Joshua Filler. Damn!

[sjm]

I believe Earl suffers from something that is beyond his control. I won't go into here in the thread, but I'll just say that he is not alone in this regard.

As far as his "outbursts," this is why people surround his table. Some pool enthusiasts enjoy seeing raw emotion. Pool promoters love him. Not everybody wants to sit back and watch emotionless tournament-soldier robots playing mum pool. Pool purists have their likes and dislikes, as do other people who enjoy seeing the raw emotion. This conflict exists more so in American pool than European pool, which is why some Americans root for non-American players on a regular basis, which is okay. To each their own, of course. I like players from around the world and have my favorites, but I will always root for the home team in international competitions. USA, ALL THE WAY!

Although I'm on board with the spirit of this post, I'm not on board with the details.

You don't get any more raw emotion from Earl than from anyone else, except when he loses his cool, which doesn't happen very often. Some of his outbursts have occurred between matches, too, and he can blow up at a moment's notice, just as he did when he got physically aggressive with Hunter Lombardo at the 2021 American 14.1 Championship, in which he was rightly disqualified from the event.

Some people watch Earl because he's, indisputably, one of the top few players that ever lived, and that's a darn good reason to watch him, but no, people don't flock to watch Earl's matches these days. Pro pool, which in 2022, is offering more prize money than in any year in its history, is evolving past the kind of behavior with which Earl has repeatedly been associated. Acts of disrespect and code of conduct violations are being taken very seriously by those trying to position pro pool for the coming years in a way that might bring it a wider audience.

Calling those who a) behave with respect for opponents, b) show respect for tournament personnel, c) treat those who preside over a tournament appropriately, d) show respect to the sponsors, and e) play with good sportsmanship robots is ridiculous, as it describes almost all players.

You get far more raw emotion from Naoyuki Oi, Josh Filler, Jayson Shaw and Alex Pagulayan than you get from Earl, and as a group, American players are no more emotional at the table than anyone else.

That said, I buy 100% into your argument that fans prefer to watch players who are animated and emotional, and I agree with you 100% that our sport needs more such players, but such behavior can exist within the boundaries of respectful and sportsmanlike conduct.

 

[JustPlay]

Seems like a lot of people are comparing players to one another etc. One very important thing to consider is how the rules of game (mainly 9-ball) has changed and how it affects todays players and how it would've affected the players in the past. Example: scratch on the break-ball in hand behind the head string with pocketed balls spotted. Push-out, not just after the break, but on every shot. Today's rule- make a ball on the break, but 3 balls didn't pass the head string, incoming players turn (UGH). Shot clock in the finals of a tournament-(Horrible rule (one-pocket and straight pool possible exceptions). Touch a ball with your shirt-foul (in some tournaments). I'm sure there are a few more.

Many tournaments in the past would have been decided differently.

 

[sjm]

Seems like a lot of people are comparing players to one another etc. One very important thing to consider is how the rules of game (mainly 9-ball) has changed and how it affects todays players and how it would've affected the players in the past. Example: scratch on the break-ball in hand behind the head string with pocketed balls spotted. Push-out, not just after the break, but on every shot. Today's rule- make a ball on the break, but 3 balls didn't pass the head string, incoming players turn (UGH). Shot clock in the finals of a tournament-(Horrible rule (one-pocket and straight pool possible exceptions). Touch a ball with your shirt-foul (in some tournaments). I'm sure there are a few more.

Many tournaments in the past would have been decided differently.

While nine ball was played that way once upon a time, the roll-out version of nine-ball has been gone from tournament play for about forty years, which to me, means for the entire nine ball era. Yes, nine ball was played before that, but it was not the primary game at pro level until the early 1980's.

