Do you mean an individual ball that somehow got through quality control when shouldn't have, or one particular a model of balls?
--------------------
It is by Caffeine alone that I sent my mind in motion.  It is by the beans of Java that my thoughts acquire speed.  The hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.  It is by Caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.

I loved my V2 dry and there is a guy on my thursday league and thats all he throws.
--------------------
I should just quit bowling, oh wait I already tried that.
Now that I am back and my Saws are sharp again, I am ready to cut some wood.

Yes there are such things as DUDS.

I think there are both individual balls that are duds and whole ball models that are duds.  Of course, SOMEBODY is going to match up well even to a ball model that is a dud.  I'd like to think that extensive research and development goes into every single ball model that is released, but there is no way that that is the case.  Certain flagship balls may have that, but I'm convinced that most of the time both coverstocks and cores are shots in the dark, and we--the consumers--are the guinea pigs that get to decide what works and what doesn't.  R & D budgets would be prohibitive if every ball had extensive research and testing.  The companies simply release too many for that to be the case.  They are like cluster bombs--they throw a bunch of them at us, and something will hit.

A ball that was a major dud for me was the Faball Hammer 4DHPT.  And just try to find anyone that liked the Riptide or Tombstone.  The Seawolf vanished in what seemed like a couple weeks.  The Blazing Inferno disappeared pretty fast.

Shiv
--------------------
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top

Edited on 10/20/2004 3:40 PM

There are balls that work for a limited group of people.  However, the balls are marketed to the masses.  Therefore the ball will not work for a lot of people.  These balls will fall in the dud category.

No matter what type of ball it is, someone may find it useful.  A ball that rolls instantly and flattens out will be loved by someone that throws 20+ miles per hour.  A ball that does not hook will be loved by the turtles.  However, don't expect to sell a lot of them.  If a ball company makes a bunch of unpopular balls goodbye customers (like Hammer for a number of years).

Over the past 5 years, I've owned 50+ balls across most of the major manufacturers (Storm, Columbia, Track, Ebonite). I've also dabbled in a few of the smaller player, namely Lane#1 and Hammer. The balls cover the entire spectrum of reaction -- Particles, Pearl Particles, Solid Resins, Pearl Resins, Solid Urethanes, Pearl Urethanes, and Plastics. Cores have been both Symmetric and Asymmetric, with RG values ranging from very high to very low.

I can say with certainty that none of the balls have been duds. There have been a few instances where I did not initially lay out the right drill pattern, or played with a non-optimal surface prep, but one way or another I'd finally get it right.

So I have to agree with tenpinspro. If you have a well developed game and set up any ball properly, it should work satisfactorily on it's intended condition. Having said this, it doesn't mean that you won't like one ball better than another. But that doesn't make the less preferred ball a dud.  



--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

I don't think there has been a true dud released in quite some time.  There is going to be stuff that you don't match up with no matter what you try.  The two things I try to avoid are real low RG's and big differentials.  I know the balls I haven't liked in the last few years have been good for other people.
--------------------
Penn State Proud

Ron Clifton's Bowling Tip Archive