Relative "Strengths" of bowling balls

[RobLV1]

Last night I posted a thread on that other site, and had it locked within one hour... a personal record even for me. The thread was locked because it was perceived to be a political subject, which it was not. I simply found real-life proof of the cultural bias that I have long suspected in regards to the term "Strong," and "Weak," that I have long suspected causes one of the most common threads on virtually every bowling forum that I visit: bowlers who lack ball speed, the ability to make lateral adjustments, or are rank beginners often buy overly-aggressive bowling balls because they think they need a "strong" ball to make up for their physical limitations. When I watched the Vice Presidential debate the other night, one subject jumped out at me... not because it's an analogy as the moderator on the other site referred to it in a private message response to me, but because it is real-life proof of the bias that I have long suspected.

The post was as follows:

For years now, I have been writing articles encouraging bowlers to stop referring to bowling balls as strong or weak because of the cultural bias of the two words: strong is good, weak is bad.

Last night while watching the Vice Presidential Debate, Sen. Kaine repeatedly challenged Gov. Pence, saying that Donald Trump had said that Putin is a "better" leader than President Obama. Each time, Gov. Pence responded that Trump had not said that Putin is a "better" leader than President Obama, but that he had said that Putin is a "stronger" leader than the President. Senator Kaine didn't seem to get the difference. The proof is in the putting: stronger is not always better, in leadership or bowling balls.

Let me reiterate; this is not a political posting. It is living proof that in our society, stronger is perceived as "better." How about if we start referring to bowling balls as aggressive/early rolling, aggressive/mid rolling, or aggressive/late rolling; or non-aggressive/early rolling, etc., instead of weak or strong, leading many, many bowlers down a long and painful path of being frustrated because they are trying to use balls that are way too aggressive for their levels of ability.

[1VegasBowler]

Isn't today's culture and politics wonderful? lol

Unfortunately, too many bowlers think they are better than what their true abilities are and vice versa.

Dirty Harry said it best. "Man's got to know his limitations".

[bowl1820]

While you might not have intended it to be a political post, I can see how it may have been perceived as one given the current political climate.

The thread could have easily gone in a direction (political) you did not intend for it to go, because readers would have focused on the political aspects of the post not the bowling ones.

Politics, Religion can be very hot button topics, like they say “don't talk religion or politics at the dinner table.”

So using a political comparison right now might not have been the best way to put forth your idea.

[bowl1820]

In this video they discuss the same idea.

USBC Gold coach Bryan O’Keefe and USBC Hall of Famer Carolyn Dorin-Ballard discuss the difference between strong and weak bowling balls and the common misconception of what it means for a ball to be considered strong.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU6KlP2VRmw



Basically what they say is most people look at the right to left movement (Left to Right for lefthanders) of the ball (how many boards it covers) and equate that for how strong a ball is. (The ball that went long and snapped hard must be the strong ball)

But what they say is you should be looking at is from front to back and how early or late the ball moves. (The ball that went long and snapped hard is actually the weaker ball)

[1VegasBowler]

It's all about the energy retention.

For what I have, the Ultimate Nirvana, Fanatic BTU, Vintage Danger Zone & Ruckus Schizo have the best energy.

The Vandal & Thug Unruly have less energy.

[RobLV1]

In this video they discuss the same idea.

USBC Gold coach Bryan O’Keefe and USBC Hall of Famer Carolyn Dorin-Ballard discuss the difference between strong and weak bowling balls and the common misconception of what it means for a ball to be considered strong.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU6KlP2VRmw



Basically what they say is most people look at the right to left movement (Left to Right for lefthanders) of the ball (how many boards it covers) and equate that for how strong a ball is. (The ball that went long and snapped hard must be the strong ball)

But what they say is you should be looking at is from front to back and how early or late the ball moves. (The ball that went long and snapped hard is actually the weaker ball)

And herein lies the problem. The ball that went long and snapped hard is actually not the weaker ball, it's the ball that went long and snapped hard. Once we label it as "weak," all is lost!

[RobLV1]

It's all about the energy retention.

For what I have, the Ultimate Nirvana, Fanatic BTU, Vintage Danger Zone & Ruckus Schizo have the best energy.

The Vandal & Thug Unruly have less energy.

Thank you for making my point! Are the four balls that have the "best" energy the one's that have the most energy (strongest), or are they the ones that have the energy profile that works the best for you?

