Over the years, Columbia's Super-Flex always went head to head with Brunswick's Power Koil 18 coverstock. They were comparable, with PK 18 slightly more even and strong than Super-Flex overall, but not by much. Some Super-Flex solids were stronger than some PK 18 solids and some PK 18 pearls were stronger (read:earlier) than some Super-Flex pearls.

 

So a Super-Cuda/C solid today could go head to head with a Karma solid and 50% of the bowlers would say the Karma was stronger and 50% woudl say teh Super-Cuda/C was stronger.

 

However the Cuda/C used Flexcel, not Super-Flex and Flexcel was a notch weaker overall than Super-Flex. While these balls are weaker than average, than most balls intended for true medium oil these days, the difference between these balls grows smaller every day.

 

So, I believe the Cuda would be a hair or more weaker than a Karma with the same drilling and the same surface, but it isn't the huge difference it used to be. And on some lighter oils, either one might be perfect.

 

Biggest difference was that super flex had a much shorter life span than PK 18.  Any columbia ball of that vintage is going to act like a urethane against a new PK 18 shell, even if close when  new. 

I find that very unusual, but interesting. Were the drillings and the surfaces similar or at least close?