PDA

View Full Version : 40" Cues are Intended to Make Jumping HARDER



SpiderMan
02-25-2004, 01:41 PM
And probably to make money for the billiards industry. They certainly don't make jumping any easier.

I think some folks have short memory on the subject, or weren't around ten years ago.

Until the mid-'90s, it was legal to use a shaft only for jumping. With practice, you could jump full balls from two inches away and make close shots. Then BCA stepped in, made the 40-inch-cue requirement, and overnight an industry arose to sell us 40" jump cues.

That rule literally created a brand-new market for cues that are HARDER to jump with than what we were already using. So, who was really the beneficiary? Answer: not the guy behind the 8-ball.

I wonder, how many "jump cues" were sold per month in the late '80s, vs the late '90s ....

No one jumped better with a 40" cue in 1995 than they did with a shaft in 1993, that argument holds no water.

And why all the crying and bellyaching about "it's too easy with a 40-inch cue", when there wasn't the same outcry during past decades when Mike Sigel used his shaft?

Believe me, I could legally jump out of a much tighter safety 10 years ago, before the "jump cue" era. AND I didn't need another $70 worth of gear in my case. Perhaps few players thought to complain about "easy jumps" until "special" equipment was involved?

SpiderMan

JohnBarton
02-25-2004, 02:16 PM
The change to the 40" cue as not to make the billiard industry money. The idea was to try and have some standards because there were a profileration of jump rods coming on to the market which were great for launching the cueball but were not so great for playing pool. John McChesney has explained why the 40" inch rule was adopted and it probably has to do with being able to instantly measure the cue by laying it across a bar table. Whatever the standard is the manufacturers will try and create a useful product to adhere to it.

Now what you have are cues engineered specifically for jumping. They are better and more consistent than shaft jumping. This evolution has come about through specifying the minimums for cues. The manufacturers have pushed the envelope until we now have cues that have the proper balance between jumpability and cueball control.

Not everything is an evil conspiracy between the rulemaking bodies and the "industry".

John

SpiderMan
02-25-2004, 02:22 PM
You could jump a lot closer with a shaft than with a frog. Give it a try. You'll have to use dart stroke and release/catch the shaft on the bounce. With practice, you can get the CB to jump almost vertical, and still get the shaft out of the way. Of course, only the special jump cues are legal now, so it's probably not worth learning /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

SpiderMan

JohnBarton
02-25-2004, 07:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> You could jump a lot closer with a shaft than with a frog. Give it a try. You'll have to use dart stroke and release/catch the shaft on the bounce. With practice, you can get the CB to jump almost vertical, and still get the shaft out of the way. Of course, only the special jump cues are legal now, so it's probably not worth learning /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

I don't know. Having seen jump shots done with the balls almost frozen I have to say that the 40" jump cue can be used to do everything the shaft can do and more. Try jumping eight feet into a six inch target and stopping the cueball using just a shaft. Try any kind of long jump shot and you will see that the longer jump cue provides more cueball control.

John

Ralph S.
02-25-2004, 11:57 PM
I know exactly what you are saying Spiderman. Shaft jumping was the bomb. Literally.

SpiderMan
02-26-2004, 10:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JohnBarton:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> You could jump a lot closer with a shaft than with a frog. Give it a try. You'll have to use dart stroke and release/catch the shaft on the bounce. With practice, you can get the CB to jump almost vertical, and still get the shaft out of the way. Of course, only the special jump cues are legal now, so it's probably not worth learning /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

I don't know. Having seen jump shots done with the balls almost frozen I have to say that the 40" jump cue can be used to do everything the shaft can do and more. Try jumping eight feet into a six inch target and stopping the cueball using just a shaft. Try any kind of long jump shot and you will see that the longer jump cue provides more cueball control.

John <hr /></blockquote>

John,

My main point is that before the new rule, all lengths were legal. After the rule, you HAVE to use a 40+" cue. Jumping in general is tougher now, not easier, because the options are reduced.

Sure, a skillful jumper can do those close-up tricks with a frog or a bungee (or even a full cue for a lot of shots if you work at it for years like Jay M), but short jumps were, and would still be, easier with a shaft for most players. And if I wanted to do a long jump in 1985, a medium-length jump cue was still legal also. One bar where I played regularly had a "shorty" cue for a close corner, and it was my "secret weapon".

