Here's what I don't understand.
If you take out the variables, and just focus on cover. Same surface and RG in this example...
Most bowlers would want it to go long. So a solid wouldn't interest them...unless they have no revs or a super high speed...or are playing in very heavy, non-THS conditions.
Yet the other thing 95% of bowlers ask for is "snap". Right?
PSO: "What kinda ball are ya lookin for?"
95%: "I want it to go long and snap into the pocket."
Well...again...why would you want a solid...it's not designed to "snap". I guess you could polish the daylights out of it....but why bother with that when there's a pearl version with the same core?
And what are the big problems in todays game (from a technology point of view)? Balls that don't retain enough energy to carry corner pins. At the highest level, that's the difference between winning and losing....most miss room and carrying corner pins. They aren't thinking (like I am), "hopefully I can find the pocket today." Not even Tom Daugherty!!

<-- that was mean.
So if the IDEAL BALL goes long (high RG, shiny cover) and SNAPS (axis tilt, axis rotation, powerful core, skid/flip ball)...why buy a solid or a ball with a low RG? Won't likely be dead before it ever hits the pocket (unless you're throwing it 21-23mph)??
I dunno. Still trying to process all this. We need Chris Barnes to come in and post his thoughts...cuz I'm sure he has nothing better to do around holiday time with the WSOB coming up...
Bookmarks