The "new" 9-ball: Changing the game to reflect the new equipment

[John Barton]

I don't think people who MAKE or SELL jump cues can have a totally unbiased opinion, John. Sorry.

Yet you quote folks who make and sell videotapes on kicking for their opinions about jump cues. Isn't that just a tad hypocritical.

I never said I have an unbiased opinion. For you to suggest that I am only for jump cues because I sell them is ludicrous. My posting history shows otherwise.

I don't care if jump cues get banned tomorrow. Big deal - we will still be selling stuff the same as we do every day. It's a wash. All the people who make them filled a need and will continue to do so until that need no longer exists - whether sensefully through logical rule changes or sensationally to satisfy the minority of players who dislike them.

Are you considering both sides of the argument? I don't think so. The fact that you say jumping is a bought skill that any Monkey (thanks Jamie) can do shows that you don't know what you are talking about and that you refuse to look at from any other perspective.

I can't understand how you fail to too see the skill inherent in jumping. I can only conclude that you have committed to this opinion for some reason and are too deeply involved in it to see things any other way.

 

[John Barton]

also Shawn, I don't have an opinion on this subject. I have facts and a ton of real world experience to back up my statements. Statements of fact.

 

[Flex]

Let's say 3" or 4". That, to me, is a great safety. If your opponent can kick well, he'll get to the ball. Like Grady said, it takes 5 minutes to learn how to jump. It takes a lifetime to learn how to kick well.

This is a point where I may have to respectfully disagree with Grady. I know plenty of players who can't jump worth a darn. These are B+ to A players. They're the first ones to want to do away with the jump cue, too, at least in my experience. Some people can't get the knack of the dart stroke, no matter how often they try, and for those really close jumps the dart is usually the way to go.

Yours truly can jump though, and it probably took me just about 60 seconds to do it the first time. However, getting the ball up in the air is only half the job, actually hitting the object ball can be downright really tough, depending on the table, let alone making it. Many times, kicking is way easier.

Flex

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

There are a lot of issues here. For starters, jump-cue sales influencing rules and rules influencing jump-cue sales are kind of "chicken & egg". It doesn't matter at this point. Yes, there is little doubt that tours have been more open-minded of late because jump-cue companies do support these tournaments. Also, jump-cue sales are always on the rise because they're allowed and the technology is always getting better. However, that's not the issue at hand.

The issue is reviewing the jump-cue rule itself and wondering if its existence is consistent with the traditional rules of pool. My problem is where the rule is placed. Is it a game-specific rule or is it a general rule? This is important because should any one game have equipment rules? If so, how might such a distinction influence other games? If the rule should be listed as a "general rule" of pocket-billiards, how would it impact the other games such as 1-pocket or straight pool?

If jump-cues ARE allowed in straight pool, we have to consider how sacred our records are (ie., Mosconi's 526 consecutive balls pocketed). Now, I know many will argue that there have always been equipment changes and some of these changes have made the game harder and easier, impacting the value of these records. However, I think most will agree that the jump-cue has overwhelming impact, probably moreso than any other equipment change since chalk was introduced.

It's unfortunate that we are still arguing about the legitimacy of such a product and even more unfortuante that we found ourselves in such a state virtually by accident. Local and Regional tours will refer to the BCA Rules for a degree of uniformity, clarity and simplicity but will quickly add/subtract to those rules whenever convenience dictates they should. Because of this, jump-cue sales were allowed to penetrate the market and have taken on the momentum of a runaway train that is nearly impossible to slow down or stop.

You can't have different sets of rules for players that choose to use a jump cue and players that choose not to. Rules always need to be consistent. However, I do feel it is important to allow a degree of protection. Limitation of jump-cue use would be an interesting way to go but how many scenarios would need to be considered? Rigid jump-cue specifications would also be interesting but how do you enforce such rules? It would be nice if only equipment that has received BCA-Certification were allowed in use. At this point, ANYTHING is allowed to be used at the table unless specifically banned and really, it should be the other way around. Everything should be banned unless it is specifically stated that it is not.

 

[Flex]

I don't think people who MAKE or SELL jump cues can have a totally unbiased opinion, John. Sorry.

Bias, schmias. IMHO, it's called a point of view, and who doesn't have those?

Flex

 

[John Barton]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "The Shot" that every pool player talks about when recalling the best hill-hill, exciting, pressure filled shot a kick?

Is it? Efren's two rail z shot that even he admitted he was just trying to hit and not make? So your example of the greatest shot ever is one of a guy kicking two rails after he hooked himself and getting incredibly lucky to make the ball? And this somehow proves that jump cues are gimmicks how?

How about Fong Pang Chao's jump shot against Bustamante to win $50,000 at the Challenge of Champions.

