win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Fever Pitch vs Super Natural  (Read 1723 times)

HighRevvin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Fever Pitch vs Super Natural
« on: April 25, 2019, 11:32:19 AM »
Hello All,

Looking in the direction of a Fever Pitch for burn. No stranger to trying a number of modern urethanes the past few years but broken THS with hooking heads.

Looking for input on the Fever Pitch vs the old SuperNatural. This was one ball I felt really bridged the gap nicely and allowed me to play up the boards with a little pop at the end.

Past Urethanes: Black Hammer, Pitch Black, Black Widow, Supernatural.

Thanks
Robert

Just an unbiased bowling enthusiast trying too enjoy the game with each set.

Robert

 

bowling_rebel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
Re: Fever Pitch vs Super Natural
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2019, 10:41:54 PM »
I'm curious about comparison also.
I do have both Fever Pitch and Natural Pearl.

I've only used them both on THS, but in a house that plays much slicker that others, so there may be a greater difference in the balls if I was someplace else.

Since it's hard to compare what someone else may see from ball reaction based on my game, my specs
No thumb release, about 380 rev rate, 4 degrees axis tilt. Ball speed 12-13 MPH (monitor).
Both ball drilled identical, 70 degree, with 5 inch Pin to Pap

With these stats I need a ball that won't over hook, but with low tilt I can't easily get down the lane (which is why I was lucky to find a like new condition Natural Pearl on ebay).

For practice on THS in most houses the Natural Pearl is perfect for my game. Can even open up, play 15th board out to 7 and it comes back. (most of the places I practice at are pretty dry)

There is one house I practice in that is very slick, the natural pearl leaves a lot of 10 pins.

Playing Fever Pitch on same line as Natural Pearl, and it comes in a little high. Move about board inside and it's a stronger, perfect compliment. 
Fever pitch it earlier and has a more rounder shape. On these slick conditions it was 1 to 2 boards stronger, but I can see that going to 4 or 5 boards more on different lane conditions.

After several games the Fever Pitch started to roll early and go through the nose. Switch to Natural Pearl on same line and ball goes right through pocket.

So I guess the Supernatural would be longer with more snap on back end, but fever pitch earlier and a little stronger overall. If use primarily urethane (like me) and want two balls that compliment each other, it could work.


I actually do have a Supernatural as well, but drilled with thumb, and too heavy for me to no-thumb release, so can't throw it the same way to compare. I loved that ball, and even with the Fever Pitch in my bag, if I saw a 14 pound Supernatural on ebay, would pick it up without any hesitation. 

JazlarVonSteich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
Re: Fever Pitch vs Super Natural
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2019, 10:45:19 AM »
Urethane is best for short oil and controlling the back end. It's not really suitable for the burn. There are better options out there for the burn.

HighRevvin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: Fever Pitch vs Super Natural
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2019, 01:36:34 PM »
I remember being fairly comfortable squaring up with the supernatural in the track area when everything else was hooking. It liked friction and needed it to shape the lane.

I failed miserably attempting to find a spot in my bag with the pitch black. When I use to bowl sport I still favored the hustle ink and IQ tour solid over urethane. It needed some kind of head oil to setup correctly so as stated it didn't work well on THS burn. If I migrated left to catch a bit of oil I needed to be surgical with my angles to avoid over/under. These urethane/reactive hybrids just caught my attention.
Just an unbiased bowling enthusiast trying too enjoy the game with each set.

Robert