win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Intense Inferno - Initial Impression and Update  (Read 3425 times)

RandyO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
Intense Inferno - Initial Impression and Update
« on: August 27, 2004, 02:49:54 PM »
First impression is positive. I like the bright color - didn't think I would, but it grows on you after a few frames. I bought this one because I'm still struggling to find something that fits in that awkward space between my light oil stuff and the Infernos. My home house is tough for me to match up. I have carry issues in this center if I have to play left of 15, and If I swing any of the Infernos outside the 8 or 9 board area, they use up energy and hit flat. There's just something about these older synthetics and the medium oil they lay down that just doesn't match up that well for my game. This forces me to play in the "track area", and limits my area somewhat. Once in a while it's dry enough to pull out the pearl nail or the Monster Red/Black, and I can score with these playing up the boards. On very very rare occasions there's enough oil for me to pull out the Classic Zone or even a regular Inferno, but most of the time it's the "in-between zone", where I'm constantly fishing for ball reaction. I was hoping that this Intense would be the ball that I wanted the Blazing to be. I think it might be! It has length - as long as my Monster Red/Black! It has back end! It's too early to judge HIT, but I didn't see anything that has me worried after around 6 games of play. I need to play around with it more and try a couple of different centers, but except for some ring-tens that surprised me, I was impressed. What I did notice and REALLY liked was that unlike the regualar Activator, this Activator+ never wanted to check up early, never lost energy in the drier area, and never, not even once did I detect any wiggle downlane. I saw some wiggle in the carry down from a few other's - one guy throwing a polished Flipside Shock, and another throwing a polished Time Zone, but this Intense was very predictable in its behavior down-lane. I was worried that it might be too close to my Classic Zone to justify having both, but it is a very different ball than either the Classic Zone or the Inferno. I can see this replacing both the Fire Quantum and the Monster Red/Black - both balls that I really like.
Oh - the details: 15-4, 2.7 Top, layout pin over ring and CG stacked below ring. This is around a 6 x 5-3/4 layout for me.

http://www.pipeline.com/~randyo/arsenal/15%23%20Intense.jpg

Only disappointment so far is that just like all of my other balls, I have to throw it good to strike. Doesn't matter where I hit in the pocket, If my timing and release are "on" the ball carries. If I throw it bad the carry gets worse. Don't you just hate that in a ball? I'm still looking for that magic combination that lets you get away with everything.

Edited on 8/27/2004 10:45 PM

Edited on 8/27/2004 10:46 PM

Edited on 8/27/2004 11:32 PM

Edited on 8/28/2004 4:38 AM

Edited on 8/29/2004 7:05 PM

 

J_Mac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6778
Re: Intense Inferno - Initial Impression and Update
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2004, 02:19:01 AM »
Is it just me or is Brunswick FINALLY putting a decent CG mark on their balls?
quote:
http://www.pipeline.com/~randyo/arsenal/15%23%20Intense.jpg


Looks nice and thanks for the review Randy.  The only one I've gotten to see in action was being thrown by a 50+ year old lofter.  Not a style conducive to judging ball reactions.
--------------------
It's kind of hard to read the lanes if you don't know their language...

J_Mac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6778
Re: Intense Inferno - Initial Impression and Update
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2004, 02:37:17 AM »
quote:
no, randy does that on his computer so you can see his layout more easily.



Damn...  so much for that idea.
--------------------
It's kind of hard to read the lanes if you don't know their language...

RandyO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
Re: Intense Inferno - Initial Impression and Update
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2004, 07:12:25 PM »
Put another 8 games or so on Intense (1) today at a different center. Went out to Earl’s Dublin Bowl. New Brunswick Pro Anvilane surface. Medium oil house shot. When it was fresh I tried everything in the bag to check reaction. Not enough oil for the Ultimate (2) – it burned up when it went out into the drier area. The Inferno (3) would have been playable if I stayed left of 13 or 14 at the arrows, but I didn’t use it, as I wanted to put heavy play in the track area to use it up (for my Intense Inferno checkout). The polished Fire Quantum (4) was hitting soft in the oil and overreacting off the drier area, so I left it alone. I tried the Monster Red/Black (5), and it was too long with weak back end – and it I went farther right it was jumpy off the dry. The Classic Zone (6)was playable but I only took it out a couple shots each game. As expected the Classic Zone played a couple boards deeper than the Intense. Spent most of the day throwing the Intense and a very tame drilled Time Zone (7). The Intense played very very nicely in this house. When the shot was fresh, I had area and carry. I could very speeds and rotation as needed with predictable result. I could also get away with lower quality releases with the fresh shot – occasional bouts of hitting up on the ball did not seem to overreact. Once the shot wore out, the ball was still very playable, except that I had to be smoother at the release point. With the easy hand the Intense was extremely smooth and predictable. Still had good length, and significant more backend than any other “mild” ball in my bag. After today’s session it’s obvious that the Intense is going to replace the Fire Quantum in my every-day arsenal, and maybe even the Monster Red/Black.
Balls Used:

