BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Gizmo823 on December 20, 2013, 03:06:13 PM
-
More and more bowling ball companies keep sprouting up, flooding the market with more and more equipment. But the question is, is the new stuff really any better? Are you scoring better at all? And if you are, are you sure the ball is responsible for it? My average has gone absolutely nowhere in 6 or 7 years, but I've gone through tons of balls. Does today's equipment really act much different than stuff a decade ago? Is it more durable? I think all that's happened is people are getting more technical, and they're more in love with the theoretical science of it than the practical realism. Sorry, but the latest and greatest isn't . . it's just different. Storm's biggest success is also its biggest mistake in continuing to produce the Hyroad. The ball is 5 years old, which is a testament to how good it is, but it's also undeniable proof that nothing that ANYBODY else is making is any better, despite the claims. All it's done is reinforce a culture of being dependent on technology and equipment rather than skill.
-
Yea, that HyRoad has darn near put Storm out of business.
;) ;D ;D ;D
-
Lol that wasn't the point, but touche ;D
Yea, that HyRoad has darn near put Storm out of business.
;) ;D ;D ;D
-
Yea, I know Ham, just yanking your chain. ;D
It's Friday, I'm bored. 8)
-
Yeap, lol it's Friday and I'm just trying to stir stuff up . . but as long as all these ball companies can keep convincing people that their newest ball is revolutionary, they'll keep selling them.
-
Yeap, lol it's Friday and I'm just trying to stir stuff up . . but as long as all these ball companies can keep convincing people that their newest ball is revolutionary, they'll keep selling them.
True but they don't want to "Old Technology".... no one wants to pay for that. That's why it needs a brand new ribbon.
-
True but they don't want to "Old Technology".... no one wants to pay for that. That's why it needs a brand new ribbon.
Yeah.....I kind of understand the mindset, but I kind of don't either.....make sense?
I'll pay for "old technology" because it works!! Why are folks continuing to buy Elite balls? Just sayin'
The light bulb core will be a fixture in ball technology forever and ever, because it works well for a large majority of the populace. And I'll pay for that all day long, just because it works!
-
Same applies with Storm and the Hy-Road Pearl.... the T-Road Pearl was mildly popular, they come out with the Hy-Road and it's hugely successful.... Re-release the T-Road Pearl as the "Hy-Road" Pearl and people lose their minds buying it and singing of it's praises. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is different between the two but the Hy-Road Pearl is on Back Order and the T-Road Pearl barely sold...
Sometimes, you just need to catch people in the right moment...
-
it's a ball,people put to much stock into it.
-
I personally enjoy when these companies come out with new balls every two months. That means i can buy one of these balls 6 months down the road at half the price when they discontinue them. Win win for me!
-
+1
-
A lot of you guys have bowled with me. Always was a down and in. 200 revs, 17mph. Couldn't swing the ball more than 5 boards.
7 year break from bowling after my stroke. Bought a new ball, Motive Tribal. I'm playing 15 to 5 at the range finders with a backend I find hard to believe.
So, in my case, yes the technology has produced better equipment, if the amount of baords I can cover is any indication.
-
No the technology hasn't change in years. Core specs are not changing. The parameters have been lessened by USBC to a small degree as a preventative. What has changed is knowledge of the reactions and drilling to match the bowler better.
That being said if anyone looks to a ball to increase average versus ability to spare and make good shots along with practice well you are a testament to the marketing and promotions presented by said companies.
I think there are definitely some stronger coverstocks sprinkled in vs a few years ago but not enough to say it is an advancement.
Better scores and higher averages come through work and practice. A new ball can be a useful tool or a hurtful crutch.
-
I hate to disagree Kid, I think coverstock tech(as far as the formulas and additives) have come a long way. If nothing more than just in oil absorption alone. Balls today absorb oil so much faster and make balls so much stronger than from years past. THS mask the differences in balls but sport patterns make the difference. I've thrown some of my balls from the past on Sport Patterns vs THS against the same cover and/or core with different cover than today's model and results aren't close.
