My point is I really believe this tells you that looks pearl, solid or hybrid do not matter it is ball surface and the actual additives that determine ball length ect.
To me this is what is making this post a confused jumble.
That the terms pearl, solid or hybrid keep being used in it just for how the ball visually looks.
And to me at least, that's not what they (at least originally) are referring to.
Solid does not mean a solid color ( it's usually referring to a ball with a certain coverstock type)
Pearls were balls that had a additive (typ. Mica), went longer and snapped some. Not just balls with smooth surfaces and swirly colors.
And a Hybrid is just splitting the difference between the other two, Hybrids don't have a "look". You can't look at a unknown ball on the rack and say that's a hybrid just from the looks.
Yes the actual additives are what determine ball reaction (as far as the coverstock goes)
Yes the visual look of a ball doesn't matter in how it reacts.
Yes the other manufactures have the same ability to use other additives.
Now if a company (lets say Radical) has a new additive that makes a ball react like a "Pearlized" ball (Meaning one that used Mica as the additive) and make it look anyway they want.
And they want call it something else other than a pearl or whatever, that's fine.
The fact that a lot of people don't understand that you can sand pearls etc. isn't particularly the companies fault.
But none of that really means that the companies have been perpetrating some big hoax on everybody.
