should pro tournaments ban the jump cue?

Shawn Armstrong said:
Sorry. Shouldn't say "every". The vast majority of high elevation jump shots will result in the cue ball grazing the shaft of the pool cue a second time.

I will have to slow-mo a shot like that. I routinely can jump an object ball that is only a chalk cube away from the cue ball and don't believe I foul. I should have a clip in the next few days when I can get to my table next.
 
Should pro tournaments ban the jump cue?

I don’t care. I have no interest in watching or participating in ‘pro’ pool tournaments. Knock yourself out.

I’d rather fish than watch other people fish and I’d rather play pool than watch (yawn) some pro play nine ball.

I play hockey. We don’t allow slapshots. Slapshots are allowed in the NHL. Doesn’t impact me ( excuse the pun) in any way. I’d guess that 99.999 % of folks who play hockey aren’t pros and in billiards likely the same. What does it matter what ‘pros’ do?
 
briankenobi said:
Shawn Armstrong said:
Sorry. Shouldn't say "every". The vast majority of high elevation jump shots will result in the cue ball grazing the shaft of the pool cue a second time.

I will have to slow-mo a shot like that. I routinely can jump an object ball that is only a chalk cube away from the cue ball and don't believe I foul. I should have a clip in the next few days when I can get to my table next.
Click to expand...
Here’s a slow mo vid posted by none other than DrDave. Interestingly, actually done with a regular play cue! A light jump cue (mine is only 6.5 oz) gets out of the way even faster than this.

 
David in FL said:
Here’s a slow mo vid posted by none other than DrDave.
Click to expand...
I believe Shawn was referring to jumps that require extreme vertical rise to clear the obstruction. Say within a ball's distance between one another.

Dr.Dave's vid illustrates about the minimum distance I'm able to or even willing to attempt.
 
The_JV said:
I believe Shawn was referring to jumps that require extreme vertical rise to clear the obstruction. Say within a ball's distance between one another.

Dr.Dave's vid illustrates about the minimum distance I'm able to or even willing to attempt.
Click to expand...
I can jump a bit less than a ball diameter of separation. I know others that can do much less.
 
Geosnookery said:
Should pro tournaments ban the jump cue?

I don’t care. I have no interest in watching or participating in ‘pro’ pool tournaments. Knock yourself out.

I’d rather fish than watch other people fish and I’d rather play pool than watch (yawn) some pro play nine ball.

I play hockey. We don’t allow slapshots. Slapshots are allowed in the NHL. Doesn’t impact me ( excuse the pun) in any way. I’d guess that 99.999 % of folks who play hockey aren’t pros and in billiards likely the same. What does it matter what ‘pros’ do?
Click to expand...
What you seem to be saying is that neither pro pool nor the matter of how it should be played interest you. One must wonder why you opened this thread at all, and it's even more incredible that you posted. I'm glad we didn't get a post from every forum member that has no interest in or contribution to make to the thread topic.
 
sjm said:
What you seem to be saying is that neither pro pool nor the matter of how it should be played interest you. One must wonder why you opened this thread at all, and it's even more incredible that you posted. I'm glad we didn't get a post from every forum member that has no interest in or contribution to make to the thread topic.
Click to expand...
No, there is a reason. Many of the posts imply that pros set the tone and rules for pool.

They don’t . I play in 3 billiard leagues and One would be hard pressed to find more than 2 or 3 players that could even name a pro pool player. Pro pool is a niche activity of a minutia of the billiards community.

The question is not ‘What do you think of jumping? which would encompass many of the answers in this thread. In contrast, ‘should’ And ‘pros’ is irrelevent to me and 99.9% of players. It’s like discussing the ‘designated hitter’ rule in
MLB...has no impact on a million folks playing on their high school diamond.
 
Geosnookery said:
No, there is a reason. Many of the posts imply that pros set the tone and rules for pool.

They don’t . I play in 3 billiard leagues and One would be hard pressed to find more than 2 or 3 players that could even name a pro pool player. Pro pool is a niche activity of a minutia of the billiards community.

The question is not ‘What do you think of jumping? which would encompass many of the answers in this thread. In contrast, ‘should’ And ‘pros’ is irrelevent to me and 99.9% of players. It’s like discussing the ‘designated hitter’ rule in
MLB...has no impact on a million folks playing on their high school diamond.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying.
 
