Let me start out by saying that I buy 5 or 6 new bowling balls every year, whether I need them or not.  Of course, I always THINK that I need them, even though the vast majority of the evidence always ends up indicating that I didn't need them.

There are a few axioms that are more or less taken as given these days.  One is that coverstock accounts for (fill in the blank) percent of ball reaction.  The "fill in the blank" number varies from writer to writer, but it is always a large number; always over 50 percent.  The other axiom is that balls are constantly being made with ever more aggressive coverstocks, which causes lane conditioner manufacturers to come up with ever slipperier oils to fight the more aggressive coverstocks, which causes ball manufacturers to develop even more aggressive coverstocks, and on and on in a vicious circle.

Now here comes the latest BTM magazine with a review of the new Brunswick BVP Wizard.  This ball has the Powerkoil 18 coverstock--a very popular, but nevertheless 10 year old coverstock material.  All of the BTM reviewers give this ball a numerical ranking of 9 (out of a possible 10) for oily conditions.  What is wrong with this picture?

It seems to me that if a 10 year old coverstock is still drawing critical opinion that it is best on heavy oil conditions, then something is wrong with at least one of the axioms mentioned above.  Either the coverstock contributes less to ball reaction than is generally thought, or coverstocks are really not getting more aggressive all the time.  Of course, I suppose another possibility is that Powerkoil 18 is simply the greatest coverstock of all time and possesses nearly mystical powers to tame lane oil.  I still see people using Danger Zones with great success--balls that have hundreds if not a thousand games on them.  Maybe Powerkoil 18 is also immune to oil logging or whatever it is that actually causes ball death.

It may seem that I have lapsed into some kind of sarcasm here, but that is truly not my intention.  I am starting to think, however, that perhaps our need for new bowling balls, or our thinking that the newest one is actually so much more aggressive than the last one may be mostly in our heads.

Shiv
--------------------
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top

the wizard also comes really dull out of the box, thus the higher rating in oil.
--------------------
Eric Martinez
The Bowler's Edge Pro Shop, San Antonio
Track Amateur Staff

In the case of the wizard; It's just a remake of the nemesis.  Brunswick calls it new to trick bowlers into buying it.  Instead of doing what other company's do which is call it a remake.

Shiv,

Given that the "Professional" testers found the Wizard/Nemesis very good on their heavy oil pattern, remember also these "facts" (I think they are):
1. Back in 1996 when PK 18 first came out, no ball used it in its dull condition, the 800 grit sanded that these 2 balls have.
2. Many people have already found that 800 grit dull solid resin are not adequate for their heavy oil pattern OR for their ball release. They need the equivalent of an 800 grit solid PARTICLE ball. Some even seem to need that dull solid particle to have an asymmetric core to provide even more backend drive.
2. Many of that subset of bowlers mentioned in #2 above not only need their heavy oil ball to a dull, sanded particle ball, some of those need to take the surface down from the stock 1200 or 1000 grit to 400 grit!!

If a proprietor decided to use a heavy coating of the new high viscosity oils ona Brunswick AnvilLane surface, the slickest synthetic we know have, then many of us will need dull particle balls. HOWEVER, that said, I'd figure over 90% of proprietors use either old, lighter viscosity oils in a light house blend, or a very light coating of the newer highviscosit oil. This allows the vast majority of us to use balls that are ... not so strong.

That's my 2 cents on this situation.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."