George Balabushka

i havent read all the posts:embarrassed2:.......:embarrassed2:
so here is my opinion anyway....:eek:
while george was making cues his was among if not the best playing cue
pick any golf club or tennis racquet at that time as the best
now lets fast foward 40-70 years
are tennis and golf clubs better now??
id say yes
do modern cues play better????
id say it wouldnt surprise me f the answer is yes
time goes on and evolution makes new things do better than old things
icbw
 
i also want to say i respect the giants that set the stage to continue
and george bala bushka DEFINITELY deserves his place in cuemaking history
 
'Hit' is a phrase tossed around so much it's ridiculous. 'Hit' is such a subjective word as to be useless. A 'better hit' is like saying red is better than blue. Some people love Meucci cues with soft tips. I love my Schuler with micarta ferrule. Others may hate my Schuler. What constitutes a 'good hit' is comparable to 'what makes a steak taste good?' All you vegans feel free to comment.
 
Why don't players carry old time cues?

Well lets see, most pros are given their cues by sponsors. Thats probably the number one biggest reason. Number two is a Balabushka at the low end is 5k, how many pool players would want to carry that cue around, OR have 5k to spend on a cue? Its the same reason they don't carry the bigger name "modern" customs. How many Searings, Showmans, Tascarellas do you see on the pro tour? They just cost to much money and none of these guys are giving their cues away.

Could a pro play with a Bushka today? Of course he could. With other sports, improvements have made sense. Everyone compares cues to golf clubs and tennis rackets, really? How about baseball bats? Is a bat really that different from when Babe Ruth used one? The shapes have been refined, but its the same wood its always been. Thats a heck of a lot better comparison than a golf club which has changed infanitely more from the old hickory clubs to now, and for a reason.

Does anyone want to dispute Rodney's prowess at the table, any of you think you and your predator can beat Davenport and his Boti?

Are the glues better today? I am sure they are, but whats the answer to why so many Bushkas and Botis are still as solid today as when they were new? If you're going to knock the glue, then damn, those guys must have been beyond masters at the lathe. How about shafts? I would say out of all the Szams, and all the Bushkas we have had, maybe 1 or 2 out of 100 shafts are not playable due to warpage. Nelsonite? Nope they didn't have it. Do you trust your shafts without it?

My oh my... where would we be without this technology?

JV
 
this is the first time that i heard there was any question about Balabuskas playing good

i have owned several and liked them.when i was younger almost everyone wanted one and i can not think of a great player who didn't have one

if i had to tell the difference between how a szamboti,scruggs,or baklabushka was,i would be at a loss for words.

but balabushka would be in some pretty good company at the top

best wishes seeking an easy answer to a subjective question

dean
 
classiccues said:
Are the glues better today? I am sure they are, but whats the answer to why so many Bushkas and Botis are still as solid today as when they were new? If you're going to knock the glue, then damn, those guys must have been beyond masters at the lathe.
JV
Click to expand...


Interestingly, the old Brunswick and Katz cues used very old technology glues...and people pay A LOT of money for those and A LOT of money for modern conversions of them.

Every one of the modern conversions we see is using that same old glue in the primary most important structure of the cue. Nobody seems to mind or notice.


.
 
Lexicologist71 said:
'Hit' is a phrase tossed around so much it's ridiculous. 'Hit' is such a subjective word as to be useless. A 'better hit' is like saying red is better than blue. Some people love Meucci cues with soft tips. I love my Schuler with micarta ferrule. Others may hate my Schuler. What constitutes a 'good hit' is comparable to 'what makes a steak taste good?' All you vegans feel free to comment.
Click to expand...


And yet, a cue with a loose weight rattling around inside, a nice vibrating split in the joint, and a loose ferrule as well would hit pretty shitty to anybody.

"Hit" is of course mostly subjective. But that is once a sort of "minimum standard" is met I think.

I think it makes for good conversation. If a particular maker has settled into a particular construction his cues will gain a reputation for a certain "feel" or "hit". Describing that and comparing and contrasting that with others is in fact of some interest I think.

The notion of one "hit" being better than another is of course mostly subjective, but that does not invalidate the notion as one of the qualities of a pool cue that can be described or at least in some way attempt to be described.

