Author Topic: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2 (Read 4410 times)

Nicanor · « **on:** February 22, 2008, 09:32:51 AM »

So I know that everyone does NOT match up with every ball, that being said, the Buzzbomb continues to be a dud for me.

I tried the Buzzbomb on heavy oil in box condition, look up the word skate and you will a picture of the Buzzbomb. Because all it did as skate.

So I talked with several others who has had luck with the Buzzbomb and figured I'd give it another go around. So I polished it using Bean's Secret Sauce. I have used this polish on other bowling balls with great success. Went to the lanes today to practice bringing my Bite, Complete NV now scuffed with 2000 Ablaron and the Cell still in box condition.

The Cell was way too strong because it was in box condition. The Complete NV gave me a fair look but the surface was too strong, the Bite was the best look standing 36 swinging the ball over 18 at the arrows and about 12 at the break point. It amazing how the Bite turns the corner and the energy it still has when it gets to the pocket. Down and in or swinging coast to coast, the ball can play any condition. Meaning can play any angle the oil pattern will let you play.

The Buzzbomb didn't swing or play down and in. It was much weaker then the Bite and the Complete NV.

I think I will see if I can have it sent back, plugged and re-drilled. This ball fits perfect and the bowling balls I got from the reputable Pro Shop has been right on with the exception of this ball.

Any drilling recommendations would be highly appreciated. Pin is currently below the finger line and the MB about 2 inches right of the thumb. My PAP is 5 and 1'8 up.

Thanks for the previous comments.

--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

Steven · « **Reply #31 on:** February 23, 2008, 03:05:07 PM »

quote:
Nicanor's problem seems to be that the ball isn't hooking for squat on heavy, medium, or light oil.

Yea, I know what you're saying, and in principle I don't disagree. But sometimes, a given drill on a given ball just doesn't work for a given bowler. And no matter what you do to the surface, little changes.

I've had that on a select few balls. The last was the Storm X-Factor Deuce. I tried everything from 500 to 4000 (with and without polish) and couldn't get the ball to wrinkle. I had it redrilled with the pin beneath the fingers and it suddenly became usable. The ball was never a favorite, but it was no longer a dud.

Regardless, this whole thread is suspicious to me because there are too many reviewers saying great things about the BuzzBomb. And they're not all kool-aid drinkers.

Read what Tim at Buddiesproshop said in his review of the ball:

quote:
This is supposed to be the most aggressive Lane #1 ball in quite some time. I laid it out with the pin 4 5/8" from my PAP and 2" above my midline and the cg 3" from my PAP (for me, this works out to be a 45 degree tilting of the core). It needed a hole, so I put it 2 3/4" below my axis point.

All the claims from the ad were confirmed when I threw this ball. This is definitely the most hook of any Buzzsaw I've thrown. In box finish, you definitely need oil in the front part of the lane. You can count the number of balls that are able to handle the swamp in the middle of our house shot on one hand, and this is definitely one of them.

Look, Buddies has no incentive to push Lane#1 equipment. So I have to give what they say some credibility.

In Nic's case, there might be some non-ball issues at play here that we don't know about. I'm getting my own BB next week, and I'm anxious to see what it does.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

nowski1381 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 23, 2008, 04:54:18 PM »

I'm having the exact same problem Nic is...I'm going to try moving the thumb about an inch and a half to swing the cg a little...I really hope this helps cause my NVS is playing SOOO much better on every condition compared to the BB

Nicanor · « **Reply #33 on:** February 23, 2008, 04:56:00 PM »

I don't understand this statement Steven

"Regardless, this whole thread is suspicious to me because there are too many reviewers saying great things about the BuzzBomb. And they're not all kool-aid drinkers."

What is suspicious? Am I selectively bad mouthing Lane 1. I have been an avid supporter of Lane 1 right up to the time when they had Columbia making their bowling balls. I said when someone else starting making their bowling balls I would try again. I seen Buddies video, I talked to Chris. I think there is something wrong with my particular ball. Its a dud they way it is drilled with surfaces from box, to polished to 2000 to 500, on oily lanes, on dry lanes, onwalled up lanes, zero, zippo. I'mthrowing them along side other equipment, Bite, Cell, Shift, Complete NV and even the Break. Nadda, out performed by every ball on every condition. Is it me? Maybe.

--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

Steven · « **Reply #34 on:** February 23, 2008, 05:17:33 PM »

quote:
Is it me? Maybe.

Only those who have seen you bowl can make that determination.

When I said 'suspicious', I wasn't hinting that you were making up a story. Sorry if it came across that way. I meant suspicious in the sense that the ball has received excellent reviews from proshop testers (Buddies, Allstarbowling, Averagejoesproshop) who test lots of balls and don't have a hidden agenda to push Lane#1 equipment.