That's what I am really trying to get across, that jumping was easier for the average player in 1985 than it is today, because all equipment was legal, yet there are more complaints today about "jumping's too easy". And the only difference is the amount of attention being paid and specialty gear being hyped.

SpiderMan

Big_Jon
02-26-2004, 03:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>
My main point is that before the new rule, all lengths were legal. After the rule, you HAVE to use a 40+" cue. Jumping in general is tougher now, not easier, because the options are reduced.

Sure, a skillful jumper can do those close-up tricks with a frog or a bungee (or even a full cue for a lot of shots if you work at it for years like Jay M), but short jumps were, and would still be, easier with a shaft for most players. And if I wanted to do a long jump in 1985, a medium-length jump cue was still legal also. One bar where I played regularly had a "shorty" cue for a close corner, and it was my "secret weapon".

That's what I am really trying to get across, that jumping was easier for the average player in 1985 than it is today, because all equipment was legal, yet there are more complaints today about "jumping's too easy". And the only difference is the amount of attention being paid and specialty gear being hyped.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

But you have to admit Spiderman, that jumping with a phenolic tip or phenolic tip/ferrule, is alot easier that jumping with a normal tip/ferrule, no matter the cue.

Thanks

Jon

SpiderMan
02-26-2004, 05:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Big_Jon:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>
My main point is that before the new rule, all lengths were legal. After the rule, you HAVE to use a 40+" cue. Jumping in general is tougher now, not easier, because the options are reduced.

Sure, a skillful jumper can do those close-up tricks with a frog or a bungee (or even a full cue for a lot of shots if you work at it for years like Jay M), but short jumps were, and would still be, easier with a shaft for most players. And if I wanted to do a long jump in 1985, a medium-length jump cue was still legal also. One bar where I played regularly had a "shorty" cue for a close corner, and it was my "secret weapon".

That's what I am really trying to get across, that jumping was easier for the average player in 1985 than it is today, because all equipment was legal, yet there are more complaints today about "jumping's too easy". And the only difference is the amount of attention being paid and specialty gear being hyped.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

But you have to admit Spiderman, that jumping with a phenolic tip or phenolic tip/ferrule, is alot easier that jumping with a normal tip/ferrule, no matter the cue.

Thanks

Jon <hr /></blockquote>

Jon,

I would be tempted to think that, but I'm not really ready to make it an assertion. Sid V and I did a lot of experimentation, early last year, with various tip technologies on his Lucasi and Stealth jump cues. I don't recall liking the phenolic tip best, at least not on both cues.

Maybe Sid will want to "jump in" here with what he remembers, but for myself I thought the phenolic tip resulted in additional risk of a completely bungled shot, ie sellout. I personally had more control with the leather tip, more freedom to hit the ball a little off center. A bakelite tip we tried was somewhere in between. I THINK the bakelite was Sid's favorite compromise for his Lucasi.

All the shaft jumps I used to do were with regular play tips, some of them soft elk masters, and I had no trouble getting over close balls. I believe reducing the mass of the cue makes a lot more difference than the tip technology. Anyway, if I wanted to use a specialty tip in 1985, I doubt it would have caused the controversy we hear today.

I'll say one thing, a phenolic tip is loud as hell. A long session of testing phenolic jump tips was just as fatigueing as sighting-in my lightweight .30-06!

SpiderMan

Big_Jon
02-26-2004, 06:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>
Jon,

I would be tempted to think that, but I'm not really ready to make it an assertion. Sid V and I did a lot of experimentation, early last year, with various tip technologies on his Lucasi and Stealth jump cues. I don't recall liking the phenolic tip best, at least not on both cues.

Maybe Sid will want to "jump in" here with what he remembers, but for myself I thought the phenolic tip resulted in additional risk of a completely bungled shot, ie sellout. I personally had more control with the leather tip, more freedom to hit the ball a little off center. A bakelite tip we tried was somewhere in between. I THINK the bakelite was Sid's favorite compromise for his Lucasi.

