Jumping, and Use of Jump cues

worriedbeef said:
if the jump is the best option i will take it. i'm not gonna kick just for the sake of it. one thing i don't like is the way some people make out using a jump cue is easy. to do it well it takes a lot of skill, just as much as it does to kick well.

Wrong.... jumping is easy compared to kicking. If you don't think so then you haven't practised jumping enough.

There are times to jump and times to kick, but it is usually fairly obvious which one you should do (assuming your skilled at both).

I can teach anyone to jump in 5 minutes... and then they call have it mastered in weeks/months..... kicking takes years to master (I know I still haven't after 25 years of pool)

IMHO, Chris
 
It is a silly debate...plenty of threads on it already.

Obviously, one cannot generalize. Each shot presents it own challenge.

Straight in, balls far away from rails, next ball hanging in the hole...who (that can jump) thinks kicking is best?

Ball hanging in hole, need to stop there for next ball, I vote kick.
 
Black-Balled said:
Obviously, one cannot generalize.

Obviously, one can. Here's a couple of generalizations:

1. For many shots skilled jumping is easier and/or more accurate than skilled kicking.

2. A skilled kicker and jumper has an advantage over a skilled kicker only.

pj
chgo
 
let's do everything we can to make the game "easier"...

worriedbeef said:
people always cite the example where there's a ball over the hole and it's "so easy to just jump and make it". but it would also be just as easy in this case to swerve round and make it, or kick the ball in one rail.

shortsidek - how do you feel about full cue jumping?

btw i think cue ball fouls only is the more sensible option. you mention snooker, personally i have always thought it stupid when a players arm hair touches an object ball during his stroke and the ball has barely moved a millimetre, yet the player automatically declares a foul on himself. what difference did that make to anything? i think players should only take fouls on bumbed object balls if there is clear intent to move them to gain an advantage. just put the balls back and play the game.

I disagree with your statement that "it is just as easy to swerve around or kick the ball in one rail". I feel it is much easier to jump and make a ball laying near the pocket. Maybe you are very much better that I am at kicking, but I have my doubts.

... full cue jumping? I am against any type of jumping (over an impeding ball). Why is any type of jumping (an impeding ball) allowed? To make the game easier?

How easy do we have to/want to make it?

We're already playing on small tables with gigantic pockets.
We get "ball in hand" for every foul.
We "pattern rack" to make run-outs easier or harder.
We have turbo-charged break cues so we have a better chance to make a ball on the break.
We win the game if we make a specified ball on the break.
We have "jump cues" to make hitting/sinking the object ball easier.
We have "gloves" to keep our sweaty hands under control.
We have specially engineered shafts to control deflection.

... CB fouls only? The only reason this rule is in effect is because it reduces arguements. Refereed matches do not use this rule. If you think that it doesn't make any difference to the outcome of a game/match, try playing the real rule and see if it does. I'm betting that the fact that moving/bumping an obstructing/impeding ball will be considered a foul will dramatically affect your play. Suddenly you can't quite take the bridge or stroke that you would normally take.

I agree with all the comments that the jump cue has become an integral part of the game. I agree that it take skill to use the jump cue effectively.

I do not, however, agree that the jump cue is necessary to keep the game challenging and enjoyable.
 
eastcoast_chris said:
Wrong.... jumping is easy compared to kicking. If you don't think so then you haven't practised jumping enough.

There are times to jump and times to kick, but it is usually fairly obvious which one you should do (assuming your skilled at both).

I can teach anyone to jump in 5 minutes... and then they call have it mastered in weeks/months..... kicking takes years to master (I know I still haven't after 25 years of pool)

IMHO, Chris

Also not correct Chris.

First kicking is simply banking the cueball in a straight line at the proper angles using a normal natural level stroke. Jumping, even with a jump cue, requires a particular type of stroke and stance that is not natural.

If you take a rank beginner and hand them a cue and with no instruction whatsoever tell them to hit the object ball on a one rail kick then the chances are that they will b able to hit the object ball within ten tries simply by making their own natural aiming adjustments.

If you take the same rank beginner and hand them a jump cue and also give them no instruction whatsoever and tell them to hit the object ball on a relatively simple jump shot chances are that they won't even clear the blocking ball in twenty tries. They will probably begin by scooping the cueball. Tell them that they must hit the cueball above the equator and they won't have a chance WITHOUT instruction.

