SVB to Kick Off High Run Attempts
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
Get me one of those tables. Maybe I can break 50.
Bro, all due respect to you personally, but who do you think you are kidding??? It was always about John's run with you guys.
I'm all for anything that creates interest in straight pool and commend the effort in that respect. But you two are the wrong guys to be in the front of this parade and then try to claim it's not about John's run.
Acknowledge the record and the greatness of the achievement. Doesn't supplant Willie's place in pool, which is obviously much more than 526. But just man up and acknowledge the 626 and admit you're trying to get someone to beat it. This "challenge" was about John Schmidt from its conception.
Not talking about John, talking about YOUR event.
This was published for the fourth set of attempts in May 2019.
14.1 Challenge IV
Easy Street Billiards
Monterey, California
John Schmidt Equipment List:
Rebco Pocket Billiard Table 4½ x 9
Drop Pockets - No Ball Return
Simonis 760 Tournament Cloth Blue
5 inch Corner Pockets
5½ inch Side Pockets
Sardo Rack
Super Aramith Pro Belgian Billiard Balls
Predator P3 Red Butt
Predator Revo 12.4mm Carbon Composite Shaft
19.5 oz and 58 inches
Techno Dud Tip by Outsville
Taom Pyro Blue Chalk
Predator Second Skin Billiard Glove
Predator Urbain 3x5 Hard Case Red
Was the table completely stock? Who set the table up?
rkc's right about the width difference between the pocket's mouth and throat - and we don't need caliper photos to know it. WPA specs call for corner pocket facings to be angled 7-8° from parallel on each side (142-143°) - simple geometry shows that's about 3/4" of total narrowing from the mouth to the throat with typical 2" cushions. So a 5" corner pocket should measure about 4 1/4" at the throat - i.e., 2 balls should jam there.
Maybe it's the angle of the pic of the Legends pocket, but it doesn't look like it does that.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
No idea -- ask the room.
Not kidding and I will say this again: this event is not about John Schmidt and what he did just a couple of years ago -- to think that you'd have to have a very myopic view of pool history and all that has gone on before.
If this event is about anyone it is Babe Cranfield and his 768; it is about Willie Mosconi and his numerous runs over 600; and it is even about Wimpy running over 500. We want to see what players can do playing 14.1 with proper monetary incentive to run a lot of balls. It's an experiment. That's it.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
As soon as you start talking about our pocket specs you're talking about other runs, including John's.
What were the pocket specs on his pockets? Where were you on that one?
Lou Figueroa
And ask them for photos, with calipers, of the pockets specs on the Rebco table -- and while you're at it ask them why the table was dismantled so quickly right after.
Lou Figueroa
No thanks, I'm not playing that game of digging up posts. But you can see in this thread (and the Ruslan thread) people came out of the woodwork to basically say the same thing I did. People who have never said a cross word to you, Bobby, or the game of straight pool, or even to the forum in general. Now all of a sudden there are several of these people. Doesn't that make you say to yourself: "hmmm, maybe they are onto something?"
Me paraphrasing Lou:
Lou: Table is a GC3.
Peanut gallery: Why do the pockets look weird?
Lou: Oh, the table came out of a rec center.
Peanut gallery: Why do the pockets look weird?
Lou: The table was in storage for 15 years.
Peanut gallery: Why do the pockets look weird?
Lou: What did you expect after 15 years of storage, the rails needed to be replaced.
Peanut gallery: Why do the pockets look weird?
Lou: A top notch mechanic did the work. What did you expect after 15 years, the rails needed to be replaced.
Peanut gallery: Why do the pockets look weird?
Lou: We wanted the table to have similar pockets to Mosconi era conditions.
Peanut gallery: Why do the pockets look weird?
Lou: We showed a picture with calipers. What did JS show?
Peanut gallery: Why do the pockets look weird?
Lou: We will show all of you our superiority and shut down the live stream. Will that make all of you trolls happy?
Peanut gallery: Why do the pockets look weird?
You would have been more honest if this event was on a 6' Valley and Filler ran 1000 balls on it.
No, not at all.
What it tells me is that some people are sheep and will repeat what others have said as it were gospel without doing their own due diligence and research.
And there’s a reason it’s called “the peanut gallery.”
pea·nut gal·ler·y
/ˈpēnət ˈɡal(ə)rē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
- the top gallery in a theater where the cheaper seats are located.
- a group of people who criticize someone, often by focusing on insignificant details.
"he might find that playing the sport he loves isn't worth the aggravation from the peanut gallery's probing of his privacy"
- a group of people who criticize someone, often by focusing on insignificant details.
Exactly. More deflection. That's why I called you a liar.
meh, I’ll get over it.
You OTOH need to learn to think more clearly and get away from the logical fallacies you spout:
“In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on affirming that something is real because the majority thinks so. ...”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Lou Figueroa
No peanut gallery here. I believe I was the first one to point out the pockets looked goofy before RKC jumped in. I am a free thinker and have an open mind. Do I not have a right to question what I see when I do not think it looks right? Sound familiar?
Sorry, sir but the way the pockets are cut on a table setup for the purpose of high runs is hardly an "insignificant detail".
Fair enough, however, I would ask you to consider, as Pat pointed out in his post a little ways back, that photos can lie though lens distortion and camera angle.
Lou Figueroa
I get it so post a pic of the measurement at the throat of the pocket and put it to bed!
Illegitimacy confirmed!
