Author Topic: staff reviews (Read 2060 times)

brunsking · « **on:** August 31, 2011, 12:27:14 PM »

anyone put any weight on staff reviews, i personally put no value to them knowing they can't really make a negative review

Quadrajet · « **Reply #1 on:** September 01, 2011, 04:33:12 AM »

Whether someone likes or dislikes a ball is completely irrelevant; therefore, the source of the review doesn't matter to me.

If you can take away from their review where the ball fits into the line up, then that's exactly what you need to know. If you match up with their speed, revs, tilt, rotation, then you have an even better window into the ball reaction.

Edited by Quadrajet on 9/1/2011 at 4:32 AM

« **Reply #2 on:** September 01, 2011, 07:17:35 AM »

I actually do read reviews from other staff members, and especially from companies that we sell frequently. I find them informative. Most staff members can accurately tell you where "Ball A" fits in their lineup, based on certain conditions.

Face it! Every ball is going to have it's fans. I rarely see a negative review on ANY ball when used on the right conditions, and with a competent bowler. The real irony is that too many people on this site love to "bash" the staffers, when they'd actually jump at the chance to be one themselves. Tell the truth.

Every ball can be good on the right conditions and with the right bowler style.

Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
Brunswick Pro Shop Staff

www.brunswickbowling.com

The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer and not of Brunswick Corporation.

RyanRPS · « **Reply #3 on:** September 01, 2011, 07:19:46 AM »

Like Quad says, it doesnt really matter if the reviewer says they like the ball or not... however reviews should really be as impartial as possible... saying things like "hits like a truck" or "carries everythign" do not carry much weight in my opinion, as this depends too much on the bowler, the lane condition, and is being compared, presumably, to other equipment the bowler throws.

So I would say, when reading a review, look for details of the roll charicteristics etc, balls strength in comparison to other balls, durability etc, and ignor the woffle

Ryan

Ryan Press - Seismic Staff Member

www.seismicbowling.com

brunsking · « **Reply #4 on:** September 01, 2011, 08:27:20 AM »

When I read a staffers review, 99 of 100 will say the reviewed ball does exactly what the mfr intends and fits exactly where it should, so to me it is the same as reading the marketing material.

I agree everyone wants to be on a staff and receive free equipment, who doesn't.

I admit that staffers can offer informative reviews but for me I always check the signature before reading

Its also true that non staffer reviews can offer little to nothing if they don't know much but often times you can catch this in the first few sentances.

Thanks for your input to both staffers and non staffers on your opinions

Andyman3333 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 01, 2011, 09:12:43 AM »

I try to apply my game to a ball reaction or "desired" reaction from the manufacturer. Almost any ball will work if you have the right people fit and drill it for your game. How it fits with the other equipment in your arsenal and the manufacturers other balls are things I tend to focus on. How does this ball compare the pearl version or a ball a few years older even.

I also try to use it on tougher conditions which will display the differences between balls in my arsenal to a greater extent. I have run into very few duds as far as bowling balls go. They almost always work for something you encounter. It's just a matter of finding out if this is the right ball for you to fit into your current arsenal. Do you need more length and backend, or do you need something with heavier roll.

Also, it's important that a ball reviewer also identify his layouts so that the information he presents can be replicated by a reader who wants to generate the same type of reaction. However, taking into consideration that lane conditions and house characteristics come into play too.

I think they are useful. Specifically if well written. And I would think, the less informed bowler would use the review more-so than the guy who already knows everything.

www.brunswickbowling.com

The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer and not of Brunswick Corporation.

PROFILE
340-370 revs
18 mph
230 book on THS
200 book on PBA

Arsenal: (In the bag) C-System Ulti-Max, C-System Alpha Max, C-System 3.5, Lethal Revolver, Loaded Revolver, Wicked Siege, Massive Damage, Damage, Slingshot, Avalanche Slide,

jaydee · « **Reply #6 on:** September 01, 2011, 09:34:32 AM »

It's hard for me to put any weight at all on staffer written reviews. "It hits like a truck". "Turns the corner and doesn't quit". "Keeps the pins low on the deck". "Must have ball this season". "So good I have three of them with different layouts". "Works well on multiple conditions". "Dislikes: none". I get it.

What is really meaningful to me, is video reviews. I can see the style of the bowler, I can see the ball motion, I can see the layout, and the real good ones overlay different balls or different drill layouts on the same ball in one video. You can try to describe these all you want in a couple paragraphs with the above buzzphrases sprinkled in, but if a pictures worth a thousand words, how much is a video? Very few staffers do this, off the top of my head JustinWi (Motiv) is the only one I can think of. Plenty of 3rd party reviewers do this as well.

The opinion expressed here represents all major bowling ball and equipment manufacturers, not my own.

brunsking · « **Reply #7 on:** September 01, 2011, 02:21:51 PM »

videos are great and along with you I put more weight on them but I am also cautious. If the videos are from the manufacturer or a staffer I feel that optimal conditions were laid down.