[Hot_pocket]

I'm one of those people who thought it was opposite and even now I don't want to believe it lol. The next ball I get, I'm thinking about one of the pyramids balls, I want it to have and early roll. I have a lot of long and strong pieces and feel like on the fresh, I just can't get an early enough reaction of the modified shot I'm on.

[1VegasBowler]

Thank you for making my point! Are the four balls that have the "best" energy the one's that have the most energy (strongest), or are they the ones that have the energy profile that works the best for you?

The first 4 have the highest energy at the end.

[RobLV1]

So using a political comparison right now might not have been the best way to put forth your idea.

This wasn't a political "comparison," it was living proof from the real world that there is a cultural bias towards the words. Whether the use of "stronger" and "better" as synonyms was intentional or not, it is how the words were used and is indicative of the attitude of our culture toward these words.

[bowl1820]

And herein lies the problem. The ball that went long and snapped hard is actually not the weaker ball, it's the ball that went long and snapped hard. Once we label it as "weak," all is lost!

I understand what your saying there, But I think though that there is no terminology that would be satisfactory in the long run to replace Strong or Weak.

Saying aggressive & non-aggressive or whatever, ultimately still will boil down to just being considered someone saying strong & weak.

Maybe using the terms Strong/Weak in some more appropriate way, might be more viable than coming up with new words to try to get people to perceive them differently.

What that way is I won't hazard a guess, other than to say that the one using the terms strong/weak should define what they mean by strong or weak in the context they are using them.

[1VegasBowler]

I understand what your saying there, But I think though that there is no terminology that would be satisfactory in the long run to replace Strong or Weak.

Saying aggressive & non-aggressive or whatever, ultimately still will boil down to just being considered someone saying strong & weak.

Maybe using the terms Strong/Weak in some more appropriate way, might be more viable than coming up with new words to try to get people to perceive them differently.

What that way is I won't hazard a guess, other than to say that the one using the terms strong/weak should define what they mean by strong or weak in the context they are using them.

I'm going to ask for an opinion here.

I would say that my Ultimate Nirvana, Fanatic BTU, Vintage Danger Zone & Ruckus Schizo are the strongest, and the Thug Unruly & Vandal are the weakest.

Now, when I say that, I am referring to the energy that increases or retains at the back end. I know they all have different reactions to oil and friction, and they can be classified as either Continuous, Angular or Traction (depending on the ball).

[bowl1820]

This wasn't a political "comparison," it was living proof from the real world that there is a cultural bias towards the words. Whether the use of "stronger" and "better" as synonyms was intentional or not, it is how the words were used and is indicative of the attitude of our culture toward these words.

I don't think you see it Rob.

Most ordinary people looking at that will just see a political comment on Trump, Obama and the rest. (which is just what M.M. did)

Not a academic comment on the cultural bias towards how words are used and perceived.

[Amyers]

We've discussed this before and I understand the point and what you're tryin to accomplish. Unfortunately in trying to spare bowlers from misunderstanding ball motion and how it relates to their game and the conditions they bowl on the terminolgy your using doesn't really change anything. Your just using different words.

The factors that contribute to the problem are the ball manufactures marketing, the pro shops being inclined to sell higher price higher profit higher end equipment, and the THS shots we bowl on that mask the true differences in bowling balls. I believe all of these contribute to the problem way more than any culture bias against weak or strong.

Most bowlers who bowl on THS conditions don't really need anything stronger than a midline ball at most. Yet all the companies sell tons of high end balls that are really developed for sport shots because bowlers think more hook is better. They don't buy that ball because someone said its strong they buy it because it hooks more and they mistakenly think that makes it better.

This is why it's important to have a good coach and preferably one that isn't the PSO also. I don't think you fix this by changing words but by changing mindsets.

[Amyers]

I'm going to ask for an opinion here.

I would say that my Ultimate Nirvana, Fanatic BTU, Vintage Danger Zone & Ruckus Schizo are the strongest, and the Thug Unruly & Vandal are the weakest.

Now, when I say that, I am referring to the energy that increases or retains at the back end. I know they all have different reactions to oil and friction, and they can be classified as either Continuous, Angular or Traction (depending on the ball).

Here's the problem everyone has different intentions when they say strongest. I would never use strongest in regards to energy retention myself. Personally I prefer to think about strength by where I lineup with that ball because even a long ball that covers a lot of boards can force you left (as a righty).

