Sometimes, things just don't "add up", and to me, this is one of those times. The raw numbers can say all they want to, but sometimes things end up being more than just the sum of all the parts.
As an example, I always go back to a ball, the Ebonite Vortex 2. It wasn't even a "top line", high performance ball at first. When introduced, it was simply a mid level ball, with a simple low rg core in it. Yet, it became quite dominant, and was the preferred piece of many professionals on tour, and because of that single ball, we still have iterations of it roaming around today, years later in the Gamebreaker series.
Solid shell construction, to me at least, is one of those things. The numbers may not reflect it, and there may be no quantifiable way to measure or show it, but the "eye test" still tells me there is a difference in the way solid shelled balls tend to move the pins around.
My highest set was with an Inferno, which is NOT a solid shelled ball, so I agree that throwing it good is the most important factor in scoring. And I also believe that virtually EVERY decent ball today is capable of producing FAR more power and angle than necessary, probably making the difference between the two types of construction a moot point, but I do still believe that difference exists.
How to show it, explain it, or quantify it still remains a mystery.
Perhaps the name Quantum is somewhat of an unintended serendipity of a name, because, perhaps, that "difference" happens at the quantum level, and can't quite be explained.