How about last year at the worlds when the guy from Singapore pushed got into a tight safety battle where he deliberately fouled to reposition the balls so that he could mke an incredible jump shot into a super tight space. Jay knows the shot.

I don't know why you always want to make this a kicking vs. jumping debate. They are two aspects of the game Shawn. Two different skillsets that have to be mastered.

There are great kickshots in the history books and great jump shots. Lots of great pressure shots and in NONE of them did the cue shoot the shot - the player did.

 

[Flex]

At this point, ANYTHING is allowed to be used at the table unless specifically banned and really, it should be the other way around. Everything should be banned unless it is specifically stated that it is not.

That's quite an interesting take. Philosophically is seems to conjure up memories of the old Soviet regime, where nothing was permitted unless it was expressly allowed. Juxtapose that with our good 'ole USA, and it's just the opposite: if it's not disallowed, one may do it.

Funny thing happened yesterday. The guy behind the counter told me he wanted to look at my cue (OB-1 shafted) because I was potting balls too well. He said something about taking the issue up with some board of governors, or something like that. He was obviously kidding, but there's no doubt I'm shooting way better with the OB-1 than I ever did with any other cue or cue/shaft combination before. Does that give me somewhat of an unfair advantage? If the OB-1 technology had to pass by a BCA or whatever board of approvers, I'd be stuck right now.

Jude, have to respectfully disagree with you on this point.

Flex

 

[John Barton]

There are a lot of issues here. For starters, jump-cue sales influencing rules and rules influencing jump-cue sales are kind of "chicken & egg". It doesn't matter at this point. Yes, there is little doubt that tours have been more open-minded of late because jump-cue companies do support these tournaments. Also, jump-cue sales are always on the rise because they're allowed and the technology is always getting better. However, that's not the issue at hand.

The issue is reviewing the jump-cue rule itself and wondering if its existence is consistent with the traditional rules of pool. My problem is where the rule is placed. Is it a game-specific rule or is it a general rule? This is important because should any one game have equipment rules? If so, how might such a distinction influence other games? If the rule should be listed as a "general rule" of pocket-billiards, how would it impact the other games such as 1-pocket or straight pool?

If jump-cues ARE allowed in straight pool, we have to consider how sacred our records are (ie., Mosconi's 526 consecutive balls pocketed). Now, I know many will argue that there have always been equipment changes and some of these changes have made the game harder and easier, impacting the value of these records. However, I think most will agree that the jump-cue has overwhelming impact, probably moreso than any other equipment change since chalk was introduced.

It's unfortunate that we are still arguing about the legitimacy of such a product and even more unfortuante that we found ourselves in such a state virtually by accident. Local and Regional tours will refer to the BCA Rules for a degree of uniformity, clarity and simplicity but will quickly add/subtract to those rules whenever convenience dictates they should. Because of this, jump-cue sales were allowed to penetrate the market and have taken on the momentum of a runaway train that is nearly impossible to slow down or stop.

You can't have different sets of rules for players that choose to use a jump cue and players that choose not to. Rules always need to be consistent. However, I do feel it is important to allow a degree of protection. Limitation of jump-cue use would be an interesting way to go but how many scenarios would need to be considered? Rigid jump-cue specifications would also be interesting but how do you enforce such rules? It would be nice if only equipment that has received BCA-Certification were allowed in use. At this point, ANYTHING is allowed to be used at the table unless specifically banned and really, it should be the other way around. Everything should be banned unless it is specifically stated that it is not.

Actually Jude the rules clearly state what is allowed at the table. Cues have specifications that they must abide by in order to be allowed in competition. The minimum length is 40" so no cue is allowed that is less than that. There are rigid jump cue specs, the tip must be of a fibrous material and so on.

Enforcement is a problem though. As well as the differing rulesets for leagues, tournaments, tours and so on. That is a larger problem. We tlak about how to make this sport mainstream when we aren't anywhere close to cohesive about how to play it.

Pool is one of the few pastimes with a seemingly endless variety of ways to play it. We compete on the pro level in 8-ball, 9 ball, ten ball, one pocket, straight pool, and banks. And then within those games every legue, promoter, tour, and tournament thinks they need to tweak the rules. So how do we expect to get taken seriously.

I say "jump cues"????? How about getting on the same page as a sport first.

 

[John Barton]

What would you say if a player had a book at the table which showed him how to kick. So you play your great safety and he looks at it and goes to the book and finds "three rail kick" - never did one before but the book tells him how to calculate it and what to adjust for. Then he hits the ball square and resafes you. Bought skill?

Just answer this Shawn.

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

also Shawn, I don't have an opinion on this subject. I have facts and a ton of real world experience to back up my statements. Statements of fact.

So, jump cues should be allowed because you have scientific facts? And those are...........? You have an opinion. I have an opinion. Make the game real simple, like smashmouth says. One cue at the table. That's all. Otherwise, I say break out the golf bags. I will make myself so many cues that when I play an open event, Jay will fall off his chair laughing. I'll have a caddy that helps me line up the shots, discusses position with me, and hands me the right cue for each shot. That should make for great TV. The commentators would be howling.

 

[Flex]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "The Shot" that every pool player talks about when recalling the best hill-hill, exciting, pressure filled shot a kick?

Not in my case.

I was matched up with a much stronger player a few years ago, and he was giving me the breaks, and the wild 4 and 7.

In one of the games, he laid a pretty devastating safety in the hill-hill game, on the 1 ball. It was over near a corner pocket and protected by a ball in front of it, and he had me hooked diagonally across the table, something like 10 feet away. The blocker ball was probably about 4 or 5 inches from the cue ball, which was deep in the corner pocket. I sure didn't see any kick out of that, maybe there was one, but I sure didn't see it. Pull out my trusty home made jump cue, chalk up, pop the cue ball and bounce it down table, it makes legal contact on the 1, pots it without going off the table, and luckily comes around and gets shape on the 2 ball.

My opponent started applauding and said it was the shot of the night.

BTW, I won three sets that night against him, the last was a double or nothing set.

That was probably the most spectacular jump shot I've ever pulled off, and it was in the game to decide everything.

Flex

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

That's quite an interesting take. Philosophically is seems to conjure up memories of the old Soviet regime, where nothing was permitted unless it was expressly allowed. Juxtapose that with our good 'ole USA, and it's just the opposite: if it's not disallowed, one may do it.

Funny thing happened yesterday. The guy behind the counter told me he wanted to look at my cue (OB-1 shafted) because I was potting balls too well. He said something about taking the issue up with some board of governors, or something like that. He was obviously kidding, but there's no doubt I'm shooting way better with the OB-1 than I ever did with any other cue or cue/shaft combination before. Does that give me somewhat of an unfair advantage? If the OB-1 technology had to pass by a BCA or whatever board of approvers, I'd be stuck right now.

Jude, have to respectfully disagree with you on this point.

Flex

I understand exactly what you're saying but that's also about a process. If you look at most sports, there is an approval process. You can't simply bring anything you want to the plate at Yankee Stadium. In the example you provide, it would be OB-1's responsibility as a vendor to gain approval BEFORE selling their product. You, as a consumer, wouldn't spend one single dollar until you were certain it was approved. It's not about having equipment advantage. It's about having rules regulating equipment with the big picture in mind: the integrity of the game. Right now, the only thing a vendor has in mind (as it should) is its own business.

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

What would you say if a player had a book at the table which showed him how to kick. So you play your great safety and he looks at it and goes to the book and finds "three rail kick" - never did one before but the book tells him how to calculate it and what to adjust for. Then he hits the ball square and resafes you. Bought skill?

Just answer this Shawn.

I'd say nice shot and tap the rail. Then ask him if I could borrow his book.........

He didn't use the vertical plane, so no problem. He didn't reach into his bag and grab a lob wedge to shoot. I could care less if he fluke kicks the ball 7 rails into the pocket. Rolls happen. I do not, however, like watching a guy go for the gimmick stick when he is locked and the only way out is American Airlines. That's just wrong........

 

[cigardave]

Jumping effectively is a skill that takes honing... similar to kicking... similar to masse-ing... similar to drag draw shots... etc.

I have a jump cue and jump balls pretty well... but I find that I'm using it less and less... now preferring to kick to a return safety. I mostly limit the use of my jump cue to makeable balls... and to un-kickable situations.

I particularly enjoy jumping a ball... making the object ball... and pulling the position that I was going after for the next ball. It's all very satisfying.

IMO, jump cues have a place in the game... but they aren't a cure-all.

cd

 

[Flex]

I understand exactly what you're saying but that's also about a process. If you look at most sports, there is an approval process. You can't simply bring anything you want to the plate at Yankee Stadium. In the example you provide, it would be OB-1's responsibility as a vendor to gain approval BEFORE selling their product. You, as a consumer, wouldn't spend one single dollar until you were certain it was approved. It's not about having equipment advantage. It's about having rules regulating equipment with the big picture in mind: the integrity of the game. Right now, the only thing a vendor has in mind (as it should) is its own business.

So long as there is no overarching board that rules everything in pool, that'll never happen. Will such a governing board ever have total support of enough players for that to happen? I doubt it.

Flex

 

[BVal]

I'd say nice shot and tap the rail. Then ask him if I could borrow his book.........

