Author Topic: BTM - Fair & Unbiased? (Read 1956 times)

RandyO · « **on:** December 27, 2003, 11:59:38 PM »

The following is transferred from the Lane 1 forum and moved here to further discussion of the topic:

"And I will respectfully disagree about the quality and objectivity of BTM. I have back issues from 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 2001 - every 2002 and 2003 issue, and in my opinion they are just as good and informative and 'accurate' as always. Their reviews are unbiased, and they are THE ONLY SOURCE for comparisons of one company's ball line against another. They're doing a fine job. Obviously, our likes and dislikes will vary from person to person, so some of us will like some articles that others will dislike. Furthermore, some of us will get 'ticked off' when BTM gives our 'favorite' ball a review that we disagree with (after all we're human), but all in all they do a fine job."

I am adding the following:
Those of you who claim that BTM is 'biased' please provide me with an example of a review which was blatantly wrong/misleading/cow-doo-doo/ and biased to favor the interest of the manufacturer over the interest of the reader.

charlest · « **Reply #1 on:** December 28, 2003, 06:40:23 PM »

In general I have to agree with Brian and Randy. If there were the faintest hint of a bias to any manufacturer, they would not be able to operate. I have heard this criticism leveled at many (other types of) review magazines; for some it is obvious. In this case it is unwarranted.

I think all of the articles are very good on some level for many bowlers. I must agree about Mr. Taylor's articles; in general they are less than substantive. They appear more like a tempting advertisement to come to see him as a coach. Yes, his credentials as such are without blemish.

I do have many qualms and concerns about the bowling ball reviews. They are the best there are, now. However, I find I can put less and less stock in them: I can almost not depend on them anymore, since Mr. Summerville died. I had few disagreements with his reviews at all.

In addition to one of the points of agreement (their Dry-Medium-Oil ratings), far too many of their ball reviews are just not accurate. They do not reflect what the ball can do or is capable of. They are wrong too often. This is easily seen when there are two balls from the same company whose reltionship to one another is easily seen and known by many.

Then there's some of their review numbers. I think their Length, Backend and Overall hook ratings are based solely on the Tweener's stacked leverage drilling. As a theory, it is not bad; in practice, Summerville's approximation based on the Danger ZOne having a length of 3 and an overall hook of 20 (and adjusted later for newer balls) turned out to be more accurate overall.

Their use of a Stroker, Tweener and a Cranker is brilliant and must be so time consuming to implement. It has not turned out to be the useful tool that I would have thought it to be.

Then there's their "English". For a professional magazine, either the original writing or the editing needs a professional technical writer. Too many "off of"s, instead of "from" or solely "off"; too many misspellings or wrong words.

--------------------
"Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it."

Edited on 12/28/2003 7:43 PM

BadShot · « **Reply #2 on:** December 28, 2003, 06:56:30 PM »

i'm afraid i have to disagree . . .

when i started back into bowling 4 years ago, i kept hearing about how BTM was the bible of good bowlers. i finally subscribed 2 years ago, and have been very disappointed.

the "instruction", at least with the physical aspects of bowling, leave much to be desires. the bill taylor issue has already been covered. the only writer i look forward to reading is dean hinitz.

i think the ball reviews are biased. i'd love to see these 3 guys on the lanes actually throwing the balls. go find a columbia review that is bad . . . just a coincidence that the mag and columbia are both in texas? i think not.

i think we could grab a dozen guys from this site and beat the heck out of them in terms of bowling knowledge, instruction, and ball dynamics. but that's just me . . .
--------------------
That which does not kill me makes me stronger . . .

scotts33 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 28, 2003, 06:59:36 PM »

I agree with Randy, Brian and charlest. It's the best bowling mag as far as being more or less unbiased in their attempts to give informed information. Bill Taylor can wear on you but every now and then I even enjoy him.

Scott

charlest · « **Reply #4 on:** December 28, 2003, 07:09:03 PM »

BadSHot writes:

quote:
i'm afraid i have to disagree . . .

i think the ball reviews are biased. i'd love to see these 3 guys on the lanes actually throwing the balls. go find a columbia review that is bad . . . just a coincidence that the mag and columbia are both in texas? i think not.
--------------------
That which does not kill me makes me stronger . . .

You can't find any ball review which is bad because the odds of finding a bad ball is tiny. Some balls just suit some people's games less than other balls. Some balls are designed for special use; some are just less versatile than others.

As for coincidence, not only is Columbia in Texas, but also, Track, AMF, Dyno-Thane, and Eagle. Are they all "in cahooots"? Unless you have some proof, I suggest you withdraw this allegation, if you don't want to get sued by the aggrieved parties.
--------------------
"Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it."

Author Topic: BTM - Fair & Unbiased? (Read 1956 times)

RandyO

BTM - Fair & Unbiased?

charlest

Re: BTM - Fair & Unbiased?

BadShot

Re: BTM - Fair & Unbiased?

scotts33

Re: BTM - Fair & Unbiased?

charlest

Re: BTM - Fair & Unbiased?