To answer your question on energy retention. It's basically surface/Rg controlled which is why the BTU probably doesn't belong on the high end of the list but I haven't seen one yet so I might change my mind. High energy retention isn't great either though a ball that goes through the pins with too much energy can be worse than a ball that burns up and hits flat. Energy in the pit doesn't help. It's always about the ball that hooks at the right time in the right place that rolls as it hits the pins. It's not about energy at 20ft or energy as it rolls off the back of the lane but as the ball being in position to transfer the most energy to the pins for the best results

[1VegasBowler]

Here's the problem everyone has different intentions when they say strongest. I would never use strongest in regards to energy retention myself. Personally I prefer to think about strength by where I lineup with that ball because even a long ball that covers a lot of boards can force you left (as a righty).

To answer your question on energy retention. It's basically surface/Rg controlled which is why the BTU probably doesn't belong on the high end of the list but I haven't seen one yet so I might change my mind. High energy retention isn't great either though a ball that goes through the pins with too much energy can be worse than a ball that burns up and hits flat. Energy in the pit doesn't help. It's always about the ball that hooks at the right time in the right place that rolls as it hits the pins. It's not about energy at 20ft or energy as it rolls off the back of the lane but as the ball being in position to transfer the most energy to the pins for the best results

I understand what you're saying my friend. And here's what I see when I throw.

Ultimate Nirvana - Great for medium to heavy oil. With it being drilled pin down at 65x4.5x70, it was done with the intent of having a fair amount of length, but not to over hook. The ball is all energy and it hits harder than anything I have.

BTU - Urethane balls are great for burned up lanes, but they tend to start reading at around 25ft. The BTU has a cover stock that absorbs oil, goes a bit longer than urethane and has a nice gradual hook to it. This ball also has a lot of energy at the back end and is my 2nd best hitter.

Vandal - While it is considered an angular ball, this is a hard hitter, and hits just as good as the BTU. If I stay in the oil, it almost has the same reaction as the BTU. But it also has a lot of of forgiveness if I get too far outside. But when it does get too far outside, it also loses energy and I'm most susceptible to leaving the 10 pin.

VDZ - I had this drilled for the short Sport patterns, and reacted very well on the Cheetah. Great energy and hard hitting. I can use it on longer oil patterns, but I have to release and keep it at the 15 board.

Ruckus Schizo - This is the only ball I have changed the surface on. I went from OOB to 4000 with polish. And while I don't use it very often, it is also useful on the longer oil patterns.

I know you got a nice laugh when I said I go from my UN to the BTU during league nights, but I do that because the lanes get burned up in a hurry with the thin oil out there and the other bowlers in the same track.

The BTU allows me to stay in my original track, whether it's 15-10 or from the 10. It also allows me to play what would normally be out of bounds for a lot of bowlers from the 7 to the 3. And I say that is out of bounds for them because there are a ton of bowlers here that won't move no matter what, and they can't understand why they can't get to the pocket by the middle of the second game like they did in the first.

Is this the best way to do it? In my case it is. My adjustments are subtle compared to what others do, and I use it to my advantage. I watch the track of other bowlers to determine how I can attack the lanes that suits me the best.

There is certainly good and bad to what I do. But the equipment I have lets me do what I think will work for the conditions.

[RobLV1]

First of all, let me say that I am not naive enough to think that I can change the way bowlers refer to bowling balls. I just do what I can.

I do think it's interesting that two posters here, Ameyers and 1VegasBowler, illustrate exactly why we need new terminology. Ameyers, like most bowlers considers "strong" balls to be early rolling, while 1VegasBowler considers "strong" balls to be balls that retain energy for the back ends. These balls most bowlers consider to be "weak". While the bowlers who need balls that go longer and retain energy, they will often not buy them because they are too busy looking for something "strong." Hence the need for words that are descriptive of ball motion and have no cultural bias attached to them.

[1VegasBowler]

First of all, let me say that I am not naive enough to think that I can change the way bowlers refer to bowling balls. I just do what I can.

I do think it's interesting that two posters here, Ameyers and 1VegasBowler, illustrate exactly why we need new terminology. Ameyers, like most bowlers considers "strong" balls to be early rolling, while 1VegasBowler considers "strong" balls to be balls that retain energy for the back ends. These balls most bowlers consider to be "weak". While the bowlers who need balls that go longer and retain energy, they will often not buy them because they are too busy looking for something "strong." Hence the need for words that are descriptive of ball motion and have no cultural bias attached to them.

Would the words Angular, Continuous, Traction & Straight be better words to use?

[Mike White]

First of all, let me say that I am not naive enough to think that I can change the way bowlers refer to bowling balls. I just do what I can.