That said, your post is an exceptional one, because even during the nine-ball era, the game has changed. The jump cue is one example of something that didn't even exist at pro level in the earliest days of the nine-ball era. The jump cue not only changed the game in terms of offense, but it affected how top players had to approach their safety play. Not every player carried a break cue back then, and break cues of that period were not nearly as good as the ones found today. Template racking is another significant change that has made it easier to string racks today than it was at the beginning of the nine-ball era. As you note, things like the break box and the three-point rule have also changed the landscape of the game, and the shot clock, now in use in any event that deserves to be deemed a major, is another thing that has also transformed the game. Finally, the pockets are tighter today than they were at the beginning of the nine-ball era.

These and other reasons are why comparison of players across eras, although fun, is almost impossible. How would Luther Lassiter, the best nine ball player of the 1960s, have fared in Texas Express nine ball? How would Josh Filler have fared in "rollout" nine-ball. Of course, they both would have been exceptional players, but would they have still been dominant nine-ball players in their respective eras? We'll never know. A question like "was Lassiter better than Filler at nine-ball?" is ultimately unanswerable.

Nice post.

 

[westcoast]

While nine ball was played that way once upon a time, the roll-out version of nine-ball has been gone from tournament play for about forty years, which to me, means for the entire nine ball era. Yes, nine ball was played before that, but it was not the primary game at pro level until the early 1980's.

That said, your post is an exceptional one, because even during the nine-ball era, the game has changed. The jump cue is one example of something that didn't even exist at pro level in the earliest days of the nine-ball era. the jump cue not only changed the game in terms of offense, but it affected how top players had to approach their safety play. Not every player carried a break cue back then, and break cues of that period were not nearly as good as the ones found today. Template racking is another significant change that has made it easier to string racks today than it was at the beginning of the nine-ball era. As you note, things like the break box and the three-point rule have also changed the landscape of the game, and the shot clock, now in use in any event that deserves to be deemed a major, is another thing that has also transformed the game.

These and other reasons are why comparison of players across eras, although fun, is almost impossible. How would Luther Lassiter, the best nine ball player of the 1960s, have fared in Texas Express nine ball? How would Josh Filler have fared in "rollout" nine-ball. Of course, they both would have been exceptional players, but would they have still been dominant nine-ball players in their respective eras? We'll never know. A question like "was Lassiter better than Filler at nine-ball?" is ultimately unanswerable.

Nice post.

What are your views on jump cues?

 

[sjm]

What are your views on jump cues?

Not a fan, but the jump cue is here to stay, and anyone that wants to be an elite player must become proficient in its use. The use of billiard theory in nine-ball, as Efren showed us, can be majestic, and while we still see it when it comes to position play, it has become less important in nine-ball tactical play because kicking has, in far too many instances, been replaced by jumping. My other problem with the jump cue is that it has reduced the penalty for position poorly played. Back in the day, if you hooked yourself, you were often in far more trouble than you would be today.

I don't agree with those who find that the jump shot makes the game more exciting. Although I recognize how skillful the best jumpers are, I think the jump cue has cheapened the game.

 

[Raph Cleary]

good post, agreed!

 

[westcoast]

Not a fan, but the jump cue is here to stay, and anyone that wants to be an elite player must become proficient in its use. The use of billiard theory in nine-ball, as Efren showed us, can be majestic, and while we still see it when it comes to position play, it has become less important in nine-ball tactical play because kicking has, in far too many instances, been replaced by jumping. My other problem with the jump cue is that it has reduced the penalty for position poorly played. Back in the day, if you hooked yourself, you were often in far more trouble than you would be today.

I don't agree with those who find that the jump shot makes the game more exciting. Although I recognize how skillful the best jumpers are, I think the jump cue has cheapened the game.

I completely agree and wish all tournaments would go to the Turning Stone rule of requiring that you jump with your playing cue

 

[Fatboy]

I completely agree and wish all tournaments would go to the Turning Stone rule of requiring that you jump with your playing cue

That’s a fair compromise. Makes for good pool imo.

 

[sjm]

That’s a fair compromise. Makes for good pool imo.

I think it's overdoing it to eliminate the jump stick, but there's a middle ground that might work for everybody. In my dream world, this rule, which I've probably advocated for twenty years now, would apply:

Use of a jump cue is allowed on the first shot of a player's turn but not after that.

