Against what would probably be better judgment, I just have to add my two cents worth to this whole discussion. As has been pointed out in this thread, everyone is entitled to their opinion. And I fully agree with that. But when you present your opinion as fact, it becomes an issue. People's opinions are just that, opinions. They are not necessarily true for everyone or in all cases. Indeed, they may only be true for that particular individual and even then only in some circumstances. Therefore, opinions should be clearly identified as opinions.
scotts33, I must say your posts confuse me. On the one hand, you are extremely critical of Visionary's recent core designs, to the point of calling their latest releases useless on typical house shots (although you don't give any basis for that opinion), then come out with a statement saying that core design and specs are basically meaningless and "it's all about the cover". What?!? If it's all about the cover, why are you so fixated on symmetrical versus asymmetrical core designs, z-spin, and all the rest? You have posted that you "call it like you see it", but how you see it appears, in my opinion, to be rather self-centered. Visionary hasn't come out with balls that you feel match your particular game, so they're "wrong", or the balls are "useless". Your posts almost give the impression that you feel that Visionary has "betrayed" you somehow. Visionary is like every other company in the fact that they are going to try to make what sells. They discontinued the blue/green Centaur because it wasn't "hook in a box" and people didn't buy enough of them to justify its continued manufacture. They recently discontinued their particle covers for the same reason (lack of sales). Based on some of your other posts, it appears that you are a Motiv devotee these days. This makes me think that your issues with Visionary may indeed be cover based. In my experience and in my opinion, Motiv appears to use covers that are more "control" based, don't react as strongly to friction, and bleed off energy more evenly. If your "typical house shot" is more of an extreme wet/dry, I can see where this would be an advantage. For other equipment, be it Visionary or someone else with a more aggressive cover, perhaps a layout with a bit larger drilling angle (more length) and, more importantly, a larger VAL angle (slower second transition) than you normally use would give a more consistent reaction closer to your comfort zone.
twohand834, I have to take exception with your statement that people would take Visionary equipment, drill their favorite layout, and the balls "rolled like crap". This would be your opinion, not an all encompassing fact. You said that it gave you a "borderline hook/stop". First of all, Chris Barnes has done pretty darn well with that type of reaction on lots of occasions. So, while it may not be what you were looking for, that doesn't make it "crap". You also said that you kicked the CG out more than usual (generally gives a more controlled back end reaction) and went with a low weight hole (generally increases total differential, increases flare, and increases the chances of "hook out", especially given your rev rate). It does not surprise me in the least that you had to add axis rotation. Personally, I have a Crossover drilled with a fairly standard 60 x 30 drill, and love the way it rolls. You posted that you were disappointed that Visionary didn't publicize that some of their core designs were z-spin. As has been pointed out numerous times, in all but the Mixed Breed the asymmetry is so mild as to be virtually irrelevant. You can generate substantially more asymmetry by the drilling of the holes. I'm not a core design expert by any means, but maybe that small amount of asymmetry makes more of a difference to someone with your rev rate. As you've said, your game is well outside the norm. But that means you have to know your game and how things affect it more than most. You can't expect ball companies to design and market products geared towards your game, or even really know how everything about their products will react in your hands. You are in that 1% of bowlers that, again, makes no commercial sense to design for.
Both of you have expressed disappointment that Visionary hasn't come out with more symmetrical core designs lately. First of all, the cores in the Gladiators, New Breeds, Spartan, and Classic are technically asymmetrical, but (according to Jason, others who have posted, and in my experience) the asymmetry is so mild it can basically be ignored. Secondly, what is wrong with the Ogres? A good, large volume, medium RG, medium differential symmetrical core with no wrap. They are available in a solid cover, an aggressive pearl, a "skiddy" pearl, and even a non-reactive urethane. What else are you looking for? Yes, they've been around for a while, but why is that a bad thing? Visionary as a company has repeatedly said that they are not going to come out with new balls just for the sake of having a new ball. They don't just take the same core, maybe tweak the cover some miniscule amount, change the color, and announce a new ball. Why should they be criticized for that?
Both of you have posted about "hook/stop" and lack of continuation. This has not been my experience. In fact, I recently finished second in a tournament due to leaving back-to-back-to-back solid eight pins (and I am left handed) in the middle of a potential seven bagger. A little less continuation might have been a good thing. I also looked at Matt C's videos. There doesn't appear to be any continuation problems for him or his brother. If you are experiencing continuation problems, it would be my opinion that there is a mismatch in surface/drilling pattern and lane surface/condition for your particular style. That is not the ball's (or ball company's) fault.
Well, this post went way longer than I intended or than it probably should have. I obviously have way too much time on my hands. I sincerely hope nobody felt that I was disrespecting anybody. That was certainly not my intent. I've read numerous posts from both scotts33 and twohands834, and both appear to be above average in their knowledge and certainly in their passion for the game. But, in my opinion, there is virtually no such thing as a "bad" ball these days. Given the right surface, drilling pattern, and lane condition, any ball can look outstanding. To present opinions or even personal experiences as facts that would apply to everyone, and use them to disparage a company is unfair.
