USPPA & Jump Cue Ban.. by Tony Annigoni

[nhp]

I would say that in the pool world today, it is very ordinary to choose a jump shot over a kick shot. The jump shot did not arrive when the jump cues got here, and they have been around quite a while.

eg8r

I am astounded that you should have any opinion at all on the issue, when you even admit yourself that you can't play a lick.

You're also a nit. A whining, Bush-loving nit.

You may not like this board, there are lots of Bush-haters here.

 

[Frank_Glenn]

You may not like this board, there are lots of Bush-haters here.

Hey, I like bush, of course shaved is OK, too.

 

[Rich Reheard]

Ok Hill Hill and the guy your playing just missed the 8 ball. only 2 fuc$in balls on the table but the 9 is between you and the 8. No not a well played safe but just a miss. Half the people here keep saying that you should not be rewarded for bad play but what? Its ok for you oponent to be rewarded? How about this . I was talking to a guy who said something interesting . If you leave it for yourself play it with the cue you left it with. If it was left for you make it by any means necessary. Hear are my thoughts. Kickers kick, Jumpers Jump, Cry babys just left an easy jump shot . Nuff Said

Rich

 

[Jimmy M.]

Wait, I'm confused. Cry babies just left an easy jump shot because their opponent is using a jump cue, or not using a jump cue?

Hah, I couldn't resist!

 

[Lwesthoven]

Steeped in 'tradition'?

Thank you! and I'd like to add...

Any tennis players out there. Well, actually, OLD tennis players, or former tennis players... Anyway, there once was a time when tennis rackets (excuse me, 'racquets'?) were longer, with smaller, rounder heads. Someone came along with a new design - Prince, I think - that was shorter and had a larger head. They were great for kids because the 'sweet spot' was much larger, making for more effective hits and fewer whacks to the frame. People who were new to the sport liked them because it made learning and playing easier. My brother and his friends, accomplished high school and college players, looked down on the new rackets as 'kid stuff' (novelty rackets?) and balked at ever owning one. The rest, as they say, is history. Do you think tennis has suffered because of it? On the contrary: Tennis got faster, tougher, and more agressive play at the net evolved. As the designs improved and good players put them to work, levels of competition shot upward. Want an eye opener on the subject? Find some 'older' footage - in this case, anything before 1970 - of the top tennis events in the world, and compare them to today's pro events. But I'm sure Tony won't find this analagous...

My posting from another board:

So if I decide to change the shaft on my regular playing cue to something thicker, with a 14mm tip, and I decide to replace the tip with a Talisman X-hard, none of the people now complaining about 'jump' cues will be upset when I JUMP the cue ball?

I bought one of the Bunjee copies with a phenolic tip, learned what it could do, and then put a Picone phenolic tip on my sneaky Pete. Now I jump full balls with the sneaky Pete, if they're between 1.5 to 3 spots away. The full-size stick affords me good aim and control. The short stick is best used on hangers. Using the same form and stroke I use with the sneaky Pete, I can now jump 1/2 a blocking ball with my 'regular' Predator, which has a Tiger Everest tip - not the hardest of leather.

I'll wager that many of the people calling for 'jump' cue bans can't reliably jump a full ball with their playing cues. I know a guy in our SF league (Evan B.) who can, and he only has his one playing cue. I checked it out. Its got a thick shaft that doesn't flex much, with a 13.5mm LEATHER tip that's hard as a rock. Would you say he's playing all the time with a 'jump' cue?

If the rules of the game(s) are a matter of BCA's governance, then it seems petty for different pocket billiard associations and tournament directors to 'ban' equipment approved by the BCA. If my opponent knows I can jump over a ball, it doesn't make it impossible for him to jam me up, it just means that he has to give me less room OR change his strategy to jamming up my OBJECT balls instead of just the cue ball. It's not really a difficult concept to grasp - just different.

Who out there can honestly say that top players today don't already enjoy a wider range of capability and better accuracy through the technology of their equipment? Should we start to consider banning 314 or 'X' shafts because they might deflect less than your 'traditional' shaft?