This would keep jump sticks available to get out of safeties and to escape when opponent flukes a snooker after a missed shot, but you could never use a jump cue to get out of the safety you played on yourself. That would keep the jump cue as an important part of the game while eliminating it as a crutch for position poorly played. Hook yourself and you must shoot with your playing cue. The penalty for position poorly played was more severe before jump cues and I'd favor a return to those days.

 

[Fatboy]

I think it's overdoing it to eliminate the jump stick, but there's a middle ground that might work for everybody. In my dream world, this rule, which I've probably advocated for twenty years now, would apply:

Use of a jump cue is allowed on the first shot of a player's turn but not after that.

This would keep jump sticks available to get out of safeties and to escape when opponent flukes a snooker after a missed shot, but you could never use a jump cue to get out of the safety you played on yourself. That would keep the jump cue as an important part of the game while eliminating it as a crutch for position poorly played. Hook yourself and you must shoot with your playing cue. The penalty for position poorly played was more severe before jump cues and I'd favor a return to those days.

That’s a good idea as well.

 

[Fatboy]

Or:

Once you pick up ur jump cue you have to finish the inning with it. That might be fun

 

[AtLarge]

I think it's overdoing it to eliminate the jump stick, but there's a middle ground that might work for everybody. In my dream world, this rule, which I've probably advocated for twenty years now, would apply:

Use of a jump cue is allowed on the first shot of a player's turn but not after that.

This would keep jump sticks available to get out of safeties and to escape when opponent flukes a snooker after a missed shot, but you could never use a jump cue to get out of the safety you played on yourself. That would keep the jump cue as an important part of the game while eliminating it as a crutch for position poorly played. Hook yourself and you must shoot with your playing cue. The penalty for position poorly played was more severe before jump cues and I'd favor a return to those days.

I think Danny DiLiberto also has advocated this during his commentary -- if you hook yourself, jump stick not allowed.

 

[sjm]

I think Danny DiLiberto also has advocated this during his commentary -- if you hook yourself, jump stick not allowed.

Not the way I like it, because it requires a judgment call on whether one is hooked. Allowing the jump shot on the first shot of the inning only removes this potential problem.

 

[Fatboy]

Not the way I like it, because it requires a judgment call on whether one is hooked. Allowing the jump shot on the first shot of the inning only removes this potential problem.

That’s exactly right. It’s subject to interpretation.

Would be great for AZB is this rule was implemented. More needless topics to argue endlessly about. Pool would suffer, AZB would rejoice….sadly.

Noticed the big complainers haven’t been out much recently. Hmmmm

 

[AtLarge]

Not the way I like it, because it requires a judgment call on whether one is hooked. Allowing the jump shot on the first shot of the inning only removes this potential problem.

Right. I actually do not remember exactly how Danny phrased it, and it might have been your way. He was certainly on a generally similar wavelength of limiting the jump cue's usage rather than doing away with it completely.

 

[skogstokig]

what you are discussing was actually the rules of the WPS events that darren had

 

[fjk]

Not a fan, but the jump cue is here to stay, and anyone that wants to be an elite player must become proficient in its use. The use of billiard theory in nine-ball, as Efren showed us, can be majestic, and while we still see it when it comes to position play, it has become less important in nine-ball tactical play because kicking has, in far too many instances, been replaced by jumping. My other problem with the jump cue is that it has reduced the penalty for position poorly played. Back in the day, if you hooked yourself, you were often in far more trouble than you would be today.

I don't agree with those who find that the jump shot makes the game more exciting. Although I recognize how skillful the best jumpers are, I think the jump cue has cheapened the game.

Cheapened the game is a good way of putting it.

Back in the 80s a jump cue was basically to ensure a good hit. Maybe make a ball that was close to the pocket. Today we have a guys that can pocket balls as accurately jumping over a full ball as I could when not jumping. I was watching Jason Shaw practicing his jumps a few months ago (his jump cue is some kind of full length cue). I bet he was making 75-80% of everything he jumped (and he was practicing jumping a full ball and shooting at a ball in the middle of the table). That just ain't right.

