win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: old vs new balls  (Read 2988 times)

Neptune66

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
old vs new balls
« on: June 25, 2008, 10:53:12 PM »
Is there a major difference between using older equipment that doesn't react as much as it once did, and a newer ball designed for dry conditions?

In an extreme case, does it matter if I use my old Brunswick Black Diamond (circa 1977 or 79 or something) or a brand new plastic ball? In a less extreme case, would be interested in a comparison between an old reactive ball that now has a relatively tame reaction vs a brand new reactive ball that was designed to have that reaction.

I have never deliberately bought anything new that wasn't reasonably aggressive, and have continued to use my older stuff when wanting more control. Course... this has also caused me to be unwilling to discard hardly any of my old equipment, which accumulates like nuclear waste.

Would I be better off getting rid of several of my older balls and buying one newer ball that is designed to have what would end up being a similar reaction? Or is there not much difference?


 

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7606
Re: old vs new balls
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2008, 07:02:04 AM »
Well, I can provide you with a comparison video between an old Blue Hammer, a Slate Blue Gargoyle (modern day urethane pearl with a core) and a Pure Hammer (a mild recative that mocks the urethane reaction, good for light conditions), all of them are not in production anymore. You will see grave differences between these balls:

http://media.putfile.com/Urethane-strikes-back-Faball-Blue-Hammer-vs-Pure-Hammer--Slate-Blue-Gargoyle

Modern coverstocks respond very well to the dry areas on the lanes, but most entry level and lower end balls use older and not-so-aggressive coverstocks. Nevertheless, finding a good ball/setup/surface combo that works on dry condtitions can be tricky, I went through 3 or 4 balls until I found what I had been looking for (among others those balls in the video) - so sticking with some older but predictable material for light to dry conditions ain't a bad idea, IMHO.


--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section
Secrets revealed: What's a fugu?

DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany

Neptune66

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
Re: old vs new balls
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2008, 11:44:14 PM »
Thanks for the video.

Don't own a Urethane ball (had a purple Angle at one time), but do have rubber and old plastic balls and lots of old reactive stuff.

I keep forgetting the word for what I'm really asking, but fortunately you provided it....Carry. I was really trying to ask whether there would be much difference in carry between an old plastic ball (circa 1982), an even older rubber ball (1977-79?), and between those and an old reactive ball from a few years ago (my Champions' Ultimate Weapon bought in 1997).

Am thinking the cores on the newer [but mild] reactives, and even some of the newer plastic/polyester balls, would be superior to the old stuff, but thought I had read something a few years ago that stated that the cores become much less a factor when the ball does not grip the lane as well.

Makes sense in a way, but don't really know.

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7606
Re: old vs new balls
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2008, 02:24:45 AM »
Yes, there is a huge carry difference with modern ball. Older balls have a rather hard shell, and they splatter the pins all over the deck. Looks dramatic, but not as effective as modern coverstocks which offer more traction and keep the pins rather low on a good, rolling hit, improving pin mix and carry percentage. A lower RG core will enhance this effect, adding forward roll and power upon the ball's entry. Core dynamics hane't changed much, IMHO, since the laws of physics still apply.

But the introduction of the more porous shells and of asymmetrical cores with a strong mass bias in recent years has driven the power and potential of today's balls even a bit further. Such balls have tremendous power, even though they are IMO not easy to handle and need a careful setup for your game and needs, it is a bit of a trade-off.
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section
Secrets revealed: What's a fugu?

DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany

Neptune66

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
Re: old vs new balls
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2008, 05:56:10 AM »
Hmmmm. You've just given me an excuse to go out and by another ball.

:-)

laddog54

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
Re: old vs new balls
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2008, 08:29:45 AM »
Neptune66 my brother and I throw a Black Diamond for spares circa 1960. Last year my brother use it for strikes on all three games twice, shot 768 and 800 with it.
--------------------
my vote for president is green nikes

mainzer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4405
Re: old vs new balls
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2008, 01:07:09 PM »
I think the old reactives lets say a blue Piranah /C for example and my Wrath both from Columbia. The Piranaha was drilled pin under ring the Wrath max lenght and break (pin under Bridge) both box finish.

I thought the Piranaha had better lenght and more control. Also the Pirannha hit better kept pins low and mixed them up Wrath just blow everything up with crap for carry. I could use the Pirannha on more conditions and adjust less than with the wrath.

that help? Or is it what you are looking for?
--------------------
MainzerPower
"No one runs...from the conquerer "

MainzerPower