If I were a room owner, I'd probably have a rule against jumping (with ANY stick) for any play other than sanctioned tournaments. It DOES damage the cloth. NOT because of the stick hitting it (which I'm sure can happen), but from the hammering impact and slide of phenolic ball on the cloth. Just look at the jump cue sales demo tables at Vegas. I would consider it necessary to protect my business investment in cloth. Having said that, I'd still allow jumping in sanctioned tournaments because it's a skill that's allowed by the rules of the games. The 42" limit on stick length is understandable, because you have to allow for such lengths of stick to satisfy the need to overcome obstructions in some rooms or bars. I suppose, though, that when someone picks up one of those obstruction sticks and uses it to jump a cue ball, then we'll all have to start discussing a ban on those, as well.

Lwesthoven
justanotherweeklyleagueplayer

 

[Celtic]

.

Lovin this change. I have hated jump cues since they first showed up on the scene. I hope the BCA, VNEA, and every other governing body in cue sports copies this precident and we totally do away with every trace of jump cues.

 

[Mungtor]

Thank you! and I'd like to add...

Any tennis players out there. Well, actually, OLD tennis players, or former tennis players... Anyway, there once was a time when tennis rackets (excuse me, 'racquets'?) were longer, with smaller, rounder heads. Someone came along with a new design - Prince, I think - that was shorter and had a larger head. They were great for kids because the 'sweet spot' was much larger, making for more effective hits and fewer whacks to the frame. People who were new to the sport liked them because it made learning and playing easier. My brother and his friends, accomplished high school and college players, looked down on the new rackets as 'kid stuff' (novelty rackets?) and balked at ever owning one. The rest, as they say, is history. Do you think tennis has suffered because of it? On the contrary: Tennis got faster, tougher, and more agressive play at the net evolved. As the designs improved and good players put them to work, levels of competition shot upward. Want an eye opener on the subject? Find some 'older' footage - in this case, anything before 1970 - of the top tennis events in the world, and compare them to today's pro events. But I'm sure Tony won't find this analagous...

Actually, tennis sucks to watch today because of racket "innovation". You end up with a no-talent hack like Greg Rusedski making a living off tennis because he can come up with a 135 mph serve. That kind of pace is impossible to achieve with older equipment. That's also why Wimbledon matches go somethine like serve - point! serve -point! serve .. volley - point! Any point with more than 5 shots is a long rally now.

There are no players out there with the touch and the strategy of a McEnroe any more. It took away most of the mental aspect of the game and made it much more about power which any doofus can generate.

Same thing happened on a smaller scale with Michael Chang a few years ago. Prince built him a racket that was longer than most rackets are so that he could reach, and more importantly generate more head speed during the serve. For a few months, he almost looked like he could play.

There are continual debates about making the balls heavier or the service box smaller to try to bring back something more interesting than base-line rallys and aces. Innovation is not always a good thing.

My posting from another board:

So if I decide to change the shaft on my regular playing cue to something thicker, with a 14mm tip, and I decide to replace the tip with a Talisman X-hard, none of the people now complaining about 'jump' cues will be upset when I JUMP the cue ball?

Lwesthoven
justanotherweeklyleagueplayer

Probably. The jump shot itself is really the problem, not any type of cue to facilitate it. It looks promising because it is easier to learn to jump than get the feel for a 3-rail kick shot with hold-up english. It's flashy and it's exciting to the masses to see the cue ball bouncing around, but that's about it. Pocketing a ball on a jump shot is probably tougher than on a straight-in shot, but certainly takes less skill than cutting the ball in after a couple of banks.

Snooker doesn't allow jump shots at all IIRC, and it is phenominally more popular in Europe than any other cue sport. Probably significantly more popular than 8-ball and 9-ball combined are in the US. It could be that the spectators have an appreciation of the skill involved and aren't interested in the crap that US crowds seem to go for. (Why do the WPBA finalists always have to walk in through that stupid fog? Or ESPN skips full games but I get to see all the break-and-run games?)

The more that I think about it, the better off pool would be if the jump shot was just banned outright and people could use whatever cue they wanted after that.

