I've been thinking about how to best showcase the differences with this.

Then, I remembered that we have the ability to compare and contrast!

Would anyone be interested in seeing the difference between a Honey Badger Urethane and a short pin to pap Claw or Money Badger Tour? I'm leaning more towards a Claw because the core is exactly the same as the HBU.

Drill the urethane 50*4*40, Drill the reactive 50*1.5*40. Angles would be the same, just the pin to pap would be different.

What say you, 900 G brothers and sisters?

Yes please! I'd love to see a real world application of this.

Whatever you do, narrate it in the voice of Kip.....or Rex.

It would be interesting to see this, but I feel I can confidently state my opinion: Short pin to PAP does not replace/compare close enough to urethane - despite what people like Mo Pinel say.

I've thrown many balls with short pins, anywhere from true pin axis to 2.5". I've also thrown many urethane balls. I've done so with both options both one handed and two handed. Outside of a few exceptions, the reactions haven't been close enough to use short pins on reactive instead of urethane. Each have their place.

Interested in seeing the difference in carry. I don't want to see and edited strike fest.

I will take a weaker reactive with a two inch pin over a urethane any day of the week.

No question,  urethane is way over used at the league level.  Having said that, every serious player should have one in their bag.  How and when they use it will depend on their style. 

Until I see someone use urethane playing deep inside with success; I am staying with weaker reactive and 2 inch pin to PAP.  So far I havent seen anyone including PBA guys get deeper than the second arrow.  Always seem to be playing the outside part of the lane.  I believe there is more versatility with the reactive short pin than urethane; at least from what I have seen.