well, charltest, you got me wondering...so, I looked back through my notes in detail.
I do own the particle World Class. When I tested it before it would either not move in a reliable way for me in oil, or, on a dryer condition, it would move but it was too dry for that cover (no surprise) and it lost too much energy - I couldn't find a sweet spot.
And a similar story for the Black Pearl. And although I sold it to a friend before I tried it much, I also had a Yeah Baby! for a short time.
Reading my notes I can see that the WC particle cover was taking hold in the oil as expected but I just couldn't get the entry angle I needed without going slower than I prefer and adding more hand to the release than I like - with a net line to the pocket that was less forgiving than I'm looking for.
If going slower and adding more hand were my only options then I would just accept that as what's required by the game. But, the reality is that I can use other oil friendly balls like the Fury, Cobalt Solid, or Gamebreaker and get the reliable line I'm looking for without having to particularly slow down or add more hand. And the difference appears to be the RG (maybe some strong asymmetrics can provide an equivalent effect without so low an RG).
My, admittedly mechanics-ignorant, theory is that the characteristics of even a strong particle cover, as on the World Class, requires a minimal amount of imparted Revs to realize an effective consistent break and backend motion. My guess is that the dynamics of the core/cover interaction is just not unleashed, on the intended oil condition, without that minimal added side rotation.
Most higher end bowlers cross that threshold; they have all learned to add at least moderately high revs, relative to casual bowlers, with their release. So the balls, designed with that majority of high end bowlers in mind, work just fine for them. So I continue to recommend L/LM equipment to anyone who has some noticeable hand.
On the other hand, if you are a relatively straight player, speed over revs, you can better use a core that revs up with less effort - a low RG core. Just adding friction read to the cover will cause it to stop skidding and read the lane sooner and provide the time for the rotation to shift axes(?) but will not necessarily provide the right amount of side turn for a strong drive through the deck (partly because that early grab robs energy you're going to need at the 60 foot mark).
I know there are many purists who believe there should be one ball, or a limited range of balls, that would require the bowler to master imparting the necessary revs with their release action - as was necessary back in a previous bowling era. If we, collectively, want to make that particular release action a key part of the athleticism required for bowling, so be it. (I just started bowling in 2002 so I didn't have to live through some big equipment driven transition.)
But right now, as Walter Ray likes to demonstrate, a straighter game can compete on a level with a high-rev boomer game. My only disappointment with L/LM balls has been that L/LM hasn't particularly supported people playing that style, to date.
---
Finally, to really shift topics and add fuel to a long-burning fire, I suggest that, so long as the low RG equipment is available, that a speed over revs straighter style can be generally superior to a high rev approach because one can more easily achieve consistency (the real goal) with more than adequate entry angle with that straighter approach than with a strong hooking path.
--------------------
Throwing rocks at sticks...Does it get any better than this?