 

[Johnson]

Lwesthoven made a really good point, and i thought maybe it would show to other people how jump shots can give pool more appeal to a wider audience, that's the main thing here, and when talking about short points at wimbledon, grass is the fastest surface, and the points have always been faster, what about the french open? Don't see a lot of short points there, and it's normally the spanish players winning it because they play exclusively on clay, and stereotypically they don't do as well on the hard courts, and especially on grass courts. Have you not seen roger federer play? He could play with any racket an still beat anyone. This isn't about tennis, but I think theres some lessons to be taken from tennis, tennis is now more popular than ever, and they are making more money than ever. Not only the mens game but the womens game is more popular than ever, and i don't think you can say the technology has hurt the game in any way from a monetary stand point, if anything it has helped it greatly. Maybe it has hurt the integrity of the game, this is america pal integrity gets you nothing here, it's all about making money. People don't want slow sports, they want fast action, the jump cue/shot adds a lot to pool, yes i like seeing someone make a kick, or a masse, but most people don't, individual opinions don't really matter. I personally would rather watch snooker than pool, i don't think i would ever pay to watch pool on tv, but if i could get snooker pay per view, would be very hard to resist.
________

 

[Mungtor]

Maybe it has hurt the integrity of the game, this is america pal integrity gets you nothing here, it's all about making money.

How can you refute that kind of attitude?

you win.

 

[DoomCue]

Actually, tennis sucks to watch today because of racket "innovation". You end up with a no-talent hack like Greg Rusedski making a living off tennis because he can come up with a 135 mph serve. That kind of pace is impossible to achieve with older equipment. That's also why Wimbledon matches go somethine like serve - point! serve -point! serve .. volley - point! Any point with more than 5 shots is a long rally now.

There are no players out there with the touch and the strategy of a McEnroe any more. It took away most of the mental aspect of the game and made it much more about power which any doofus can generate.

Same thing happened on a smaller scale with Michael Chang a few years ago. Prince built him a racket that was longer than most rackets are so that he could reach, and more importantly generate more head speed during the serve. For a few months, he almost looked like he could play.

There are continual debates about making the balls heavier or the service box smaller to try to bring back something more interesting than base-line rallys and aces. Innovation is not always a good thing.

*SNIP*

A study was done by Tennis magazine a few years ago to determine whether there was a big difference in performance between the little wooden rackets and the newer "techno" rackets. Against all hypotheses, the wooden rackets performed just as well as the graphite and ceramic rackets. They did serve speed tests to see whether or not someone could hit a 135 mph serve, and it was accomplished using wooden rackets. Who was serving? Greg Rusedski and Mark Phillipoussis, two of the hardest servers of all time. What does this tell you? The material of the racket doesn't seem to matter, it's the technique of the player. So why don't tennis players use wooden rackets anymore? Number one, they break and warp more easily than graphite, ceramic, or carbon-fiber rackets. Number two, nobody makes them because who wants to sell $20 rackets when you can get $300 for a techno-racket? Manufacturers have driven the need for the new technology in tennis, not the players.

Michael Chang won the French Open at age 17 BEFORE he used the Extender. After players started getting better and better and he couldn't keep up, he tried to compensate with technology. It didn't work - he never won another Grand Slam.

The reason the game has gotten "faster, tougher, and more agressive" is due more to the quality of players and the increased popularity of the sport. Higher popularity means more people playing. More people playing means the best have to be even better. Players are constantly pushing themselves to excel. Technology is not the reason for a quicker (and admittedly, boring) game, the reason is the increase in playing ability.

How does this tie in to pool? Well, in the case of jump cues, players are using a tool to make a difficult part of the game (kicking) less of a factor. Nobody, and I mean nobody, can tell me that kicking accurately is easier than jumping accurately. That's the difference between techno-rackets and jump cues; techno-rackets didn't make players better (although a lot of people seem to think they did), whereas jump cues have by allowing players get out of difficult kicking situations with a jump cue.

Pool has already gotten easier due to easier games (like 7-ball). Do we really need to make it even easier? Does pool need to be as boring as men's tennis? I totally agree with the last sentence I snipped from you, "Innovation is not always a good thing."

-djb <-- Has played a lot of tennis and pool