My only opinion of the Jump cue, and I've probably said this before. If it increases excitement and interest from non players/Audience and INCREASES TV viewership numbers then it $hould be considered but only for 9 ball. Since pool is sooooooo difficult for a non player to understand what's Really happening and being accomplished within each shot then this Simplistic/exciting ''ball hopping'' moment might have it's place. Personally I don't like em, but I also don't think in pro golf a player should be allowed to climb a tree and hit the ball from the crotch of a limb, back into the fairway and not incur a penalty, but it sells, it's exciting and the viewers Love It! The reason Snooker has a great following is because the audience KNOWS how difficult EVERY shot/shape and run out IS, this gives the audience constant, AMAZEMENT and mental involvement into every SHOT.
 
Island Drive said:
The reason Snooker has a great following is because the audience KNOWS how difficult EVERY shot/shape and run out IS, this gives the audience constant, AMAZEMENT and mental involvement into every SHOT.
Click to expand...
One pocket is the future of pool viewership, if the powers that be can ever pull their heads out of their butts long enough to realize it. People will start to crave strategy if you educate them at a basic level. They want in on the "secret" and they want to exercise their mind. 1P requires utmost control, banks, kicks, caroms, billiards, sometimes trick shots. It's exciting seeing someone duck and use strategy, then erupt into a ball pocketing powerhouse. You can up the interest by adding large sums of money on the match. This match is SUPER exciting:
.

I realized another thing, snooker has everything right (I'm not a fan of round pockets though lol). Pool balls should not have numbers unless the game requires math. What's more elegant, a ball with numbers or a pattern, or a plain, yet elegant perfect sphere of a single color? If you can ever get ahold of a set of plain red balls, just look how perfect they look on green or blue cloth. It's you and the ball, no distraction. It's the simplicity we desire, yet it's such understated elegance. A perfect jewel like sphere without any distractions. It is a sphere and only tries to be a sphere, nothing else. I bet you could ask a 5 year old in the UK how many points the green ball was and they would know. You have to make your audience feel clever, like they have an inside secret. Once they are in on the "secret" they feel a connection and it presses them to learn more. Did you start enjoying pool after you discovered a "secret" such as you can control the cueball and line up your next shot, or leave an opponent nothing?

If pool is to really to become "tv friendly" you have to make the audience feel involved and clever. I'd rather watch paint dry than watch 9 ball. I understand the players are the absolute peak of their field, but it's dreadfully boring. Yeah, they are shot makers, yeah they can run racks. So what? In what instance did this get in my head and make me think about strategy? It's not engaging if my head isn't analyzing and trying to find an out or a good safety. I'm not knocking 9 ball, it's fun to play, but it's not the "future" of our sport because it makes you feel braindead watching it, there's no need to think or feel like a part of the action.
 
"One pocket is the future of pool viewership, "

Disagree here. Only the hardcore one pocket fans would watch. The mainstream sports fans would never watch one pocket.
 
briankenobi said:
"One pocket is the future of pool viewership, "

Disagree here. Only the hardcore one pocket fans would watch. The mainstream sports fans would never watch one pocket.
Click to expand...
x2....

Back on short jump cues... Based on my experience with jump sticks being used against me in a tournament during the weekend. I think they all should be banned....lol
 
boogieman said:
One pocket is the future of pool viewership, if the powers that be can ever pull their heads out of their butts long enough to realize it.
Click to expand...
I love watching one pocket events, but have to disagree with your statement. The biggest issue posed by one pocket is its indeterminate length. Even at Derby City, where the race is to 3, I've seen matches take five or six hours. I've also seen matches that took twenty minutes. No game that has such indeterminate length will ever be the standard game.

I'm also not inclined to agree with you that the fans would ever take to a game that's chiefly tactical. Even in snooker, where some fans have come to embrace the tactical tussles, members of this very forum have said they find it painful to watch the obviously superb tactician Mark Selby, whose tactical wars of attrition test their patience.

