These were done a while back but I just noticed them again.

They are from Bowlingball.com and the 1st tester is Tony Ruocco. In both Video's he throws the balls on the same shot which is a 38' THS.

He is playing about a whole arrow deeper with the Critical theory than with the Lucid. And eventhough the Critical Theory is drilled Pin under fingers to roll early (the Lucid has the Pin above fingers for length), the Critical Theory seems to NOT use up much energy because it looks like the Critical has a good bit more backend and recovery on wide shots than the Lucid.

Do you guys that have either thrown or seen these 2 balls see the same comparison... that the Critical is similar in the midlane and also a good bit stronger in the back?

Critical:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9c0xDlp7Fo
Lucid:     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrJEHJnPCLM

What I noticed from the vid,

1.) The pattern length was the same however there were more units on the Lucid Vid.
2.) He played the lanes tighter to the head, imo, with the Lucid to take advantage of the oil. He got the critical to the friction sooner.
3.) The layouts were different critical (5x4x4) (promoting a bigger VAL angle and smaller drill angle, this creates excess thumb weight and allows for P3, or P4), Lucid (5x5x2.5 promoting bigger drill angle and smaller VAL creating side but nowhere near the thumb weight as in the pin down so he may have only used a P2 ), which could play a role in reaction shape.

In having the Critical and watching multiple Lucids, I can say the Critical definitely "backends" more than the Lucid, however, the Lucid Starts up soone, so not as much backend but more overall hook. Another thing I've noticed, and this may just be me, but the Lucid doesnt polish itself as quickly as the Critical. With my Critical 3 games and the ball is darn near polished, with my bosses Lucid, he's thrown the ball for about 5 games in practice and it still had the box look.