I don't even really bother to review the balls I buy myself, because unless someone throws it the same way I do on the same shots I do, they won't really amount to a hill of beans.

I do, on the other hand, interject my opinion on pieces I have and have seen others use.

If I had the opportunity to review balls given to me at no cost I'd do my best to make sure that I was fair in my reviews.  After all, there's no bad ball, just inept bowlers.
--------------------
"A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice."  Bill Cosby
"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."


Edited on 5/19/2008 2:25 PM

The thing with review any product is that it's based on the opinions of whomever is review said product. Some people will agree, and some people will disagree.

I've bought and kept a lot of things that I thought were a waste of my money. When someone I know asks me about it I'll tell them.

"This thing sucks."
"It stinks."
"I wish I never would have bought it."
"I'd rather buy used condoms."

Sometimes it works out for them, and sometimes they'll agree with me. Never really know til you try something out yourself.

That is why I only give paid-for reviews a limited amount of credibility.  A staffer says "This ball is great", yeah, what else are they going to say?  Random guy says "this ball is great", maybe I don't pay much attention to it either.  Depends on how much the random guy seems to know about bowling and ball reactions in general.

What I do look for from staffers' reviews is how the reviewed ball compares to other equipment in the company's lineup.  Does it really work on light oil like they say?  Is it really that much more angular than the solid version?  Does it handle carrydown like the ball it replaced?

As much as staffers and non-staffers say that they don't sell or use equipment they don't believe in, the fact of the matter is that there's a conflict of interest.  Like the Microsoft-funded study that reports that Windows makes a better server than Linux or the pharmaceutical company-sponsored study that claims that their new pill works better than the old pill.  Maybe that's true, maybe it's not.  

But in the end, the reviewer was paid by the manufacturer and there's that possibility that they're thinking of their continued sponsorship in addition to the quality of the equipment.

SH

i would review it very honestly
--------------------
member of the fos
long live lane 1 and thier great products