BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: giddyupddp on April 14, 2017, 10:27:33 AM
-
I appreciate that most balls manufactured today are of good quality but every review it seems by bowlers on this site are positive. Nobody ever posts any negative ball reviews which seems counter productive. I know there are a lot of staffers who post thus they can't dare say anything bad about a ball but every non-staffer too? I just started to use this site a lot and would like more honest opinions on balls or any subject. Take care
-
Reads the mid lane very well with tons of continuation!!! LOL
They always say that about every ball. I'm been back at bowling about 5 years now, averaging 210ish, got a couple 300's and a few 700's. I still don't know what the hell reading the mid lane and strong continuation means????
If my shot doesn't continue threw the pins and exit around the 20 board, it's because I threw a bad shot and didn't have a good angle in the pocket or my release was bad and I came around the ball causing it to pick up it's roll too late and it deflects out of the pocket. Sorry but the latest and greatest ball isn't going to fix that.
Hell I can throw my storm mix for strikes and get very good results........if I throw it correctly.
-
My opinion is that there aren't really "bad" balls being made. Majority of the time if you use a ball on it's recommended lane conditions you're going to get a pretty good reaction. Surface is the biggest factor and every ball today takes well to changes so it's pretty easy to fine tune a reaction.
There's been a couple exceptions over the years, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of "bad" balls that a lot of people didn't like.
-
I appreciate that most balls manufactured today are of good quality but every review it seems by bowlers on this site are positive. Nobody ever posts any negative ball reviews which seems counter productive. I know there are a lot of staffers who post thus they can't dare say anything bad about a ball but every non-staffer too? I just started to use this site a lot and would like more honest opinions on balls or any subject. Take care
You answered your own question.
Since all balls serve a specific purpose, the best balls are most useful over a wind range of conditions. There are truly no bad balls.
So, all a negative review does is show that either you bought the wrong ball for the wrong purpose or your drill recommended the wrong ball for you or for your delivery or for the conditions for which you wanted it. Thus, either you or he/she does not know your game or they don't bowling balls or one of decided on the wrong drilling or the wrong surface.
All those potential negatives are your or his faults, not the ball's.
-
Great continuation has become the newest catch all description. When a ball and release matches up to a condition you are going to get great continuation. Another bowler may or may not experience same depending on their release.
The other one I like is "keeps the pins low". Geometry and physics tell us that two round objects of the same circumference will both cause a cirved pin to become airborne at the same angle when hit.
-
I appreciate that most balls manufactured today are of good quality but every review it seems by bowlers on this site are positive. Nobody ever posts any negative ball reviews which seems counter productive. I know there are a lot of staffers who post thus they can't dare say anything bad about a ball but every non-staffer too? I just started to use this site a lot and would like more honest opinions on balls or any subject. Take care
You answered your own question.
Since all balls serve a specific purpose, the best balls are most useful over a wind range of conditions. There are truly no bad balls.
So, all a negative review does is show that either you bought the wrong ball for the wrong purpose or your drill recommended the wrong ball for you or for your delivery or for the conditions for which you wanted it. Thus, either you or he/she does not know your game or they don't bowling balls or one of decided on the wrong drilling or the wrong surface.
All those potential negatives are your or his faults, not the ball's.
The first batch of the original Phaze were some truly bad balls. Yes, you can argue that it can be used on dry conditions and be fine, however, that was not Storm's intention nor was it anyone who was buying it.
Other than that, I can agree with you for the most part.
-
There shouldn't be really any "bad" balls..minus that 1%. I think it's a matter of the balls versatility. Some equipment is just more versatile to patterns, release, etc. Those that are, get the better rep..those that aren't become labeled negatively.
-
Great continuation has become the newest catch all description. When a ball and release matches up to a condition you are going to get great continuation. Another bowler may or may not experience same depending on their release.
The other one I like is "keeps the pins low". Geometry and physics tell us that two round objects of the same circumference will both cause a cirved pin to become airborne at the same angle when hit.
