Mungtor said:
quotes moved out of order, just to be clear.
Undoubtedly it was. And I'm not trying to take that away from you. I might question what lack of skill left you in a position where that was the only available option tho.
AND
So, the fact that a certain type of cue allows a player to perform certain shots that are not possible with other cues is seperate from the fact that "skill does not translate to any type of cue". I am clear that the cue can't make the shot unless the weilder has the skill, but there are obviously things that can't be done with some equipment regardless of skill.
If, for example, Semih was allowed to play Efren using his billiard cue, would there be any provision that stops Efren from using a billiard cue as well? If both are allowed billiard cues and Semih wins, does it unequivocally mean that Semih is a better player than Efren? Is the upper bound of the game who has the most skill given no equipment restrictions, or is it who plays the best game with a mostly standard set of tools?
I think I understand that you are looking at it from the direction of everything that it is possible to do with a cue ball on the table, and then what equipment will best allow you to acheive those results. Personally, I think that turns somewhat into an arms race of equipment where everybody needs to have the newest, best, fastest, whatever. I think it dilutes the spirit of the game.
IMO, you should learn to master one piece of equipment to the point that you don't need anything else except a solid strategy. The game isn't _just_ about putting balls into pockets. You only have to lead one lap to win a race, but it has to be the right one. Few people win by going balls-out for the entire distance.
Anyway, I think I've made my points relatively clear and I don't want to push it into anything antagonisitc. For my part, this has been a fun discussion and I think I detect your patience with it wearing thin. I'm OK with that and don't want there to be any hard feelings about it. Peace.
-Jeff
It was my lack of skill that left my partner in a positiion where it was likely that the cueball would end up hooked. Luckily, I had the skill and the tool to overcome it. Despite that however, I could have just as easily been left that same position intentionally or accidentally by our opponents and my choices would have been the same.
I don't want pool to turn into an arms race. The game has certainly evolved in terms of equipment and rules in the last 150 years and it just seems that the players are expected to have their abilites curtailed because some people have a notion that there was a time when pool was at it's pinnacle in terms of the balance between equipment and skill.
If there are playing instruments that allow for a greater range without fundamentally changing the game, then allow them. That is the basis for the statement that if jump shots are allowed then a cue should be allowed that facilitates that shot. Watching a professional match where the players have every legal shot available to them that they can execute would be exciting. I don't care who you are, if you are watching a match for a $100,000 and one player executes a one inch jump shot and gets perfect shape you will remember that shot as one of the greatest shots you ever saw in your life.
When Tiger Woods sinks a fantastic putt, no one says that his putter did it.
Every player finds the cue that works best for him in the most situations. I think that most players have an instinct about which shots are tricky using the equipment they are using. So they do develop a strategy of play based on their ability and the characteristics of the cue. There will never be a cue that is perfect for all shots, and switching cues for all different shots will never be a practical way to play. In this instance we are talking about rules that allow a particularly hard shot, harder than kick shots, and penalties for fouls that pretty much guarantee a loss, and a genre of cues that have been developed by a lot of talented people to address that situation/need. Not gimmicks, but real cues designed really well.
That is essentially my point every time I hear someone dismiss jump cues as gimmicks. The people that have really worked their asses off to develop them and promote them and teach people a new skill on the table are being disespected unfairly. If jump cues had been developed in the 20's, 30's 40's, the so-called golden era of pool then they would not only be allowed everywhere they would be respected as a valuable tool in every pool player's arsenal.
I bet, that if we could go back in time, that we would see that there was furious debate about the introduction of the leather tip, chalk, plastic balls vs. ivory, rubber bumpers and so on.
I would prefer to see all pocket billiard games played in such a manner as to have all shots called and all safeties. I would not allow both to be called at the same time, you either pocket a ball or play safe and give up ball in hand when you fail to do what you called. To me, those would be rules that truly reward the skill and eliminate any reward for luckily leaving someone in a very bad position. I don't think that a match should be decided on luck but as near to absolute skill as possible. All players would be forced to become better players overall. I would prefer that no jump shots be allowed. Miscues should automatically be a foul because it has been proven that they are double hits.
Anyway, I digress. Let the fractured state of billiards continue so that our sport will never truly be regarded as such. I am tired of pool anyway, too many nits. I am going back to chess. Clearly defined rules, lots of good competition, don't need to worry about equipment, I can play it onine and matching up is fairly easy.
Nice talking to you Jeff. Should we play, let's switch cues just for fun.
John
)