I value most those videos that come from complete amateurs, even when it is a lower 1 dimensional type bowler because he/she will represent accurately how the ball will work under that particular style.

in the information age bad information (from sneaky marketers) come along with the good stuff, i often times make sure the information I read from news sources are accurate by reading several other sources. It comes along with the territory as both a blessing and a burden.

all the replies have been very informative

Track_Fanatic · « **Reply #8 on:** September 01, 2011, 07:38:01 PM »

There's one staffer who I always trust in their reviews and that is Riggs who is with Storm. He is also a journalist as I believe most members on this site may know, a USBC Hall of Famer, and a multiple Eagle winner in the USBC/ABC championships. I've never seen in any of his reviews anything that has been discussed here. He's been challenged on this site as well and has been straight forward with everyone. He compares the equipment in the each of their product lines and what he sees out of them in his own words and not that of the company.

batbowler · « **Reply #9 on:** September 01, 2011, 07:39:22 PM »

A true staffer will give his opinion on the ball and where it fits or don't fit in there bag! I've drilled some new stuff and really they didn't fit in my bag and I drill another one different after seeing the reaction. Our house shot is Kegel Stone Street, which is 42' and I can start with the Lethal Revolver or Revolver and change to a Wicked Siege or Massive Damage. Most houses don't put the volume or length of oil that we put down for a house shot. I can use the Revolver for about 1-1/2 games before I have to make any moves. The main thing is look how long the person making the post has been bowling and the experience will tell me more than anything! Just my $.02, Bruce

Train a child up in the way they should go and when they are old they will do some "Damn Good Bowling", be a "DV8" and not turn from it, besides bowling starts with a Big B!

The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer and not of Brunswick Corporation.

Bruce Campbell
USBC Bronze Certified Coach
IBPSIA Certified Technician
Originator of the -35deg x 25 leverage drilling!

http://www.damngoodbowling.com/catalog

http://www.brunswickbowling.com/products
red>

dizzyfugu · « **Reply #10 on:** September 01, 2011, 11:59:44 PM »

There are two things to consider concerning reviews: one is the political bias from a staffer's point of view, the other one is the limit of the subjective perception and ability to "cover it all".

EVERY review should be read with a grain of salt, be it from a staffer or from "independent" writers. Most of the time it is just their personal experience, with THEIR game and probably only with ONE ball on a LIMITED range of conditions. Add the PR touch of a staffer who'd hardly mention any critical thing about a ball, and you hardly get anything more or else than from a "free" reviewee.

Personally, I see all the reviews as a part of a major puzzle. If a ball sucks for one player it must not be the ball. I'd rather worry (or take it serious) when the same topic pops up several times or becomes a discussion topic in the forums. Then there normally IS something fishy and basically wrong.

Video reviews can look spectacular, but I hardly see valid info in them. You see a ball that hooks, normally by someone who can make even a melon look good, and there's NO proof that the oil pattern which is claimed to be used for the shooting is actually out there - esp. when a staffer uses a piece, or if it is even a corporate video. Sorry, to me it's just propaganda - even worse than a staffer review.

Another basic point about our reviews is that there are so many factors involved which warrant being mentioned, that a review gets bloated up pretty quickly. The new attempt to supply a review format is IMHO a good move, even though its still is difficult to post a comprehensive "picture" of a ball. Still, it remains a subjective impression

DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany
2010/11 Benrather BC Club Champion
Confused by bowling? Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

Quadrajet · « **Reply #11 on:** September 02, 2011, 01:21:23 AM »

I agree with everything you've said, but especially this. Video reviews don't mean anything to me. While they're interesting to watch to kill some time, most of them are pretty useless. That being said, the ones that I find very informative are the videos that actually compare balls in the line with the "new" ball they are featuring.

For instance, and I don't know if anyone did this, but here's an example. When Storm came out with the Reign Supreme, I would fully expect the video to show the following:

1. The Reign Supreme thrown by Tester X on Shot X with drilling X and surface prep X.
2. The Reign thrown by Tester X on Shot X with drilling X and surface prep X.
3. The Hy-Road thrown by Tester X on Shot X with drilling X and surface prep X.

The Reign and Hy-Road have been around a while and a lot of Storm users will have these in their arsenals. To be able to see the reaction of the Reign Supreme compared to tried and true equipment is invaluable to me. Reduce the variables and show me the differences between the balls themselves.

Adding in additional testers or different surfaces is perfectly fine, as long as they can be compared to other balls in the line up.

My 2 cents.

dizzyfugu wrote on 9/1/2011 11:59 PM:
Video reviews can look spectacular, but I hardly see valid info in them. You see a ball that hooks, normally by someone who can make even a melon look good, and there's NO proof that the oil pattern which is claimed to be used for the shooting is actually out there - esp. when a staffer uses a piece, or if it is even a corporate video. Sorry, to me it's just propaganda - even worse than a staffer review.