Even if it has a "Patented Diamond Core?" :o ;D
-
Great continuation has become the newest catch all description. When a ball and release matches up to a condition you are going to get great continuation. Another bowler may or may not experience same depending on their release.
The other one I like is "keeps the pins low". Geometry and physics tell us that two round objects of the same circumference will both cause a cirved pin to become airborne at the same angle when hit.
Even if it has a "Patented Diamond Core?" :o ;D
Sure, go ahead, kick them when they're down and stupid. :)
L****1 cores and Brunswick coverstocks made quite a few great balls until, according to rumor, L***1 stopped paying their Brunswick bills. Been on a downhill slide, with rare exceptions, ever since then. Greed often begets failure.
-
Most balls are tested on typical house conditions by decent bowlers. If you can't make the ball strike it's probably not the ball.
Having said that, "out of the box" I've had some that don't match up with me, so I adjust the surface until it does. Not often do I find a ball that I just can't use somewhere...
-
No bad balls just bad bowlers
-
I remember a few years ago there was a ball released and many complaints about the ball not reacting good. Turns out there was a batch where they forgot to add the resin so the ball was basically a pearl urethane.
The company did replace those balls for those bowlers who complained.
-
I remember a few years ago there was a ball released and many complaints about the ball not reacting good. Turns out there was a batch where they forgot to add the resin so the ball was basically a pearl urethane.
The company did replace those balls for those bowlers who complained.
What ball was that??
-
The main "bad review" ball that comes to mind for me would be the Columbia EPX. If I remember right, the majority of the reviews here on that ball were negative.
Brad
-
I have posted fair reviews, many I am in favor of the piece, some did not work for me and I mentioned that.
includes, Eruption pro solid (orange)- just to responsive for me
GB2 gold - no luck what-so-ever, gave it away
there are afew others that just dont match up for me.
Just like everyone else, there are a few that are keeprs for usre, they just match up to your style and lanes that you are on.
For me, right now, that is the Sideswipe solid, I could easily justify another one with a different layout in my bag.
It just reads and rolls in the right spot for me, multiple different patterns, and different surfaces.
Hopefully it will useable in Vegas
-
The main "bad review" ball that comes to mind for me would be the Columbia EPX. If I remember right, the majority of the reviews here on that ball were negative.
Brad
Lol I liked that ball
-
I remember a few years ago there was a ball released and many complaints about the ball not reacting good. Turns out there was a batch where they forgot to add the resin so the ball was basically a pearl urethane.
The company did replace those balls for those bowlers who complained.
What ball was that??
I've been racking my brain trying to remember and I am thinking it was called the Energy.
-
Yeah, that was it. Just found a review for it, see reply #6.
http://www.ballreviews.com/dynothane/energy-t603.0.html (http://www.ballreviews.com/dynothane/energy-t603.0.html)
Found the original topic where the problem was discussed.
http://www.ballreviews.com/dynothane/drilled-the-energy-today-wow-t77455.0.html
-
actually there were batches of the Roto Grip MTX that had a similar problem..the MTX I bought was listed as such, ordered it from Europe...the shipping cost me more than the ball did.
Brad
-
I remember a few years ago there was a ball released and many complaints about the ball not reacting good. Turns out there was a batch where they forgot to add the resin so the ball was basically a pearl urethane.
The company did replace those balls for those bowlers who complained.
There were also a few particle balls that were produced without the particles in the coverstock. I forget which ones right now, as it was a long time ago.
-
I remember a few years ago there was a ball released and many complaints about the ball not reacting good. Turns out there was a batch where they forgot to add the resin so the ball was basically a pearl urethane.
The company did replace those balls for those bowlers who complained.
There were also a few particle balls that were produced without the particles in the coverstock. I forget which ones right now, as it was a long time ago.
One was the Brunswick Sidewinder. They ended up marketing it as the Sidewinder reactive, but it was initially just a "mistake" ball without the particle additive.
