Are cured/treated/fully frictionless pimples objectively more useless than hard frictionful pimples?
Posted: September 6th, 2025, 10:28 pm
Let's say we take the current version of Reach C801 (which has cylindrical pimples) and any other cured pimples (Young, Jahanam, cured Saviga, it doesn't really matter). I played Reach C801 for some time and its passive block is truly brutal. Since the pimples are quite hard, then while the ball has enough spin and not much speed, it slips with part of the spin that it had, and the opponent gets a ball with some backspin, but with low speed and a short trajectory due to dampening, which often makes the opponent overestimate the spin in the ball. If the ball had high speed, then the pimples bend and we get a slow knuckle ball. I have seen many times when opponents make mistakes trying to loop or push this ball. And of course chopblock... If the opponent's loop was heavy, he will get such a strong backspin that trying to loop it (if you failed to leave it short) will be a fatal mistake. What about frictionless pimples, it's just a mirror. You passively block and most of the spin returns back to the opponent. This may confuse the opponent at first, but the behavior of such rubber is extremely predictable. Playing with such rubber, you limit yourself in all other possibilities of long pimples simply in order to confuse the opponent with a more unusual block. Isn't it better to have a strong active reversal(chop, chopblock, lifting) with an even more dangerous passive block (since the properties of the rubber itself provide automatic variability in this element) and, in general, the ability to vary the spin?