Let's Make Jump Sticks, Tite Racks Illegal
- Thread starter Bobkitty
- Start date
I'd hardly calling it "buying the skill" to get out of sand traps. Just cause you have a sand wedge doesn't mean your easily getting out of a sand trap, or making the shot you want to get out of the sand. Much like a jump cue. Any golfer worth anything knows how to open a regular wedge face and do the same. Lot of pool players can easily jump with their player too. Saw a guy do it multiple times w a house cue like it was just a regular shot.
I think if the jump was taken away, the pros would just play more safes. Personally I find watching a jump much more exciting than a safety battle.
You're nitpicking. I said "buying the skill to get out of the sand trap easier." That's whole lot different, and I think you know that.
No matter what skill level you are, the sand wedge makes it easier. You might still suck, but it's less suck with the sand wedge.
Replace "sand wedge" with "jump cue."
Jeezus, can't you guys just say, "yeah , you're right."
i agree on the jump cues. i use one, because i'm allowed to, but i would prefer them being banned. for the same reasons that others already have given
the racking templates on the other hand are great inventions. all the mouthing about the rack when a triangle is used.. i can't stand it, whether irl or on a stream/tv. the only downside is that it's not very aesthetic on tv.
the racking templates on the other hand are great inventions. all the mouthing about the rack when a triangle is used.. i can't stand it, whether irl or on a stream/tv. the only downside is that it's not very aesthetic on tv.
JC
Coos Cues
I never liked to tight tracks (I mean I do, but I don't). My opinion is the rack is part of the game. If you can or can't read and adjust for a good or bad rack... that's on you too improve part of your game.
Technically, pool should always be simple geometry, etc... but in reality it's not quite so simple. A non-duplicated rack is part of that.
Technically, pool should always be simple geometry, etc... but in reality it's not quite so simple. A non-duplicated rack is part of that.
Your right.
This has been fun, I suck at jumping. But try it. I have kicked my way out of trouble way
more than I have jumped out of. I remember those more than those jump shots that I have
made...there was this safety return I jumped out of...able to lock him up in tight...
Where was I, jump cues are here to stay. It is part of the game. I get stuck in the basement
sometimes using nothing but jump shots playing 9 ball...doesn't do me any good...I
do it with kicking in rotation also...I enjoy multiple rail escapes, and well executed jump
shots...I just don't understand how people think it is so easy to jump a ball? Maybe I
am doing it wrong...or need to buy a digicue to see if I am steering my jump shots?
Sorry but this is nonsense. You could say that about virtually any club in golf -- for long fairway shots they came up with the brassie or the spoon, for closer in they developed the mashie, and then for the really short range stuff the mashie niblick. The sand wedge was just another club invention at the time where there was a lot of innovation going on, starting with stuff like the sand wedge and continuing to steel shafts, rubber grips, dimpled golf balls, and eventually things like perimeter weighting, large head drivers, and now graphite shafts, mutli-piece balls and adjustable face angles. It's ALL designed to make the game easier to play. **
The difference is in those innovations that make the game too easy, and things like square grooves, flex face drivers, or belly putters clearly fell into that category, which is why they are now banned. So apparently did the "shortie" jump cues and the old "gas powered" tips, which got banned as well.
So the debate is really whether the current jump cues fall into the former category or the latter. It's for sure true that the "sub40" jump cues clearly did, and I can remember for a long time that anything without a leather tip did as well. Maybe a way to solve the debate is to go to a 100% leather restriction, or to take the minimum length from 40" to 55" or something. Either way I'm in full agreement that the current jump cues make it way way too easy to execute perfect jump shots. But really they should just ban the jump shot altogether. It would make the game much more interesting.
** interestingly enough the USGA had some research that, despite all of golf's innovations in the last 50 or 60 years, the average handicap of casual golfers has only gone down something like a tenth of a stroke or so. Which I guess goes to show that golf is still a really f**king hard game, lol.
Last edited:
Excellent reply, gromulan, thank you. I like the golf analogy, 'though I don't agree with your conclusion.
I think making golf more easy would make it more interesting!
Some people like the jump shot and some do not. I don't know why. It think its fine, and fun, and cool. I like the massé shot, too, but that had been banned in many venues, many years ago, because of the damage it does to cloth; not ripping, but burning, from the extreme heat the downward forced, spinning ball can do. I don't hear anyone calling for a massé ban. I don't know why.
I think the OP's desire is to outlaw the jump cue, not the shot. I don't understand that, either.
I think making golf more easy would make it more interesting!
Some people like the jump shot and some do not. I don't know why. It think its fine, and fun, and cool. I like the massé shot, too, but that had been banned in many venues, many years ago, because of the damage it does to cloth; not ripping, but burning, from the extreme heat the downward forced, spinning ball can do. I don't hear anyone calling for a massé ban. I don't know why.
I think the OP's desire is to outlaw the jump cue, not the shot. I don't understand that, either.
I like the jump cue. I like it because I'm good with it. Lol
Jump shots have always been a part of the game.