-
I remember a few years ago there was a ball released and many complaints about the ball not reacting good. Turns out there was a batch where they forgot to add the resin so the ball was basically a pearl urethane.
The company did replace those balls for those bowlers who complained.
There were also a few particle balls that were produced without the particles in the coverstock. I forget which ones right now, as it was a long time ago.
One was the Brunswick Sidewinder. They ended up marketing it as the Sidewinder reactive, but it was initially just a "mistake" ball without the particle additive.
Yup, now that you mention it, I remember that one
-
I remember a few years ago there was a ball released and many complaints about the ball not reacting good. Turns out there was a batch where they forgot to add the resin so the ball was basically a pearl urethane.
The company did replace those balls for those bowlers who complained.
There were also a few particle balls that were produced without the particles in the coverstock. I forget which ones right now, as it was a long time ago.
One was the Brunswick Sidewinder. They ended up marketing it as the Sidewinder reactive, but it was initially just a "mistake" ball without the particle additive.
I always wanted one of those, if I could find a brand new one today I'd definitely drill it for myself. I remember the original marketing being particle but it changing shortly after its release
-
Truly bad balls aren't released anymore. Bad reviews now mostly come from people who are doing something wrong. Wrong layout, wrong surface, using the ball on the wrong condition, etc., or maybe just flat not matching up with something. I try to keep my reviews as neutral as possible. I'll offer MY opinion on the ball, but describe the ball attributes and let you decide for yourself. In this era, you really shouldn't pay much attention to reviews anyway. Go onto youtube, find a good video and watch the ball reaction with the video muted, even on mine. If you want to hear what I have to say, cool, but I'd actually recommend watching the video first muted so you can just get a pure "feeling" on the ball reaction. If you're not a fan of the reaction in the first place, don't let what I say or what anyone else says talk you into getting it.
Ball reviews should be about making sure you get the right stuff. If a ball sucks, it shouldn't be my responsibility to talk it up, it should be the company's responsibility to make better equipment. I didn't make videos for the newer pearl Hustles because I couldn't stand the other two, but some people love them. I didn't like my Timeless either, but I've seen it look really good in the hands of the right bowlers, so even though I expressed my dislike for it, I made sure I was fair (hopefully).
Storm/Roto at least does NOT give us instructions for videos or reviews. They give us guidelines for presentation or format but NOT content. If we dislike a ball, they don't care if we roast it because our honest feedback is information they can use to create future releases. But yes I'll agree, most staffers say everything new is the greatest ball ever to brownnose and suck up to the company. I however don't feel that a review is relevant or meaningful if you can't trust the person doing it to give it to you straight or to just flat out describe the ball reaction. I don't care how much you like it, and I really don't think a ball goes 50 feet and turns sideways . . I just want to know how it reacts.
-
I appreciate all of the responses to my post. I know there are really no "bad" balls produced but there have to be balls in same categories that are not as good as another in same category. And I appreciate that drill, pattern, style, and just personal preference dictate what one bowler thinks is good vs. bad vs. mediocre.
I was getting a lot of balls from high level tournament bowler who didn't put a lot games on them as he liked having fresh equipment all of the time when he competes. We share very similar styles except I am not as talented so I only bowl leagues but our spans were close and he used same switch grip so only ever plugged fingers. And trying a lot of different balls is fun and in so doing I may like one he didn't as vice versa and as a result I was late to game and tried the IQ Tour for first time about 2 months ago and I love it and will get another as a result. Same time I got a Hyper Cell Skid from him that he had drilled to make it very smooth and I tried it and didn't like it at all but like many of you have said that was more of a personal dislike for it as drilled.
