There was a long thread going on this topic over a year ago; which means that the thread is gone from the site now. I'm sure of that because I just checked the user list and Jim King is showing zero posts now. The gist of it was that there was a lot of criticism of how lame the BTM ball reviews had become. The complaining somehow came to the attention of BTM editor Jim King and he jumped in in defense of the reviews. I, along with a few others, wouldn't back down in our criticisms; and since I have all the issues cataloged in chrono order back to 1996, I pulled out some specific examples. If I remember correctly, the thread finally fizzled out with all sides somewhat disgruntled.
Shortly after that, however, the reviews went from being quite terse to being somewhat less terse like they are now. They started the system of rating the balls as thrown by the three major bowling styles, so things did improve a bit.
Since we're back on the subject, I'd like to weigh in with some more hopefully constructive criticism.
First, since each ball is being thrown by three different bowling styles, it seems like it would be easy to include a little more feedback from each of those bowlers. If space is a consideration, I would think that it would be smart to make the space for the extra detail. As critical as we all are of ball reviews (whatever their source), it's undeniable that they attract a lot of readership and figure strongly in a lot of people's ball choices. Not everyone has the access to loads of bowling balls and good pro shops that so many of us here on this site have.
Second item....BTM now lists some statistics on their three bowlers, namely axis rotation, PAP, RPM, and MPH at 10 ft. This is good info to have. The cranker is listed as having an axis rotation of 70 degrees, the tweener 55 degrees, and the stroker 75 degrees. I think it would be helpful to have someone in there (a stroker most likely) with a lower amount of axis rotation--maybe in the 30-40 degree range (or even less). Having three testers; all with 55 degrees or more of axis rotation; doesn't help straighter players much.
Fantasy time. Wouldn't it be nice to have a publication like Consumer Reports that accepted no advertising available to do ball reviews? Such a publication would have to have access to lanes, top notch lane conditioning equipment, a top notch lane man, a variety of elite bowlers, and probably a throbot type device. It would also have to have access to about a half dozen of every ball made--and get them fast so that the ball wouldn't be on the market for a month or two before the review came out. Such an enterprise would cost a fortune and the subscription price would be insane--especially since the only people who would buy it would be perhaps a couple thousand of us bowling junkies--at best.
In the meantime, what Bob Hanson said
quote:
Generally if there are quite a few reviews you start to see some consensus among more knowledgeable reviewers and that can be helpful
and the BTM reviews are the best most of us can do. Maybe we can nudge BTM toward a little more detail. Every little bit helps.
Shiv
--------------------
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top
Edited on 7/9/2003 10:32 AM
