Author Topic: Ransom Demand versus...... (Read 5237 times)

Jorge300 · « **on:** September 06, 2011, 01:25:40 AM »

I am looking to get a new heavy oil ball. This would be used on longer/heavier PBA/Sport conditions and hopefully USBC Open next year, etc. I have seen the reviews of the Ransom Demand and was wonderinghow it compares to some of the other heavy oil balls out there right now, such as Motiv Raptor P7, Seismic Raging Bull, 900 Global Bank Roll, Storm Virtual Gravity Nano, etc. Has anyone compared it to any of these as of yet? Thanks for your insights.

Jorge300

charlest · « **Reply #1 on:** September 06, 2011, 02:27:53 PM »

I suspect that the Ransom Demand does not handle as much oil as the others you mentioned above.

I think it is more in the class of the Virtual Gravity and the Taboo - that is, it handles medium to medium-heavy oil, for the average ball speed, average rev bowler. The above balls are more in the medium-heavy to true heavy oil class.

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

BowlingChat.net

dougb · « **Reply #2 on:** September 06, 2011, 07:16:12 PM »

I have the ball and Charlest is right.

avabob · « **Reply #3 on:** September 06, 2011, 08:52:33 PM »

I always find it a bit humorous when people talk about handling heavy oil. What about us guys who want to roll the ball and take what the oil give us, rather than try to over power the oil and get maximum hook. The best heavy oil balls I have owned include several pearl reactives that roll strong and don't hook early when I want to square up against longer oil.

How does the Ransom Demand fit my criteria ( ie is it rolly ). Reviews in BTM were among the best I have ever seen for any ball.

charlest · « **Reply #4 on:** September 06, 2011, 09:52:11 PM »

95% of pearl reactives are not rolly. If your release and/or drillings, and/or surface finishes can force them to do that, more power to you.

The point today is that many people cannot force that reaction with hand releases and ball speed. So they use ball reactions designed into balls.

Most balls are designed to have the ball reaction fall within certain parameters. These can be modified with drillings and surfaces.

I don't find it humorous at all that people want to use a ball for the purpose for which it was designed,

If you can force pearl reactives to be "rolly", you can certainly force the Ransom Demand to be rolly not matter what it was designed to be. So why would care what it was designed to be?

avabob wrote on 9/6/2011 8:52 PM:I always find it a bit humorous when people talk about handling heavy oil. What about us guys who want to roll the ball and take what the oil give us, rather than try to over power the oil and get maximum hook. The best heavy oil balls I have owned include several pearl reactives that roll strong and don't hook early when I want to square up against longer oil.

How does the Ransom Demand fit my criteria ( ie is it rolly ). Reviews in BTM were among the best I have ever seen for any ball.

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

BowlingChat.net

Jorge300 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 07, 2011, 08:20:45 AM »

Start your own topic then. There is nothing humerous that I see in what I asked. I didn't ask the usual dumb questions as to how much the ball "hooks" or the "which ball hooks the most", etc. I asked a legitimate question regarding the oil handling capabilities of the Ransom Demand in comparison to some other balls on the market.

avabob wrote on 9/6/2011 8:52 PM:
I always find it a bit humorous when people talk about handling heavy oil. What about us guys who want to roll the ball and take what the oil give us, rather than try to over power the oil and get maximum hook. The best heavy oil balls I have owned include several pearl reactives that roll strong and don't hook early when I want to square up against longer oil.

How does the Ransom Demand fit my criteria ( ie is it rolly ). Reviews in BTM were among the best I have ever seen for any ball.

Jorge300

Jorge300 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 07, 2011, 08:26:31 AM »

Charlest, Dougb,

Thanks for your input. My first thoughts on the Ransom Demand was as you mentioned. But when looking at the BTM chart again, it showed it as the shortest length, most hook rating of any ball on there. That prompted this question as I didn't think it was in the same class as the Nano, et al. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Thanks.

Jorge300

avabob · « **Reply #7 on:** September 07, 2011, 10:41:25 AM »

Didn't mean to offend anyone. However, I think my point was missed. Yes I can get a pearl into a roll when some people can't but that is not the issue. The real question with most heavy oil balls is that they over power the oil and hook early when you try to square up, yet can't give you any swing area because of heavy oil and the fact they are burning early. Most people don't have the ball speed to get the benefit from heavy oil balls that they want or need.

dougb · « **Reply #8 on:** September 07, 2011, 03:14:47 PM »

Jorge,

I think the Ransom Demand would work better in thicker oil for me if I took the surface down from it's 4000 abralon OOB finish. I played in some very thick fresh oil with it recently and was surprised how far right I was standing. I started on 20 throwing up 10 and slowly moved left as the lanes opened up. I will note that even at OOB carrydown was never an issue for the ball.

Doug

charlest · « **Reply #9 on:** September 07, 2011, 06:12:46 PM »

Doug,

As long as you don't need the ball for medium to med. heavy oil, it should be fine. You've already used it for heavier all, well, I take it.

dougb wrote on 9/7/2011 3:14 PM:Jorge,

I think the Ransom Demand would work better in thicker oil for me if I took the surface down from it's 4000 abralon OOB finish. I played in some very thick fresh oil with it recently and was surprised how far right I was standing. I started on 20 throwing up 10 and slowly moved left as the lanes opened up. I will note that even at OOB carrydown was never an issue for the ball.

Doug

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

BowlingChat.net

charlest · « **Reply #10 on:** September 07, 2011, 06:20:07 PM »

Avabob,

While using a direct line on heavy oil can work for many people, if the ball doesn't allow that, why not just use a milder ball, with an appropriate drilling & surface, that will alow you to play the lanes the way you prefer?

Meanwhile many of today's strongest balls (not the biggest hookers, but the ones that handle the most oil. They're not always the same.) will often allow you to swing the ball to a certain extent. Some of them, for those with good rev to ball speed ratios, will even be able to hook such balls in true heavy oil. Some of these balls are that strong.

I think one of the important aspects of this game is thatthere are many alternatives to playing lanes, based more on the skill set of the bowler and due to the very large versatility of the ball choices we have available to us right now.

Heck, there are even some old school particles, like the Lane Masters Dynamic Power and the Visionary Ogre Particle, will allow almost any bowler of lower revs play a heavy oil pattern.

If you wish to use a pearl reactive to do so, there are more choices than you shake a stick at, so to speak.

avabob wrote on 9/7/2011 10:41 AM:Didn't mean to offend anyone. However, I think my point was missed. Yes I can get a pearl into a roll when some people can't but that is not the issue. The real question with most heavy oil balls is that they over power the oil and hook early when you try to square up, yet can't give you any swing area because of heavy oil and the fact they are burning early. Most people don't have the ball speed to get the benefit from heavy oil balls that they want or need.

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

BowlingChat.net