inthezone said:
So it is your opinion that one jump cue can be better than another but that the same is not true for break cues??
Yes and no.
And this is why. Starting with the jump shot.
The jump shot is easily measurable. You can set up any number of shots and replace the balls accurately and test easily whether a jump cue works or not for a shot. It becomes fairly routine to feel whether you need to "work" more or less with each different jump cue.
I need to let you know my experience level with this subject before I go further. I created the Bunjee Jumper brand and brought them to the United States. I have perhaps done more jump shot exhibitions and clinics than anyone else in the United States. I would guess that outside of instructors and other jump cue makers there isn't anyone else who has my level of experience with as many different jump cues.
The jump shot has no variables other than the player and the equipment. A modern jump cue opens up a whole range of shots that are frankly not possible without a specially engineered cue. Most jump cues today allow the full range of shots. So given that all jump cues are very close in performance it falls to the player's skill, and the conditions to determine success. A table with a thick slate is easier to jump on than one with thin slate, slower cloth is easier than fast cloth. Even with those variables however it usually requires just a minor adjustment in stroke to adapt to the conditions. Thus if the jump cue is one that is built correctly it will allow the player to execute the full range of possible shots that are in accordance with his/her skill level. If the jump cue is not designed properly then the player will have a reduced amount of shots available.
Thus, one jump cue can be better than another. Properly designed ones however are so close in perfomance as to be virtually indistinguishable.
Break Cues - Well, having manufactured the Bunjee Breaker and now being a Fury rep I naturally want to be on solid ground when I sell them.
What a modern, phenolic or similarly tipped break cue does is make the cueball leave the tip sooner than it does with a leather tip. This is because the compression is lower and the rebound quicker. So you can get a faster cueball with less stroke speed - in theory. And one would think that a cueball going faster would be better for breaking.
The break shot however is incredibly complex with a lot more variables than a jump shot. Starting with getting the same rack every time. Variances in the rack will affect the result. The speed of the cloth, the humidty, the positions of the balls relative to each other, the starting postion of the cueball and so on.
The only part of this whole equation that a break cue helps (or hinders) is ball speed. What good is increased speed if the player is hitting the cueball off center? If the breaking technique is not good then a phenolic tipped break cue can amplify bad technique and caue more problems than it solves. With good technique however you will find that just about any cue works well for the break shot. While some people certainly feel that they are getting better breaks when the go from a leather tipped cue to a phenolic tipped one I say that yes they get more action on the break but that doesn't mean better results. It has been my personal obervation that there is a perception of breaking better that doesn't really bear out in actual performance.
I think that Corey Duell is the prime example of technique vs. equipment when it comes to the break shot. He adjusts to the situation and breaks soft or hard when the situation calls for it.
Last year at Valley Forge I spent 30 minutes with the Break Rack and improved my break hundred times more than by using any particular break cue. At the Break Rak booth they had a wide assortment of popular break cues soe with lether tips and some with phenolic. After my session I could park the cueball with any one them. All I needed was 1-2 shots with each cue to get the feel and then it was park, park, park the cueball in the middle of the table.
So in conclusion, it is my opinon that while there may be a marginal improvement seen by anyone using a new break cue, I think that it is not a lasting one because of the amount of variables inherent in the break shot.
Now I know this flies in the face of what the break cue makers claim. I have yet to see conclusive proof that they really do make people break better. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence and I can't say that this is insignificant. In fact, a lot of very good players that I know feel that they break better with break cues. So I can't say that their personal experience is invalid. I just want to say that I feel it is much harder to quantify consistent success with the break shot.
With the jump shot it's easy.
Don't think I wouldn't love to tell people that they will get a killer break with a Fury, or a Bunjee Blaster, or any other Break Cue. But I can't in good conscience. I let them break with the cues and convince themselves.
Which is why I have the following two challenges. For jumping there is no other jump cue that will outperform the Fury over a range of shot from chalk's width to table length. And the Fury won't outperform any other good jump cue either. They are equals.
For the break shot - using a Sardo rack to take the variances out of the equation I believe that over a span of 100 racks with performance being measured solely by amount of balls dropped in total, that most break cues will be very close. Especially if one could design a test that allows the cueball to be struck the same way each time.
Anyway that's my opinion. I am open to forming a new one given the right reason.
