To me, the difference is the two cover characteristics more than the layout.  We say use the 2" pin layout to tame the reactive cover, but that doesn't change the cover itself.

Urethane is a slower response to friction, thus for most bowlers keeping their target in front of them is critical.  Open the angles too much and it's 10 pin city because although the ball may hit between the 1-3 pocket it's usually late.  The 3 pin goes straight back sending the 6 directly right into the gutter and the 10 pin smiling at you.

The other limitation of urethane is that the cover does not "refresh" itself quickly. The oil sits there, and sits there, and sits there.  Even with a shammy you can't get all of it off so eventually the ball's slower response time gets (in a subtle way) even slower.

Cleaning your urethane ball every game helps, but thanks to the genius' at USBC you won't be able to do that much longer.  Watch and see how carry with urethane in game one is better than games two and three. 

In addition to the urethane cover not absorbing oil fast, the urethane balls will carry the oil down much faster, which also contributes to weaker pin carry as the night goes on.

I'm not completely against urethane, although it may sound that way, I just feel it's use is limited.

Most bowlers want "miss room" on the lane because we are not throwbots.  Reactive balls give us more of that room.  Urethane's strength is also it's weakness and vise versa.  If you're bowling on a brutal pattern where control is paramount, and you can make spares and still compete, then go for it.  Urethane can be valuable.

Remember that you cannot make urethane reactive with a certain layout.  It's still urethane.  Can the companies create urethane balls with additives to respond faster? Yes, but then you're getting closer to the good old reactive ball again.

Very interesting and power statement.
 "Most bowlers want "miss room" on the lane because we are not throwbots.  Reactive balls give us more of that room.  Urethane's strength is also it's weakness and vise versa.  If you're bowling on a brutal pattern where control is paramount, and you can make spares and still compete, then go for it.  Urethane can be valuable.

Remember that you cannot make urethane reactive with a certain layout.  It's still urethane.  Can the companies create urethane balls with additives to respond faster? Yes, but then you're getting closer to the good old reactive ball again."

This is what I see lots of bowlers trying to replicate with the Purple. I love urethane as well, but I feel like it's probably better in most situations to have the reactive cover with a tame enough layout.

Reactive is stronger. Even my Scout with a pancake weight block is noticeably stronger. Application is the issue.  For right-handed bowlers urethane is a great option on short patterns because of the extremely high amount of friction so early.  On most other conditions it's usually good for a game or so before losing it's backend reaction.

For left-handed bowlers urethane seems to work a lot better a lot longer.  Put 8 to 10 lefties on a pair with reactive and urethane and it may look a lot more like it does for the righties.

Typically I see right handers trying to swing the lane with urethane when it starts getting dry and cant understand why they leave flat 10s or buckets.

For me, I've done better the last two years with urethane - at least where I've bowled most of my leagues. A year ago and at the start of this past season, the shot was really wet/dry. Urethane blended this out the best for me. They changed things recently and now there is a ton of hook inside. Shot definitely plays flatter, especially when you move in.

I bowled 300/800 with the Hot Cell last season and had more 750+ series than in any other season. That was one handed. This season I had a rough time. Switched to two handed halfway for multiple reasons - more health issues than anything (as strange as that may seem). 2nd go around two handed. But my best scores have come with urethane and plastic. I've had a more consistent look with urethane than resin.

I'm definitely a bowler who does better playing front to back than side to side, so I'm not saying everyone should look to urethane. I'm also bowling on conditions where it just matches up better, at least for me. The Black Widow urethane is a pure beast. Tons of flare. Handles the carry down much better than most urethanes and some weaker resin balls. Allows me more miss room than with other urethanes and some resin balls. I'd rather leave a corner than splits and washouts because there's not enough push in and too much out wide.

As for the low flare layouts... I've tried them all. True pin axis. 1-2" pin to PAP. Longer pin to PAP. Pretty much all of them. They do not replicate urethane, in my opinion - at least in the majority of cases. And if they do, they don't carry any better. That's my experience. I'm better off drilling my resin balls to take advantage of their characteristics and using urethane/plastic as pure control options. This may not be true for everyone, but it is what I'm doing from now on.

Very reasonable and well stated.