Originally Posted by
RobLV1
Michael: Your question to me about the Virtual Gravity points out the problem that Storm had with this ball perfectly. It was not the Virtual Gravity that I was excited about, it was the Zero Gravity. Here's some background: In 2008, Storm introduced the Virtual Gravity which was a very aggressive, early rolling ball (rg 2.48, diff 0.048), following it up in 2009 with the Virtual Energy which had the same aggressive core with a different cover material and surface. In 2011, the next introduction in this line was the Virtual Gravity Nano with the same core, and a new, more aggressive cover material, this time followed up the same year with the Virtual Gravity Nano Pearl, with the same core and a pearlized version of the cover. Fast forward to 2013 with the introduction of the Zero Gravity.
In my humble opinion as an ex-marketing executive, the naming of the Zero Gravity represents a huge marketing error on the part of Storm. They took a name with a long history of representing early rolling, aggressive bowling balls, and arbitrarily assigned it to a ball with a high rg (2.55), and a low differential (0.037), and created massive confusion not only among bowlers, but among pro shop operators as well.
Let me give you an example. A friend of mine throws a shot with a whole lot of axis tilt; a semi-spinner. He also sets the ball well short of the foul line. Before you laugh, he averages 220+ on a house shot. Anyway, his go-to balls are the Storm Cross Road, and the Storm Frantic. He was looking for a ball that would give him a slightly different look, and I recommended the Zero Gravity. He went and talked to his ball driller (a very high rev player) who told him that the Zero Gravity would read way too early for him. Apparently he didn't realize that his high rev rate makes the friction of the aggressive cover much more important than the resistence of the rg, while the low rev rate of his customer makes the resistence much more important than the friction, and the friction can still be minimized with a surface change.
So, back to your original question, yes I bought the Zero Gravity (two, in fact), and really liked the ball. In fact, I bowled a 299 game the first week with the ball. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter I started using Brunswick equipment. Because of my belief that the ability to switch between bowling balls seemlessly is paramount in modern bowling, I really don't like to cross between brands. It just so happens, however, that the week before last I was bowling in the Senior Masters, and on the second day when I was bowling the double burn at 2:00 pm, I decided to go to another bowling center to warm up as I found the 10 minutes of practice afforded by the USBC to be insufficient to get my body loose. As all of my equipment was in the paddock at Southpoint, I grabbed an old pair of shoes and the Zero Gravity and headed over to Red Rock to try and get loose. I still really like the reaction I get from this ball. Unfortunately most of the bowlers who buy the ball are disappointed because they expect an early-rolling hook monster based on the name.
I do know some bowlers that have The Zero Gravity and love it! I threw it at the Storm Demo day, used it inside and outside, but was not impressed. (didn't really work for me, with its generic drilling)
Bookmarks