IMHO it is not a question of need, rather a technology option that I personally like to have. With the advancement of production methods for reactive urethane, we might see the gap closed between recative coverstocks and particle additives - but still I think that particle has its "justification" in the market.
Particle has disappeared from the high end balls - but I am not sold on the idea that this is the end for hard and microscopic additions to the coverstock that enhance friction with mechanical means. Friction from porous reactives comes at a price: oil absorbtion and texture maintenance. While high friction coverstocks show great performance when fresh, the maintenance needs become ridiculous - unless you are the person to buy any new "supa hooka" ball each season to discard it after 50 games (when it might die, anyway). Such cases are rumored to exist.
I think that particle, coupled with some less bling coverstock base offers similar (probably not the same, since it is a different technology) performance in oil, and the extra traction that a carbide particle load adds to a coverstock, is IMHO hard to beat when things get spotty. That's why I LOVE my Fuze Eliminator - you will have to peel it from my cold, stiff fingers, or it will fall apart.
If you want control, particle is IMHO the ticket to success - not a high friction reactive sponge coverstock. It will probably even last longer - but that's nothing the indutry cares much about, I think.
That's why I invested into a NS2 as an oil ball in my arsenal, not a "modern" reactive piece for oil. Well, tomorrow I'll see if my high hopes in particle were justified
--------------------
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?
