win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: BTM ball reviews vs. ballreviews.com  (Read 5823 times)

Rantings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
BTM ball reviews vs. ballreviews.com
« on: July 06, 2003, 10:31:18 PM »
When deciding to invest in the lastest ball of the month where do you go for help? Besides the two above is there any other place? Pro shop guy or some other magazine or website?

  I favor BTM over all the reviewers out here, (No offense to anyone in particular) for the simple reason of how they go about rating the ball on 3 conditions. I have bought two balls since getting the magazine from about December and have not been disappointed. By trying to figure out what styles and lane conditions you bowl on I have wasted more money than I would like to believe and will never listen to anyone out here about purchasing another ball because most of the reviews are not done in the before mentioned manner. (The wasting of money is not anyone's fault but my own.)
  After saying this I still like ballreviews just to read what bones is pondering or having us ponder. Also for some of the other topics. DON'T GET ME WRONG. THIS IS STILL A WONDERFUL WEBSITE even without taking the reviews seriously.

Just Ranting.
--------------------
Golfing is for sissies..ask Bones...

Edited on 7/7/2003 1:36 PM

 

9andaWiggle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13414
Re: BTM ball reviews vs. ballreviews.com
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2003, 01:54:31 PM »
There are a few points I would like to make regarding this discussion.

1) As long as people are reviewing products, there will be differences of opinion.

2) Each review will be difficult to duplicate conditions exactly as there are many factors to consider; wood or synthetic lanes, humidity, type of lane conditioner used or amount used, is machine oiling and stripping properly, is the reviewer tired, hung over, or fresh and ready to go.

3) Finally, it is my opinion that anyone considering a new ball has nobody to blame but themselves for the final decision.  You cannot take any one reviewers word as the gospel for any product, period.  Read as many different reviews as you can from as many different sources as is available.  Look at what the manufacturer says about it, as well as the specs.  Then, take all this information and separate out what seems to be a "normal pattern" for that ball.  I think BTM and Ballreviews can coexist and provide much meaningful information if you let them.

As for me, I bought an Ebonite Stinger low flare last spring and have been avg. 210+ with it since!  I would recommend this ball for all bowlers!

--------------------
9-

Why, WHY won't the last one just fall??  It's WIGGLING for cryin' out loud!!
Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep...

I wonder where they went? ;)

da Shiv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
Re: BTM ball reviews vs. ballreviews.com
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2003, 03:30:00 PM »
I still find the BTM reviews helpful, but not as much so as when Bob Summerville was doing them.  They were really bad right after Bob died, and have improved some.  I use mostly the RG info, coverstock type info (reactive; solid; pearl; high, medium, or low load particle), core diagram, and differential info to decide what I would be likely to have a use for.  When I find something that the aforementioned info suggests to me that I might like, I read the review.   You have to read between the lines to really get useful info.  If they praise something more effusively than usual, that's a good sign.  They are quite subtle about panning a ball.  In the June issue, reading between the lines tells me that they think the chrome/yellow Power Groove Reactive is a dog; but they don't quite say so.

Shiv
--------------------
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top

baiki

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
Re: BTM ball reviews vs. ballreviews.com
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2003, 06:52:05 PM »


I totally agree with da. shiv.

Using buying a car as an example the new owner can only review of that one car and the reason he bought it. Say he bought a 4X4 and he loves it. He may be living in an area where roads are not paved and gas is cheap. Suits his purpose for buying the 4X4.

In the case of BTM which I have the 2'nd issue to now, they should review balls as car magazines review cars.
1, Various drillings and bowl on various conditions and report.
2, Various coverstock mods., finishes  and the differences it makes.
3, Compare them with like balls from other makes.
4, Best conditions to use them on.
5, Long term reports to see if the reaction deteriots(sp)and if revivable.
6, etc. etc.

BTM under Bob Summerville does the above.

The ones I missed most was the pros drillings after they have won and they tell you why the balls are drilled that way during the week and on the finals.