I don't know where the idea that kicking is "harder" than jumping came into it. Kicking is not harder, it is a separate skill that can be learned in a few minutes from a competent teacher. Don't believe me? Then I highly suggest that that you attend the next Tom "Dr. Cue" Rossman exhibition when you can. In that exhibition you will see Tom teach people to make one rail, two rail, and three rail kick shots in a matter of minutes. How does he do this? He teaches them the systems that are the basis for kicking. He does the same with banking and his students show immediate improvement in their banking and kicking skills.

Tom is also responsible for teaching thousands of people to jump properly and has spread the popularity of the jump cue with his exhibitions.

Neither jumping nor kicking is hard to master. They both require lots of practice to fully adapt to the nuance. It is wrong to make a general statement that one is harder than another.

A 1" jump shot for example is physically harder to do than any level stroke kick shot known to man. A certain percentage of the population is physically impaired from even being able to do this shot while others that are short are handicapped and find it more difficult. The point being that both kicking and jumping should simply be considered different aspects of the game and no one should be espousing one over the other as long as the rules and the actual play of the game show a need for the jump shot.

One could make the statement that you haven't practiced kicking enough if you haven't mastered it in 25 years. And in fact you either haven't or you haven't had the proper instruction to enhance your knowledge. I can tell you that in my 25+ years of playing I didn't master kicking until I got serious about learning how to do it and now I consider myself fairly accomplished at that aspect of the game.

Now, pocketing balls "should" be easier than kicking, can anyone help me with that :-)
 
JB Cases said:
...A certain percentage of the population is physically impaired from even being able to do this shot ... :-)

Had to take a swipe at the Handicapables, didn't you:eek: ?
 
Shortside K said:
I disagree with your statement that "it is just as easy to swerve around or kick the ball in one rail". I feel it is much easier to jump and make a ball laying near the pocket. Maybe you are very much better that I am at kicking, but I have my doubts.

... full cue jumping? I am against any type of jumping (over an impeding ball). Why is any type of jumping (an impeding ball) allowed? To make the game easier?

How easy do we have to/want to make it?

We're already playing on small tables with gigantic pockets.
We get "ball in hand" for every foul.
We "pattern rack" to make run-outs easier or harder.
We have turbo-charged break cues so we have a better chance to make a ball on the break.
We win the game if we make a specified ball on the break.
We have "jump cues" to make hitting/sinking the object ball easier.
We have "gloves" to keep our sweaty hands under control.
We have specially engineered shafts to control deflection.

... CB fouls only? The only reason this rule is in effect is because it reduces arguements. Refereed matches do not use this rule. If you think that it doesn't make any difference to the outcome of a game/match, try playing the real rule and see if it does. I'm betting that the fact that moving/bumping an obstructing/impeding ball will be considered a foul will dramatically affect your play. Suddenly you can't quite take the bridge or stroke that you would normally take.

I agree with all the comments that the jump cue has become an integral part of the game. I agree that it take skill to use the jump cue effectively.

I do not, however, agree that the jump cue is necessary to keep the game challenging and enjoyable.


I think that pool has been in constant evolution since it's beginnings.

My answer to your question of how easy do we want to make it is -

We make it so easy that equipment is not the limitation to seeing the game played at the highest level. A jump cue is more comparable to a leather tip than anything else.

The leather tip and later the use of chalk were solutions to problems that limited the game, namely how to control the cueball accurately. In pool the jump shot IS part of the game under the rules of just about all pool games so it is only natural that a piece of equipment would be invented/improved to address the inaccuracies in that area.

The jump cue in it's current form is available to all players. All modern jump cues work practically the same so there is no equipment advantage. A modern jump cue takes away the physical advantage that tall people have over short people when attempting to jump a ball. The modern jump cue works equally well on slow cloth and fast cloth.

I also do not agree that a jump cue or the jump shot is required to keep the game challenging or enjoyable - I don't know who said that here or elsewhere. I think that without a jump cue then pool becomes more challenging as the inventory of available shots is greatly decreased without the jump cue in use. I would argue that taking away such a wide variety of useful shots makes the game less enjoyable to some. From a spectator's point of view I would say that a lot of enjoyment would be taken away as spectators seem to appreciate well executed jump shots enthusiastically.

Consider the range of shots available when using a chalked leather tip. Without this item the game would be far more challenging and probably less interesting. How about without rubber rails? Kicking would be practically eliminated as would shape but the game would be much harder. And the list goes on. The can be played without any number of things that have improved the playing experience.