So given all the positive feedback by testers, your 'dud' feedback is suspicious. It suggests that you either have the wrong drill, there is something defective with the particular ball itself, or for whatever reason you can't utilize the BB's capabilities.

It would be helpful to have this determined before labeling the ball a dud.

--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

Nicanor · « **Reply #35 on:** February 24, 2008, 08:31:55 AM »

Steven,

My ball is a dud. To me, the way its drilled the way I throw the ball, the reaction on the lanes its all a dud to me. I'm not saying all the Buzzbombs are duds or that lane 1 is a dud, but this ball in my hands is a dud, pure and simple.

Now you're right up the street from me, so please let me know when you get your Buzzbomb and have it drilled and please give me your layout, opinion of the ball etc.

I'm leaving for Branson Wednesday or Thursday so I hope to have a solution with K&K or Lane 1 before I leave. I would like to ship the ball as is to Lane 1 and let them check the ball and specs out.

K&K watched me bowl, has drilled several bowling balls for me that fit great and I got the exact reaction we tlked about from the ball, drilling and surface prep. They measured my PAP after watching me bowl and measuring the PAP. So I honestly don't know what to say.

--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

roger · « **Reply #36 on:** February 24, 2008, 08:49:40 AM »

Nicanor,

Your Buzzbomb is flaring?

Nicanor · « **Reply #37 on:** February 24, 2008, 09:14:21 AM »

It is flaring about 4 inches. That has me perplexed lso. It rolls like there isn't a weightblock in the ball.

--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

Nicanor · « **Reply #38 on:** February 24, 2008, 01:16:50 PM »

I emailed Lane 1 to see if I can ship the ball to them and let them see if its the ball or bowler/lane condition. I want to be fair. I'm willing to pay the shipping, I just think the CG is misslabled, they forgot to put a weight block in the ball or something. I can swing the house as I did again pot bowling today.

If I were askng for my money back, that might be suspicious. If I was just bad mouthing Lane 1 becaue I don't like Lane 1, then that would be suspicious. But Ritchie from Lane 1, Triggerman, Drillwizard, Buddies Pro shop and K&K know I have bought Lane 1 bowling balls for years. Two I complained about, the G-Force solid and now the Buzzbomb.

Four balls I haven't mentioned in my collection is two Megatons, Pro Purple, Bullet and the Pearl Super Carbide.

--------------------
Nicanor (Ten On The Deck)

Steven · « **Reply #39 on:** February 24, 2008, 05:53:02 PM »

mezz: Regarding your statements:

quote:
Steven,
Do you read Bowling This Month? They have never,ever given a ball a bad review.
And a lot of balls have not been very good.

I used to read BTM, but I stopped for the very reason you brought out. However, if you read what I said, I didn't mention BTM in my list.

quote:
Lane #1 balls give the online pushers and pro shops of this ball the biggest profit margin than other companies stuff.

Actually, you're wrong here. Proshops pay the same for Lane#1 equipment regardless of size, online or brick and mortar.

So if a proshop tester wants to be dishonest to sell balls (as you're alluding to) they would be better off making up stories about equipment with much larger profit margins and volumes. Buddies, allstarbowling and averagejoesproshop have usually been fair in their ball evaluations, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in their high marks for the BuzzBOMB. Again, they could spend their time on slightly less expensive pieces if all they wanted to do was sell their integrity to move as many balls as possible.

quote:
Look at Brunswick Fury for example, it was a dud, Brunswick discontinued it, dumped them at a cheap price and all the online sellers dumped there's too. In fact they are still trying to dump them because no one wants it. Bolwers Paradise right now have The Fury for $79.99.

No question that the original Fury was one of the biggest ball flops in modern ball history. Brunswick introduced the Fury with hype that would even make even Lane#1 marketeers blush

, but it went nowhere except for regional staffers who had no choice but to suck it up and say nice things about the piece.

In fairness, the Fury is a better ball than many would admit to. It's real touchy, but when you can match up with the Fury it's a nice piece. Regardless, when all is said and done, I doubt that the BuzzBOMB will end up with an asterisk like the Fury did.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

Edited on 2/24/2008 7:04 PM

Strider · « **Reply #40 on:** February 25, 2008, 03:59:02 PM »

It's hard to say SpecVspeeD03. That's the biggest problem with a huge wall. Everything from the biggest oiler to the tamest dry lane ball look pretty similar on a THS. You need to find something like Shark to see if a new toy has what it takes. I see Steven will be drilling his soon. I'm waiting anxiously for his report.
--------------------
Penn State Proud

Special thanks to Lane#1 for donations to two consecutive Ballreviews Get Togethers.