The friction created by these new covers and the Ra values of the surface are much more conducive to making the balls hook that it's stupid. It is because of that oil absorption that ball companies are able to pump out balls at alarming rates. Balls become oil soaked and then you're ready for another one or take the chance of "sacrificing" strikes.
I will agree with that the core numbers do not and regulations by USBC ensure that for good reason. USBC wants to ensure that MB's, Pins, and cg's are marked in their proper places. But as far as the covers, i have to disagree.
-
Same applies with Storm and the Hy-Road Pearl.... the T-Road Pearl was mildly popular, they come out with the Hy-Road and it's hugely successful.... Re-release the T-Road Pearl as the "Hy-Road" Pearl and people lose their minds buying it and singing of it's praises. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is different between the two but the Hy-Road Pearl is on Back Order and the T-Road Pearl barely sold...
Sometimes, you just need to catch people in the right moment...
Troad pearl barely sold? You must bowl and live in Siberia.
-
I have to agree with Righty here, cover strength is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was even 5 years ago. On house, strong balls all the way up to a Sync all the way down to a Lights Out are within an arrow of one another.
When you get on real volume, you see a difference, a large one. I've said it a million times, for the average, meat and potatoes kind of guy he could throw a Columbia Beast from '98 or a Hyroad from now and see no difference. But if you bowl seriously, I.e. tournament, scratch player, weekend warrior type. Its in your best interest to keep up with ball technology.
-
Same applies with Storm and the Hy-Road Pearl.... the T-Road Pearl was mildly popular, they come out with the Hy-Road and it's hugely successful.... Re-release the T-Road Pearl as the "Hy-Road" Pearl and people lose their minds buying it and singing of it's praises. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is different between the two but the Hy-Road Pearl is on Back Order and the T-Road Pearl barely sold...
Sometimes, you just need to catch people in the right moment...
Troad pearl barely sold? You must bowl and live in Siberia.
It's cold out here in Sibertron. lol! That was a bad choice of words but my point was that the older model didn't sell as much as the new model is going to. The market was a bit more even as well.
-
My opinion. Not a popular one, but one I am entitled to.
Bowling has been totally screwed by the ball companies. They have, in the name of the almighty dollar, blatantly lied to the consumers of their products.
And, the large majority of the bowling public has been MORE THAN GLAD to be complicit in this by standing in line to buy products that would make up for a lack of skill or ability.
NOTHING THAT HAS COME DOWN THE LINE IN THE LAST 20 YEARS HAS BEEN GOOD FOR BOWLING! NOTHING!
Powerful balls and china wall shots have created an air of entitlement, and by that I mean people who actually believe they SHOULD be allowed to average 230 by bowling 6 games a week while drinking beer during league. SORRY, BUT NO, YOU SHOULDN'T.
Now, don't confuse my opinion with my perception. I understand why all of this happened, I just don't think it has helped anything except the ball companies trying to fill up their pockets, and i don't think the governing body should've ever let things get to the point they are now.
Ball technology should've been capped off in the mid to late 1980's, and would've been if bowling had followed its own directives, that were set forth in the "System of Bowling", a study done into how ALL parts of bowling were supposed to work together, which set limits on the amount of friction a ball was allowed to produce, limits that were then ignored, and soon forgotten. The only reference I could even find to the "System of Bowling" was here: http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/articles/USBCrefocusesonSystemofBowlingResearch.pdf
Before this turns into another full fledged RANT, which it will if I am allowed to ramble, I will just STFU now and let it rest.
-
My opinion. Not a popular one, but one I am entitled to.
Bowling has been totally screwed by the ball companies. They have, in the name of the almighty dollar, blatantly lied to the consumers of their products.
And, the large majority of the bowling public has been MORE THAN GLAD to be complicit in this by standing in line to buy products that would make up for a lack of skill or ability.
NOTHING THAT HAS COME DOWN THE LINE IN THE LAST 20 YEARS HAS BEEN GOOD FOR BOWLING! NOTHING!
Powerful balls and china wall shots have created an air of entitlement, and by that I mean people who actually believe they SHOULD be allowed to average 230 by bowling 6 games a week while drinking beer during league. SORRY, BUT NO, YOU SHOULDN'T.
