So with all the arguing about whether Shane, or anyone else, would "really" beat Willie's record what with Shane playing on Simonis, not using Willie's cue, playing in air conditioning, not wearing Willie's two-piece suit, etc. there is another issue raised that no one has mentioned (at least, I don't think they did; gotta admit I skipped a few pages). Willie's 526 beat someone's record (I have no clue who held the prior record, somebody here may). Why can't the same argument be made that since Willie didn't play on the same table the prior record holder played on, didn't use his cue, etc., that Willie didn't really beat the record when he rolled in 526? Why the hell has he gotten all the credit and glory for fifty years? For that matter, the prior record holder is probably a fraud since he presumably didn't set the record using ivory balls or whatever his predecessor played with and that alleged record holder didn't use a mace like the record holder from the 1600's did and even that guy should never have been able to lay claim to the record since he didn't roll stones around in dirt like the very first record holder really did (and no, that one wasn't recorded either). In what sport has it ever been a condition that for a record to be recognized, the exact conditions under which the prior record was set have to be precisely replicated? Most-passing-yards-in-a-game record set in rain and the next record attempt has to await a cloudburst? If this was the standard, every record would be completely idiosyncratic and every record would stand on it's own forever. I don't know who has the record for most consecutive knockouts in boxing, but, to extend the argument to it's conclusion, that record would be impossible to break because the knockouts associated with a new record holder would involve different opponents at different times. It gets silly after a point.
