BallReviews

Equipment Boards => Visionary => Topic started by: Spider Ball Bowler on December 21, 2008, 03:07:03 PM

Title: Blue Warlock
Post by: Spider Ball Bowler on December 21, 2008, 03:07:03 PM
Considering picking one of these up.  Does any one know anything about them?
--------------------
Ahhh Disco Biscuits!
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: MI 2 AZ on December 21, 2008, 11:16:35 PM
One of my favorite balls.  Today it is good for medium conditions but you could sand it down to handle heavier oil (not the heaviest).  Very controllable and predictable ball reaction, even arcing.  For me it made a good benchmark ball.
--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this:  BR FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: Spider Ball Bowler on December 21, 2008, 11:24:26 PM
Symmetrical or Assym core?
--------------------
Ahhh Disco Biscuits!
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: MI 2 AZ on December 21, 2008, 11:27:02 PM
Pretty sure it was symmetrical although I never saw a 3D picture of the core.
There was no mass bias marking on it.


--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this:  BR FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: MI 2 AZ on December 21, 2008, 11:34:09 PM
Here (http://"http://www.visionarybowling.com/ball_bluewarlock.html") is a link to the Blue Warlock on Visionary's website.  It doesn't really have a good picture of the core but that is all that I remember seeing previously.



--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this:  BR FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: Spider Ball Bowler on December 21, 2008, 11:38:06 PM
Well it looks like an interesting piece.  I think I might get one, but it might just overlap with my other stuff.
--------------------
Ahhh Disco Biscuits!
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: MI 2 AZ on December 21, 2008, 11:49:21 PM
Try it, you'll like it.  

I am biased for it, since I have three of them drilled up and have used one very recently when I started to struggle again.  As I said, it makes a good benchmark ball for me to go back to and correct my game but probably not everyone will see it that way.



--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this:  BR FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: Berserk on December 22, 2008, 09:39:01 AM
http://www.bowlingballreviews.com/ball.asp?ballid=119

Nice Pic of the Core

Warlocks and the Sorcerer were a very smooth rolling because of the core.  
The extra coverstock and dense core design helps add extra punch at the pins.

They were a great first line for visionary.  

Anyone know if the blue warlock was the very first ball Visionary made?

Edited on 12/22/2008 10:41 AM
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: scotts33 on December 22, 2008, 09:44:40 AM
quote:
Anyone know if the warlock was the first ball Visionary made?



Warlock and Sorcerer were the first balls to come out in March of 97 then the DC Tours in early 98 was the way I remember it.
--------------------
Scott

Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: Berserk on December 22, 2008, 01:58:15 PM
Thanks Scott
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: Nor Cal Bowler on December 22, 2008, 02:24:11 PM
Now does anyone have the Blue Warlock and Red Sorcerer drilled up? How do those compare?
I have the sorcerer drilled up and was curious...
--------------------
Visionary Test Staffer 08/09
www.visionarybowling.com

Looking for the following...
16# Visionary Frankie May Gryphon
16# Banger Hole Finder Pearl
16# InSite Revelation

Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: MI 2 AZ on December 23, 2008, 01:48:37 AM
Nor Cal, I have both, but have not used the Sorcerer in a long time.  My leagues are on break until after the new year and I want to take a week off but I will try and remember to take both with me to practise next week. Hopefully I will find some oil on the lanes to get a better idea of how they compare.
--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this:  BR FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: charlest on December 23, 2008, 07:21:06 AM
If I remember correctly (small trip in the Way Back machine), the Sorcerer was very strong for a urethane, with a coverstock in the range of the old Blue Hammer, but with a stronger core. It rolled or tried to get into a roll pretty early. The Blue Warlock was more like a control ball, especially with the fairly rough stock 600 grit surface. It went slightly longer with, of course more backend, with respect to the Sorcerer.

I think both would work on medium oil today, maybe even a little more, but a bowler might need a little more ball speed to use the Sorcerer effectively than he would need with the BW (that early urethane lane grab). The BW's surface is, of course, much easier to modify than the Sorcerer's urethane.  