Of course the debate rages about whether jumping improves the playing experience or not. Personally I could live without jump cues and jumping balls at all. I also prefer to go back to some form of two foul nine ball where I don't have to kick out of fluked or dare I say it, "chicken" safeties :-) (there's a can of worms) that are played because a player gets themselves into trouble and can't run out. However, even in two foul nine ball jumping balls was far more common than kicking, we just didn't have jump cues back then.......................
 
Last edited:
Black-Balled said:
Had to take a swipe at the Handicapables, didn't you:eek: ?

Not at all. In my experience teaching people to jump I have come across many many many, including myself now, who have shoulder injuries, back problems, knee problems, or you name it, that prevent them from either standing properly to address the cueball on a jump shot or prevents them from stroking properly.

Most of these folks could run racks though.

It's funny. The jump cue works as advertised and is vilified because it does.

When Predator advertises that their shaft improves accuracy and spin and basically makes the game easier they are celebrated. When a cloth manufacturer advertises that their cloth has less nap and allows for more accurate play they are welcomed.

When an author writes a book that explains in easy to follow steps how to kick balls they are welcomed.

When someone invents a jump cue that gives all players regardless of their size a level playing field then they are vilified as money grubbing.

And detractors wrongly focus on the seeming "ease" without mentioning that it still takes a fair amount of skill and stroke to use the new tool properly. Nor do they mention that this cue brings the shot to a lot of people who were otherwise physically barred from it before, even if it is still somewhat harder for them to do.
 
catscradle said:
John, Though I agree with virtually everything you said in your post. I'd still rather see the game of pool played without the jump cue. Easy enough rule to implement. Don't allow switching of cues, if somebody wants to use a jump cue for all their shots, more power to them.
I'd also like to see travelling and palming the ball enforced in pro basketball, that's not going to happen either.

It's cool. For me personally I don't care if someone wants to switch cues. If they want to play with a wet noodle that's cool with me as long as they don't harm the balls or the table or otherwise negatively influence my turn at the table.

I think at this point it's worth a long look at just how the games are played and perhaps rules to address the need for jump shots and jump cues should be considered.

Right now if I am a professional player or even an amateur who spends a lot of money attending tournaments I want all available legal options that help me to earn more income. The more the better.
 
great posts john. i was waiting for you to chime in on this subject and you haven't let me down. as far as i'm concerned the debate is over!
 
I'd have to disagree with you Chris. You just haven't had the right instruction on how to kick accurately. We teach 1, 2, and 3-rail kick systems in our pool schools all the time. Most students are able to kick pretty well, even after just a couple of hours of practice with these systems.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

eastcoast_chris said:
Wrong.... jumping is easy compared to kicking. If you don't think so then you haven't practised jumping enough.

There are times to jump and times to kick, but it is usually fairly obvious which one you should do (assuming your skilled at both).

I can teach anyone to jump in 5 minutes... and then they call have it mastered in weeks/months..... kicking takes years to master (I know I still haven't after 25 years of pool)

IMHO, Chris
 
I prefer to kick and feel pretty confident it doing so.

I do , however , think that jumping with even a medocre jump cue is pretty easy. I feel just as confident that if the layout allows , I can accurately jump to make a ball , especially if the OB is not a hanger.

I don't like that fact. ;) Seems like cheating but I will jump if/when it seems like the best option in a game that matters at all for some reason.

Otherwise I kick and wouldn't be upset at all if jumping went away.

:cool:
 
RRfireblade said:
I prefer to kick and feel pretty confident it doing so.

I do , however , think that jumping with even a medocre jump cue is pretty easy. I feel just as confident that if the layout allows , I can accurately jump to make a ball , especially if the OB is not a hanger.

I don't like that fact. ;) Seems like cheating but I will jump if/when it seems like the best option in a game that matters at all for some reason.

Otherwise I kick and wouldn't be upset at all if jumping went away.

:cool:

It might help if you think of it like this;

With today's jump cues it is pretty easy to make a ball jump with a minimum of instruction. But it is difficult to do it consistently and accurately without a good amount of practice and retention.

By the same token it is very easy to perform a simple draw shot or stop shot with a minimal amount of instruction using a standard cue with a chalked leather tip but hard to master these two shots without a lot of dedicated practice.

Don't focus on the fact that a jump cue makes jumping easier. The chalked leather tip makes it easier to spin the cueball also. Neither the leather tip or the jump cue actually do the playing though, they are just tools that increase the amount of available shots. Whether the shooter is good enough to perform the range of shots available depends on their individual skill level.