 

[phreaticus]

Cheapened the game is a good way of putting it.

Back in the 80s a jump cue was basically to ensure a good hit. Maybe make a ball that was close to the pocket. Today we have a guys that can pocket balls as accurately jumping over a full ball as I could when not jumping. I was watching Jason Shaw practicing his jumps a few months ago (his jump cue is some kind of full length cue). I bet he was making 75-80% of everything he jumped (and he was practicing jumping a full ball and shooting at a ball in the middle of the table). That just ain't right.

I guess I'll be the contrarian. I also learned how to jump with house/playing cues in the late 80's when jump sticks weren't really a thing, but I don't feel modern jump cues and jump skills have cheapened the game. Rather, like in all sports, modern equipment like jump cues etc which are well within the official specs - seems to me to just be part of the natural evolution of the game, like all the other aspects; rails, pocket sizes, cloth types, balls, even the game itself (e.g.10b)... Question for the anti jump-cue folks; do you feel the same way about modern break cues, extensions, LD/CF shafts, magic racks, fancy chalk, etc?

 

[sjm]

Question for the anti jump-cue folks; do you feel the same way about modern break cues, extensions, LD/CF shafts, magic racks, fancy chalk, etc?

There's really no parallel at all here. Why do you think scooping (jumping by hitting the cue ball below center) was disallowed and remains disallowed? Certainly, scooping puts less wear and tear on the equipment than jumping. The reason scooping was disallowed was because shots played through the air traditionally lay outside the spirit of the game. Full cue jumps were very rare, and some pro players went an entire career without attempting even one of them. Pool was a two- dimensional game.

The break cue came about because nine ball, adopted as the primary pro game about forty years ago, was the first widespread pro tournament game in which extremely hard hits of the cue ball were commonplace. Players noticed that when they broke with their playing cue, the tip would often mushroom, so adding a second cue was in the best interest of preserving the game's fundamental equipment.

Other technological advancements are irrelevant to the discussion. They pertain to refining equipment pertinent to the traditional core skills of the game. Jumping was not among those core skills.

 

[phreaticus]

There's really no parallel at all here. Why do you think scooping (jumping by hitting the cue ball below center) was disallowed and remains disallowed? Certainly, scooping puts less wear and tear on the equipment than jumping. The reason scooping was disallowed was because shots played through the air traditionally lay outside the spirit of the game. Full cue jumps were very rare, and some pro players went an entire career without attempting even one of them. Pool was a two- dimensional game.

The break cue came about because nine ball, adopted as the primary pro game about forty years ago, was the first widespread pro tournament game in which extremely hard hits of the cue ball were commonplace. Players noticed that when they broke with their playing cue, the tip would often mushroom, so adding a second cue was in the best interest of preserving the game's fundamental equipment.

Other technological advancements are irrelevant to the discussion. They pertain to refining equipment pertinent to the traditional core skills of the game. Jumping was not among those core skills.

No disrespect intended, but your post sounds like subjective opinion to me; to me break cues, template racks and 10b - are all very similar arguments - also evolutions of 9b to limit/enrichen the game in various debatable ways. Your comments on break cues to "preserve the game's fundamental equipment" also applies to jumping - having proper equipment to jump vs trying to jump a close OB with a full player - also preserves tips and cloth - in either case, for skilled players - it's a non issue. Despite your longevity around the game and authoritarian tone above, apparently & obviously the vast majority of pro pool world disagrees with you. As far as I know, it's mostly only lower level bar leagues and APA type crowds that officially ban jump cues - given that most amateurs can't jump and will tear up the table when trying to do so with any cue, it's a somewhat reasonable provision for them - but extrapolating that out as "cheapening the game" in high-level/pro pool - to me seems subjectively silly.

Anyway, no need for conflict - no one is resolving this young-gun vs greybeard debate anytime soon. Given that all modern pros and vast majority of old pros can both kick and jump lights out, it all seems like a moot point to me. Thanks for sharing your perspectives. Peace & love