I've seen Jim King on this site before maybe he can give some insight of present BTM.
--------------------
baiki

TappedAgain

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: BTM ball reviews vs. ballreviews.com
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2003, 11:41:40 PM »
baiki,

I like your ball review ideas but as fast as new balls come out the price of a BTM subscription would probably triple to handle the extra resources needed for reviews.

TappedAgain
--------------------
Throw nine you get nine.
Throw nine you get nine.

Saw Man For Life  - F.O.S.

baiki

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
Re: BTM ball reviews vs. ballreviews.com
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2003, 12:44:18 AM »


Tapped,
That was the way BTM does a ball review until Bob's demise.

When I read the reviews now it is just reading. Nothing to learn.

 


--------------------
baiki

TappedAgain

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: BTM ball reviews vs. ballreviews.com
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2003, 01:21:58 AM »
quote:
Tapped,
That was the way BTM does a ball review until Bob's demise.

When I read the reviews now it is just reading. Nothing to learn.




Wow.  I wasn't reading BTM back then.  It must be a let down for those of you who were BTM readers back then.  Have any of you guys complained to BTM?   If so, did they reply?

TappedAgain
Throw nine you get nine.

Saw Man For Life  - F.O.S.

da Shiv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
Re: BTM ball reviews vs. ballreviews.com
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2003, 10:27:17 AM »
There was a long thread going on this topic over a year ago; which means that the thread is gone from the site now.  I'm sure of that because I just checked the user list and Jim King is showing zero posts now.  The gist of it was that there was a lot of criticism of how lame the BTM ball reviews had become.  The complaining somehow came to the attention of BTM editor Jim King and he jumped in in defense of the reviews.  I, along with a few others, wouldn't back down in our criticisms; and since I have all the issues cataloged in chrono order back to 1996, I pulled out some specific examples.  If I remember correctly, the thread finally fizzled out with all sides somewhat disgruntled.

     Shortly after that, however, the reviews went from being quite terse to being somewhat less terse like they are now.  They started the system of rating the balls as thrown by the three major bowling styles, so things did improve a bit.

     Since we're back on the subject, I'd like to weigh in with some more hopefully constructive criticism.  

     First, since each ball is being thrown by three different bowling styles, it seems like it would be easy to include a little more feedback from each of those bowlers.  If space is a consideration, I would think that it would be smart to make the space for the extra detail.  As critical as we all are of ball reviews (whatever their source), it's undeniable that they attract a lot of readership and figure strongly in a lot of people's ball choices.  Not everyone has the access to loads of bowling balls and good pro shops that so many of us here on this site have.

     Second item....BTM now lists some statistics on their three bowlers, namely axis rotation, PAP, RPM, and MPH at 10 ft.  This is good info to have.  The cranker is listed as having an axis rotation of 70 degrees, the tweener 55 degrees, and the stroker 75 degrees.  I think it would be helpful to have someone in there (a stroker most likely) with a lower amount of axis rotation--maybe in the 30-40 degree range (or even less).  Having three testers; all with 55 degrees or more of axis rotation; doesn't help straighter players much.

     Fantasy time.  Wouldn't it be nice to have a publication like Consumer Reports that accepted no advertising available to do ball reviews?  Such a publication would have to have access to lanes, top notch lane conditioning equipment, a top notch lane man, a variety of elite bowlers, and probably a throbot type device.  It would also have to have access to about a half dozen of every ball made--and get them fast so that the ball wouldn't be on the market for a month or two before the review came out.  Such an enterprise would cost a fortune and the subscription price would be insane--especially since the only people who would buy it would be perhaps a couple thousand of us bowling junkies--at best.

     In the meantime, what Bob Hanson said
   
quote:
Generally if there are quite a few reviews you start to see some consensus among more knowledgeable reviewers and that can be helpful
and the BTM reviews are the best most of us can do.  Maybe we can nudge BTM toward a little more detail.  Every little bit helps.

Shiv
--------------------
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top

Edited on 7/9/2003 10:32 AM
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top