Using the mechanical bridge - should it be banned?

I just assumed this was some commentary on jump cues, saying something to the effect of "if you think jump cues should be banned you can use all the same arguments on mechanical bridges. So you should be against those too."

I avoid it like the plague, and shoot offhanded as much as possible. That will work for 95% of the situations where you'd consider a bridge. But there's always that one smartass ball that just can't be reached with either hand.... sort of a thin cut on the short rail with the CB on the spot or something.

I can see the argument for banning jump cues though I don't buy it. People can say pool is primarily a 2D game, and jump shots are a special shot that really doesn't belong in it. But there's nothing about the shots that call for a bridge that makes them special, they're routine shots, just awkwardly positioned.
 
pooltchr said:
If we are going to ban anything, I say let's ban baby powder and those damn cones of chalk! At least a bridge doesn't leave white powder all over the equipment!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
I agree. I've played in pool halls that don't allow those and the tables are better off for it.
 
ultramafic said:
For purposes of this conversation, I am talking about playing on a 9' or smaller table. Please keep that in mind.

That said - I think use of the mechanical bridge is BS. I think that having to reach for a shot, make a shot off-handed, playing a reachable but less desirable shot or winging it when necessary, and putting your opponent IN these situations as a defensive strategy, should all be part of the game - while use of the mechanical bridge should not be. Just like in pro golf, walking the course is part of the game. No carts allowed (unless you're the guy whining about his ADA issues).

So - suppose BCA (or similar body) banned use of the mechanical bridge in the "official rules" of the various games of pool (again, we're not talking about snooker, etc.), who amongst you would whine and who would cheer?

Count me in cheering section.
Click to expand...

The bridge has been part of pool for many years. It is simply a tool to help you reach the shot. It's physically impossible to reach some shots, unless you want to hold the cue like a spear and jab at the cue ball. Using the bridge does not give you an advantage or disadvantage, it simply lets you reach the unreachable.
Snooker players tend to use the bridge more than pool players because of the length of their table.
Here's a thought, do away with the bridge and also do away with the "1 foot on the floor rule". Would you want people climbing up on the table to shoot? Pool halls would have to put a sign up reading "No shoes on the table". Peeeeuuuuwww, I can smell the stinky feet now ... LOL;)
 
Neil said:
Well, if it really is number 3...... I think I will just raise my eyebrows a little, say "Ooohhh....kayyyy", and walk away. Maybe someone else can actually help you with the answer you seek.
Click to expand...
If I just wanted to listen to people ***** and moan, we could have a "tastes great, less filling" argument. I didn't expect the firestorm of what basically amounts to "**** you!" - I was hoping for some real discussion on the whys or why nots.

Oh well.
 
pooltchr said:
If we are going to ban anything, I say let's ban baby powder and those damn cones of chalk! At least a bridge doesn't leave white powder all over the equipment!!!!!!!!!!

Steve
Click to expand...

Now that I can live with. In fact, I'd embrace it!
 
ultramafic said:
If I just wanted to listen to people ***** and moan, we could have a "tastes great, less filling" argument. I didn't expect the firestorm of what basically amounts to "**** you!" - I was hoping for some real discussion on the whys or why nots.

Oh well.
Click to expand...

OK. IMHO, pool has always been & should always be about the cerebral aspect (i.e. outthink your opponents) and not about a person's physical limitations. Without the bridge, would we still have good players such as Rafael Martinez, Nick Varner, and others of a more diminutive stature?
 
ultramafic said:
For purposes of this conversation, I am talking about playing on a 9' or smaller table. Please keep that in mind.

That said - I think use of the mechanical bridge is BS. I think that having to reach for a shot, make a shot off-handed, playing a reachable but less desirable shot or winging it when necessary, and putting your opponent IN these situations as a defensive strategy, should all be part of the game - while use of the mechanical bridge should not be. Just like in pro golf, walking the course is part of the game. No carts allowed (unless you're the guy whining about his ADA issues).

So - suppose BCA (or similar body) banned use of the mechanical bridge in the "official rules" of the various games of pool (again, we're not talking about snooker, etc.), who amongst you would whine and who would cheer?

Count me in cheering section.
Click to expand...
First of all in golf you don't shoot/drive the same(cue) ball as your opponent..plus I have a good friend who can play pool standing up but is handicaped and requires a wheelchair to get through everyday normal travels. He needs the bridge on alot of shots (9 footer) and if we did not have that bridge he could never reach alot of the shots period. So I dissagree with this post as well. And stop changing the freaking rules every other day!! jmho...Jeff
 
ultramafic said:
I didn't say anything about punishing anyone.....but if short, fat people are not given extra tools to do the job in a sprint race, I dunno why they should be given them in a game of pool either.
Click to expand...

