well said bowlaholic

Off set technology I believe.

I think hammer 3d offset technology. I believe that was Mo's design for hammer

I'm not sure what is with the negativity spewed by some. Staffers are staffers for a reason; they are supposed to try to help the company they represent sell bowling balls. Now, that doesn't mean that every review has to be a carbon copy of the one that came before it claiming that every new ball is the best ball ever. Still, do you really expect staffers to come on here to say that their company's newest ball sucks and that nobody should buy it? Would you do that if you were on a staff? As such, you have a couple of choices; don't read reviews written by staffers, or read them, but take into account that part of their job is promotion. I'm not sure why so many people on here have to be rude and negative about everything. Get some happiness into your lives! : )

And I agree that some staffers are much more objective than others. Take Riggs as an example. He doesn't claim that every Storm/Roto piece is the best thing since sliced bread. He makes it clear that some balls match up much better for him than others; still, he stays mostly positive. Then again, the guy has also been a staffer for a LONG time and has credentials out the wazoo to keep that position. As such, he probably feels a bit more comfortable in his position than a lot of the younger, less-renowned staffers do. As you said, I don't think that there is ever an excuse for a staffer to try to mislead people into thinking a ball is something it's not. Still, as I said before, you can't very well expect them to come on here and say that a ball is a giant turd either, so take their reviews with a grain of salt. It's no different than looking for biases in media, advertisements, etc.

Crux


Weapon of Mass Bias

Description of Lock sounds like it might be Storms answer to the Paradox, which by most accounts is going to be a hugely successful ball. 

I get what you're saying; it's frustrating to read "reviews" that aren't helpful. Then again, 95% of the reviews on this site, even the ones from non-staffers, aren't very helpful. Most people only take the time to write a review if they love the ball or hate it, so you either get over-the-top praise or limitless contempt. As such, it's on you to pick and choose who/what you're going to read and listen to. Maybe you should only read reviews from members you trust and respect. Maybe you shouldn't read any reviews written by staffers because, as I said before, you know that those will mostly likely be largely promotional in nature.

Gene, your right.
I for one cannot understand why any person with integrity would want to be a staffer if they are to scared to state any of the less than positives for a ball in their review. To me its like selling yourself down the river just to walk around telling everyone your a staffer and you get free or next to free bowling balls, shirts, etc.
That's why I respect Riggs.  He pretty much tells it like it is. He's not perfect, but his reviews are head over heels over the rest.
BTW Riggs' 11Frame site is going to paid subscription.  I for one will subscribe.  He is a class act and if the sub fees help him bring more of his quality to bowling, it will be money well spent.

I know what you are saying here but holding some no name staffer who just started posting and likely after a few months we will never hear from again to the same standard as you do Riggs isn't really fair. Riggs has a name in the industry and can get away with being more honest than some other guys can.

If it is a puffball piece (and I agree with you it was) than accept it as such and move on. If it is poor advice or completely incorrect then their is an issue.