Author Topic: Really a dud? (Read 10511 times)

Gazoo · « **on:** June 28, 2009, 03:55:41 AM »

Video of 3 different bowlers throwing the Buzzbomb. Granted it is not hooking across 3 pair of lanes, but it does seem to hook and carry pretty well. Maybe it wasn't a dud after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTr8mMJN_I8
--------------------
"I don''t want to be remembered, I want to be forgotten"

JessN16 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 29, 2009, 03:47:13 AM »

quote:
lol no one around here are using chainsaws. Its hyroads and virtuals. I've seen the buzzbomb in action and I thinks its too strong for its own good. Similar to the fury, it rolls early and hits flat no matter how much volume of oil there is on the lane. If you think that this ball is a good as the cell, you're crazy
--------------------
www.bowlingsolutions.com

Bowl to win!!!

Move left, hook it more.....

Tommy Jones and Kenny Simard are Gamecock fans...are you???

I think the Cell's popularity on tour speaks for itself. It doesn't need defending.

As for the BuzzBomb, I'm sure there are some people for whom it works better than a Cell. I'm also pretty sure some people didn't match up at all with the Cell. One unofficial way to tell if you have matchup problems with a ball is to watch eBay. There were several BuzzBombs on eBay right after its release, and now there are starting to be some low-mileage Cells, probably from people who are starting to catch them on discount, try them out, but not do well with them. Still, the Cell has pretty much lapped the field this year.

Here's my story on "dud" balls -- Best ball I've ever thrown, probably the Storm X-Factor. I'm in good company there, I'm sure. Second-best ball I ever threw? The AMF Bone XS. Every time we do the "all-time turds" thread on the Miscellaneous forum, though, that ball shows up in spades. For me, I couldn't go wrong with it. I still use both it and the X-Factor from time to time. Lane #1's Tsunami H20 and 900Global's Break S75 are threatening to displace one or both of those balls, though.

Jess

mainzer · « **Reply #17 on:** June 29, 2009, 07:31:02 AM »

It is not about one ball being better than another it is matching with the ball you are using. If someone matches to the BB better than a Cell or VG than they would be dumb not to use the BB. I have throwen Storm and Lane1 and I do not like either they do not match me for a crap, I can't get a ten pin out with Storm and Lane1 I couldn't get a very good read whenever I throw it on, where ever I throw it.

I have matched with MoRich for years and have used them exclusivly until just recently I switched to AZO's new stuff. But when I used MoRich alot of people thought I was nuts but it worked for me and that was all the matters.
--------------------
''If their is a life after death,
then their is no death,
and if their is no death,
we do not live''

Progressive Metal Band
EVERGREY

MainzerPower

Edited on 6/29/2009 7:31 AM

Roy Munson · « **Reply #18 on:** June 29, 2009, 10:22:45 AM »

quote:
I have throwen Storm and Lane1 and I do not like either they do not match me for a crap, I can't get a ten pin out with Storm and Lane1 I couldn't get a very good read whenever I throw it on, where ever I throw it.

. . . and yet this was Posted: 6/14/2009 4:28 PM

http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=238470&ForumID=7&CategoryID=2

Posted: 6/14/2009 4:28 PM

Interesting. I would never throw any lane 1 gear due to the way the guys on this board treat others.

. . . You are really full of crap!!!

--------------------

Roy Munson: "Morning! I hope you don't mind, I got up a little early. So I took the liberty of milking your cow for you. Yeah, it took a little while to get her warmed up. She sure is a stubborn one. Then pow, all at once."
Mr. Boorg: "We don't have a cow. We have a bull."

***** Looking for Pearl Cherry C/2 *****
***** Looking for Pearl Cherry Bomb *****

Steven · « **Reply #19 on:** June 29, 2009, 10:56:50 AM »

I think we all get that for any ball, for some it will be a dud, and for others it will be the greatest thing since sliced bread. It can be the Cell, the BuzzBomb, or any other ball of choice.

What I don't get in the case of the BuzzBomb is, what publicly available information concludes it's an overall universal dud that did serious harm to Lane#1?

What I've seen so far are individual bowlers who are projecting their own personal thoughts and biases as reality for everyone. But I haven't seen any real evidence of global acceptance or rejection of the ball. I'd honestly be interested in seeing this kind of information if it's available.
--------------------
Sig not currently in use. I'm not interested in playing games.

Steven · « **Reply #20 on:** June 29, 2009, 12:51:43 PM »

quote:
IF the people would have done a little research on this ball, they maybe would have known that. But, there was no hint of that in the ads that I saw from Lane#1. Also, their "fuzzy" description of the cover stock certainly didn't help it either.