Now, don't confuse my opinion with my perception. I understand why all of this happened, I just don't think it has helped anything except the ball companies trying to fill up their pockets, and i don't think the governing body should've ever let things get to the point they are now.
Ball technology should've been capped off in the mid to late 1980's, and would've been if bowling had followed its own directives, that were set forth in the "System of Bowling", a study done into how ALL parts of bowling were supposed to work together, which set limits on the amount of friction a ball was allowed to produce, limits that were then ignored, and soon forgotten. The only reference I could even find to the "System of Bowling" was here: http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/articles/USBCrefocusesonSystemofBowlingResearch.pdf
Before this turns into another full fledged RANT, which it will if I am allowed to ramble, I will just STFU now and let it rest.
I would like to sit down and have a beer with you, sir!
-
Everybody blames the ball for the scoring increase. Give a little credit to the technology changes that have been made in lane maintenance in the last 25 years.
-
Everybody blames the ball for the scoring increase. Give a little credit to the technology changes that have been made in lane maintenance in the last 25 years.
In addition to that, there's the plain mechanics of the pins (2 hollows, plus that springy plastic shell) and the pin deck area itself. Reduce the coefficient of restitution of the side boards, and make the gutters the depth of the specification and pins would fly around a LOT less, with much fewer messengers. You'd get a strike only when you hit the true flush pocket.
When averages drop 30 pins with people throwing the same power balls with the same ball path and on the oil which still "grooves" the ball to the pocket, and they don't get strikes when they barely sniff the 1-3pocket, then we'll be where we should - a strike will be truly deserved.
-
When averages drop 30 pins with people throwing the same power balls with the same ball path and on the oil which still "grooves" the ball to the pocket, and they don't get strikes when they barely sniff the 1-3pocket, then we'll be where we should - a strike will be truly deserved.
Although I agree with you in theory, the vast majority of higher average bowlers will quit if their averages go down 30 pins.
-
When averages drop 30 pins with people throwing the same power balls with the same ball path and on the oil which still "grooves" the ball to the pocket, and they don't get strikes when they barely sniff the 1-3pocket, then we'll be where we should - a strike will be truly deserved.
Although I agree with you in theory, the vast majority of higher average bowlers will quit if their averages go down 30 pins.
Im 232 on house, 197 on sport. Thats 35 pins, the difference is, I am fully aware of soft conditions aiding my inflated average. So far ive bowled on Chameleon, Bear, Badger, and Scorpion. We bowl 3-4 weeks on various patterns throughout the year and its scratch. Its refreshing to bowl on stuff where educated guesses make sense. Not the typical "throw it harder" like you have to do on house.
-
For covers it depends on how far back you go to say there's leaps and bounds difference.
I'd say by 2008 it has not changed much since. House or sport there's plenty of balls and covers that will hold their own against todays equipment. There are plenty of super covers today that are super but your letting it give you a false sense of certainty over equipment from a few years ago.
-
Everybody blames the ball for the scoring increase. Give a little credit to the technology changes that have been made in lane maintenance in the last 25 years.
Give some credit also to coaching and research to understand the Sport better than applying it.
-
Again, a lot of this is theoretical. Coverstocks have improved . . but is it noticeable or relevant? If anything, they're simply designed for synthetic lanes now. Wood was higher friction, and was the predominant surface 15-20 years ago, but now that the majority of houses out there have synthetics, it requires a "more aggressive" ball to get the same reaction you'd have on wood. I see no noticeable effect on hook or ball durability, and again, this is from a public state of view, obviously I've never seen balls hook like the Endless Nightmare before, but as far as visual ball motion, it doesn't look much different than the now years old Virtual Gravity, which really didn't look that much different from the Super Charge, which didn't look that different from the Trauma ER . . see where I'm going here? Now, a lot of this does have to do with lane maintenance and oil volume increase. I have a feeling a brand new Trauma ER wouldn't look anything close to an Endless on today's conditions, but again, I don't think ball technology has really advanced persay, it's just adapted. Ball durability is a big thing with me, and it almost seems to be getting worse. It's only natural, given physics and the rules therein, but things like the NRG coverstock from Storm doesn't seem to make a difference, but theoretically it sounds great.