win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)  (Read 15451 times)

Gazoo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« on: August 01, 2008, 01:16:57 PM »
For me it was the Ebonite Thunderbolt. Those glory days.(to much Bourbon) This is beginning to sound like Al Bundy and "Polk High"

Edited on 8/1/2008 9:19 PM

 

JessN16

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #76 on: August 02, 2008, 05:06:23 PM »
quote:
Jess...

I am not bent at all.  I am actually enjoying our tilt here.  It proves to me that what you read on the internet is not actually true...

You are applying today's standards to what happened back in 1991.  Logical but not accurate.  As USBC has stated their list has potential errors and omissions around January 1991 which happens to be about the time the ball in question came out.

I saw the BBR entry....but anecdotal evidence from my rememberances, the Columbia 300 sales rep, the manager of my proshop, and last but not least other members on this site should hint to ya that you might be in error.

I love an intellectual discussion without all of the name calling that is in other threads.

cheers!!
--------------------
Mike Sinek
Roto Grip Amateur Staff
Kingdom member for life


The problem with "what you read on the Internet is not true" is that the sources I'm quoting are the closest thing to official sources we've got. One is the list by which the administrators of the game itself use to regulate legal equipment. The other is a very extensive database that I've yet to find be incorrect about a ball.

As for what other members are saying, there are other members agreeing with me, too, so at best that cancels out.

If you want to prove an official source wrong, you have that right -- but you must prove it. Your word does not constitute proof. Actually prove it, and things can change.

Jess

sdbowler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4066
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #77 on: August 02, 2008, 05:11:46 PM »
Reading this about the Beasts I recall hearing and seeing both of the early beasts. Both were purple one with a reacitive cover and the other with out. The urethane one was out about 6 months if I recall correctly prior to the "reacitive" one coming out. Atleast that's what I recall. From what I remember there was not much difference from the two balls. In my thoughts they were both an ugly purple color.
--------------------
Brunswick
Kyle

burly1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #78 on: August 02, 2008, 05:21:36 PM »
Champions Wine Ultimate Weapon, Columbia Yellow Dot
--------------------
----------------------------------------
Patrick

Juggernaut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • Former good bowler, now 3 games a week house hack.
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #79 on: August 02, 2008, 05:33:40 PM »
quote:
quote:
Jess...

I am not bent at all.  I am actually enjoying our tilt here.  It proves to me that what you read on the internet is not actually true...

You are applying today's standards to what happened back in 1991.  Logical but not accurate.  As USBC has stated their list has potential errors and omissions around January 1991 which happens to be about the time the ball in question came out.

I saw the BBR entry....but anecdotal evidence from my rememberances, the Columbia 300 sales rep, the manager of my proshop, and last but not least other members on this site should hint to ya that you might be in error.

I love an intellectual discussion without all of the name calling that is in other threads.

cheers!!
--------------------
Mike Sinek
Roto Grip Amateur Staff
Kingdom member for life


The problem with "what you read on the Internet is not true" is that the sources I'm quoting are the closest thing to official sources we've got. One is the list by which the administrators of the game itself use to regulate legal equipment. The other is a very extensive database that I've yet to find be incorrect about a ball.

As for what other members are saying, there are other members agreeing with me, too, so at best that cancels out.

If you want to prove an official source wrong, you have that right -- but you must prove it. Your word does not constitute proof. Actually prove it, and things can change.

Jess


  Jess,

  Not trying to argue, or start an argument, but you must remember, information you get from the internet is only as good and reliable as the $6.00 an hour grunt that is putting it on the database.

  I went to columbia300.com to check out the beast. Know what they said the cover was?  TEC2 particle!  Man, TEC2 particle didn't even exist in 1991, and this is straight from the manufacturers website itsself! http://columbia300.com/products/retired_detail.php?PRKey=39

  All I am saying is this.  I've been bowling now since 1982 and was probably the biggest columbia "wonk" around these parts.  If they made it, I either had it, or wanted it.  I can't explain the lack of documentation on the different coverstocks.

  Oh, and the ball being approved with two different covers isn't a singularity either.  I remember when ebonite had the shockwave ball and changed the cover on that from whatever it was ( MEGA-BITE I believe) to another formula ( MEGA-BITE SUPER TAK).
--------------------
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Good transactions list in my profile



My Bowl.com member page

Learn to laugh, and love, and smile, cause we’re only here for a little while.

BowlingWolf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #80 on: August 02, 2008, 05:52:45 PM »
Not meaning to stir the pot, but regarding Columbia Beast's coverstock, I have to agree with rotomike on this one.  

While I cannot definitively prove that the original Beast's coverstock was urethane (don't have the box and spec sheet), I distinctively remember purchasing one and than sometime later purchasing the newer, glossier flexel version (both excellent balls, incidentally).

Ironically, I still have the glossy reactive, but wish I'd kept the original which I ended up giving to a friend of mine a long time ago.


--------------------
Regards,
BowlingWolf

rotomike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #81 on: August 02, 2008, 05:59:40 PM »
Jess,

Once again the "administrators of the game" did not identify the coverstock on their list. Their list does not provide enough information for them to be a  credible source. So your evidence is as anecdotal as mine is except for the fact that the number of Ball Reviews members on my side seem to be piling up.


And I am working to find someone who was with Columbia back in the day to give you the proof that you and it seems only you need.

So I say to you... Prove that there was NOT a Purple Urethane Beast that came out prior to the Reactive model.