I do think it's interesting that two posters here, Ameyers and 1VegasBowler, illustrate exactly why we need new terminology. Ameyers, like most bowlers considers "strong" balls to be early rolling, while 1VegasBowler considers "strong" balls to be balls that retain energy for the back ends. These balls most bowlers consider to be "weak". While the bowlers who need balls that go longer and retain energy, they will often not buy them because they are too busy looking for something "strong." Hence the need for words that are descriptive of ball motion and have no cultural bias attached to them.

You don't need new terminology, you need to learn to correctly use current terminology.

As it relates to bowling, energy (in the bowling ball once released) is not lost until it contacts the pins, at which point the pin gains the energy that the ball loses (minus the energy required to cause sound and slight increase in temperature).

The word energy (specifically kinetic energy) has been defined long ago, and it builds on terms such as mass, velocity, moment of inertia, and angular velocity.

You seem to be redefining the word energy to mean the balls ability to knock down pins.

The balls ability to knock down pins is related to it's ability to achieve the proper amount of deflection.

Deflection is a result of a balls momentum, and angle of impact.

Momentum is the product of mass, and velocity.

It's a waste of time to build new terminology on top of old terminology that most here seem to not understand.


A while back I suggested you take a course in physic at a local community college.

Clearly you rejected anything I told you, but if a professor in the process of teaching the class, stated the exact same things I have stated here, then you just might begin to believe what I have been telling you.

If nothing else, it would give you better tools to analyze, and potentially alter your theories on ball motion.

[RobLV1]

Mike, I'm not talking about physics. I'm talking about the cultural bias towards the words "weak" and "strong" that are currently used by bowlers to describe the motions of different bowling balls. This has nothing to do with what I know about physics, or what you know about physics, it has everything to do with the way that bowlers think about bowling balls. That the words "weak" and "strong" are the current words that are generally used is a fact. That using these particular words has a detrimental effect on bowlers' ball choices is the very thing that this thread is all about.

[Mike White]

Mike, I'm not talking about physics. I'm talking about the cultural bias towards the words "weak" and "strong" that are currently used by bowlers to describe the motions of different bowling balls. This has nothing to do with what I know about physics, or what you know about physics, it has everything to do with the way that bowlers think about bowling balls. That the words "weak" and "strong" are the current words that are generally used is a fact. That using these particular words has a detrimental effect on bowlers' ball choices is the very thing that this thread is all about.

The problem is you're ignoring the most significant element when it comes to "weak" or "strong".

That is the human element.

In my hands, a Storm Mix is strong, in your hands it's weak.

Likewise, a reactive resin ball in your hands may be strong, but in my hands would be weak because either it goes brooklyn, or I have to weaken my release to something like 30% of my ability which is a level that is hard to repeat.

Its like asking which size shoe is best. The answer is different based on the person's foot.

To know what the ball is best for an individual, you need to know how the individual can throw the ball comfortably, and what ball shape that produces with a specific ball.

From there you need to know how differences in the ball specs alter the resulting ball shape.

The key to understanding ball shape is understanding the interaction between the ball, the oil, and the lane.

The best way to understand, is via physics.

[Doghouse Reilly]

Mike, I'm not talking about physics. I'm talking about the cultural bias towards the words "weak" and "strong" that are currently used by bowlers to describe the motions of different bowling balls.

I see what your talking about Rob with how bowlers think when they hear the words strong and weak.

This stuff about physics and such seem to be more about 1VegasBowler posts were he's talking about energy retention which isn't what your talking about. It should be in a seperate thread about ball physics.

Coach T wrote a article on Tamer bowling that made a refference to what your talking about, how Strong, Medium, and Weak can be somewhat misleading. Because people think this means: Most Hook, Medium Hook, Least Hook when it doesn't neccessarily mean that because there's other variables involved in how a ball reacts.

Like a weak ball on the right condition can be really strong, so is the ball really "weak" or just the right ball for the condition and how you want to use it.

It's Like how when some bowlers see a ball described as high performance, medium performance, and entry level they think entry level means low performance or weak.

[RobLV1]

Who is Coach T? I'd like to read the article.

Rob Mautner

[got_a_300]

Rob here is a link to where you can read some stuff from coach T
http://www.tamerbowling.com

[1VegasBowler]

It's Like how when some bowlers see a ball described as high performance, medium performance, and entry level they think entry level means low performance or weak.

In this regard, I know a bowler that has to use entry level balls because of his high speed and high revs.

