Question about Break cues in IPT
- Thread starter raemondo
- Start date
raemondo said:
Sorry, Raemondo, I posted the reply in the other forum, lol.
The short answer is no, a leather tip is required. Go to www.internationalpooltour.com and look for the equipment specs.
Linda
rackmsuckr said:Sorry, Raemondo, I posted the reply in the other forum, lol.
The short answer is no, a leather tip is required. Go to www.internationalpooltour.com and look for the equipment specs.
Linda
Hey Linda,
Do you happen to know why only leather tips are allowed?
If I am not wrong, Predator BK cues and Stingers have leather tips...that makes them allowed, but not the sledgehammers.....I think this is somewhat unfair since the BCA and everyone else allows them anyhow, but of course I don't run the IPT.
raemondo said:
Leather is old school, phenolic tips are not. The IPT is trying to remain as pure and as true to old school as possible - when technology did not devise shortcuts - such as jumping with jump cues and phenolic tips for more power - to win games. Same can be said for cloth speed, when it is ridiculously easy now to go around 3 rails for shape - the IPT wants you to work for it.
....leaving now to go lift weights...
PS - there are 2 schools of thought - old school is good, kicking is an art, and another that technology enhances a player's ability and elevates the game. I am not taking sides because I can see advantages of both. I was merely explaining the IPT's reasoning as I see it.
rackmsuckr said:Leather is old school, phenolic tips are not. The IPT is trying to remain as pure and as true to old school as possible - when technology did not devise shortcuts - such as jumping with jump cues and phenolic tips for more power - to win games. Same can be said for cloth speed, when it is ridiculously easy now to go around 3 rails for shape - the IPT wants you to work for it.
....leaving now to go lift weights...
PS - there are 2 schools of thought - old school is good, kicking is an art, and another that technology enhances a player's ability and elevates the game. I am not taking sides because I can see advantages of both. I was merely explaining the IPT's reasoning as I see it.
Gotcha, thanks for the reply!
'Phenolic tips give an unfair advantage to the player'.....
using technolgy to get an advantage,
What about laser eye surgery to get 15/20 vision instead of 20/20 vision.
Isn't that using technology too to get an advantage.
A two hundred thousand dollar advantage.
So thats ok.
Wonder in the future the advent of the bionic player will make inroads.....
if its not a technolgy thing then why show it on tv.....thats technology too.....
maybe I should break with a branch..........
using technolgy to get an advantage,
What about laser eye surgery to get 15/20 vision instead of 20/20 vision.
Isn't that using technology too to get an advantage.
A two hundred thousand dollar advantage.
So thats ok.
Wonder in the future the advent of the bionic player will make inroads.....
if its not a technolgy thing then why show it on tv.....thats technology too.....
maybe I should break with a branch..........
Last edited:
jjinfla said:
JJ, I do appreciate your point, as the technologies used in the game should not be without limit, IMO. However, comparing phenolic to steroids is not an apt analogy, IMO. With steroids you have to sacrifice your health to gain that advantage. Phenolic tips don't have that type of downside to them... well maybe a little hearing damage.
I'm curious about opinions on the following: If they outlaw phenolic tips, would it be in the same spirit to outlaw low-deflection shafts as well? (I don't intend to sound sarcastic, in case it sounds that way.) I'm just wondering what would be the difference in terms of the unfair advantage that you get from each.
I've never played with a low-deflection shaft, but I understand that not everyone feels they gain an advantage from using one. So perhaps that is the dividing line. Does everyone gain an advantage from a phenolic tip on their break cue? I don't know what the consensus is on that. I wouldn't think so, since you lose some control with phenolic (well, I do at least -- not that I had all that much CB control to begin with
).Maybe the dividing line should be whether or not it significantly changes the game? Perhaps that is an argument against jump cues: Whether you are on the side that sees jump cues as making the game easier (offensively) or the side that says it makes the game harder (defensively), maybe both sides would agree that jump cues change the game, for better or for worse. Haha, to be safe, I'd better qualify that with.... IMHO.
BlackDragon said:
Each technology should be considered individually, as they come up. Or, if there is realistic anticipation of a new technology on the horizon, it could be allowed or banned in advance, if appropriate.
How should "unfair" be defined? Does the technology in question change the game to a significant degree? In a hundred years, maybe the bionic hustler will actually be a legitimate concern.
I say, ban him, no offense to cyborgs, but its not fair to regular old humans. We could let cyborgs have their own tour, but fans would eventually get bored, if there is no chance of a missed shot or bad position, IMO.