All the shaft jumps I used to do were with regular play tips, some of them soft elk masters, and I had no trouble getting over close balls. I believe reducing the mass of the cue makes a lot more difference than the tip technology. Anyway, if I wanted to use a specialty tip in 1985, I doubt it would have caused the controversy we hear today.

I'll say one thing, a phenolic tip is loud as hell. A long session of testing phenolic jump tips was just as fatigueing as sighting-in my lightweight .30-06!

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

What i find hard to believe, is that i have (and can) jump a full ball 12" away on a dynamo ([censored] lol) bar table (the really heavy ball) with a full cue (les blevins sneaky pete, smaller diameter that most of my cues, and lighter also, and stiffer lol), but with the same cue/same elevation, i can't do the same with the light aramith, given the same distance. and i also can't jump that same shot with the jump portion of a cuetec jump/break. But, i find it easier for me to jump with a 44-45" cue with a phenolic tip (and i know that lighter is better, but i'm around 6'1"-6'2", and the shorter cues... just don't work for me, unless its a short over hand stroke (dart stroke), if i go to a normal (yet jacked up) stroke, i would have to have a longer cue... and maybe some finger extensions... on that note... is there a rule against any such device, i was thinking about taking a block of aluminum, and (using a ball endmill) milling some shallow "finger holes" that would be filled smooth and probably with a felt backing, to protect the cloth... would i be allowed to use such a thing... i mean, i just measured my hand in a jacked-up open vee-bridge on the desk, just now lol, and from the desk, to the apex of the vee (where the shaft would be) it's only about 3.5"... and i can get another 1/2" by moving my hand almost vertical, and that's the only problem i have had with jumping... if the cueball isn't close to the rail, i don't even think about trying a jump... any suggestions???

Thanks

Jon

P.S. SpiderMan... please don't think i am arguing with you, i like an intelligent discussion/debate, and a little instruction thrown in...

Sid_Vicious
02-26-2004, 08:28 PM
"Maybe Sid will want to "jump in" here with what he remembers, but for myself I thought the phenolic tip resulted in additional risk of a completely bungled shot, ie sellout. I personally had more control with the leather tip, more freedom to hit the ball a little off center. A bakelite tip we tried was somewhere in between. I THINK the bakelite was Sid's favorite compromise for his Lucasi."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

My story is this: The Stealth came with it's own tip, some kind of a leather mixed material as best I could tell, and it was simply "A Dog" compared to my Lucasi. So, I tried installing a phelolic tip, Spiderman doing the install, and I was just as miserable, or even more so after that costly episode, and I set the Stealth aside thinking it was a POS cue. I finally decided that I just had to know if the same tip from the Lucasi line would make the difference, so I paid the price to Lucasi, had Spiderman install another tip, and MAN-O-MAN it hopped automatically! To me the jump is all in the tip(equipment wise) and the accuracy is in the stroke technique. Just maybe my technique was so ingrained around the bakelite material in my Lucasi, and maybe it was simply the material itself. All-z I know is that I went from trying to dump my Stealth to keeping it as a second(less hopping though) backup jumper...sid

JohnBarton
02-26-2004, 08:57 PM
Sid, you shoulda just bought a Bunjee in the first place and saved yourself the trouble :-)

Seriously though, even though today's jump cues are real close in performance I have seen quite a difference in how well any particular person does with any particular cue.

John

JohnBarton
02-26-2004, 09:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote JohnBarton:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> You could jump a lot closer with a shaft than with a frog. Give it a try. You'll have to use dart stroke and release/catch the shaft on the bounce. With practice, you can get the CB to jump almost vertical, and still get the shaft out of the way. Of course, only the special jump cues are legal now, so it's probably not worth learning /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

I don't know. Having seen jump shots done with the balls almost frozen I have to say that the 40" jump cue can be used to do everything the shaft can do and more. Try jumping eight feet into a six inch target and stopping the cueball using just a shaft. Try any kind of long jump shot and you will see that the longer jump cue provides more cueball control.

John <hr /></blockquote>

John,

My main point is that before the new rule, all lengths were legal. After the rule, you HAVE to use a 40+" cue. Jumping in general is tougher now, not easier, because the options are reduced.

