People can believe what they want to believe, it's America, and in this country, you are supposed to have that right. But what people tend to forget, is whether you decide to pay any credence to the ball motion study or not, the cover stock surface grit, and cover stock composition makes up about roughly 70%-75% of ball motion. That still leaves, 25%-30% of factors that will dictate ball motion. That's still a lot, in it's totality. Of those remaining factors, Rg was said to have the highest percentage of the remaining factors. Take it for what you will. the USBC had no dog in the fight, when conducting the ball motion study. They weren't going to win or loose anything. The idea and intent was to purely provide information, and have some basis for why a bowling ball does what it does. People can believe the study or not, it's their prerogative.
It's really simple. Don't you think that a ball company would make a whole lot more money if they just stuck pancake weight blocks in balls with different cover materials??? No need for an R&D department other than to come up with different cover formulas, which could be outsourced easily, no need for the expense of marketing, no need to pay people to sell their product. The ball companies could run at a considerably lower over head rate, and MAKE MORE MONEY. But reality says, just throwing a pancake weight block in a ball, isn't going to strike as much as what these creative cores, that dictate ball motion can.
You can take Storm's NRG cover, and wrap it around a pancake weight block with high Rg and low differential, and it just isn't going to perform the way the Marvel S or Virtual Gravity Nano performs.
