Brunswick is 142/143What's the miter angle...?
Statement from The Legends of Pocket Billiards
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
Not furniture repair, its a test of all the experts claiming to know the pocket size with their computer program's!
Yep, Jayson sure did on a pool table with pockets so big I can't wait to see the 714 broke again, and again, and again. It would be really entertaining to see someone run a 1,000 balls, and then just quit without missing, so the run can end without a miss!!!
And then someone steps up and runs more than a 1,000 before missing to again set a new WORLD RECORD! YEAH
Last edited:
No kidding. The relentless stamina some have in remaining engaged in complaining about the pocket size is truly impressive.
It rivals the stamina require to run 714.
You could, if after you glued on the new extensions you cut them down to the correct dimension.
142:
-1/4" extension material ends up having a 0.40607" cross section.
-0.812" total
-5" minus 0.812" = 4.188" or ~ 4-3/16"
143:
-1/4" extension material ends up having a 0.41541" cross section.
-0.83" total
-5" minus 0.83" = 4.17" or ~ 4-1/8"
There's a few here (around 30 seconds in):
Some of those might go on 4.5" too - w/new cloth/slippery rails.
Thanks - my quick try (post #487) produced 5 1/5".... which is closer than I might have thought.
I'd love to see someone run 1000 balls on any size pockets, and quit without missing. I have no problem with that. Until they do - lets celebrate Jayson's accomplishment and not be weird.
Let's not overthink it. John is a stone cold champ, and I don't think he would lie about his run. He's exhibited the video. I know people who have seen it. Personally, I could care less to watch that many balls being run. I gladly take his word for it. I watched the Jayson 700+ run because I just happened to on Facebook and got caught up in it and wanted to see something historical (which I did).
Matches the mindless sheep that can't see the forrest through all the trees! You people will believe anything!
And guess what, Earl would still be running balls and never miss a shot if they took the rails OFF!!!
You paid to much attention to me in class
point is, people on here are trying to use straight miter lines to measure pocket facing angles that are not straight like the lines they draw are, therefore their measurements are best guess at most, but not accurate. The only truth to the pocket openings is for someone THERE to actually measure them and post up the information, and not play the ignore game they're playing.You paid to much attention to me in class
Only thing is you didn't take into consideration the down angle making the 1/4" extension slightly wider than a 1/4" when you double extentions, then you have to factor in the thickness of cloth as well
Maybe thats why no one hires you, imagine that
Didn't John switch ends to rack the balls, because of being worn out at the proper rack spot.
The head of the table at Easy Street is near the seating and table where the camera went. In the first two series of attempts, the balls were racked at the head of the table so the camera could see things better. It made more or less no difference on that table, since it had no ball return. For the fourth and last set of attempts, the balls were racked at the foot end of the table -- where they are "supposed" to be -- which at that point had the less-worn cloth.
I wonder what kind of ruckus would have been raised had the 626 occurred on the "wrong" end of the table (which had two identical ends).
Many just don't care to get into the petty BS between the same forum players that appear to have been sniping at each other for a long time now, going around and around with no resolution in sight.
It would be fantastic to have transparency from both 626 and the 714 camp on exact specs of the table.
It would also be awesome to see the 626 video.
I'd also love to see the 714 again via high quality and not the mobile capture of a computer screen.
I did enjoy watching bits of SVB, Ruslan, Earl and of course Shaw and was extremely happy with the price I paid.
I am also looking forward to your even easier table setup and hopefully watch JS run 1000. I will try to not follow the certain forum storm that will follow if that's done.
No I didn't bother with the down angle, and I also didn't consider how heavy handed the person wielding the rubber cement may be as well...Only thing is you didn't take into consideration the down angle making the 1/4" extension slightly wider than a 1/4" when you double extentions, then you have to factor in the thickness of cloth as well
However if I assume 13degrees than we can add 0.006" a side, so 0.012" total or a smidge under 1/64"
You didn't specify cloth weave so I didn't think it's thickness a consideration