1. http://www.pipeline.com/~randyo/arsenal/15%23%20Intense.jpg

2. http://www.pipeline.com/~randyo/arsenal/15%23%20Ultimate2.jpg

3. http://www.pipeline.com/~randyo/arsenal/15%23%20Inferno%201.jpg

4. http://www.pipeline.com/~randyo/arsenal/15%23%20Fire%20Quantum.jpg

5. http://www.pipeline.com/~randyo/arsenal/15%23%20Monster%20Red-Black.jpg

6. http://www.pipeline.com/~randyo/arsenal/15%23%20Classic%20Zone%201.jpg

7. http://www.pipeline.com/~randyo/arsenal/15%23%20Time%20Zone%202.jpg

pjr300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Live from the Bowling Capital of the World!
Re: Intense Inferno - Initial Impression and Update
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2004, 10:56:45 PM »
quote:
...There's just something about these older synthetics and the medium oil they lay down that just doesn't match up that well for my game. This forces me to play in the "track area", and limits my area somewhat.


I'm having the EXACT same problem on my local synthetic league.

quote:
...... I was hoping that this Intense would be the ball that I wanted the Blazing to be...


Randy, can you elaborate about the Blazing? Curious on what sort of results you had with a Blazing in compared to the Intense. Thanks!


--------------------
pjr300
live from the Bowling Capital of the World
pjr300
Specs and Transaction history in my profile...

pjr300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Live from the Bowling Capital of the World!
Re: Intense Inferno - Initial Impression and Update
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2004, 11:28:05 PM »

I guess my question is: what didn't the Blazing do that the Intense does?


--------------------
pjr300
live from the Bowling Capital of the World
pjr300
Specs and Transaction history in my profile...

RandyO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
Re: Intense Inferno - Initial Impression and Update
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2004, 11:29:08 PM »
I had two Blazing Infernos. One was drilled exactly like this new Intense (pin over ring). The other was drilled after I hated the first one - I drilled it more aggressive - the pin was even in height with the ring finger but over around 4" from my PAP - and the CG stacked below. That ball as well I hated - neither ball had much backend on most of the conditions that I see. Both were a bit too strong to play in the drier areas, but too weak in the oil. That was MY experience except for one house that I bowled in that had the MOST walled up shot I had ever seen in my life. On that conditon, the Blazing killed them. The Blazing was just a bad matchup for my game. I have seen a few others shoot astronomical numbers with the Blazing Inferno. In all cases the players I saw having success had higher rev-rates than the average-handed bowler (me). I also heard rumors that the early batches of the Blazing were weaker than expected, and both of mine were from the early batches. Perhaps other folks had better coverstocks than I did. Whatever. I just like the Intense a lot more.

pjr300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Live from the Bowling Capital of the World!
Re: Intense Inferno - Initial Impression and Update
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2004, 11:41:34 PM »

Wow...thx guys. I guess I'm just shocked to see the II in play during light conditions. If you look at the specs for hook and length, it would appear to be a bigger-hooking version of the Inferno. Never would think that it could get thru the heads!


--------------------
pjr300
live from the Bowling Capital of the World
pjr300
Specs and Transaction history in my profile...

RandyO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
Re: Intense Inferno - Initial Impression and Update
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2004, 12:42:19 AM »
I still think it deserves another 5 or 10 points on the length scale, but that is so dependant upon drill pattern and lane condition that perhaps my limited experience will have to defer to Brunswicks??
It is a very different animal than the original Inferno. I rarely get to use my original Inferno - I can see me wearing out 2 or 3 II's long before I even get a track on my original!