Creative thinking led to the jump cue to make jumping easier. Prior to that, players that understood the jump shot would use the lightest cue they could find whenever they wanted to jump the cb. I'd say probably the minimum cue length rule was implemented decades ago to keep players from using their shaft alone for jumping.
Part of the game is reading the rack. Another part is jumping. One thing is certain...nowadays you have to play better safeties. Anyway, I actually like it when a lower level player reaches for a jump cue. In fact, I often purposely leave a jump shot, knowing they get giddy to have an opportunity to use their jump cue. I do this knowing that 9 out of 10 times they'll inevitably (and unknowingly) miss the shot and break out a nearby cluster that opens the table up for me.:wink:
Last edited:
If you go down that road, you'll open the game up to a whole other level of nitpicking and rule-lawyering. Most break shots of any speed at all, the ball will leave the table. Some masse shots, the ball will leave the table, if hit firm enough. What about if you hit the rail too hard, yup...the ball will leave the table. If only momentarily...
Theses are not jump shots. The jump shot is self explanatory. Intentionally Leaves the table. The masse is normally a difficult shot to judge. A lot of variables. Dont judge it by matthew macConaughey
I did see a shot that went up onto the rail, went down the rail and dropped back onto the table for a called legal hit. This was intentional and should also be discouraged imo
Last edited:
While we are at it, let's just get rid of those pesky cell phones and computers...and TANG, that stuff really had nothing to do with the moon landing. LOL
On almost every single shot, unless you are slow rolling a ball, the ball leaves the table. Put a quarter between the cue ball and object ball about 3 inches from the cue ball on a straight shot and shoot at a medium stroke, you will never hit the quarter
Well...
Lead by example. If you believe tight racks and jump sticks are wrong, then stop using them. The heck with what others do.
Works for me on most things in life that are way more important then pool. Maybe others will admire your view and follow suit.
Lead by example. If you believe tight racks and jump sticks are wrong, then stop using them. The heck with what others do.
Works for me on most things in life that are way more important then pool. Maybe others will admire your view and follow suit.
The jump shot in pool has been around for a long time. Even Mosconi knew how to jump, so it is obvious he spent a good amount of time practicing that shot. And the jump cue as a purchased product is now about 40 years old if not older. Even without a phenolic tip, it made jumping easier. That was its sole purpose.
Freddie <~~~ doesn’t help me
Leave TANG out of this.. he doesn't jump the rock that much!
When I'm playing someone who goes to a jump shot, most of the time it's a
complete fail.. CB goes off the table, scratches or just sells out.. he might
get lucky and get safe, but not usually.
Now, to kick a ball where you intend to hit it.. that's a whole other level.
Last edited:
The issue should be whether jumping should be allowed or not, not whether or not a specialized stick should be allowed. Yes, it takes more skill to jump with a full cue, but that means people who are able to do so are still escaping good safeties without having to kick, while everyone else has to kick, which it seems to me is the real issue, not how easy the jump is to do.
In golf you have different clubs for different shots. We have specialized break cues for the break. Saying jump sticks have no place in pool when jumping is still a legal shot, makes no sense.
I'm all for not allowing jumping at all, or keeping it the way it is. Either way, it's fair to all players. But if we are going to get rid of specialized sticks for certain shots, then we should all have to break and shoot with the same cue, and we shouldn't allow adding/removing extensions during the match.
As far as the tight rack goes, I think a consistent rack is the only fair way to play. If each rack is loose, and loose in a different way every time, it means some racks are going to be better than others, which then means each player isn't getting the same opportunity in the match when breaking. Unless you can get a consistency to the looseness of the rack, then a tight rack is the only way to ensure consistency and fairness. If the objective is to make breaking harder, then change where the players are allowed to break from and/or where on the table the rack is placed (9 ball on the spot in 9ball for example), or create different rotation games, like 12-ball, where the break and the game itself may be harder.
If the break is supposed to be just random luck, then why have the break at all? Have the balls randomly placed on the table each game.
In golf you have different clubs for different shots. We have specialized break cues for the break. Saying jump sticks have no place in pool when jumping is still a legal shot, makes no sense.
I'm all for not allowing jumping at all, or keeping it the way it is. Either way, it's fair to all players. But if we are going to get rid of specialized sticks for certain shots, then we should all have to break and shoot with the same cue, and we shouldn't allow adding/removing extensions during the match.
As far as the tight rack goes, I think a consistent rack is the only fair way to play. If each rack is loose, and loose in a different way every time, it means some racks are going to be better than others, which then means each player isn't getting the same opportunity in the match when breaking. Unless you can get a consistency to the looseness of the rack, then a tight rack is the only way to ensure consistency and fairness. If the objective is to make breaking harder, then change where the players are allowed to break from and/or where on the table the rack is placed (9 ball on the spot in 9ball for example), or create different rotation games, like 12-ball, where the break and the game itself may be harder.
If the break is supposed to be just random luck, then why have the break at all? Have the balls randomly placed on the table each game.
Last edited: