Yes. What's your point?
My point is that money has a huge influence over how problems are solved. That influence can help or hurt pool. Once Earl was cut free from Cuetec, he chose a top performing shaft, and modified it to better suit his game. Innovation is what it's all about. If he had to submit his modified shaft to a governing body before first using it, would he have made those changes? I rather doubt it.
Yes, they COULD and they actually DO. The problem is, if you compete often (as I do), you're pretty much forced to keep your bag filled with whatever is necessary to maintain an even field. Today it's a jump cue. Tomorrow, who knows? I don't own one because I wanted it. I own one because my opponents have them. I can jump with a full cue just fine and I kick fairly well. Personally, I think the jump-cue has made pool less skillful but that's my humble opinion.
You're so right about that. But rules are rules, and they vary from one place to another. No getting around that, at least for now, as far as I can tell. As for jump cues, I got one after losing the cash to much better players who would hook me and do it so well I couldn't kick out of the situation. I too can jump with a full length cue, and have done so many times. However, the shorter, lighter cues also serve a purpose. After some of them see how well I can jump, they want to ban my jump cue. Surprise, surprise. In every case where they have whined about that, I just offer to call the match off. They never have. Probably just a sharking technique on their part.
THIS WHOLE THREAD is about top down solutions. I don't see how my idea is any different. However, you're right. Nothing is going to happen any time soon.
How right you are. And top down solutions of the sort that Shawn proposed fit in with his anti-jump cue bias. Maybe he lost a whole bag of jelly beans to someone over a lucky jump shot, and since then has been on a mission to ban them.