We need to remember that the act of jumping a ball should not be the hard part. Controlling the cueball is the hard part.

When the game was played without a leather tip, controlling the cueball was very difficult. I have no doubt that an APA 3 with a leather tip and cube of chalk could win all the money in the United States at pool in 1800 (or before the advent of tips/chalk). He or she would be heralded as a wizard on the table. Things we can't live without today and take for granted once did not exist. Try to play pool without a leather tip or without chalk. You will find that your range of available shots is reduced dramatically.

That is exactly how it is with jump cues. The jump cue merely makes the jump shot available to all. How good a player is with it is up to them. A player can remain a banger content with just making the cueball clear the object ball or a player can become proficient to the point that the jump shot is a deadly weapon in their arsenal.
 
One last thing on this subject. Often people will say what about so-and-so who put in all the time learning to jump with a normal cue? Aren't they getting a raw deal when some yahoo comes along and can jump with a jump cue?

I say no. The person who spent time to master the shot with a full cue is ahead of the game. They are now able to jump all the shots that are possible with a full cue and SHOULD be incredibly accurate with a jump cue.

Scotty Townsend was mentioned earlier as an example of just such a person. I have practiced jumping immensely, performed exhibitions, given hundreds of hours of instruction in jumping over the last ten years and even with all that I know that Scotty Townsend can jump better with a jump cue than I could ever dream of.

Once Buddy Hall came to my booth and started messing around with the Bunjee Jumper and it was like watching poetry in motion. He made shots with shape that left us all in awe. I wish I had video of of it because his stroke was so effortless and the sound of the cue hitting the ball was so quiet that you wouldn't have thought he is using a jump cue at all.

So I beg all of you, don't focus on the bangers and the fact that they can make a cueball skip. Instead be appreciative of the players who take that tool and make it sing.
 
I have to say that i found jumping to be very easy,i had a JB for awhile and just broke with it because i didnt know how to but then i decided to give it a shot,within 5 minutes i was jumping,i used a similar stroke as if i were doing a masse but just hitting the cue ball at a different angle,i did it with the dart method first and then the other way,its just too easy with the cues and phenolic tips.I am not against jump cues at all,its a handy little tool,i sold my JB like 6 months ago thinking i didnt really need it,as of late i realized i did need it when there is a ball that im blocked from kicking using the rails or one that is hanging in the pocket,i have a new one coming in the mail anyday and i cant wait. :D
 
shinyballs said:
Where were all of you when I suggested recently that I didn't think jump cues should be allowed? Everyone "jumped" all over me.:rolleyes:

I own one and can use it, but I kick really well IMO because I don't over use it.
I may be the only one on here old enough to remember that an old
rule in golf used to be; If your opponents ball is in your line to the
hole, it was called "stymied". Your opponent did not mark his ball.
you had to chip over it to get to the cup. They found this rule un-
acceptable years ago. When enough Pool table cloths get ripped and a few people get hurt, room owners may see it for what it is.
A poor unacceptable way of distorting the rules.
 
Last edited:
SJDinPHX said:
I may be the only one on here old enough to remember that an old
rule in golf used to be; If your opponents ball is in your line to the
hole, it was called "stymied". Your opponent did not mark his ball.
you had to chip over it to get to the cup. They found this rule un-
acceptable years ago. When enough Pool table cloths get ripped and a few people get hurt, room owners may see it for what it is.
A poor unacceptable way of distorting the rules.

Don't you think that in the last 10-15 years that IF ripped cloths from jumping were truly a problem then the cues would have been outlawed already? Or that the jump shot would have been outlawed?

In my exhibitions I used to deliberately drive the tip of the cue into the cloth repeatedly to show that it does not rip the cloth. This is a huge red herring of an argument against jump cues. There is no epidemic of torn cloths due to the use of jump cues. Nor is there any real danger to other people.

I bet that cue balls flying off the table on break shots have harmed more people than cueballs that have gone off table due to jump shots. In Holland I once had a cueball embed itself in the drywall next to my ear when the breaker skipped it off the head ball. Had it hit me in the head then it would not have been pretty.

Jump shooters are shooting into the table which absorbs the energy.

Are you saying that jumping a ball is a distortion of the rules? If so, then how so? Jumping balls is covered in just about everyone's rules to some degree. In the last ten years no aspect of the game has received the most attention and discussion, with the possible exception of the break shot.