Sure, a skillful jumper can do those close-up tricks with a frog or a bungee (or even a full cue for a lot of shots if you work at it for years like Jay M), but short jumps were, and would still be, easier with a shaft for most players. And if I wanted to do a long jump in 1985, a medium-length jump cue was still legal also. One bar where I played regularly had a "shorty" cue for a close corner, and it was my "secret weapon".

That's what I am really trying to get across, that jumping was easier for the average player in 1985 than it is today, because all equipment was legal, yet there are more complaints today about "jumping's too easy". And the only difference is the amount of attention being paid and specialty gear being hyped.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

I can agree with you partially. I think that the reason that there was no major outcry about shaft jumping in the 80's is because this was a technique that was virtually unknown and rarely used. I know, I grew up with pool in the 80's and hardly anybody I knew would use shaft jumping in a game. Also the dominant rule was two-foul push out so jump shots were largely unneccessary.

After the jump-rods were invented in the early 90's jumping started to become a shot that was considered a legitimate weapon and gained more use. Then the jump rods were deemed to be harmful and so the 40" inch rule was established.

Alongside the growth of jump cues that emulate shaft-jumping was the internet and global discussion. So now we have the situation where the jump cue and the jump shot have matured into tools that work and a genre of shots that most players consider to be a part of the game. Given that there are a lot of people who DO remember a time before jump cues the internet is the perfect place to vent about jump cues and jumping, thus the "controversy".

From an equipment standpoint I agree that the act of making a ball jump over another ball was certainly easier in the sense that everyone had a shaft with which to do it but I disagree that it was easier techically to jump with just a shaft vs. today's jump cues. With a shaft the player must still compensate for the differing characteristics of different shafts. With most of today's jump cues the characteristics are so close that most people can perform the same shots with minimal adjustment.

I totally understand your point and my opinion is that shaft jumping should be legal. I think it should not matter how you manipulate the cueball as long as the equipment is not affected, the opponent is not distracted and there is no unfair advantage such as measuring or aiming help. There is pretty much no better way to move the cueball than the pool cue so if someone thinks they can win with something else they are welcome to try.

John

Sid_Vicious
02-27-2004, 09:18 AM
John...Not every Bungee worked for me without some extreme shortening of the tip, and since these were other people's cues I could hardly do that. ALL of the Lucasi cues, and the Stealth with the Lucasi tip, worked first and every time. My interest in the Stealth was because it was rumored to be superior above everything else, and that opinion surely included the Bungee. End result was probably that the Bungee would have immediately worked better for me than the factory Stealth, but less than my Lucasi w/o tip trimming. Unless either cue worked better than my resident JC at the time, I didn't need either...sid

Chris Cass
02-27-2004, 09:43 AM
Not trying to change the subject but if John M. is the same guy married to a lady player. That guy plays some great bar table 8ball. In his case, he doesn't have much need for the thing anyway. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Regards,

C.C.

SpiderMan
02-27-2004, 10:00 AM
Jon,

My personal belief is that the most significant characteristic of the jump cue is it's relative mass compared to the cue ball. That's what helps it bounce out of the way of the ball rather than trapping it against the table. That said, your experience with bar balls vs lighter balls makes sense. There should be a greater difficulty jumping light cueballs, everything else being the same. Light stick, heavy ball, thick/fuzzy cloth = easier jumps. Heavy stick, light ball, thin/slick cloth = harder jumps.

I think I've seen someone else on this board wishing for "finger extensions" also. Seems like he was talking about it in the context of bridging over a ball. The finger extensions would have been used in lieu of a bridge. I'm thinking of something like 3" pieces of plastic tubing, maybe with rubber non-skid bumpers on the end, slip one over the end of each finger. I would think that it would be legal, just as a bridge is legal, but of course it would draw comments from the opponents and bystanders. I never let that bother me, though.

I'm tall also (6'3"), and a lot of it is below the belt, so when I need a little extra height to launch a dart stroke I sometimes throw one leg up on the table and bridge off the top of my knee or thigh. Gets comments, but my other foot does remain on the floor so it's legal. Another option I sometimes use, where the main concern is getting over a close ball that's in the center of the table, is to not place my bridge hand on anything. If you concentrate on it, you can float your bridge hand in thin air, at least well enough to hit your shot.

