win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Primal vs Backdraft  (Read 2224 times)

Frederick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Primal vs Backdraft
« on: June 20, 2011, 12:46:28 PM »
According to Motiv, the Primal is a fairly strong ball. Motiv has the Primal a lot stronger than the QZ2 Backdraft. According to BTM, the Backdraft is stronger than the Primal.
 
BTM Ratings:
 
Backdraft   Length: 13  Backend  15.5   Overall Hook  49
 
Primal:       Length  13  Backend  14.5  Overall Hook  48  (That's pretty week)
 
In my experience, BTM is pretty accurate with their ratings. 

 
Edited by Ace1542 on 6/20/2011 at 8:47 PM
Logged

 

kidlost2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5789
Re: Primal vs Backdraft
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2011, 03:04:14 AM »
 I really like the Backdraft and think BTM is way off.

Be good, or be good at it.
Logged
…… you can't  add a physics term to a bowling term and expect it to mean something.

themagician

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2974
Re: Primal vs Backdraft
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2011, 03:49:26 AM »
The primal really doesn't hook a ton, the ball is so strong in the front portion of the lane and very smooth on the back. Its a more controlled and consistent reaction, the Backdraft is ridiculously angular or anything but it comes off the spot a lot harder in comparison to the Primal.
 


Logged
-Mike
-MOTIV Staff

kidlost2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5789
Re: Primal vs Backdraft
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2011, 05:03:46 AM »
I would also say that is a difference in finish. On heavier oil I would take the Primal. If you were to take the Primal to the same finish as the Backdraft I think you would see more length with a quicker reaction off the dry. If both are at box finish, generally you would start with the Primal and later change over to the Backdraft. That has been my experience.
 


Be good, or be good at it.
Logged
…… you can't  add a physics term to a bowling term and expect it to mean something.
Pages: [1]
« previous next »