I can’t imagine how he must have felt and the determination he must have mustered to continue fighting to achieve his goal. He surely battled demons that tried to stop him. He overcame those demons and achieved his goal. And no one can take that away from him. He beat Mosconi’s officially recognized word record run of 526, a record that stood for decades, and that will always be his achievement, in his life, and in the record books that persist after him.

Jayson Shaw, in this last week, has displayed a ruthless bullheaded focus and persistence that I’ve never witnessed before, culminating in a 12 hour session that ran from 9PM to 9AM, with his final inning resulting in the consecutive potting of 714 balls. Jayson Shaw set himself a target of beating 500. When he missed on 200, 300, and 400, he didn’t even falter. He pulled the balls out of the pockets, picked up his cue, and started again. He couldn’t even bring himself to drive away from the table, turning his car around, checking his family back into the hotel, and coming back to the venue for one final push. After his run of 714 balls, he had blisters on his fingers and he commented to the viewers that they would not believe how sore his back was. The improvement he displayed from day to day, even session to session, was obvious to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the game. He too must have battled demons that tried to stop him, and he too overcame those demons.

Pool is a sport of determination, will, endurance, physical and mental precision, doubt and fear, confidence and certainty, elation and despair. And both John Schmidt and Jayson Shaw experienced all of these things in the pursuit of their goal. They are both Legends of the Game that we all love.

Thank you, John Schmidt, for doing what many thought was impossible in the modern age. Thank you, Jayson Shaw, for inspiring me and I’m sure many others with your incredible display of determination and downright stubborn refusal to give up. And thank you to Street Lights and Legends for giving us railbirds the opportunity to enjoy every moment of this event.

This is pool distilled; one man and a table.
Thanks for taking the time to write this. VERY WELL SAID...........
 

BasementDweller

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think it's funny when someone says, "nobody cares about pocket size" when in actuality we all care. What I don't really care about is -- who certifies the run. Does anybody think the Europeans or Asians give a flip about the BCA? I suppose their affiliation with the WPA could stand for something but who knows.

Everybody cares about table and pocket size. I've already moved beyond Shaw's run in this regard, but I still think it would be prudent to nail down what players are expected to be running on going forward.
 

puma122

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There is no good or bad. There is only within acceptable standards or not, as defined by the BCA. It doesn’t matter if they are factory stock (that would be a ridiculous definition of an eligible table) or adjusted by a mechanic.

Caring about something, and that thing mattering are two different things. Would I care if Schmidt, or anyone, started running balls on 5.5” pockets? Probably. Would it matter? That’s not up to me.

EDIT: This is completely irrelevant, but here are my personal views regarding my own accomplishments. I play 14.1 in a complete vacuum. I don’t know a single person that plays 14.1 and I’ve never played an actual game of 14.1. I play in my house, and nowhere else. When I started playing 14.1 runs, I knew nothing about how to play. My goal was to make a hundred. It was taking longer than I expected. I wanted to do it within 6 months of starting. I could have gone to a club and played on a table with pockets closer to 5” as compared to my table which has pockets between 4.3” and 4.4”. However, I felt that if my first hundred came on a 5” table, I would have cheated myself.

I’m yet to break 200. I say this as someone who started playing 14.1 from ground zero and made my first hundred+ roughly 18 months later. That is, I’ve experienced the process of realizing 14.1 is much much harder than it appears. I’m not speaking from ignorance. I’m almost certain I’d run 250+ on the Legends table within a day or two.

How would I personally feel about that? I’m not sure. I think all pocket billiards games should be played on tables with a maximum of 4.25” pockets, including straight pool, and if that was implemented, straight pool records before that should have an asterisk next to them.

And here’s the rub, no one gives two shits about any of that, and it doesn’t affect Schmidt’s or Shaw’s runs.
First I will say, A great thread\post.

Congrats on 100. That's a heck of an achievement in my book. Out of curiosity, what is your fargo?

With regards to never playing others, I hope you get the chance soon.
 

Shuddy

Diamond Dave’s babysitter
Silver Member
First I will say, A great thread\post.

Congrats on 100. That's a heck of an achievement in my book. Out of curiosity, what is your fargo?

With regards to never playing others, I hope you get the chance soon.
I don’t have a Fargo. I’ve never played a Fargo rated player (EDIT: sorry, I’ve never played in a Fargo rated event). I’ve beaten professionals that represented their country in the world cup of pool, and I’ve lost to people for whom a break and run is a celebratory occasion 😂
 
Top