Inverted: here is the "fuzzy" description of the cover:

"Surrounding this nuclear power plant is our all new Pure GripTM solid reactive coverstock. This new formula grips the lanes on the heaviest oil."

What is it about the phrase 'grips the lanes on the heaviest oil' that doesn't make sense?

So you start with a core very similar to that in the Super Carbide Bomb, wrap it in a very aggressive reactive cover, and what do you expect? I would say just as advertised -- an aggressive heavy oil ball.

Look, I know you didn't like the BB. You know I like mine. There are definitely two camps on this ball (like most). That kind of argument goes nowhere. But this is about labeling the BuzzBomb an overall failure and flop. Where is the real evidence of universal rejection of the ball and damage to Lane#1 as a result?
--------------------
Sig not currently in use. I'm not interested in playing games.

Uncle Crusty · « **Reply #21 on:** June 29, 2009, 01:08:35 PM »

Trying to talk any sense into Steven in this post is absolutely futile. I tried to explain to him previously that I knew several people who felt (as a result of experiences on the lanes over a prolonged period) that everything in Lane#1's lineup had the same characteristic roll and there wasn't enough versatility with the company's equipment. This led these bowlers to try different companies and convinced me that maybe Lane#1 equipment also wouldn't roll well for me, especially since we all dealt with similar lane topology (less oil up front, huge cliff in the middle, just a typical New England THS).

Steven's response: I must not believe in differential or RG, even though I admitted that I do and that I was basing my statements on the experiences of many but not my own experiences. So proceed with caution, in Steven's eyes, it's absolutely impossible that anyone would have any sort of negative experience with a Lane#1 ball, and God forbid anyone try and categorize it as a bust, even if 2.8 trillion people hated the ball...
--------------------
"Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein."

-Broadcasting Extraordinaire and Mensa Member Joe Theismann

pinspeaker · « **Reply #22 on:** June 29, 2009, 01:59:43 PM »

I hear stories about Ritchie asking people to send their balls back to L1 so he can look at the ball himself. I wonder how many BB were sent back in comparison to other L1 balls?

Steven · « **Reply #23 on:** June 29, 2009, 02:02:43 PM »

Crusty: Are you still carrying a chip on your shoulder over that interaction we had? We're going to have to agree to disagree about the roll characteristics of saws. I post on Lane#1 based on first hand knowledge and experience. I provide concrete examples and post them up for debate. You post based on second hand information without any substantiating data other than the unquestionable pronouncements of your sources. It's kind of tough to communicate at that level.

As for this:

quote:
So proceed with caution, in Steven's eyes, it's absolutely impossible that anyone would have any sort of negative experience with a Lane#1 ball, and God forbid anyone try and categorize it as a bust

How many times do I have to say I understand that some folks think the BuzzBomb is a dud. That's not what this is about. The topic is labeling the ball a universal dud that did substantial damage to Lane#1. Two different things. Maybe you can dig up some more friends who have an opinion and report that back.
--------------------
Sig not currently in use. I'm not interested in playing games.

Uncle Crusty · « **Reply #24 on:** June 29, 2009, 02:21:20 PM »

quote:
Crusty: Are you still carrying a chip on your shoulder over that interaction we had?

Well, if you remember correctly, you were the one to bring this whole issue back up when you used it as your main reason why you don't put any stock in what I have to say. Apparently, making a statement based on second-hand knowledge is grounds for rendering anything one says irrelevant. Or so you seem to convey.

quote:
I post on Lane#1 based on first hand knowledge and experience. I provide concrete examples and post them up for debate. You post based on second hand information without any substantiating data other than the unquestionable pronouncements of your sources. It's kind of tough to communicate at that level.

Ummm...

quote:
Jug: The difference is that I've never claimed it's been a universal success. I've said many times that I like the BB, and have showed evidence that others do too.

So when you show evidence that others like the BB, it's perfectly valid, but if I show similar evidence to the contrary, it's not valid? I'm confused. Maybe you'd like to explain why my second-hand information is worse than your second-hand information. Wait, let me guess: it's because mine doesn't portray Lane#1 in a flattering light and doesn't agree with your beliefs, so in a self-serving effort to make Lane#1 seem flawless, you'll disregard my evidence. Good call, way to look reasonable.

quote:
How many times do I have to say I understand that some folks think the BuzzBomb is a dud. That's not what this is about. The topic is labeling the ball a universal dud that did substantial damage to Lane#1. Two different things. Maybe you can dig up some more friends who have an opinion and report that back.

