Jump sticks have changed the game
- Thread starter u12armresl
- Start date
The whole argument for jump cues is bullshit.
Some people will argue that they were made to improve the game.
I don’t like using the bridge, but I am not very tall. If I have some three-foot stilts with shoes on the bottom can I use them and say I have one foot on the floor?
That would be an improvement for us short people.
Bowling may be enhanced if the lanes slanted downward so the the ball wouldn’t lose speed while traveling to the pins.
Just because something may improve ‘your’ version of what you think the game should be doesn’t necessarily make the game better. It just makes it different.
Some people will argue that they were made to improve the game.
I don’t like using the bridge, but I am not very tall. If I have some three-foot stilts with shoes on the bottom can I use them and say I have one foot on the floor?
That would be an improvement for us short people.
Bowling may be enhanced if the lanes slanted downward so the the ball wouldn’t lose speed while traveling to the pins.
Just because something may improve ‘your’ version of what you think the game should be doesn’t necessarily make the game better. It just makes it different.
I knew a guy that had two prosthetic legs from the knees down. He always joked he was 3 inches taller now. Did he play with one "foot" on the floor?
To answer, I would say YES! LOL
Baseball was originally played without a glove.
Then gloves came around and the same type of complaints. "Gloves make it too easy to catch the ball. ""Made scoring tougher. ""Real men learn to catch with their hand. ""Need to get back to pure baseball. ""If you cant catch a ball barehanded , maybe you should learn." " So and so was the best player ever and he never used a glove."" Arguments for using gloves are bullshit."
Then gloves came around and the same type of complaints. "Gloves make it too easy to catch the ball. ""Made scoring tougher. ""Real men learn to catch with their hand. ""Need to get back to pure baseball. ""If you cant catch a ball barehanded , maybe you should learn." " So and so was the best player ever and he never used a glove."" Arguments for using gloves are bullshit."
Don't agree... nut up and ban the jump entirely if it's such a bad thing. Jumping a ball with a full cue is a much more violent uncontrolled act, I'm amazed some think it the better option.
Take it you've never been to Derby City. Best event i've ever attended. They've done it that way every year. Never hear anyone bitching. Jumping a ball with a full cue is not that difficult and far from a 'violent uncontrolled act'. 'Nut up' and learn how.
Last edited:
They made something for short people that don't want to bother learning the skill of the mechanical bridge. The cue extension. No one complains about it's use, so shorties are good to go.
Short fingers...? Follows Earl's lead and build up your fingers with mountains of tape. That said, I don't know how he managed to make a ball with his hand like that. Incredible really....lol
lol... No I haven't but it's near the top of my 'pool bucket list'. I have a few friends that have gone in the passed and they also say it's one of the best events they've ever laid eyes on.
I've seen the comments before on how "this is the way Derby does it, and it's a great tournament so it must be right". I'm paraphrasing of course. If the Derby is to be our benchmark, then so be it. However that doesn't change the wishy washy stance on jumping. Which I may add, I wouldn't have a problem following.
You are of course right. If you're playing with a full cue that has a construction type that lends to jumping, then it works fine. I could in theory play with my jump/break cue and never break it down, and jump like a monster. Probably send shivers down everyone's spine on each shot with that phenolic tip....lol. If everyone threw away their jump sticks but still attempted just as many jumps and the success rate was the same with their full cue, would jumping in the game now miraculously be ok...?
My point is either the jump shot is bad, or it's not. Pick one... If the argument is, jumping is fine, jump cues are bad. Well that's just whining. The jump stick is just a specialize tool, no different then the cue extension, or a break cue. Why are the extension and breaker fully acceptable but the jump stick not...? The argument regarding damage is bullshit if you don't have a problem with the act of jumping. That just leaves the "I don't like it" option.
No one argues that jump cues were made to improve the game. Jump cues were made to provide the shooter with the possibility of jumping if that player improves their ability to do so.
Just as chalk gives you the possibility to draw three rails but it is your ability that determines whether you actually can. Without chalk it is an impossibility to do that.