Let me know if you come up with some good finger extensions, maybe you can post a picture.

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
02-27-2004, 10:04 AM
Chris,

John McChesney is a very good bar player, it seems I'm always crossing cues with him in Dallas-area tournaments. I think his wife's name was Sunny (sp?).

SpiderMan

Sid_Vicious
02-27-2004, 10:21 AM
Spiderman...You should also mention that you free float your bridge hand a lot, instead of always planting it on the table. I'd have a hell of a time staying steady through the stoke, but you do just fine using that style, plus it gives you a big advantage over close balls...sid

cheesemouse
02-27-2004, 10:40 AM
SpiderMan,

[ QUOTE ]
Let me know if you come up with some good finger extensions, <hr /></blockquote>


I've been doing this in practice and it seems pretty effective for getting that extra inch or two of bridge height needed when jumping close or just shooting over a frozen ball out in the center of the table.....take one of those 'bat or moose' bridges heads that a lot of players are starting to carry in their bags and wrap your fingers around the indentations( you will have to experiement to make it comfortable)in your bridge hand, now set up to your shot with the bridge head on the table...In the beginning it was unstable for me but after some practice with changing grips etc. it become pretty comfortable and very effective.....

I also was wondering if it would be legal. I think it is or I can't think of why it would not be legal......

ceebee
02-27-2004, 11:23 AM
just a note to the public here &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Bakelite: A Revolutionary Early Plastic
Text by Lloyd Fadem and Stephen Z. Fadem, M.D. Photographs by Doug Congdon-Martin

IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE that one can combine two unlikely substances like carbolic acid and formaldehyde to produce a beautiful and versatile substance such as "PHENOLIC" resin or "Bakelite," a revolutionary, non-flammable, early plastic. "The material of a thousand uses," as it was called, made a splash in the 1920s, '30s and '40s.

This material comes in 2 basic styles... Plain &amp; Linen reinforced.

SpiderMan
02-27-2004, 12:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> Spiderman...You should also mention that you free float your bridge hand a lot, instead of always planting it on the table. I'd have a hell of a time staying steady through the stoke, but you do just fine using that style, plus it gives you a big advantage over close balls...sid <hr /></blockquote>

I did, but maybe I covered too many subjects in one post.

SpiderMan

SPetty
02-27-2004, 07:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> I think I've seen someone else on this board wishing for "finger extensions" also. Seems like he was talking about it in the context of bridging over a ball. The finger extensions would have been used in lieu of a bridge. I'm thinking of something like 3" pieces of plastic tubing, maybe with rubber non-skid bumpers on the end, slip one over the end of each finger. <hr /></blockquote>Did you see the ones that Earl used on T.V.? Was that last year's Mosconi cup?

You may have missed ceebee's bridging stick - it was a special made piece of wood, kinda like the butt end of a jump cue, only a little shorter and maybe with some rubber on one end... Anyway, you can hold onto that short stick with your last few fingers, while making a suitable bridge with your first few fingers. I thought it looked like a good idea that would work well for folks to bridge over balls or to get your bridge higher for a jump shot. And it had great potential for being customized to match your two-piece custom made pool cue! The one he had was a beautiful piece of finished wood.

ceebee? You out there? Can you provide a little more detail or make sure I'm remembering it right? (the pain pills seem to have weakened my memory of that day...)

haywood
03-05-2004, 11:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> With practice, you can get the CB to jump almost vertical, and still get the shaft out of the way. Of course, only the special jump cues are legal now, so it's probably not worth learning /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>
Perhaps if you were to practice this and become quite adept at shaft jumping and wanted to be legal with the 40" rule, you could have your favorite cuemaker crank out a super-lightweight jump handle made out of, say, balsa wood. It would only add an ounce or two to the shaft, so it would basically be the same as shaft-only jumping, but come in at a legal length. I know back in the day when I used to play jumps with just the shaft, I could get up and over a full ball from about half a ball away with just the shaft. I don't think I could get over a full ball now with a jump cue from less that six balls away. Seems to me that the correlation goes that the less weight you are putting to the cue ball in an effort to jump it, the quicker it gets up. Just my 2cents worth : )
Ken

SpiderMan
03-05-2004, 01:17 PM
That would probably work. With the "frog" 40" cue, I don't usually try anything closer than about 3" unless there is absolutely no alternative. But a jump cue with near-zero-mass in the butt section would be like using a shaft, that could work really close.