I believe that at this point everything that can be said concerning everyone's views on jump cues has been said. I am sure that the rulemakers have had plenty of feedback on it. I consider jump cues to be an evolutionary aspect of the game that came about because of the move to one foul nine ball. Three things have come out of the move to one foul - ball-in-hand 9 and 8 ball.

1. players now jump better.
2. players now kick better.
3. players now play safe better.

For the sake of argument lets say that kicking IS much harder than jumping. Under that scenario why should it be made EASIER to duck but HARDER to get out of it? That is exactly what happened in the move to one foul nine ball. Now the incoming player is always faced with a low percentage shot when he is forced to kick. In 2-foul push out the incoming player could always choose to push and dare the opponent to take the shot.

With the advent of jumping as an offensive weapon it effectively neutralized the easy safety and thereby increased the overall skill level even more as players have been forced to learn to play tighter safeties. Tighter safeties which also have the effect of forcing tougher kick shots.

In the last fifteen years players have learned that a poor safety is one which allows the jump shot or big ball kicks. And that a good safety is one that cuts off the most routes to the object ball. With of course the best one being that which cuts off all routes.

So how is an overall improvement in skill and artistry in all aspects of the game a bad thing?
 
JB Cases said:
Don't you think that in the last 10-15 years that IF ripped cloths from jumping were truly a problem then the cues would have been outlawed already? Or that the jump shot would have been outlawed?

In my exhibitions I used to deliberately drive the tip of the cue into the cloth repeatedly to show that it does not rip the cloth. This is a huge red herring of an argument against jump cues. There is no epidemic of torn cloths due to the use of jump cues. Nor is there any real danger to other people.

I bet that cue balls flying off the table on break shots have harmed more people than cueballs that have gone off table due to jump shots. In Holland I once had a cueball embed itself in the drywall next to my ear when the breaker skipped it off the head ball. Had it hit me in the head then it would not have been pretty.

Jump shooters are shooting into the table which absorbs the energy.

Are you saying that jumping a ball is a distortion of the rules? If so, then how so? Jumping balls is covered in just about everyone's rules to some degree. In the last ten years no aspect of the game has received the most attention and discussion, with the possible exception of the break shot.

I believe that at this point everything that can be said concerning everyone's views on jump cues has been said. I am sure that the rulemakers have had plenty of feedback on it. I consider jump cues to be an evolutionary aspect of the game that came about because of the move to one foul nine ball. Three things have come out of the move to one foul - ball-in-hand 9 and 8 ball.

1. players now jump better.
2. players now kick better.
3. players now play safe better.

For the sake of argument lets say that kicking IS much harder than jumping. Under that scenario why should it be made EASIER to duck but HARDER to get out of it? That is exactly what happened in the move to one foul nine ball. Now the incoming player is always faced with a low percentage shot when he is forced to kick. In 2-foul push out the incoming player could always choose to push and dare the opponent to take the shot.

With the advent of jumping as an offensive weapon it effectively neutralized the easy safety and thereby increased the overall skill level even more as players have been forced to learn to play tighter safeties. Tighter safeties which also have the effect of forcing tougher kick shots.

In the last fifteen years players have learned that a poor safety is one which allows the jump shot or big ball kicks. And that a good safety is one that cuts off the most routes to the object ball. With of course the best one being that which cuts off all routes.

So how is an overall improvement in skill and artistry in all aspects of the game a bad thing?
Its not pro's that do the damage, it is the young bangers trying to
emulate the pros that can cause all kinds of problems.
We all know it was the change from 2 shot foul to Texas express
that brought out the proliferation of jumping. Sorry but I am in Buddy
Hall's camp on that fiasco. To me there is no difference between a
so called "legal" jump and cueing far enough under the ball to hop it
over a ball in your way.To me they are both bogus.As you say..
everythings allready been said on the subject. That does not mean
you are right and I am wrong! We just differ.
 
Last edited:
SJDinPHX said:
I may be the only one on here old enough to remember that an old
rule in golf used to be; If your opponents ball is in your line to the
hole, it was called "stymied". Your opponent did not mark his ball.
you had to chip over it to get to the cup. They found this rule un-
acceptable years ago. When enough Pool table cloths get ripped and a few people get hurt, room owners may see it for what it is.
A poor unacceptable way of distorting the rules.

Now I know the etymology of the word "stymied", always wondered about that. :)

Back on point, I rather see jump cues go away, but not a return to the 2 foul rule, slows the game too much. People already while away too much time thinking.
 
Back
Top