« **Reply #12 on:** September 02, 2011, 06:50:49 AM »

As was mentioned earlier, ANY ball can look great on a house shot, especially if the bowler has some expertise. When compared to other balls in the lineup it helps dramatically.

This is the reason I love to watch the Brunswick videos for each ball (website). Most of the newer ones will have 2 or 3 different bowlers (Billy O., Robyn, and Aaron) throw the same ball on a house shot, and usually other patterns with their layouts and surface info. Now, I NEVER throw the ball as well as Billy O. does, but when Robyn does it speaks volumes. She is a very accomplished bowler, but her rev rate is somewhat closer to mine or other amateur bowlers that we sell and drill for.

Don't show me a robot using the ball. They can split boards with their accuracy and fine tune every shot's speed and rev rate perfectly. There isn't a bowler anywhere that does that...

The down-side to videos is that they get "edited" so only the good shots are shown. It wouldn't hurt to see what happens on the really bad misses.

Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
Brunswick Pro Shop Staff

www.brunswickbowling.com

The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer and not of Brunswick Corporation.

Edited by notclay on 9/2/2011 at 6:51 AM

jaydee · « **Reply #13 on:** September 02, 2011, 07:01:34 AM »

dizzyfugu wrote on 9/1/2011 11:59 PM:
There are two things to consider concerning reviews: one is the political bias from a staffer's point of view, the other one is the limit of the subjective perception and ability to "cover it all".

EVERY review should be read with a grain of salt, be it from a staffer or from "independent" writers. Most of the time it is just their personal experience, with THEIR game and probably only with ONE ball on a LIMITED range of conditions. Add the PR touch of a staffer who'd hardly mention any critical thing about a ball, and you hardly get anything more or else than from a "free" reviewee.

Personally, I see all the reviews as a part of a major puzzle. If a ball sucks for one player it must not be the ball. I'd rather worry (or take it serious) when the same topic pops up several times or becomes a discussion topic in the forums. Then there normally IS something fishy and basically wrong.

Video reviews can look spectacular, but I hardly see valid info in them. You see a ball that hooks, normally by someone who can make even a melon look good, and there's NO proof that the oil pattern which is claimed to be used for the shooting is actually out there - esp. when a staffer uses a piece, or if it is even a corporate video. Sorry, to me it's just propaganda - even worse than a staffer review.

Another basic point about our reviews is that there are so many factors involved which warrant being mentioned, that a review gets bloated up pretty quickly. The new attempt to supply a review format is IMHO a good move, even though its still is difficult to post a comprehensive "picture" of a ball. Still, it remains a subjective impression

DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany
2010/11 Benrather BC Club Champion
Confused by bowling? Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

Sure, a video isn't as good as actually throwing it yourself. Heck I've heard of people throwing a ball at a demo day, buying it based off that, and then not being happy because the new ball doesn't react the way it did at the demo. So nothing is perfect.

That being said, I think a video review is the best you've got. Particularly when you get to know the reviewers over the course of many reviews (I have in mind the guys at bowlingball.com, Tony, Curly, ect). Then there's a few like JustinWi who overlays different balls and different layouts of the same ball into one shot. I think it gives you a pretty clear idea of what's going with the ball, particularly if you're familar with the one of the balls that's overlayed.

But if you think a staffer is flat out lying about the lane condition he's throwing on, then I suppose there's really nothing out there that's going to help you pick out a ball. I'm skeptical to a point... I realize they are out there trying to sell balls, and that's why they're posting the reviews in the first place, but I don't think they are actively trying to decieve you.

brunsking · « **Reply #14 on:** September 02, 2011, 04:05:50 PM »

I like the pro shop reviews because they're probably going to be as consistent as you're going to get. What I like to watch for is how the ball moves the pins and how it goes through the pocket. They go through enough shots to get a fair sample in my opinion.

What I have noticed for the recent line ups are that Brunswick equipment push pins straight back while Storm stuff shakes things up more. Ebonite has a mix of both with the lower end equipment being more 10 in the pit and the higher end stuff mixing it up. Global stuff has a mix of both also but seams flatter at the pins. Motiv seams to be a little on the arc side in movement but hits the pins like they were made of recycled barbie dolls

Enjoying everyone's input

Author Topic: staff reviews (Read 2060 times)

brunsking

staff reviews

Quadrajet

Re: staff reviews

Re: staff reviews

RyanRPS

Re: staff reviews

brunsking

Re: staff reviews

Andyman3333

Re: staff reviews

jaydee

Re: staff reviews

brunsking

Re: staff reviews

Track_Fanatic

Re: staff reviews

batbowler

Re: staff reviews

dizzyfugu

Re: staff reviews

Quadrajet

Re: staff reviews

Re: staff reviews

jaydee

Re: staff reviews

brunsking

Re: staff reviews