One pocket is a beautiful game, but in some racks, it has the feel of chess without a time clock, and nobody would ever tolerate that in chess.
 
sjm said:
... One pocket is a beautiful game, but in some racks, it has the feel of chess without a time clock, and nobody would ever tolerate that in chess.
Click to expand...
The solution to that is properly implemented time control, which I believe has never been done for one pocket.
 
sjm said:
I love watching one pocket events, but have to disagree with your statement. The biggest issue posed by one pocket is its indeterminate length. Even at Derby City, where the race is to 3, I've seen matches take five or six hours. I've also seen matches that took twenty minutes. No game that has such indeterminate length will ever be the standard game.

I'm also not inclined to agree with you that the fans would ever take to a game that's chiefly tactical. Even in snooker, where some fans have come to embrace the tactical tussles, members of this very forum have said they find it painful to watch the obviously superb tactician Mark Selby, whose tactical wars of attrition test their patience.

One pocket is a beautiful game, but in some racks, it has the feel of chess without a time clock, and nobody would ever tolerate that in chess.
Click to expand...
Agree, and I think the biggest reason why the tactical side of the game is embraced more in snooker viewership is that there is generally a more even balance between safety play and break building. Whereas in one pocket, the ratio of safety play to potting is probably in the range of 80/20. I think that ratio is important for a game to be popular with the average viewer. Too much potting (ie. 14.1), the viewers lose interest and just assume the pros never miss. Too much safety play and they get bored. I really enjoy one pocket but I'd be surprised to see it become more than a connoisseurs game.
 
sjm said:
I love watching one pocket events, but have to disagree with your statement. The biggest issue posed by one pocket is its indeterminate length. Even at Derby City, where the race is to 3, I've seen matches take five or six hours. I've also seen matches that took twenty minutes. No game that has such indeterminate length will ever be the standard game.

I'm also not inclined to agree with you that the fans would ever take to a game that's chiefly tactical. Even in snooker, where some fans have come to embrace the tactical tussles, members of this very forum have said they find it painful to watch the obviously superb tactician Mark Selby, whose tactical wars of attrition test their patience.

One pocket is a beautiful game, but in some racks, it has the feel of chess without a time clock, and nobody would ever tolerate that in chess.
Click to expand...
I agree to an extent. I think a lot of it could be solved with a shot clock. Many events with a clock are shorter in length. I think standard is 60 seconds, but I could see it being cut to 45 or even 30 if it became a televised thing.

I think the key for a general audience to understand the strategy is to have good announcers that talk about the strategy. Play it up and let them in on the "secret." In down time, they can talk about the basics, things like following the count, ruining the opponent's shots, danger zones, etc. It would take good announcers who were passionate about the game as well as teaching the spectators. There's nothing super "deep" about one pocket strategy, no more than other games, just it's much more important to be strategic. I mean, it's all basically, eliminate opponent's opportunity and create opportunity for yourself in the end.
 
boogieman said:
I realized another thing, snooker has everything right (I'm not a fan of round pockets though lol). Pool balls should not have numbers unless the game requires math.
Click to expand...
How does one indicate that they are attempting to shoot the 7-ball into the bottom-left corner pocket without numbers?
 
briankenobi said:
"One pocket is the future of pool viewership, "

Disagree here. Only the hardcore one pocket fans would watch. The mainstream sports fans would never watch one pocket.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, except I would change the word "would" into "could" for greater emphasis.
 
boogieman said:
I agree to an extent. I think a lot of it could be solved with a shot clock. Many events with a clock are shorter in length. I think standard is 60 seconds, but I could see it being cut to 45 or even 30 if it became a televised thing.

I think the key for a general audience to understand the strategy is to have good announcers that talk about the strategy. Play it up and let them in on the "secret." In down time, they can talk about the basics, things like following the count, ruining the opponent's shots, danger zones, etc. It would take good announcers who were passionate about the game as well as teaching the spectators. There's nothing super "deep" about one pocket strategy, no more than other games, just it's much more important to be strategic. I mean, it's all basically, eliminate opponent's opportunity and create opportunity for yourself in the end.
Click to expand...
The shot clock is not the issue, but instead the number of possible innings in a given rack. Even with a shot clock, races to three can take hours. The only real solution is Bob Jewett's recommendation of using a chess clock, to be reset after every rack. If running out of time is loss of rack, it would force the action and eliminate the completely unwatchable up-table games that have caused even this serious fan to walk away from a match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top