--------------------
Mike Sinek
Roto Grip Amateur Staff
Kingdom member for life
Mike Sinek
Roto Grip / Storm Staff Manager
Kingdom member for life

bass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #82 on: August 02, 2008, 06:30:51 PM »
Original Blue Hammer.
Had a greenish tint to it.
Averaged 230+ with it in the early 90's.
--------------------
If it doesn't come from Team Utah.
Just leave it in the car or at home.
free agency it is until i get a better offer.   LMAO

Spider Ball Bowler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4104
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #83 on: August 02, 2008, 06:37:46 PM »
While I'm not exactly sure about the other Beasts, here is a picture of the original Blue, that I still have, picked up in the summer of 1994.  (Along with an undrilled Secret Agent and an undrilled Primal Rage)

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/sgc300/2004_1225beast0001.jpg

A lot of my friends and my dad got the Purple Beast about a year or so after I shot my 300 with my blue one, so that was about 1996 or 1997....I believe there's were Reactive, but heck I dunno
--------------------
Ahhh Disco Biscuits!

Crankenstein300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1296
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #84 on: August 02, 2008, 07:13:26 PM »
Unfortunetly I cannot give any proof, but I too remember 2 different purple Beasts witht eh very first release being urethane. And while BowlingBallReviews is a great resource, it's not 100% foolproof.

On a side note, the green lettered Flexcel U Dot is new to me. I know a few people who would have loved to try that.

Maine Man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2126
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #85 on: August 02, 2008, 07:44:14 PM »
quote:
Prove that there was NOT a Purple Urethane Beast that came out prior to the Reactive model.


OK, here goes:

http://www.columbia300.com/products/retired.php

This complete ball list is right from the Columbia 300 website, and lists ALL of their balls.  The original Beast WAS reactive.  There were two Beasts produced that were urethane, the Blue Beast, and the C-Beast, both coming out at a later date than the original Beast.

Here is the list from bowlingballreviews:

http://www.bowlingballreviews.com/search.asp

It also lists only two urethane Beasts in existence, both blue (the Blue beast and the C-Beast), and both released AFTER the original purple Beast which was reactive.  This goes hand in hand with what Columbia has on their website.

This is confirmation from two independent sources saying there is no such thing as a purple urethane Beast at any point whatsoever.  I agree that the flexcel used on the original Beast was a very mild resin, and reacted much like a urethane ball, but it WAS resin.

On the Columbia site, they did list the resin U-Dot having the green writing and the urethane one having white logos, nice memory on that one.  Also, the fangs on all the pictures of all the Beasts ever made are the same length, so the whole different length fang thing seems like a hoax also.  Where did you get that info, sounds like an urban legend to me.  Take a close look at all the pictures of all the Beasts, and you will see that the fang lengths are the same, whether they are resin, urethane, or plastic.  I hope this helps.  I remember when the Beast first came out, and I stopped by my parents house today and looked at the box of the Beast my Mom still has from 1992, and it says flexcel resin right on the box, so I trust that source also. I mean the box is from Columbia 300 after all, they should know what the ball was made out of.
--------------------
MainePBA
"I'd rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no nuts and no job."
James Goulding
Bowler Builders Pro Shops
Radical Staff
F.D.D.S. Tournament Director

SVstar34

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5465
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #86 on: August 02, 2008, 08:00:34 PM »
I looked at my mom's Beast and my dad's Red Hammer, you can tell that the Beast isn't a urethane ball, it is resin. There is a difference in fell that I notice between resin and urethane balls
--------------------
My Arsenal:
Twisted Fury
Raw Hammer Pain
Blue Vibe


Crankenstein300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1296
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #87 on: August 02, 2008, 09:00:23 PM »
OK I am in a pot stirring mood and managed to find a few things.

Found in a couple old Bowlers Journals the ads for the urethane and the Flexcel Beast. The urethane one being advertised as strictly 2 piece urethane and the logo has 5 teeth between the fangs and they are all the same length. The reactive Beast is advertised as "The new Beast with an Attitude" now with Flexcel. And it's logo is the familiar one with the 4 uneven teeth.

I'll scan the ads and post them soon.

JessN16

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #88 on: August 02, 2008, 09:09:28 PM »
quote:


So I say to you... Prove that there was NOT a Purple Urethane Beast that came out prior to the Reactive model.


--------------------
Mike Sinek
Roto Grip Amateur Staff
Kingdom member for life


Mike,

Whatever happens with this, one of the cardinal rules of debate is that no one is ever required to prove a negative (i.e., prove something didn't exist). You're the one trying to "change history," so to speak, so the onus is on you to do that, not everyone else.

Jess

bwproshop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #89 on: August 02, 2008, 09:18:44 PM »
Yes, there was a purple urethane Beast. It was the very first Beast to be released. To tell it apart from the purple reactive Beast, count the number of teeth. The original urethane Beast had four teeth between the two fangs.
 The reactive version had five. I had both versions.
 As for the best urethane ball:
 1. Beast
 2. Blue Hammer
 3. Blue Pearl Hammer

"Now you can bowl to win with Columbia, Track, and Hammer"!!

sevenpin63

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
Re: Best ball you ever thru pre-reactive resin(Sorry young guns)
« Reply #90 on: August 02, 2008, 09:50:18 PM »
quote:
OK I am in a pot stirring mood and managed to find a few things.

Found in a couple old Bowlers Journals the ads for the urethane and the Flexcel Beast. The urethane one being advertised as strictly 2 piece urethane and the logo has 5 teeth between the fangs and they are all the same length. The reactive Beast is advertised as "The new Beast with an Attitude" now with Flexcel. And it's logo is the familiar one with the 4 uneven teeth.

I'll scan the ads and post them soon.


OK Crank maybe when you get these posted it will settle the debate once and for all. Because there are to many people that know there was urethane Beast,  they all cant be wrong.

Edited on 8/2/2008 9:58 PM