The fact is that both chalk and jump cues have added more possible shots to the sport. Without chalk no one would really want to play pool. Pool can do fine without jump cues but as long as the rules allow for jumping they should allow for jump cues because jump cues are exactly like chalk in that every modern jump cue works about equally and so the act of jumping has then been made a question of skill rather than equipment.
You would never ever ever ever ever have a chance to beat an apa 4 of that apa 4 had a modern pool cue and chalk and you were playing with a mace. You might win a game or two but against that equipment you have zero chance to win matches.
But give you both the same equipment and now it's a matter of who has more skill. So it is with jump cues, no player is disadvantaged by not having one and no player is advantaged by having one. A player can bring every human ability to bear on the jump shot and have an amazing range of shots available to them.
On the flip side players are learning to play tighter safeties and look for zones that cut off jumping and kicking.
So the byproduct of jump cues is that they build better players. A player with a jump cue knows what he can do and so can presume that his opponent can do at least as much and then can play safe accordingly.
This is true whether you agree or not. Yes you can make comparisons to other sports and they certainly have their debates over changes in equipment and rules but this one was settled more than 25 years ago and is only being kept alive by people who somehow think that the game was somehow pure without them at some point.
Nostalgia is a powerful drug. It makes us believe that the past was better than the present.
So if my playing cue is better for jumping than yours am I a better player because I can do more jump shots more accurately than you?
I have several playing cues which have excellent jumping properties. If I hand you one of those you would look like a champion. Conversely if I took it away and handed you a different playing cue you would look like a chump with every jump shot you tried.
But, if I hand you a jump cue then you look like a person who jumps according to your ability, neither champion nor chump. Just a player performing a legal shot with legal equipment.
2-Shot roll-out is a better game. Has nothing to do with nostalgia. One-foul was meant to speed up tournaments. That's all. I'm not real sure it did that with all the safety play and people going back-n-forth to get their jump cues. I will say this about one-foul: a LOT of $$$$ was made off all the suckers that took-up 9b after one-foul got popular. If you could play safe AT ALL it was pure stealing. It was easy to make it look like you got lucky and all the while your pigeon was clueless while he peeled off the do-re-mi. Fun times.
Last edited:
So are you saying it's just as easy using a soft Kamui to jump then it is with a hard Kamui? I can say with complete confidence the player that likes a soft tip on their playing cue will be at a distinct disadvantage.
Should we say that person should man up and learn to use a hard tip? Let the jokes begin!
I have never played two foul rules, and I have never even seen a video of it. You could roll out at any time? And if your opponent refuses the shot, you had to shoot and if you fouled, THEN it was ball in hand? Anywhere or behind the line? Also, balls were spotted after fouls?
I saw a video where balls were spotted after a foul on the break and the incoming player had to shoot at a row of spotted balls from behind the line. Hope that wasn't a 2 foul rule, is so it doesn't seem like a good rule to me. What happens if, say both players refuse to shoot at that shot and just push the ball back and forth? Is there a 3 foul rule at least?
I saw a video where balls were spotted after a foul on the break and the incoming player had to shoot at a row of spotted balls from behind the line. Hope that wasn't a 2 foul rule, is so it doesn't seem like a good rule to me. What happens if, say both players refuse to shoot at that shot and just push the ball back and forth? Is there a 3 foul rule at least?
Last edited:
Get rid of jumping, PERIOD!
With ANY cue.
The pool hall I learned in and worked in as a kid had signs on every wall saying “No jumping allowed”.
Play on the table.
With ANY cue.
The pool hall I learned in and worked in as a kid had signs on every wall saying “No jumping allowed”.
Play on the table.
Right on....
If the hall I regularly play in adopted a "no jumping" rule my response would be, "well that sucks, ...oh well". ...and I'd carry on with my day. Certainly wouldn't stop me from playing in the place.
The ONLY reason I permit jump cues to be used in my place is because of One-Foul. I want rid of both of them. One-Foul was an all out ploy to turn a great gambling game (Nine-Ball) into a tournament game. The development of the jump cue was primarily for One-Foul.
In most cases, jumping is low-percentage crap. If a player had another option, they certainly would use it.
In most cases, jumping is low-percentage crap. If a player had another option, they certainly would use it.
Last edited:
That's been my experience in nearly every room I've played in as well.