He didn't use the vertical plane, so no problem. He didn't reach into his bag and grab a lob wedge to shoot. I could care less if he fluke kicks the ball 7 rails into the pocket. Rolls happen. I do not, however, like watching a guy go for the gimmick stick when he is locked and the only way out is American Airlines. That's just wrong........

The more and more I think about it - it sounds like a case of sour grapes.

BVal

 

[John Barton]

So, jump cues should be allowed because you have scientific facts? And those are...........? You have an opinion. I have an opinion. Make the game real simple, like smashmouth says. One cue at the table. That's all. Otherwise, I say break out the golf bags. I will make myself so many cues that when I play an open event, Jay will fall off his chair laughing. I'll have a caddy that helps me line up the shots, discusses position with me, and hands me the right cue for each shot. That should make for great TV. The commentators would be howling.

Facts that have been presented here more times than I or anyone else cares to remember.

I agree with the one cue idea - and it should all be the exact same cue - one piece valley, le pro tip, 19oz. Sound fair? Of course that will kind of negate most of the industry but what does that matter if we kill off thousands of jobs as long as we satisfy your idea of the perfect game.

You know what? The other sport where they carry a bag full of implement, each designed for a specific task, and has a person to carry that bag and distribute the implements as well as advise the player - in that sport the average earnings are well above $100,00 per year and the top guys are pulling down milliions in endorsements.

How come you don't make just one cue? Tell your customers that you only make one cue - the specs that you have decided play best and that they should adapt to that - take it or leave it? how many customers do you think you would have left if you adopted that approach?

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

What would you say if a player had a book at the table which showed him how to kick. So you play your great safety and he looks at it and goes to the book and finds "three rail kick" - never did one before but the book tells him how to calculate it and what to adjust for. Then he hits the ball square and resafes you. Bought skill?

Just answer this Shawn.

Sorry, didn't answer this one properly. He shot the shot with the cue he already owned, right? He just paid for the knowledge, so then "No" would be my answer. Now, if he went to his bag for the cue he specifically bought in order to jump balls, jumped and made contact, then "Yes", that's bought skill. He had to get down and shoot both shots himself. If he had to change equipment, then part of that skill resides in the equipment. It's synergistic in nature. The guys that impress me are the guys like Earl, Jimmy Jones, Bob Doss, etc. that jump with full length cues the way some of us use the pogo stick.

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

Facts that have been presented here more times than I or anyone else cares to remember.

I agree with the one cue idea - and it should all be the exact same cue - one piece valley, le pro tip, 19oz. Sound fair? Of course that will kind of negate most of the industry but what does that matter if we kill off thousands of jobs as long as we satisfy your idea of the perfect game.

You know what? The other sport where they carry a bag full of implement, each designed for a specific task, and has a person to carry that bag and distribute the implements as well as advise the player - in that sport the average earnings are well above $100,00 per year and the top guys are pulling down milliions in endorsements.

How come you don't make just one cue? Tell your customers that you only make one cue - the specs that you have decided play best and that they should adapt to that - take it or leave it? how many customers do you think you would have left if you adopted that approach?

Works for Joe Gold. How many cues does Cognoscenti sell?

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Actually Jude the rules clearly state what is allowed at the table. Cues have specifications that they must abide by in order to be allowed in competition. The minimum length is 40" so no cue is allowed that is less than that. There are rigid jump cue specs, the tip must be of a fibrous material and so on.

It really doesn't matter what the rules state at this point. It's become a spy-v-spy type of escalation. With every change in the rule, inventors go to great extremes to create tools that fit within these specifications yet fly in the face of the spirit of the rule. You would be surprised by how much this rule has been manipulated over the years. Jump cues are sometimes not even wood (or even wood-like). The shape & width of jump cues varies (sometimes to some bizarre extremes). It's gotten to a point where it barely even resembles a cue. I think it's actually important that the BCA review these products before allowing them. What's more, there are other products (not just jump-cues) that are getting introduced each and every day. Such a review process and certification would mean that no matter which direction inventors went in, they would still be met by this roadblock.

Enforcement is a problem though. As well as the differing rulesets for leagues, tournaments, tours and so on. That is a larger problem. We tlak about how to make this sport mainstream when we aren't anywhere close to cohesive about how to play it.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Pool is one of the few pastimes with a seemingly endless variety of ways to play it. We compete on the pro level in 8-ball, 9 ball, ten ball, one pocket, straight pool, and banks. And then within those games every legue, promoter, tour, and tournament thinks they need to tweak the rules. So how do we expect to get taken seriously.

I say "jump cues"????? How about getting on the same page as a sport first.

I think having a process is the beginning of uniformity and uniformity is going to help us be taken seriously.


IMHO