Guys, correct me if I'm wrong about the arrangement of coverstock below in term of aggressiveness from most to least. Assuming they have the same types cores.

Heavy particle
Particle pearl
Solid reactive
Pearl reactive

Please fill in other missing coverstock type if any.


Edited on 11/15/2007 11:51 PM

Edited on 11/16/2007 1:24 AM

You might add the epoxy cover to the list which was introduced with the EPX-T1, but failed, and it would IMHO fit in the aggressive/early reading range. Two others top add are IMO polyester and urethane (maybe pearl & solid) - but it is hard to judge where the urethanes would fit. They react more "even" than reactives, but offer a good read of the lane.

I'd be very careful with your ranking - you cannot generalize aggressiveness or responsiveness just based on a certain type of cover. Your list might work for the same coverstock base - Brunswick had and has all types based on the PK18 base - but the range of conditions a certain type might cover is huge.

There are e. g. pearl reactives that are very mild, while others are more aggressive than a particle ball! Coverstocks have become so aggressive that particle appears to become obsolete, and current high end balls start to have higher RG cores and lower differentials just to get the balls far down the lane, so that they do nor read too early for the everyday user.

Coverstock prep can also change a lot, as well as the "combo" with the core and also the setup through the drilling. You can create a lot of overlap. But, if you take this relative grain of salt, your list is IMHO valid, but very rough and cannot be generalized.
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

Edited on 11/16/2007 7:03 AM

Not a lot of opportunity to "rank" them like that.  Storm is one of the few that put out the same cover (Reactor, of late) with various additives on the same core.

I would put the particle pearl and solid reactives together, it's hard to say whether one would be stronger or weaker than the other.  It would depend strongly on the particle loading.  A light load PP might be weaker than the same ball with a solid reactive cover but the medium load PP might be stronger.  For many, PPs and solid reactives cover very similar conditions.

For the same core and base coverstock, I don't think many would argue that the pearl is the weakest and the solid particle the strongest.

SH