Equally, stating ones preference for how a cue should feel isn't really outrageous I think, unless one advances ones opinion as being superior to others.

.
 
deanoc said:
this is the first time that i heard there was any question about Balabuskas playing good
Click to expand...

I've seen it stated here in the forum by a person who actually played with one that it played like shit.

Obviously there is a certain amount of personal opinion involved but one can also imagine that there are probably Balabushkas out there that have not been taken care of, may have been modified or poorly repaired, and that might not be so great because of such things.

I keep dreaming about finding one, as many do. I can imagine finding one with water damage, a non original shaft with a slip on tip, a wrap made of duct tape and kite string, and a busted up butt cap with a big fat house cue bumper. Yeah.......

Funny though...part of me suspects a Bushka in such a state would still play pretty well...I am sure it would do so at least in my mind.... :)



.
 
It's not just a matter of technology, but also of cue design. The tapers have changed, the balance has changed, and the diameter of the butts and tips of choice have changed. There was a time when the two piece Willie Hoppe designed by Herman Rambow was the finest playing cue out there but pick up an original one and try playing with it. The conversions have been updated to modern playing choices. I've got a buddy who has a very nice Balabuska and it plays good but I prefer some of my more modern cues to play with.
 
spktur said:
It's not just a matter of technology, but also of cue design. The tapers have changed, the balance has changed, and the diameter of the butts and tips of choice have changed. There was a time when the two piece Willie Hoppe designed by Herman Rambow was the finest playing cue out there but pick up an original one and try playing with it. The conversions have been updated to modern playing choices. I've got a buddy who has a very nice Balabuska and it plays good but I prefer some of my more modern cues to play with.
Click to expand...

True.

But as I understand it Balabushka's dimensions did evolve. He did make cues into the mid seventies and from what I understand his later cues did lean toward what we would call more modern dimensions.

I could be wrong, an expert could perhaps comment on that matter for us.


You might consider though that things may not have changed as much as some would think. Many of the best cues made by the leading cue makers, legendary really, resemble the Balabushka design formula and construction a great deal. Steel joint collars, brass inserts, stainless 14 thread pins, A-joint short splice construction....this can be commonly found on absolute world-class best-of-the-best cues produced still today or recently such as Tasc, Scruggs, Szam, Tad, Gina, Mottey, Stroud, and more, who commonly still (or recently for those retired) use such design and construction. Not one of them could be said to be compromising their construction or performance.

In spite of the engineered shafts, strange joint pins, and other such things that seem to be popular, such design and construction as perpetuated by Balabushka is still arguably the standard to meet and the epitome of the apex in pool cue construction, even to this day. Just go look at the top cues for sale right now in this very forum to see that.

.

.

.
 
Last edited:
Chopdoc said:
And yet, a cue with a loose weight rattling around inside, a nice vibrating split in the joint, and a loose ferrule as well would hit pretty shitty to anybody.

"Hit" is of course mostly subjective. But that is once a sort of "minimum standard" is met I think.

I think it makes for good conversation. If a particular maker has settled into a particular construction his cues will gain a reputation for a certain "feel" or "hit". Describing that and comparing and contrasting that with others is in fact of some interest I think.

The notion of one "hit" being better than another is of course mostly subjective, but that does not invalidate the notion as one of the qualities of a pool cue that can be described or at least in some way attempt to be described.


Equally, stating ones preference for how a cue should feel isn't really outrageous I think, unless one advances ones opinion as being superior to others.

.
Click to expand...

I was NOT including defective cues in my statement. I kinda figured that was a given. Different cues will feel different upon impact with the cue ball. Different people like different feels. Just because someone likes the 'hit' of cue A doesn't mean that it 'hits better' than another cue. Just voicing my disgust at the whole misuse of the word 'better'. 'Firmer' or 'softer' would be more accurate. Some like marshmallows. Some like hammers. Nobody is right and neither is better. I've drawn the ball table length from the far end of the table with Chandivert Rockies and Elkmasters. Hard/soft is a matter of preference.
 
