Hi all,

I have a friend who has come back to bowling after a long hiatus (you probably already know where this is going).  Anyway, he uses a Track Crunch Time as his primary ball.  He would like to pick up another ball for when the lanes dry out.

I looked at the BTM reviews spreadsheet and surprisingly, this ball has an overall hook rating of 44.  That is pretty low.  In contrast the newer Track 300A, has a hook rating of 46.  Is the crunch time really that weak?

My friend is probably a stroker/tweener at best.  Probably 250-275 RPM with matching ball speed.  On a house shot he is crossing at 10-12 at the arrows out to around 5-8.  I know that might not say a whole lot, but what it says to me is that he is neither speed or rev dominant.

I was thinking of drilling him a 300A, but now that I have looked at the BTM spreadsheet I think maybe the 300A would be a ball up, not a ball down.  Of course I could go 300A with a weaker layout, but that to me is always a little risky.   Weak ball + weak drilling = flaky reaction, unless you are really on toast.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance,

Drew

Hi all,

I have a friend who has come back to bowling after a long hiatus (you probably already know where this is going).  Anyway, he uses a Track Crunch Time as his primary ball.  He would like to pick up another ball for when the lanes dry out.

I looked at the BTM reviews spreadsheet and surprisingly, this ball has an overall hook rating of 44.  That is pretty low.  In contrast the newer Track 300A, has a hook rating of 46.  Is the crunch time really that weak?

No, it is not. I know I had two of those wonderful balls.
Do you realize how many years there have been between the CT's review and today? Please think how much balls and ratings number have changed since then, especially since the CT was a Particle Pearl.

My friend is probably a stroker/tweener at best.  Probably 250-275 RPM with matching ball speed.  On a house shot he is crossing at 10-12 at the arrows out to around 5-8.  I know that might not say a whole lot, but what it says to me is that he is neither speed or rev dominant.

I was thinking of drilling him a 300A, but now that I have looked at the BTM spreadsheet I think maybe the 300A would be a ball up, not a ball down.  Of course I could go 300A with a weaker layout, but that to me is always a little risky.   Weak ball + weak drilling = flaky reaction, unless you are really on toast.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance,

Drew

I sincerely believe that the  300A would NOT be a ball up from the CT. Of course, God alone knows what condition the CT is by now. Has it ever had it resurfaced or had an oil extraction done to it?

The previous recommendation, a weakly drilled Times Up pearl or a medium/normally drilled 300A could be potential drop down balls from the CT.

All mild pearls can potentially result in "a flaky reaction". They all require a good deal of dry to react properly. But the CT was a medium oil pearl, particles not withstanding. If you want a drop down from a medium oil pearl, it's going to be, 9 times out of 10, a light to medium-light oil pearl.

The main problem is we can only analyze this from the point of view of a NEW CT. It's very hard to tell how his CT is reacting now, compared to new balls. His is 10 years old!!! Is there any chance he can throw someone else's newer ball? Just to check ball reactions?

The numbers have changed over the years. 10 years in bowling is an eternity.

I'd estimate that the CT in today's environment would be a 46-48 overall hook, depending on your hand and drilling. Nowhere near a 44. If it were a true 44, then a current mild urethane would be the only available step down from it.

Try to have him throw someone's mild pearl along with the CT. It's the best way to compare with such an old ball. The number of unknowns in this situation are too many for an educated guess.

Crunch was a totally different weight block, just FYI

Thanks everyone for their replies.  I am going to see if I can get him to throw something else to try and draw a conclusion.

A couple of things, not to get off tangent. 

BTM Reviews.  I was under the impression that a lot of people use these ratings as a standard.  Maybe that is overzealous.  I like the idea that someone (who I would hope is not affiliated with a particular bowling company) can give a rating system that is consistent.  According to what I have read they have not changed their rating system over the years (not since 2002).  Now I know that the lanes they bowl on (in they are the same), have changed over 10 years.  The oil machines, oils and stripper fluids have probably changed quite a bit as well.  Maybe even their testers have changed, or improved/regressed.  I know there is no true comparison that will be 100% accurate, but I would expect them to be in the ball park. 

I remember when the Crunch Time came out and I never got the impression that it was a weak ball.  Not a hook monster either.  So the rating of 44 looks to be quite weak in comparison to my observations.

Now I know people are gonna come on the forum and say this ball was strong/weak whatever, but without knowing their games, that really means nothing.  We all know people that can make a 300C look like a hook monster while others can barely make it move 5 boards on a house shot.  That it why I like the idea of the BTM reviews.  What I would hope is an impartial review over a wide range of equipment.  Maybe I should actually go hunt down the actual magazine review, I know I have it, since I probably have every copy of BTM somewhere in my basement (to my wife's disgust).

I remember discussing the BTM reviews with the people at one of the "unnamed" booths,  at Nationals a few years back.  He was very opinionated, and felt the BTM reviews were worthless.

As a person who drills equipment for others, often times you get people who have old equipment and want to step up or down.  Having the BTM review as a starting point always seemed like a sound idea.  The bowling companies themselves have their own scales, but if you follow them, several of them have changed their scales over the years, rendering comparisons mostly null and void.

I guess I need to evaluate based on what the current ball specs state.  Looking at Diff, Int Diff, coverstock and manufacturer's intent in conjunction with the bowler's style (measureables) is the only way to go.

i think what i would do is take the Crunch Time, and send it to the Rejuvenator...

Then see how the ball reacts on a fresh shot.. 

As for a ball to start with, probably a 300 C/T/A ball type..