Cameron Hurtubise on the Lane Side Reviews videos has a ball speed of 18.6 with a rev rate of 570, and he can't use more than an entry level ball because the others are too much for him.

Entry level balls in the Brunswick line aren't bad at all. The Strike King (no loner made) was not only an entry level ball, but a pretty darn good one for any level. Same holds true for their Rhino line.

And even though the Vintage Danger Zone is only a step up from the Rhino, this is a sweet ball at any level as well.

[Amyers]

In this regard, I know a bowler that has to use entry level balls because of his high speed and high revs.

Cameron Hurtubise on the Lane Side Reviews videos has a ball speed of 18.6 with a rev rate of 570, and he can't use more than an entry level ball because the others are too much for him.

Entry level balls in the Brunswick line aren't bad at all. The Strike King (no loner made) was not only an entry level ball, but a pretty darn good one for any level. Same holds true for their Rhino line.

And even though the Vintage Danger Zone is only a step up from the Rhino, this is a sweet ball at any level as well.

The VDZ is no where near an entry level ball. The VDZ is rated as a 220 the Mastermind Einstein is rated at 230. The VDZ could easily be considered as benchmark but not anywhere near entry level. That's what balls like the Soul and Fanatic are for. The VDZ would be at least 2 steps above the Rhino if not three. I guess you could look at it as a step up in a three ball bag but it's a big step.

[1VegasBowler]

The VDZ is no where near an entry level ball. The VDZ is rated as a 220 the Mastermind Einstein is rated at 230. The VDZ could easily be considered as benchmark but not anywhere near entry level. That's what balls like the Soul and Fanatic are for. The VDZ would be at least 2 steps above the Rhino if not three. I guess you could look at it as a step up in a three ball bag but it's a big step.

Just my opinion here, but, I left the Soul out because I think it's not going to be too awful long before they put this one to rest (gut feeling). They are really pushing the Rhino line now. Heck, even my PSO only considers the VDZ as just a step up.

With the Fanatic, they put this one in the same classification as the BTU & Melee line (all purpose), and they certainly aren't getting rid of these anytime soon.

[Amyers]

Just my opinion here, but, I left the Soul out because I think it's not going to be too awful long before they put this one to rest (gut feeling). They are really pushing the Rhino line now. Heck, even my PSO only considers the VDZ as just a step up.

With the Fanatic, they put this one in the same classification as the BTU & Melee line (all purpose), and they certainly aren't getting rid of these anytime soon.

Brunswick currently has 18 balls in their lineup excluding plastic 11 of them have hook potentials less than VDZ so 61% of the line up has a lower hook potential.

Quantum Pearl
Fanatic BTU
Fanatic
MM Braniac
Brute Strength
Soul
Soul Mate
MM Scholar
Rhino Pro
Melee Jab
Lt-48

All of these have a much lower hook potential than the VDZ

Only 4 balls in the line have a significantly higher hook potential (+15 or more) 22% than the VDZ

The three Nirvana's and the MM Strategy. Depending on the arsenal you could call the VDZ a step up from the Rhino but that's only applicable in the three ball arsenal because the gap is huge. If I were playing strictly on THS even in a three ball arsenal I would have something between the VDZ and Rhino over something above the VDZ myself. In a four ball arsenal it's something above the VDZ and something below. In a five ball it's one above two between the rhino and VDZ. Just my opinion but I think it makes sense. People underestimate the VDZ because it was put out in the Vintage line and the previous balls in that line were much less than the VDZ. So it gets treated like it's the same as the LT-48 and it's not it's actually one of the stronger balls Brunswick produces. The cover on the new $179 quantum's is the same and the core numbers are close.

[1VegasBowler]

Brunswick currently has 18 balls in their lineup excluding plastic 11 of them have hook potentials less than VDZ so 61% of the line up has a lower hook potential.

Quantum Pearl
Fanatic BTU
Fanatic
MM Braniac
Brute Strength
Soul
Soul Mate
MM Scholar
Rhino Pro
Melee Jab
Lt-48

All of these have a much lower hook potential than the VDZ

Only 4 balls in the line have a significantly higher hook potential (+15 or more) 22% than the VDZ

The three Nirvana's and the MM Strategy. Depending on the arsenal you could call the VDZ a step up from the Rhino but that's only applicable in the three ball arsenal because the gap is huge. If I were playing strictly on THS even in a three ball arsenal I would have something between the VDZ and Rhino over something above the VDZ myself. In a four ball arsenal it's something above the VDZ and something below. In a five ball it's one above two between the rhino and VDZ. Just my opinion but I think it makes sense. People underestimate the VDZ because it was put out in the Vintage line and the previous balls in that line were much less than the VDZ. So it gets treated like it's the same as the LT-48 and it's not it's actually one of the stronger balls Brunswick produces. The cover on the new $179 quantum's is the same and the core numbers are close.