SpiderMan

JohnBarton
03-05-2004, 10:04 PM
FWIW, today's jump cues are engineered to provide a good balance between the jumpability of just the shaft and the cueball control of a full cue. There are many, many players who are proficient at jumping the cueball over the blocking ball at a chalk's width using most of the well known brands of jump cues on the market.

Where today's jump cues are at a tremendous advantage over shaft jumping is the shots that are six inches to two feet away where the cueball has to jump into a small target and then needs draw, follow or sidespin for position. Using just a shaft, these shots are very difficult to make and control the cueball.

So, with or without particular rules defining the cue parameters the jump cue itself probably would have evolved to be something similar to what is found on the market today.

John

SpiderMan
03-06-2004, 08:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JohnBarton:</font><hr>
So, with or without particular rules defining the cue parameters the jump cue itself probably would have evolved to be something similar to what is found on the market today.
John <hr /></blockquote>

I guess we'll just have to smile and disagree on that one. I don't think it's any coincidence that the most popular jump cues today are all dimensioned at the legal minimum length.

From my engineering design background, any time an optimization process stops at an imposed lower limit, that means that the "real" optimum is actually somewhere below that limit.

Sure, there would have probably evolved designs similar to today's, but I think there would have also been a spate of shorter versions (or a lot of shaft jumping). Forcing 40" minimums really did nothing but take away the shaft jump option and force jumping to be done with a specialty cue.

SpiderMan

JohnBarton
03-07-2004, 10:58 AM
There were some jump cues that were shorter than shafts. It is also relevant to remember that jump cues at today's lengths were around before the rules changes. Meucci, Joss, Joe Piccone, Huebler, Falcon, McDermott and others had either jump handles that fit on their shafts or break/jump cues that were around 40-46" in total assembled length for the jump portion.

The tradeoff has always been that shaft jumping and jumping with the phenolic tipped rods that were shorter than a shaft meant that the act of jumping was easier with control of the cueball being harder. Jumping with the 40"+ jump cues of the 80's with leather tips meant that the range of jump shots was limited but control was substantially better.

Thus, and here is where we smile and disagree, I believe that eventually the balance between the jumpability of phenolic/super hard tipped rods and the control of a heavier and longer cue would have developed into something similar to what is on the market today.

I will challenge anyone on earth to a contest of shaft jumping vs. jumping with a Bunjee and prove unequivically that using the Bunjee it is possible to make every shot that can be made using just the shaft and that there is a plethora of shots that are extremely difficult if not impossible using just a shaft that are fairly routine with the Bunjee.

I am not an engineer but I have been involved with jumping and jump cues for many years now and had this same discussion on and off the table dozens of times. Perhaps the optimum lies below the legal length but it's what we have to work with and I think that the manufacturers have responded quite well with cues that provide a very good balance between jumpability and control.

John

Sid_Vicious
03-07-2004, 11:45 AM
I'm going to jump in here and suggest that Spiderman may be focusing on those really close up jumps and anything involving a short hop. Knowing the guy a little, I'd be surprised if he feels that the lengthy, down table jumps, attempting to make the ball AND get any control of the CB, are easier with the shaft only. I will say that I am in agreement for the most part that very close hops are easier with just the shaft than they are using the 40" JCs, some super tight(half ball and less) hops I find impossible without shaft only, the 40"er fouls way too much on the way through. Gimme a little more than a ball's width though and my 40" cue is deadly, both in jumpability and especially in accuracy, far beyond anything I can imagine a shaft only jumper could maintain. Sorry ahead of time Spidey if I've mis-stated your baseline thoughts in any way...sid

SpiderMan
03-08-2004, 10:39 AM
Before the rules change, you could have a 40" jump cue (or 45", or 37", whatever) and remove the butt to do shaft-only jumps when you were too close. Now, that's not an option, ie some jumps are going to be harder than before the ruling. No jumps were made easier by the ruling, as all equipment legal now was legal before. The 40" rule merely made a market for 40" cues.

SpiderMan