You're right, I stand corrected. You never did say that the BB should be great for everyone because it was great for you. However, in your attempts to illegitimize any negative BB feedback as a product of layout, surface, or lack of skill while holding positive feedback in the highest regard, you've basically made it impossible to determine if the ball really is a dud because you only seem to care about the good things people say about the ball.
--------------------
"Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein."

-Broadcasting Extraordinaire and Mensa Member Joe Theismann

Edited on 6/29/2009 2:24 PM

DP3 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 29, 2009, 02:35:04 PM »

Just a question to Steven:

Do you work in the industry at a pro shop/proprietor/distributor level? If not, how would you have any estimate on what a success/failure is nationwide or globally?
--------------------
-DJ Marshall
just another never was

Nicanor · « **Reply #26 on:** June 29, 2009, 03:48:35 PM »

A couple of things,

Steven left out the part where Lane 1 in theiur advertisement stated

"You won't believe your eyes when you see this midlane Hook Monster explode with a Huge Backend."

Why didn't you include that Steven? because it hurts your case.

Secondly, The Buzzbomb was a flop because it hurt the ssales at that time, sales of the Buzzbomb/R and the sales of the Agent Orange.

Need proof:

Did they make the Buzzbomb Hybrid? No.

Did they have a booth at Nationals? No.

Did they have their bowling balls included into the PBA? No.

If it was the hookingest ball and had a huge backend, it would have helped the sales of the Buzzbomb/R and the Agent Orange and Lane 1 would have been financial stable enough to do all the things they have in years past. and don't give me it was the economy. lane 1 stated they weren't going to have a booth in Vegas before the economy went south.

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

Steven · « **Reply #27 on:** June 29, 2009, 03:51:40 PM »

quote:
Do you work in the industry at a pro shop/proprietor/distributor level? If not, how would you have any estimate on what a success/failure is nationwide or globally?

DP3: Nope, I don't. Remember, I'm not the one making global claims -- I'm questioning them. That's why I'm asking where Nic, Inverted and the others who have labeled the BuzzBomb a 'universal dud' got their information. I admit that I don't have inside information, but apparently others do. If someone is in the know, please share.

quote:
So when you show evidence that others like the BB, it's perfectly valid, but if I show similar evidence to the contrary, it's not valid? I'm confused. Maybe you'd like to explain why my second-hand information is worse than your second-hand information.

Crusty: Second hand information, by itself, has credibility issues. I showed evidence that others like the BB to compliment descriptions of my own experience with the ball. You don't have any skin in the game when you simply relay information you can't personally discuss.

I'd be really interested to hear your higher-end bowling associates come on here and explain their assessment that saws tend to have the same roll characteristics. There might be some context that would be useful to a discussion.

--------------------
Sig not currently in use. I'm not interested in playing games.

Edited on 6/29/2009 3:55 PM

JessN16 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 29, 2009, 04:10:00 PM »

Steven, others: Here's the bottom line on the effect of the BuzzBomb.

No, it's not a "dud" given that it does work for some people, perhaps even a majority of people.

However, it's a condition-specific piece of equipment that also happens to NOT work for a significant number of people -- and Lane #1 chose to build a marketing blitz around it.

There are a couple of things working against Lane #1 in such a situation. First of all, it's a small company that doesn't release 12 balls a year, so if one release falls short of expectations, it's going to stick with people longer because there's not something coming right up the pike to replace it. Case in point, there are seemingly two dozen Rivals and Momentums out there from Columbia and about as many NVs from Ebonite I'm sure one of them was a disappointment -- but I can't remember which, because of sheer volume.

Second thing, I question the strategy of making your centerpiece something that is limited to one side of the oil spectrum, especially given how houses seem to be cutting back oil volumes to curb costs and drive up scores. The principal reason I never bought a BuzzBomb, but did buy a BuzzBomb/R, is that I would use the original one for fewer than 20 games in a year. I turn the ball too much and bowl in too dry of a house usually. I have a couple of outstanding heavy oil balls here at the house that I never get to use.

So when the ball actually hit the shelves, it got a triple whammy of (a) not matching up for a significant percentage of bowlers, (b) being somewhat limited in its application in the first place, and (c) Lane #1 couldn't get a significantly different piece of gear out behind it to distract attention. To make matters worse, the next release was the BuzzBomb/R, and if you didn't match up with the original worth a da*n, you sure weren't going to buy the pearl version.

Dud? I don't think so. Marketing calamity? Perhaps. Using hype to sell is a tricky subject because if it works, it's great, but when it doesn't work, it can have a cascade effect on the rest of the company. I do know a few people significantly pissed off enough over the BuzzBomb that they're not going to give anything else from the company a significant look.