Ron Clifton's Bowling Tip Archive

TheIronMan · « **Reply #41 on:** February 26, 2008, 07:09:16 AM »

Since BTM was mentioned here in what could be construed as somewhat of a bad light, I thought I would add my 2 cents. I have seen people on here and other boards stating that we never give any ball a bad review, even though there have been bad balls? Since I've been at BTM (2001), I have yet to see a new release that did not match up well with me or one of the other testers on at least one condition. If we can line up and strike a lot on one pattern or the other, should we give the ball a bad review...just so we can say we gave thumbs down on one? I can assure you that no ball review has ever been glossed over or "juiced up". They are written as objectively and fairly as possible. Several times, we have disagreed with the ball company's idea of what type of shot the ball would work best for. Twice, this has happened because the company did not send us the same product they put on the market. Once, this happened because our lane machine was faulty. Most of the times this disagreement has ocurred, it was because we just couldn't strike as much on the pattern they designed it for and could get to the pocket and strike more on another pattern. When this happens, we print it. Again, we don't alter or slant the reviews to make a particular ball look better. We have had complaints from the ball companies that XYZ Company got a 9.5 rating on heavy oil and you only gave us an 8.5 and we know our ball is better. We tell them the same thing I'm telling you now. That's what we saw during the tests, so that's what we wrote in the review. Sorry we can't throw in a clunker rating once in a while to make some people happy, but that wouldn't be fair to the ball company would it?
--------------------
www.buildanarsenal.com

mrbowlingnut · « **Reply #42 on:** February 26, 2008, 10:01:50 AM »

This needs to be it's own post, i wonder if people are willing to come out of the woodwork and discuss there thoughts with you or you them???

quote:
Since BTM was mentioned here in what could be construed as somewhat of a bad light, I thought I would add my 2 cents. I have seen people on here and other boards stating that we never give any ball a bad review, even though there have been bad balls? Since I've been at BTM (2001), I have yet to see a new release that did not match up well with me or one of the other testers on at least one condition. If we can line up and strike a lot on one pattern or the other, should we give the ball a bad review...just so we can say we gave thumbs down on one? I can assure you that no ball review has ever been glossed over or "juiced up". They are written as objectively and fairly as possible. Several times, we have disagreed with the ball company's idea of what type of shot the ball would work best for. Twice, this has happened because the company did not send us the same product they put on the market. Once, this happened because our lane machine was faulty. Most of the times this disagreement has ocurred, it was because we just couldn't strike as much on the pattern they designed it for and could get to the pocket and strike more on another pattern. When this happens, we print it. Again, we don't alter or slant the reviews to make a particular ball look better. We have had complaints from the ball companies that XYZ Company got a 9.5 rating on heavy oil and you only gave us an 8.5 and we know our ball is better. We tell them the same thing I'm telling you now. That's what we saw during the tests, so that's what we wrote in the review. Sorry we can't throw in a clunker rating once in a while to make some people happy, but that wouldn't be fair to the ball company would it?
--------------------
www.buildanarsenal.com

TheIronMan · « **Reply #43 on:** February 26, 2008, 10:25:14 AM »

I discuss our review process all the time with readers and ball companies. The main reason for the changes that have evolved over the years is a result of those conversations. We try to be very responsive to our readers' wishes. For example:
We now test on four patterns instead of one
We use 3 testers instead of one
We expanded the hook rating scale to take in new "hook monsters", which were outhooking our old one.
We changed the way we measure length because it's no longer true that "all balls skid in oil".
We added the DigiTrax and 3D Ball graph, directly from suggestions from readers.
We added layout illustrations
We beefed up the Comments section and comparisons to other balls in the same line. We added the enhanced mass bias number on asymmetrical balls.

All of these changes were made (we think for the better) after countless conversations with subscribers. If you would like to have some input on our current survey, go to www.bowlingthismonth.com/survey2008.shtml and fill out the form. If you would like to vote on the 2007 Ball of the Year, go to www.bowlingthismonth.com/readerschoice07.shtml Only a few weeks left to vote!
--------------------
www.buildanarsenal.com

Author Topic: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2 (Read 4410 times)

Nicanor

Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2

Steven

Re: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2

nowski1381

Re: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2

Nicanor

Re: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2

Steven

Re: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2

Nicanor

Re: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2

roger

Re: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2

Nicanor

Re: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2

Nicanor

Re: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2

Steven

Re: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2

Strider

Re: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2

TheIronMan

Re: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2

mrbowlingnut

Re: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2

TheIronMan

Re: Buzzbomb is a Dud part 2