This is probably the wrong forum for this post, but I figured I would throw it out there for people to chime in on.

Since I have started getting serious about bowling I have heard many things make up a balls reaction.
Usually the chart looks like this:
75%-coverstock 10%-layout 10%-core 5% statics

Now depending who said it, these numbers could have varied, but they usually didn't vary much.

My opinion is that the Morpheous significantly raises the layout, and core area. I am thinking that the new chart would look something like this:
45% coverstock 30% layout 20%core 5% statics.

There are those that believe that statics make up a huge amount as far as reaction. I wanted to throw this out there since I know some will chime in here.


OK, lets hear what you have to say.


-EX-
--------------------
C-G Pro Shop (owner/operator)
Youngstown Ohio

Track Intl.-Advisory Staff

I don't know what the number are but having owed over 30 ball and going from tweener to a strong stroker I have witnessed many things first hand.

I even had 2 unleashed at the same time so I really saw the differences.

I feel no matter what, buying a strong MB ball is the best choice due to the ability to redrill and the ball keeps the strong MB influence.

the drill pattern and coverstock finish can make the same 2 balls cover about 80% of lane conditions ( if you have some skill)

I have a teammate that is more cranker. when he throws my unleased that I have drilled for backend reaction it snaps a lot and late where as I have a hard arc.

 I know for these balls to be special and not just ordinary, you need knowledge and a skilled layout person. so I think stats and layout are in one for a strong MB ball.

50% cover,
40% layout.
10% Bowler adjustments

I present this as my case, I made a thread comparing 2 unleashed's. Now I had one drilled(if I remember correctly) with a pin 5" from pap and MB was left of thumb about 5-3/4"

polished. this ball would go loooong. ON the right lane condition I can change the number of boards covered but I can not make the ball turn over earlier. on a dry lane I can influence it more with adjustments but not change the reaction from backend to midlane.

even when Walter threw one against Smith. he changed from up the back to around the ball. the ball covered more boards but the reaction did not snap nor did it turn up earlier. it just arced more at the backend. He created a different entry angle but the overall hook shape stayed the same, it was just covering more boards.


I think one of the benefits of these balls is being able to drill a ball for a specific condition and get what you expect.

the layout is way more important in these balls than a symmetrical.








--------------------
"deserves got nothing to do with it."
-- William Munny

Ex,

I don't even bother with statics after the ball gets into "legal" range.

In strong asymmetricals, i figure 60% coverstock type & prep, and 40% core shape (which includes layout and x-hole) and final mass bias strength.
--------------------
two of nine

I remember back in the day I went to a few equipment lectures by Ray Edwards, and we actually got to this exact subject. It seems that the evolution of equipment seems to shake the emphasis between core and cover every decade or so. If you think about it, first it was rubber, then plastic, then urethane. The cores stayed pretty typical and aside from very few exceptions, most cores were 3 piece pancake cores. Then comes the hammer with its 2 piece core which changed the way that we think about cores, drilling, etc. Then came another radical cover change when resin was invented. There was some experimentation with cores during this time, but I would have to say that by and large, two piece consisted mainly of lightbulb shaped cores while 3 piece remained largely pancake. After this, I kinda dropped out of bowling for a while, so off hand, I don't know which came first, whether it was particle covers or asymeterical cores, but they were both involved in large shifts in importance.

I already knew about the Orange Dot, but I also knew that it was a monster flop for its time. My grandfather used to tell me horror stories about how the ball would look like a snake going down the lanes of the day. As far as the Phantom goes, I was taking these equipment lectures from Ray months after the Phantoms hit, so we really got a very large dose of what they were all about. At the time, though, they didn't really strike me as a mass bias ball, unless you consider that ring as the bias? I do know that it was the first ball that I remember throwing that had a pretty heavy flare to it other than my urethane Excalabur. Not to mention the inverted track that I got out of that ball.