At least we're civil when we tend to disagree..lol

The VDZ & the Brainiac are pretty much on the same level, but I went with the VDZ because my PSO thought it would be better than the Braniac on shorter Sport oil patterns.

The Nirvanas are the typical medium/heavy oil balls. They have a lot of hook potential, with the Absolute having the biggest hook of all.

The BTU is certainly the slowest response hook of them all, but it was designed for that so that there was a better option from urethane.

I certainly don't doubt you about the hook potential for the VDZ, but I don't have that big hook with it due to the drilling I have. I also think that this is a ball that has a great price on it for a continuous ball.

I haven't seen much with the Quantum series yet, but from what I've seen, I think it's going to be sweet.

My 3 ball arsenal for a THS is the Ultimate, the Vandal and the BTU. Anything other than a THS, the length & volume of the pattern will determine where I go from there.

[Amyers]

At least we're civil when we tend to disagree..lol

The VDZ & the Brainiac are pretty much on the same level, but I went with the VDZ because my PSO thought it would be better than the Braniac on shorter Sport oil patterns.

The Nirvanas are the typical medium/heavy oil balls. They have a lot of hook potential, with the Absolute having the biggest hook of all.

The BTU is certainly the slowest response hook of them all, but it was designed for that so that there was a better option from urethane.

I certainly don't doubt you about the hook potential for the VDZ, but I don't have that big hook with it due to the drilling I have. I also think that this is a ball that has a great price on it for a continuous ball.

I haven't seen much with the Quantum series yet, but from what I've seen, I think it's going to be sweet.

My 3 ball arsenal for a THS is the Ultimate, the Vandal and the BTU. Anything other than a THS, the length & volume of the pattern will determine where I go from there.

Yes it is nice to be able to discuss stuff and disagree without people getting pissy.

I agree my wife has the Braniac and I have a strong length drilling on my VDZ and they are pretty similar. I think that a lot of PSO's really thought the ball to be similar to the LT-48 and put less aggressive drillings on the ball originally I had my MM Einstein at 4k and I've now got it at 500/3000 because the balls were to close together. I really like the looks of the Quantum's too especially the red one but I'm going to wait until the VDZ starts to die off some first. I have to say that ball is really holding up well it's been my first ball out of the bag for quite a while now and it doesn't seem to have lost much performance at all.

[Mike White]

Only 4 balls in the line have a significantly higher hook potential (+15 or more) 22% than the VDZ

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say only 4 balls are marketed as having higher hook potential.

When you know there is the potential they are lying to you, you shouldn't eliminate that possibility in your conclusions.

[1VegasBowler]

Yes it is nice to be able to discuss stuff and disagree without people getting pissy.

I agree my wife has the Braniac and I have a strong length drilling on my VDZ and they are pretty similar. I think that a lot of PSO's really thought the ball to be similar to the LT-48 and put less aggressive drillings on the ball originally I had my MM Einstein at 4k and I've now got it at 500/3000 because the balls were to close together. I really like the looks of the Quantum's too especially the red one but I'm going to wait until the VDZ starts to die off some first. I have to say that ball is really holding up well it's been my first ball out of the bag for quite a while now and it doesn't seem to have lost much performance at all.

I don't think the VDZ is going to die off anytime soon because of the improvements made from the original, and I do see a lot of people using one around here. The original was also popular back in the day, and if the Vintage is kept clean I think it could last you for quite a few years as well.

I also think, that, all of the balls you listed (and then some), except for the Soul, are going to be around for quite a while.

[Amyers]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say only 4 balls are marketed as having higher hook potential.

When you know there is the potential they are lying to you, you shouldn't eliminate that possibility in your conclusions.

True Mike how truthful the ratings are is subjective at best but I've found them at least somewhat useful. I've had the opportunity to try most of the balls in the current lineup except the newest ones and the only ones I've really questioned are any of the Melee line which just simply don't roll right for me (other have been very successful with it) and the newest Mastermind the Strategy which I haven't got to try yet personally but I have two teammates that use it and with them it reacts like a spare ball but neither of them have much hand so might just be them.

Everything in bowling subjective so to add it in the comments is just redundant lol.