And if the Dynamo is as good as feedback indicates it is, that's unfortunate. I have found very, very few people who don't like that ball, but how many more Dynamos would have sold had the BuzzBomb not have polluted the waters for some buyers?

And finally, it's not bowlers' own fault if they got burned on the BuzzBomb and didn't come back to try the Dynamo. If I threw down $220 and ended up with a doorstop I'd be leery, too.

Jess

Uncle Crusty · « **Reply #29 on:** June 29, 2009, 04:30:47 PM »

quote:
Crusty: Second hand information, by itself, has credibility issues. I showed evidence that others like the BB to compliment descriptions of my own experience with the ball. You don't have any skin in the game when you simply relay information you can't personally discuss.

Of course I can discuss it. Let's say I practice with these guys on a regular basis and have seen them throw Saws in the past and witnessed their awful ball reaction with certain balls and have seen what they claim to see. If that were true (and it is), then it's more than fair to say that I can validate their claims. I don't need to throw Saws alongside them to know this because we're not talking about my ball reaction. I could drill a BB and kill with it, but that does absolutely nothing to change the fact that a bunch of guys I know hated it and had issues with Lane#1 in general. It really doesn't, this isn't that hard a concept.

And don't give me this BS about "complimenting descriptions of your own experience with the ball." How many people have to compliment descriptions of bad ball reaction before you acknowledge its relatively widespread occurrence?

quote:
I'd be really interested to hear your higher-end bowling associates come on here and explain their assessment that saws tend to have the same roll characteristics. There might be some context that would be useful to a discussion.

Well, as far as I know, only one of these "associates" posts here. Does that mean he's the only guy I know who had a rough go of it with Lane#1? No, of course not. But he is the only guy you could talk to here. Since you seem so bound and determined to speak with my sources, I'll give him up: Maine Man.

And before you dismiss him (which I'm sure you'll do anyways to suit your own purposes), note that he's bowled several honor scores with Saws, won 4 state titles (Maine or not, that's still an accomplishment), and won several local tournaments. So why don't you PM him and ask him why he ditched Saws a few years back despite having success with them.

And since he also works in a pro shop and works with people specifically on their equipment (which you don't), why don't you ask him what the general consensus is on Lane#1 in general. Be sure to ask him what people thought about the Buzzbomb in our neck of the woods. I'm sure he'd be glad to tell you everything I've already tried to tell you.
--------------------
"Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein."

-Broadcasting Extraordinaire and Mensa Member Joe Theismann

NoseofRI · « **Reply #30 on:** June 29, 2009, 04:44:30 PM »

quote:
So when the ball actually hit the shelves, it got a triple whammy of (a) not matching up for a significant percentage of bowlers, (b) being somewhat limited in its application in the first place, and (c) Lane #1 couldn't get a significantly different piece of gear out behind it to distract attention. To make matters worse, the next release was the BuzzBomb/R, and if you didn't match up with the original worth a da*n, you sure weren't going to buy the pearl version.

Using these three reasons almost defines a "dud" from a sales standpoint.
If the Lane #1 argument is that "it's not a dud because it works for some people" than going the other way it can fully be stated that it is a dud because it didn't work for others. Being a "dud" has absolutely NOTHING to do with reaction and use of a bowling ball. The fact is there's not a single bowling ball out there that has NEVER worked for a single person. Whether a ball is a dud or not is based on overall interest initially at release and continually after the has gotten to a few hands for people to see. So you see every ball has its place to be used and all this other blah blah that's being used for an argument. But for your argument to be that it works but I only use it when they are flooded and in tournament competition 3 times a year is a pretty dismal argument and does nothing in your defense for saying it isn't a dud.
So now my question to those making arguments that the BuzzBomb was NOT a dud....
Do you consider the original Fury Solid a dud? Simple yes or no on this answer.

Edited on 6/29/2009 4:54 PM

Author Topic: Really a dud? (Read 10511 times)

Gazoo

Really a dud?

JessN16

Re: Really a dud?

mainzer

Re: Really a dud?

Roy Munson

Re: Really a dud?

Steven

Re: Really a dud?

Steven

Re: Really a dud?

Uncle Crusty

Re: Really a dud?

pinspeaker

Re: Really a dud?

Steven

Re: Really a dud?

Uncle Crusty

Re: Really a dud?

DP3

Re: Really a dud?

Nicanor

Re: Really a dud?

Steven

Re: Really a dud?

JessN16

Re: Really a dud?

Uncle Crusty

Re: Really a dud?

NoseofRI

Re: Really a dud?