BallReviews

Equipment Boards => Brunswick => Topic started by: Zanatos1914 on April 17, 2012, 09:19:53 PM

Title: Karma Solid Vs Cuda C Pearl
Post by: Zanatos1914 on April 17, 2012, 09:19:53 PM
I feel bad about asking this question but I have a cuda c pearl and just received this Karma as a gift...  Are both balls simliar or is the Karma Sold allot stronger....


2 Fingers That Converted to 5 Fingers
I Am The 3 Fingers Nightmare
Title: Re: Karma Solid Vs Cuda C Pearl
Post by: charlest on April 18, 2012, 12:41:30 AM
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.


"None are so blind as those who will not see."
BowlingChat.net

 
Title: Re: Karma Solid Vs Cuda C Pearl
Post by: Zanatos1914 on April 18, 2012, 01:37:45 PM
Thanks for the information...

 

I have a better understanding of how I should get the ball drilled now...


2 Fingers That Converted to 5 Fingers
I Am The 3 Fingers Nightmare
Title: Re: Karma Solid Vs Cuda C Pearl
Post by: avabob on April 19, 2012, 04:32:05 PM
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. 


Title: Re: Karma Solid Vs Cuda C Pearl
Post by: tommyboy74 on April 19, 2012, 06:12:26 PM
I threw some older PK18 balls and had a solid Cuda/C back in the day.  The SuperFlex cover died out quicker.  Overall, both should be similar with the PK18 cover being slightly stronger at best.

My Arsenal (as of February 2012)
Heavy Oil:  Roto Grip Defiant: 3000 AB
Medium-Heavy Oil: Track 919C: 3000 AB
Medium-Heavy Oil: Ebonite Vital Energy: 4000 AB
Medium Oil: Track 505T: 4000 AB 
Medium-Light Oil: Hammer Brick: 2000 polished
Title: Re: Karma Solid Vs Cuda C Pearl
Post by: dougb on April 19, 2012, 10:56:19 PM
If you want to get rid of the Cuda/C Pearl I know someone who will buy it.
Title: Re: Karma Solid Vs Cuda C Pearl
Post by: Zanatos1914 on April 23, 2012, 01:53:23 PM
Karma is weaker than the Cuda C.....


2 Fingers That Converted to 5 Fingers
I Am The 3 Fingers Nightmare
Title: Re: Karma Solid Vs Cuda C Pearl
Post by: charlest on April 23, 2012, 06:47:36 PM
I find that very unusual, but interesting. Were the drillings and the surfaces similar or at least close?
 
Zanatos1914 wrote on 4/23/2012 11:53 AM:
Karma is weaker than the Cuda C.....


2 Fingers That Converted to 5 Fingers
I Am The 3 Fingers Nightmare


"None are so blind as those who will not see."
BowlingChat.net