The one new ball I purchased this season was a Fanatic BTU as I liked the descriptions of the ball and some reviews looking for something for the dry lanes I bowl hoping for a different look than other dry lane balls I already own. Big disappointment based on reviews and the claim it had a Urethane ball shape which to me it clearly does not but is a fine dry lane ball. And because of the price I would never recommend it for purchase as there are other balls that will have a similar reaction at much lower prices. Just my $0.02, again thanks for everyone's responses.
-
I agree on viewing a good video on youtube and watching the ball reaction. It's how I've chosen my last two bowling balls. though I prefer watching the videos muted cause I find all the music they feel the need to add in the video to be irritating and unnecessary. I'd much rather hear some ball commentary from the reviewer or nothing at all and just listen to the ball roll down the lane and hear how it strikes the pins. Just my 2 cents.
-
Well, I will say when Riggs use to be on this site, when he would do a review, he did them honestly and not sugar coat anything. If there was something he didn't like, he would say he didn't like it and then attempt to adjust the cover as many times and advise what reaction he got with them and if he liked it 'for him'. He is/was one of the few staffers that when I saw his review, I didn't have a problem with them. He's a journalist as well and his integrity is always on the line when he writes. If more people wrote reviews like his, I know questions about the 'reviews always being good' would be less. It's all about matchup and cover prep. If you had a problem with a ball and you made adjustments and now it's great, I would expect you who's doing a review to state exactly that. I had issues with xyz, I tried abc and def and FBI and this was my results with them and then something like 'I liked it with xxx' or 'I still didn't like it with the adjustments I made but xxx worked the best for me'.
-
Exactly ^^^^ Couldn't of said it better myself.
-
If you throw it well enough to be on staff, everything looks good. You can clearly "figure it out" and repeat shots better than your peers. So of course every review is going to be positive from a staff member. Staff members are able to compartmentalize ball reaction so they see the benefits of every ball they get. The review is going to be based on the reaction they see once they "figure it out".
-
I always shoot straight. If I don't like it, I'll call it out. If it rolls like a turd, I'll sniff it out. Storm knows they're making some totally so-so product compared to the greatness that was 2008-2012....
I'm not on staff...Don't listen to a D@mn thing the staffers say...They're employed to sell balls...
-
If you throw it well enough to be on staff, everything looks good. You can clearly "figure it out" and repeat shots better than your peers. So of course every review is going to be positive from a staff member. Staff members are able to compartmentalize ball reaction so they see the benefits of every ball they get. The review is going to be based on the reaction they see once they "figure it out".
Being on staff has nothing about throwing it good anymore. It's about who you know. Does your shop sell a lot of our balls? STAFF! Doesn't matter if you throw it like dog doodoo. You sell our product, so staff.
-
Lol there's a ton of great points in these last few posts. Yes, being on staff is about selling the equipment, you're basically a contractor for the company. However, the vast majority take it overboard and that damages the credibility of the individual and the product. "Well that guy's a staffer, of course he's going to say everything is great." Yeah, probably.
Also true though is that if you throw only a company (or brand rather nowadays), you get very familiar with the more subtle reaction characteristics, so unless you just really don't match up with a ball type, yeah, everything should look good for you.
Riggs has got an ego the size of Texas now. He won't even answer a question on Facebook unless you "buy the blog," because "only subscribers deserve my time." Yes, he's actually said that on several occasions to people. Or if you ask a question, he'll say, "well if you bought the blog, you'd know I answered that question 6 months ago if you paid attention!!" Yeah because everyone reads every article and has been subscribed since the beginning . . Guy literally checks his subscriber list before answering a question to make sure you "deserve" an answer. And people wonder why competitive bowling is dying . .
I think Storm has too much focus on tour-type reactions right now . . Storm used to be the place to go if you wanted or needed big backend, now everything is super smooth and ultra controllable. A lot of safe releases and very few fun ones . . but balls you can't beat for what they do right now are the Sure Lock, Torrent, Dare Devil Trick, and Hectic. Huge huge fan of the Code Black too . . but I digress lol.
-
I don't like the direction storm has been going in their line up. I seem to have success with most roto equipment