Author Topic: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"? (Read 1145 times)

Ric Clint · « **on:** May 12, 2004, 12:44:56 PM »

Is it NORMAL to just like ONLY "particle" & "particle pearl" & "pearl"... but NOT "solid reactive"???

I've got a friend who is an EXTREMELY great bowler with several honor scores and great success!!! But he hates solid Reactives, sanded or polished... he still hates them!

He will only throw Particle, Particle Pearl, and Reactive Pearl... but no solid plain ol' Reactives!

Can't figure it out?

On shots that other people will throw "polished" Reactive's like Savage's, V2's, Havoc's, etc... he would prefer to throw "polsihed" Pearl's like an X-Factor, Savage Flip, V2 Pearl, ScreamR, etc...

Why is this? He says that just plain ol' Reactives are too unpredictable and sometimes just too hard to control the backend when one ball will snap and then the next ball will push farther down the lane... well if that's the way he feels then why does he like PEARL's? Wouldn't they be too hard to control the backend and be too over/under on the same shot that a regular Reactive would be?

I've also heard him say that when he's on a shot with alot of head oil... that he honestly feels like a POLISHED Particle gets through the heads "cleaner" than a POLISHED Solid Reactive does... I don't understand this, do you?

He knows what he's talking about (or at least I feel like he does), because he averages over 220 in EVERY single league he's bowled in the last 2 years. And does real good in Tournaments too!

Here's his stats... maybe you can tell by the below stats and figure out what he's talking about:

He's a High Tracker. Medium revs. I had my PAP measured at 5 3/8" across... and 5/8" up. Medium speed of about 14.8 mph (measured at the pin deck), so I guess that would be about 17.8 mph if measured at the 10 feet (or around where the arrows are)

He mostly plays a very small swing over the 15 board out to about the 8 board. Axis Rotation... around 40 degrees. Axis Tilt... about medium.

Edited on 5/13/2004 4:42 AM

agroves · « **Reply #1 on:** May 13, 2004, 04:54:20 AM »

Ric, please define normal.

Andrew
--------------------
FUFU

If you're an idiot, you can join my ignore list

rkaycom · « **Reply #2 on:** May 13, 2004, 04:58:11 AM »

People like that are stupid, by limiting there opitions they decrease the likely hood of bowling well.
--------------------
"Worlds Greatest Ball = Ultimate Inferno"
"Hook Isn't The Key, A Repeatable Consistent Shot Is"
"Increase Your Knowledge, Increase Your Score"
http://www.stormbowling.com ~ http://www.brunswickbowling.com

agroves · « **Reply #3 on:** May 13, 2004, 06:18:05 AM »

Seriously, is it possible this guy didn't use the ball on the condition it was suited for. I hated, and I mean hated, reactive pearls for the longest time. I had the Eraser, which everyone seemed to like, and I didn't keep it too long.

I traded for the ignitor and found a reactive pearl I actually liked. Then I picked up the inferno. I love that ball. It is probably my favorite right now. I bought the sonic x but I haven't thrown it much.

The last particle pearl I owned was the Trauma Recovery. I wasn't impressed and I haven't thrown a particle pearl since. I find little use for particles unless I need/want to play deeper. Then I use my HPD or Shock Zone Pro.

Andrew
--------------------
FUFU

If you're an idiot, you can join my ignore list

charlest · « **Reply #4 on:** May 13, 2004, 08:28:31 AM »

Ric,

Just because he knows about bowling execution, does not mean he knows about bowling balls. I suspect that, like most people, he goes to the pro shop and asks for a ball and a drilling to do such and such. They give him the ball and he tries to use it. It is possible that he just does not get the right reaction he truly needs. Heck, people who do know their bowling ball reactions make mistakes all the time; it's an art as well as a science, with a whole bunch of craft, witchcraft, thrown into the mix.

It also might be that pearlized covers are what are mostly (he does use solid particles well) he needs to get the right "read" from the lane.

Such generalizations, such as not liking solid resins, may also serve him well, if the ones he has used have not been that successfull, depending on how many he has tried. PLUS, well, truth be told, we can get almost any reaction out of ALMOST any ball these days with drilling and coverstock modifications.

If I were you, I wouldn't worry about this scenario; if he feels so strongly then he is likely to hate any solid resin ball he is given. Self-fulfilling prophecy and all that.
--------------------
"We get old too fast, and too late, smart."

loose5682 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 13, 2004, 03:13:20 PM »

i'm not much into reactive solids either...i think i'm one of 3 people in the USA that DIDN'T like the V2, had a Sledgehammer (though that had Mica in it...) and liked it only for a short time, and i can't think of any other ball that I have that is a reactive solid (except that i'm getting a Sonic X Solid soon). I have no solid reactives in my arsenal for now, until the Sonic comes through about the closest I have is the Apocalypse (which is both pearl and solid). I have currently two particles (Fuel, Phenom Unleashed) a particle pearl (EMB XF), and two reactive pearls (Apoc, Silver Streak Pearl). I have another particle pearl (Hercules) and my only reactive solid (Sonic X Solid) on the way, but as i've said, i'm not TOO big of a fan of reactive solids either. Then again, i'm hardly normal...
--------------------
Andrew Loose
"King of Them All"
"Evolutionary. Revolutionary."

