win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: High RG Particles and Low RG Reactives/Pearls  (Read 1382 times)

Ric Clint

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
High RG Particles and Low RG Reactives/Pearls
« on: July 19, 2004, 12:25:38 PM »
Here's the way it is for me:

I like Higher RG Particles (2.58 and up) because regular Medium RG Particles hook too early and the Higher RG gives me length and what appears to be more backend since the ball isn't burning energy so early.

I like Low RG Reactives and Reactive Pearls (2.48 and down) because Medium to High RG Reactives and Reactive Pearls skid too far and don't never get into a roll to enable the ball to have any kind of backend.

Anybody else see it like this... expecially with the Reactive/Pearl part?

You would think that with a Reactive having a high RG that it would be clean and store up more energy and have a strong backend and that lower RG Reactives would burn off energy and lose backend hook potential... but I've tried the Higher RG Reactives and they just roll down the lane with a LAZY backend and when they do turn, they DON'T turn with "authority"... but with some of the Low RG Reactives, I can seemingly miss wide at my breakpoint and the ball will recover from anywhere eventhough it's got the Lower Rg core... these balls give me more AREA.

Anybody else agree with this?

I guess Lower RG Recatives get rolling just early enough to lead to a commanding backend snap/drive, therefore giving more room to miss and have the ball to still recover?

And can it be said that a ball with a stronger midlane will have a stronger backend movement and recovery?

There's a bolwer on here, who really prefers lower RG Reactives or Pearls, can't think of who it is (maybe Bob Hanson???)... but if you're reading this, what is your reason behind this preference?


Thanks!





Edited on 7/20/2004 3:49 AM
Logged

 

LuckyLefty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17348
Re: High RG Particles and Low RG Reactives/Pearls
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2004, 07:38:18 AM »
I sometimes like high rg balls.

Two that I've used with success, er make that 3.

Battle Zone Bullet, Dynamic Groove(both brunswicks with good flare), and sort of successful the Sonic X pearl.

I'm a slower speed bowler and sometimes these just match up.

ON the other hand Ric the Reaction Rev is a low rg particle and you love that and the Spell is high RG particle and you love that.

As to the high rg reactives they are very situational and either work or don't.
I also find that some low flare (low diff) balls sometimes really match up.

It really depends on how much oil one has and where coupled with style.

REgards,

LUckylefty
Logged
It takes Courage to have Faith, and Faith to have Courage.

James M. McCurley, New Orleans, Louisiana

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: High RG Particles and Low RG Reactives/Pearls
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2004, 09:03:46 AM »
quote:

There's a bowler on here, who really prefers lower RG Reactives or Pearls, can't think of who it is (maybe Bob Hanson???)... but if you're reading this, what is your reason behind this preference?

Thanks!


Brickguy is one who has mentioned that preference.
He says it's because of his low rev release.

Reminder, even with a low RG pearl, the ball's reaction depends on the true aggressiveness of the cover! PLUS the RG differentail.
--------------------
"We get old too fast, and too late, smart."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Ric Clint

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: High RG Particles and Low RG Reactives/Pearls
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2004, 03:38:26 PM »
I could have sworn it was Bob Hanson!

Oh well...

Thanks to everybody so far!

And BRICKGUY, I have lower baby girl revs (lol), and eventhough Lower RG cores should match up great with me and other lower rev styles... I'm still always affraid that the ball will lose too much energy and not hhave enough backend for my taste.

Where as, since I love particle balls, I find that I'm best suited most of the time (with the exception of the REV) to stick with Higher RG cores because the particle coverstock gets the ball rolling early on it's own, and the core helps me to have some backend snap/drive.

But when I use Reactives with Higher RG's, well the Reactive or Pearl coverstocks help the ball get length anyways and when you double that up with a Higher RG core, then that's just "overkill" and the ball for me doesn't get into a roll soon enough. So if I'm using a Reactive or Pearl ball, then I'm getting the length I need right there from that kind of cover, so to help balance things out and get the ball rolling early enough to have some backend, I guess the answer lies in Lower RG cores?




Logged

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: High RG Particles and Low RG Reactives/Pearls
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2004, 06:18:30 PM »
quote:
I could have sworn it was Bob Hanson!


Rick, it could have been Bob as I have talked to him in the past and if I'm not mistaken, he feels the same as I about low RG's, low revs, needing help in mid lane to get ball reving, etc. I think he is a low rev guy needing help getting the ball reving at mid-lane like I do, but I won't swear to it. The biggest difference between he and I this year is that he is a 200 plus bowler and I am 180 plus.....lol

--------------------
Retired and bowling on Fixed Income
Logged
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"

janderson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2181
Re: High RG Particles and Low RG Reactives/Pearls
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2004, 06:39:54 PM »
Ric - agree with you on this part...

quote:
I like Low RG Reactives and Reactive Pearls (2.48 and down) because Medium to High RG Reactives and Reactive Pearls skid too far and don't never get into a roll to enable the ball to have any kind of backend.


...but for a different reason.

For me, reactive pearls are often too angular/too sharp at the break point, especially those with higher Radius of Gyration (RG) and higher RG Differential (diff) cores.  Usually I need length with arc, not length with snap, especially on tougher conditions.  You can tone down the high diff equipment with pin position when drilling, but I'd rather tone down the back-end snap with a low-RG with low-to-medium diff ball out of the box and then fine-tune the reaction with layout/drilling.

Charlest is correct (as always?) in that cover also plays a large role.  What plays even a larger role is the way you throw the ball.  True up-the-backers probably won't benefit from setting up their equipment the way I outlined above.

Have you tried the analysis at:
http://www.bowlingballdynamics.com

If you have any questions on how it works, I can answer them for you. (no, I'm not involved with the site) I thought it was worth the $20.  Every ball I've purchased since then I've liked.

quote:
And can it be said that a ball with a stronger midlane will have a stronger backend movement and recovery?


Usually it is a trade-off.  If you expend energy in the midlane, you won't have it in on the backend, and vice-versa.  In other words if the ball grabs in the midlane, turning the ball axis more perpendicular to its path (creating hook) the ball axis has that much less to turn before it is perpendicular to the ball path (rolled out).


--------------------
Kill the back row (or maybe this should read "make your spares, dummy")
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »