Bob Jewett said:
Me neither. I'm with you and Earl and the IPT on this one. Any clumsy fool can jump with one of those trick jump rods, and many do. I think the problem as far as the rules go is that the BCA was swayed too much by the greedy opportunists who are milking the fad. The rules that did come in to outlaw the all-metal jump rods and such are largely ignored now -- note the phenolic tips in wide use.
Call me antediluvian if you want, but that crap doesn't belong in the game.
Ok, you're antediluvian
whatever that means (I am too lazy too look it up right now, but I will).
Earl used a "jump" cue. He has a Cuetec cue that was about two or three inches shorter than his normal cue that he would sometimes use for jump shots. That's a jump cue in my book when he uses a modified cue because it gives him a better range or a better chance to accomplish his task.
As far as changing the rules goes, I am for that as long as the rules are fair. I'd like to see 9 ball go to call everything. I don't like to see a player miss and then escape with a lucky safety, nor do I like to see a player fluke a ball in to win.
Comparing someone who can make the ball hop with a jump cue is the same as saying that anyone can accidentally draw the ball table length. How many times have we seen absolute beginners pull off incredible shots with no clue as to how they did it or how to repeat it?
Even Efren realizes that the skill lies not in doing something once but in the ability to master the task. Which is why he says that he learns crazy shots from bangers and then works to master them.
I suppose I could be one of those "greedy opportunists" you speak of since I introduced the world to the "Bunjee" brand of jump cue in 1998. I take exception though with your characterization. Why aren't cuemakers greedy opportunists when they innovate? How about cloth makers? Ball makers? Why aren't we playing on the same equipment now as we were 100 years ago?
The jump cue has evolved from the clumsy rods that did in fact facilitate the jumping effect and not much more into a pool cue that affords the player almost all of the control and precision of a standard length cue with the added ability to make the cueball clear other balls at any distance from the blocking ball. In any other arena the act of making a sphere behave as precisely as that would be heralded as a great display of skill.
Come on Bob, do you REALLY care that any joe blow can make the cue ball hop with a jump cue MORE than you care to see the jump cue employed in the hands of the greatest players in the world with the greatest precision in high pressure situations?
Seriously folks, it is just a tool used to play the game. In the hands of an oaf it's a clumsy and inelegant solution to a personal problem of thinking that they can buy a better game. In the hands of an expert it is a marvel of technology and skill combined.
I guess John Wesley Hyatt was an opportunist, as was Herman Rambow, And Francois Mignaud as well. I suppose the introduction of vulcanized rubber rails was done by a greedy opportunist as well. How dare he bring consistency to the rebound. How about just the introduction of a rebound itself? How many more shots and depth did the game acquire through the introduction of rubber cushions? Well, the sport of 3 Cushion Billiards probably wouldn't exist for one thing. Damn greedy opportunists forcing all these newfangled things on the game and ruining how it was meant to played.
I find that you have greatly insulted the many people who have endeavored to make this a better game. It's in incredibly poor taste for you to describe the hard work of many in this sector of the industry as greedy opportunists. The greedy opportunists here are the companies that don't innovate, they steal the ideas from others and sell the resulting products for half the price and deliver a quarter of the quality.
When talking about how the game is "meant" to be played could you please tell me how it was "meant" to be played before the introduction of the chalked leather tip?
The way the game is meant to be played is to make balls fall into holes. It was adapted from a game where the object was to make balls go through holes. The only restriction is that one use an implement to direct the balls. The subsequent improvements to the implements are directly related to the task of getting the balls in the holes and fulfilling the meaning of the game.
It is quite obvious that IF the method of getting the balls to the holes is not destructive to the playing field and the equipment and if it does not aid the user mechanically then it should be allowed.
The pool cue and the jump cue are inert objects that are are the result of many years of engineering to make them as suitable to the task as an inert object can be. And when the task is performed at the highest level the equipment used to perform it is not even a consideration in the performance.
I find it to be quite amusing that you and others would seek to quash the river of innovation instead of working with it to meld the rules and the equipment to a point where the game can be played at the highest level possible. Taking away choices and possibilities is ludicrous.
No Bob, you are not antediluvian, you are selectively opinionated. If you were antediluvian then you would sponsor a contest at the Derby City Classic where the object was to push balls through hoops set up on a wooden table with a green cloth resembling grass ad using a curved stick instead of a contest for a game that is only possible to play thanks to all the work of the opportunists.