C-G ProShop-Carl · « **Reply #6 on:** May 13, 2004, 03:42:20 PM »

Read charlest's post again, and then count that post as mine. I agree totally.
--------------------
Owner/Operator
C-G Pro Shop

Ric Clint · « **Reply #7 on:** May 15, 2004, 05:18:32 AM »

I talked to him again, and here's basically what he says:

"I like polished particles because they get through the heads clean if there's head oil. I hate sanded and polished reactives because they are too over/under for me - I find pearl balls to be LESS over/under than regular reactives - if that makes sense? I find plain reactives to be too sensitive to dry and snap off of the dry MORE than pearl balls do... some people say it's the other way around, I don't think so. I find polished pearls to be more controled off of the dry than polished reactives.

Most reactive balls jump sideways at the first sign of dry and even if that reactive ball is polished, if there's a low amount of head oil in the heads, then when that reactive ball touches the drier heads, it WON'T get through the heads clean, therefore making it over/under, and pearl balls will ignore the drier heads better.

If there's oil out there, then I use particles because reactives are too over/under (either if sanded or polished in my oppinion) and when the head oil starts to go and I can't get my particle's (even my polished particles) through the heads cleanly, then I have to go to something that is "pearl" because even a highly polished reactive still WON'T get through the heads clean enough if head oil is drying up. So therefore I have no room in my arsenal for just regular reactive balls... there's not enough space for a regular reactive."

That's GENERALLY what he says...

The 3rd paragraph makes sense to me and I actually agree with that paragraph.

Does any of this make sense to anybody else?

Edited on 5/15/2004 5:20 AM

MTFD24 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 15, 2004, 07:08:18 AM »

It may be that he has not matched up well with solids on the conditions he is seeing, or that the drillings may not have matched with his style/conditions.

Personally, I have better luck MOST of the time with reactives (solids/pearls) rather than particles. This is mainly to the fact that we usually do not get enough oil in the heads and mids to create the nedd, nor the carrydown.

I am savy enough to carry a particle with me when I go to house I am not sure of. As always, it is a matter of matching the ball, coverstock and prep, and drilling to the bowler/lane conditions for the greatest chance of success.
--------------------
The Older We Get, The Better We Were

www.MTFD.com - a NY State Vol. Fire Department
www.BowlWNY.com - local & national stories by Joe Ciccone
http://www.FDracing.com The worlds fastest firemen in the origional Xtreme Games

lane1lefty · « **Reply #9 on:** May 15, 2004, 07:21:43 AM »

Ric, it sounds to me like your friend hasn't had a solid reactive drilled to fit his game. I felt this same way toward solids and particle balls at one time. All it took was the right driller and I'm loving my solid arsenal. My BCB is pretty much my go to ball and blueberry c/2 is pretty closely behind it. Not sure if drlling is why, but that's what it was for me.

Ric Clint · « **Reply #10 on:** May 17, 2004, 03:08:23 AM »

quote:
Ric, it sounds to me like your friend hasn't had a solid reactive drilled to fit his game.

This may be the case... I don't know?

But he's good at this game and throws a good ball with alot of success...

Ric Clint · « **Reply #11 on:** June 15, 2004, 05:52:41 AM »

DP3 hit the nail on the head in another post about the point my friend was trying to get at!!! DP3 described it pretty good!

Here's what he said below (and this is also my friend's MAIN POINT about why he HATES regular reactives, either polished or sanded):

"polished resins give you the strongest reaction out of dry boards, but of course if they find dry boards too early, that's when they set up... whereas a pearl ignores dry in the fronts and retains energy longer thus needing more dry than a Solid reactive to produce its hook."

UCIbowl · « **Reply #12 on:** June 15, 2004, 05:16:20 PM »

there is no "stupid" about it... the particle pearls and the pearl are different and paople prefer them for a reason. the pearl has more length and a sharper backend.. the solid has a much smoother arc and less intense backend. i prefer the pearl also and when i was still bowling i was carrying a 226 on the junior scrath tour. maybe not high for yall but i was only 16... point is his reason is his style and preference, bowl your game and leave his alone. sucess is in the comfort!!

Ric Clint · « **Reply #13 on:** June 16, 2004, 05:26:41 AM »

Thanks to everybody so far!!!

The guy above is still standing firm with his theory!

And still having much success too!

Author Topic: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"? (Read 1145 times)

Ric Clint

Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?

agroves

Re: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?

rkaycom

Re: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?

agroves

Re: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?

charlest

Re: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?

loose5682

Re: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?

C-G ProShop-Carl

Re: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?

Ric Clint

Re: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?

MTFD24

Re: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?

lane1lefty

Re: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?

Ric Clint

Re: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?

Ric Clint

Re: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?

UCIbowl

Re: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?

Ric Clint

Re: Is it NORMAL to like "particle" & "pearl" but not "reactive"?