You may have the stupidest, most narrow-minded thought process I've seen in a long time. You've been on the forum for what, a week or two? And already you've said more ridiculous things than most people post in a year. I couldn't even get five posts into this thread before I just gave up.
 
ultramafic said:
Now this is an interesting observation. Can you expand on that?
Click to expand...

With the bridge in the game both short and tall players have the same ability to reach all shots on the table. With the bridge out a short player is at a disadvantage because he/she will not be able to reach the same shots as the taller player, thus making the game lopsided.

When talking about weight the last thing we need to have to factor in is the arm length of each player.
 
Sarnia Shorty said:
With the bridge in the game both short and tall players have the same ability to reach all shots on the table. With the bridge out a short player is at a disadvantage because he/she will not be able to reach the same shots as the taller player, thus making the game lopsided.
Click to expand...
Well, again, people of different physiques have certain advantages or disadvantages in a variety of different sports. I don't see why pool should be any different.

Suppose someone has eyesight that is only correctable to say, 20/60. Should that person's opponents have to wear glasses that downgrade their vision to 20/60, so they both have an equal opportunity to see the ball at the other end of the table?
 
Neil said:
O.K., since you really don't want to waste any time seriously thinking about this...... what do you suggest? We go the way of other sports and instead of weight classes, we have different reach divisions? Have world champions of the 50"-55" arm span, the 60"-65" arm span, ect.?? After all, then it would all be equal, wouldn't it??
Click to expand...
Only if you do the same for swimmers.
 
9BallMarksman said:
You may have the stupidest, most narrow-minded thought process I've seen in a long time. You've been on the forum for what, a week or two? And already you've said more ridiculous things than most people post in a year.
Click to expand...
Well, everyone has to have a talent I guess.
 
TimKrazyMon said:
OK. IMHO, pool has always been & should always be about the cerebral aspect (i.e. outthink your opponents) and not about a person's physical limitations.
Click to expand...
But WHY?

Without the bridge, would we still have good players such as Rafael Martinez, Nick Varner, and others of a more diminutive stature?
Click to expand...
Maybe they would have found other ways to adapt.......maybe not. I dunno (:

In any case it seems clear - according to you guys, I must be one of a very small number of people on the planet that thinks the bridge should be banned....which is what I was wondering when I posted the OP (:
 
ultramafic said:
Well, again, people of different physiques have certain advantages or disadvantages in a variety of different sports. I don't see why pool should be any different.

Suppose someone has eyesight that is only correctable to say, 20/60. Should that person's opponents have to wear glasses that downgrade their vision to 20/60, so they both have an equal opportunity to see the ball at the other end of the table?
Click to expand...


By your overall reasoning, a person whose vision is 20/60 without glasses, but 20/20 with them shouldn't be allowed to wear his/her glasses while playing. It gives an advantage in the exact same way a bridge gives an advantage to a shorter person. It's an outside device that assists in enhancing that person's performance.

If short people can't use tools to benefit them at the table, people with vision impairments can't either. And while we're at it, let's ban hearing aids, contact lenses, Dr. Scholl's inserts, gloves, wheelchairs at the tables ... Matter of fact, the only people who are allowed to play pool from now on are people at least 6'5" tall with a slender build, long arms and legs, perfect vision, and no disabilities.

Ultra, are you beginning to realize how asinine you sound?
 
9BallMarksman said:
By your overall reasoning, a person whose vision is 20/60 without glasses, but 20/20 with them shouldn't be allowed to wear his/her glasses while playing. It gives an advantage in the exact same way a bridge gives an advantage to a shorter person. It's an outside device that assists in enhancing that person's performance.
Click to expand...
That's a good point - and perhaps I even agree. I've considered this same notion in something entirely unrelated to this conversation, which I can't put my finger on at the moment. It had something to do with that guy (I think it was a guy) who wanted in the Olympics with his artificial springy feet/legs, and they wouldn't let him him.
 
ultramafic said:
That's a good point - and perhaps I even agree. I've considered this same notion in something entirely unrelated to this conversation, which I can't put my finger on at the moment. It had something to do with that guy (I think it was a guy) who wanted in the Olympics with his artificial springy feet/legs, and they wouldn't let him him.
Click to expand...

You sound like one of those dumbass defense attorney that really believe everyone is innocent. In fact you also sound like a dumbass ACLU attorney that believes it's sexist to have different bathrooms for boys and girls. I think you need to be on the Nancy Grace forums or something like that.
 
ultramafic said:
That's a good point - and perhaps I even agree. I've considered this same notion in something entirely unrelated to this conversation, which I can't put my finger on at the moment. It had something to do with that guy (I think it was a guy) who wanted in the Olympics with his artificial springy feet/legs, and they wouldn't let him him.
Click to expand...

Pool is not the Olympics. Pool is a game to be enjoyed by all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top