win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: C-systems vs mission  (Read 1814 times)

Kinalyx

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 811
C-systems vs mission
« on: March 03, 2010, 05:30:22 AM »
Title says it all, how do either of the C-systems compare to the mission?

Shawn
--------------------
In the bag

Ebonite Mission(pin under bridge, low weight hole) polish over OOB
Storm Fast(pin under bridge, low weight hole)
Storm Natural(pin over ring)

Coming soon
high scores??
Logged

 

bighook69

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3395
Re: C-systems vs mission
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2010, 01:33:52 PM »
2.5 is not much of a comparison... it is more of a medium oil ball that is something of a skid-snap reaction. The 3.5 is similar but seems to be more angular off the break, my Mission is very strong mid-lane and continuation, but not snappy by any means like the c-systems seem to be more of. The 3.5 and Mission are geared to the same general conditions, medium/heavy.
Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24524
Re: C-systems vs mission
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2010, 04:29:08 PM »
My point of view:

3.5 is all about backend and hitting power.
Mission is all about control and hitting power.

I have a 2.5 which has a lot of backend. I think I'd rather get a Mission than a 3.5, mostly cause I never see enough oil for the 3.5.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24524
Re: C-systems vs mission
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2010, 06:00:46 AM »
quote:
My 2.5 is nowhere near skid snap.  Good and easy length, then powerful arc that doesn''''t quit.


Mine is not skid/snap either. It does get good length, and just seems to save a lot of energy. Both allow it have a strong backend.

As with any mass bias ball, and with any ball in general, a lot depends on the bowler''''s release, the oil amount and the drilling. The ball, in general, is a strong reacting ball with the potential for a lot of backend, as is the 3.5.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Edited on 3/4/2010 7:43 AM
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

slap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 728
Re: C-systems vs mission
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2010, 06:57:01 AM »
Every time you roll a ball down the lane you're altering the surface. Modern coverstocks are designed to be changed. The ball companies themselves provide instructions and endorse products to achieve such.  Surface is another, and often final, tool used to match up with the lane condition that day.

That said, every bowler is free to design and maintain their arsenal as he/she wishes.
--------------------
"Student of the Game"

http://s9.photobucket.com/albums/a63/slap1914/bowling/
Logged

Dan Belcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3954
Re: C-systems vs mission
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2010, 09:27:04 AM »
I can't remember the last ball that I bought that I actually liked at the box finish.  Shiny stuff is always too shiny out of the box for me (resulting in over/under) and dull stuff is always too dull out of the box for me (I can only use it for about six frames before I run out of head oil).  Why should I assume the manufacturer knows exactly how I throw the ball and the exact conditions I'm bowling on when they pick the box finish?
Logged

Nicanor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2292
Re: C-systems vs mission
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2010, 09:42:02 AM »
I actually had no luck with the 3.5 until I knowed the surface down by hand with a 4000 Ablaron pad.  Since doing that, the ball jumps off the break point which surprised me.


--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)
Logged
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)
Pages: [1]
« previous next »