Lexicologist71 said:
I was NOT including defective cues in my statement. I kinda figured that was a given. Different cues will feel different upon impact with the cue ball. Different people like different feels. Just because someone likes the 'hit' of cue A doesn't mean that it 'hits better' than another cue. Just voicing my disgust at the whole misuse of the word 'better'. 'Firmer' or 'softer' would be more accurate. Some like marshmallows. Some like hammers. Nobody is right and neither is better. I've drawn the ball table length from the far end of the table with Chandivert Rockies and Elkmasters. Hard/soft is a matter of preference.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I didn't expect you were including defective cues.

I was merely making an extreme statement to illustrate my point.

I don't really disagree with you. It just seems to me that even among non-defective cues, there is some sort of a threshold standard for how a cue might feel, and below that threshold virtually everybody would find the cue unacceptable. That would be characterized by the "hit". Nobody plays with a tip made of steel, and nobody plays with a tip made of silly putty. Of course, I am making an extreme statement again just to illustrate my point.

I think that even though it is very subjective the notion of "hit" is reasonable for conversation about the characteristics and quality of pool cues.

I can understand how one might grow weary with the banter about it though.


.
 
Chopdoc said:
True.

But as I understand it Balabushka's dimensions did evolve. He did make cues into the mid seventies and from what I understand his later cues did lean toward what we would call more modern dimensions.

I could be wrong, an expert could perhaps comment on that matter for us.


You might consider though that things may not have changed as much as some would think. Many of the best cues made by the leading cue makers, legendary really, resemble the Balabushka design formula and construction a great deal. Steel joint collars, brass inserts, stainless 14 thread pins, A-joint short splice construction....this can be commonly found on absolute world-class best-of-the-best cues produced still today or recently such as Tasc, Scruggs, Szam, Tad, Gina, Mottey, Stroud, and more, who commonly still (or recently for those retired) use such design and construction. Not one of them could be said to be compromising their construction or performance.

In spite of the engineered shafts, strange joint pins, and other such things that seem to be popular, such design and construction as perpetuated by Balabushka is still arguably the standard to meet and the epitome of the apex in pool cue construction, even to this day. Just go look at the top cues for sale right now in this very forum to see that.




.

.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying they played poorly just that I preferred the more modern cues. I have only played with one Balabuska and he may have evolved his design. I do have some very fine playing cues from the 70s from some great cue makers. And no matter what era the cue comes from the cues from the top makers have a better feel and hit than the other guys. Just technology won't make it better
 
spktur said:
I wasn't saying they played poorly just that I preferred the more modern cues. I have only played with one Balabuska and he may have evolved his design. I do have some very fine playing cues from the 70s from some great cue makers. And no matter what era the cue comes from the cues from the top makers have a better feel and hit than the other guys. Just technology won't make it better
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting you said they played poorly. I merely suggest that their characteristics might not be as different as one might think if comparing to earlier examples.

I am not sure if I am correct though. I believe I read something about later dimensions of the Bushkas being more modern, but I do not know firsthand.


.
 
Balabushka cues

The romantic side of pool favors these creations that not only played right but also took down more in funds than the industry will now support. ( for the anally challenged crowd convert to today dollars from the 50-60-70's)
That said George, Burton Spain and others had a cult following of sorts the power of the following was I'm basically sure was based on economics, in essence if you found those points playing it would and should have been a warning for the day. Now if they played well....I'm most sure the majority of those in the hands of money makers did.....however if Mr. Great- shot- whose- income- didn't- depend- on- it states it hits like card board....you have got to believe shooting with a "whimpy" cue can be anything but a rush!!!

Jim
 
If an Original Balabushka was the worst hitting cue ever, and made a big "doink" sound every time i hit a ball.....I would still love to own one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The lack of knowledge on "the net" never cease's to Astound and Amaze me.....what an idiot....
 
bbb said:
i havent read all the posts:embarrassed2:.......:embarrassed2:
so here is my opinion anyway....:eek:
while george was making cues his was among if not the best playing cue
pick any golf club or tennis racquet at that time as the best
now lets fast foward 40-70 years
are tennis and golf clubs better now??
id say yes
do modern cues play better????
id say it wouldnt surprise me f the answer is yes
time goes on and evolution makes new things do better than old things
icbw
Click to expand...

I am not sure that worked for the human race..........

just saying

Kim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top