Let me first state that I think Richard is a really nice guy with good intentions. Secondly, I must admit I have not read every post in this thread.
There are some very strong claims made in the initial post, but what I fail to see are reasons as to why and how these things work. To distinguish your new product from products that attempt to lure customers with gimmicks, I would think you need to explain the claims you are making in detail. I'll dissect the following statements to show you what I mean.
nipponbilliards said:
This device is really revolutionary as it helps the player to have a more steady delivery of the cue upon impact, greatly improve cue ball control.
Sounds great at this point, but I am very much awaiting an explanation as to how and why this is the case.
nipponbilliards said:
The maXimizer is made of a gel type material. You can drop an egg 5 feet above this new patented material and it will not break.
Forgive me, but that fact that you can drop and egg on it does not prove anything. It could be made from materials from the space shuttle, but we need to know how this would support the claims that have been made.
nipponbilliards said:
This new material will filter out unwanted vibration, and recoil upon impact to keep the tip on the cue ball longer to increase power and a straighter cue delivery.
Ok, here is the big explanation. I don't know about everyone else, but this just does nothing for me. Absolutely nothing. Remember, this is the guy who is trying to sell the product, of course he is going to say good things about it. He'd be an idiot not to. What am I looking for???...
I simply want an explanation as to why he is making these claims. Was it only because people used it and said this, or because Richard used it and felt this?
I also want to know how the design originated? Was it because someone thought putting that thing there would help somehow. What was the reasoning behind it?
Proper evidence to make claims like these lies in some type of quantitative analysis where they measured the "vibration", "recoil", and tip time in contact with the cueball and then compared those measurements to those of other similar products. To just come out and make claims like this is absurd. In addition, we need to know why these things would be beneficial if your product does in fact provide the attributes you say it does.
What I have outlined here is one example. Now you can apply this to all the claims that have been made (not just here, but for all products). For example, their tips are harder than phenolic tips, ok, why is that better? Would granite make a better tip material if harder is better? How did they come up with the tip material? A guess? Through experimentation? By theoretical design (ie, using physics calculations to understand what type of material may be best). How is a harder tip staying in contact with the cb longer? Shouldn't it be the opposite? Why is a long tip in contact with the cb time good? Again, in my opinion these questions need to be answered to avoid the product looking like it is being marketed using gimmicks, or eye catching attributes that do nothing for performance. Research and development was mentioned, so there should be some type of data out there to back up these claims. I just think too many times a useless attribute is added onto a product with no other thought behind it other than a better way to market the product. Please prove me wrong, that is what I would like.
Let me end this by stating that I truly wish Richard the best of luck. Even I may use an XBreaker one day, from what I hear they work great. I just wish that marketing strategies would be done in a more factual manner.
