My personal thoughts, having talked to RobM a bit about coverstock...is that coverstock 'may' be the least valuable of the six factors...because surfacing can make a Pearl hook sooner than solid. So, if surface is a factor...coverstock is LESS of a factor.
That being said, very few bowlers have access to surfacing equipment without paying an additional $ on a regular basis. Thanks to MWhite, I have my own ball spinner...and I just spent over $100 to buy some polish/compound and surfacing pads...after spending about $100 previously for similar supplies. So, "surfacing" is ABSOLUTELY important and will be addressed in more detail in a subsequent thread (Part 3)...but if a bowler is creating an arsenal and looking SOLELY at coverstock...I "believe" most ball manufacturers would suggest a solid, THEN a hybrid, THEN a pearl. Now, how much of that is the annoying ball manufacturers just making the same ball 3 times and trying to gimic people into buying 3 versions of it????? I dunno...up for discussion.
My thoughts......I don't think it matters much for Ball #1 or Ball #2. I think surfacing can help a bowler fine tune any cover material for those spots. I 'would' say that, IDEALLY, a Pearl coverstock is good for Ball #3 and Ball #4.
For Ball #3, if you want a "skid/flip" reaction/ball...I don't see why you would aim for a solid or hybrid cover. The goal is to get the ball to go long on a transitioned pattern...the solid and hybrid are just going to roll out early unless you make speed/release adjustments.
For Ball #4, again...if this ball is for wood lanes, dry lanes, practice, etc...I don't see Solid or Hybrid being worthwhile for the same reason as for Ball #3.
Now, what would then be the difference in Balls #3 and #4??? I think those differences are HUGE...but something to discuss in parts 2-6.
But, those are just my thoughts...this is a "discussion" thread...so have at it! And let's make Bowl 1820's job as easy as possible by not getting too "fired up".
Bookmarks