I can't figure out why I read through so much of this thread, but it is kind of fun. I appreciate anything that promotes pool and enjoy watching great players play. I followed the JS high run thread for a while, but finally bailed out...
I don't think there is any chance that new pocket details will be revealed for the JS run. I think it would be interesting, but don't think it can or will happen. I also don't really understand why there was a steady thread of anger before, during, and continuing till today regarding the attempt. He/they decided to try to beat a 5XX run, worked hard at it, and eventually pulled it off. Nicely done.
Now another party - some of which were definitely among those disparaging JS's attempt - are essentially doing the same thing, but with a different format. This is a fun idea that should provide some great viewing, so kudos, but, it seems rather a stretch to pretend is it NOT an attempt to one-up JS. I have no problem with anyone or any group deciding to one-up another. This is pretty common, and I see nothing wrong with it. But pretending that JS's high run isn't the target or reason for this attempt is VERY hard to believe. What JS did was pretty interesting and focused. He/they stated their objecive, then set about trying to accomplish it. As far as I know, nobody had ever really done this - at least not in a planned, organized way before.
I think this new effort sounds like a great idea. Whether the idea is actually to beat JS's run or just to "see what some great modern players can pull off" is not really my concern - I'm in it for the entertainment and love watching straight pool. But I don't think this effort would ever have happened if the JS group had not done their thing first and garnered lots of attention (way too much of it bad in my opinion).
I like Lou, but he sometimes seems to just throw gas on fires that don't really need it. Or maybe let fires grow out of control when he has a perfectly functional fire extinguisher at hand. Regarding the corner pockets, there are only a few possibilities.
1) The pockets are, in fact, normal or near-normal, but the camera angle/lens distortion make the angles "look funny". This is a real possibility - wide angle lenses and close focus do tend to exaggerate the "vanishing point" effect.
2) The pockets are not exactly normal, but aren't way out or intentionally gaffed up. This could be accidental, and might not be that big of a deal - but the camera angle may make it look more severe.
3) The pockets are gaffed up (intentionally or not) and the angles are, in fact, "considerably more "accepting".
I don't think the correct answer can absolutely be discerned from the picture I've seen, but there is a 100% chance that Lou (or whoever) could clear this up easily. Since he has clearly avoided showing any pictures of the table/pocket with multiple measurements (or balls at different depths), it is (in my opinion) somewhat unlikely that the answer is "1". If the answer was "1", I (at least) would have let everyone get reved up, then posted the picture/measurements just for fun (for extra fun do it from the same perspective as the first, but with balls deeper in the pocket). Since no pictures, videos, or measurements have been provided, answers "2" or "3" seem more likely.
Disclaimer for Lou - I know that you understand that posting a picture showing "1" would only satisfy MOST of the detractors/interested parties. I get that. There are others that would still complain - in spite of the evidence - or would just find something else to complain about.
bes
I don't think there is any chance that new pocket details will be revealed for the JS run. I think it would be interesting, but don't think it can or will happen. I also don't really understand why there was a steady thread of anger before, during, and continuing till today regarding the attempt. He/they decided to try to beat a 5XX run, worked hard at it, and eventually pulled it off. Nicely done.
Now another party - some of which were definitely among those disparaging JS's attempt - are essentially doing the same thing, but with a different format. This is a fun idea that should provide some great viewing, so kudos, but, it seems rather a stretch to pretend is it NOT an attempt to one-up JS. I have no problem with anyone or any group deciding to one-up another. This is pretty common, and I see nothing wrong with it. But pretending that JS's high run isn't the target or reason for this attempt is VERY hard to believe. What JS did was pretty interesting and focused. He/they stated their objecive, then set about trying to accomplish it. As far as I know, nobody had ever really done this - at least not in a planned, organized way before.
I think this new effort sounds like a great idea. Whether the idea is actually to beat JS's run or just to "see what some great modern players can pull off" is not really my concern - I'm in it for the entertainment and love watching straight pool. But I don't think this effort would ever have happened if the JS group had not done their thing first and garnered lots of attention (way too much of it bad in my opinion).
I like Lou, but he sometimes seems to just throw gas on fires that don't really need it. Or maybe let fires grow out of control when he has a perfectly functional fire extinguisher at hand. Regarding the corner pockets, there are only a few possibilities.
1) The pockets are, in fact, normal or near-normal, but the camera angle/lens distortion make the angles "look funny". This is a real possibility - wide angle lenses and close focus do tend to exaggerate the "vanishing point" effect.
2) The pockets are not exactly normal, but aren't way out or intentionally gaffed up. This could be accidental, and might not be that big of a deal - but the camera angle may make it look more severe.
3) The pockets are gaffed up (intentionally or not) and the angles are, in fact, "considerably more "accepting".
I don't think the correct answer can absolutely be discerned from the picture I've seen, but there is a 100% chance that Lou (or whoever) could clear this up easily. Since he has clearly avoided showing any pictures of the table/pocket with multiple measurements (or balls at different depths), it is (in my opinion) somewhat unlikely that the answer is "1". If the answer was "1", I (at least) would have let everyone get reved up, then posted the picture/measurements just for fun (for extra fun do it from the same perspective as the first, but with balls deeper in the pocket). Since no pictures, videos, or measurements have been provided, answers "2" or "3" seem more likely.
Disclaimer for Lou - I know that you understand that posting a picture showing "1" would only satisfy MOST of the detractors/interested parties. I get that. There are others that would still complain - in spite of the evidence - or would just find something else to complain about.
bes