The BW might be a better ball for most average rev rate & ball speed bowlers with an 800 or 1000 grit (US) surface.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: Krumpy300 on December 23, 2008, 07:43:51 AM
How would a shined Sorcerer work on a big wet/dry condition???
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: charlest on December 23, 2008, 10:25:57 AM
quote:
How would a shined Sorcerer work on a big wet/dry condition???


For Parkway Lanes?
I don't think it will handle that much oil. Shined, it probably won't, but the emphasis is on "probably".
Still think you need something like the Ogre solid or the Ogre Particle.
If you want to try a solid urethane, I have a 16 lb Hi-Flare Scout urethane sititng idle. It's all shined up, but it won't take much to dull it to, of, say 1000 grit.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: MI 2 AZ on December 30, 2008, 01:51:54 PM

I went to the lanes today and brought both with me.  Before I went, I restored both close to the factory finish (600 grit) by putting both in the spinner and using green scotch-brite pad on them.  I don't think either was at that finish beforehand.  The Red Sorcerer has less than 50 games on it and the Blue Warlock has probably close to 1000 games on it.

The lanes had just been oiled, 44 ft THS pattern.  I got the worst pair in the house, lanes 1 and 2.  They usually dont play anywhere the same, but for the purpose of this comparison, I played the same line just to watch the reactions.
Now, I was told it was the 44 ft pattern, but the balls did not play like it was.  I was seeing a much earlier reaction from both balls than I would have expected to see but maybe that was from the 600 grit finish on both.

Basically, I was seeing a strong backend finish from both balls but it was not a skid-snap reaction, more of a strong even hook like both balls were trying to read the pattern in the mid-lane and finishing hard.  I could not see much of a difference between the balls as far as length or boards covered.  On some shots it seemed that the RS was stronger and on others the BW was stronger so it had to have been operator error.  I really was hoping to see more of a difference somewhere, either in the backend or in the front of the lanes, but they were close to each other.  Probably the fresh pattern was covering up the differences in the balls.

Usually, urethane should hook earlier and more evenly than reactive balls and that was what I was expecting to see.  I think that the BW is a good reactive ball because it is more of an even reacting ball that gives a close look like a urethane and the RS is a stronger urethane ball so that both balls have a similar look on the lanes.  But that's just my theory.  




--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this:  BR FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: charlest on December 30, 2008, 05:52:15 PM
Gary,

Thanks for that effort. It would have killed me to make both balls so strong and early.

It was 44 ft, I'd bet it wasn't a heavy oil pattern. That sure is long in any case. And lanes 1 & 2 in any house are usually one of the least used pairs.

I know the BW is supposed to be smooth, even and early. The RS is supposed to be grabby, esp. at 600 grit, like a Blue Hammer urethane. But I am very surprised at your results.

Any chance of your doing that again, on another day, on another pair, just as a check and balance type of operation???

Thanks a ton, from all of us.


--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: Spider Ball Bowler on December 30, 2008, 06:05:49 PM
So what you're saying is the BW reacts like a Urethane?  If I could find a ball that reacted IDENTICAL to my BLUE BEAST but hit a tad harder, I would be in heaven
--------------------
Ahhh Disco Biscuits!
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: charlest on December 30, 2008, 06:23:24 PM
quote:
So what you're saying is the BW reacts like a Urethane?  If I could find a ball that reacted IDENTICAL to my BLUE BEAST but hit a tad harder, I would be in heaven
--------------------
Ahhh Disco Biscuits!


One test does not a final, be-all-and-end-all result make!!!!
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: Berserk on December 30, 2008, 09:51:40 PM
One thing to keep in mind is the Sorcerer was geared to approach reactive strength on the backend.  Both balls have a 600 grit and the same core model.  Both balls should be similer, however one would think that the Warlock would be somewhat longer and sharper at the back.  Have to see what others say.  I only have a sorcerer and never bothered to pick up a blue warlock because I figured they would be very similar and overlap.  For me the Sorcerer is a good medium ball, however its too strong for dryer conditions!
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: MI 2 AZ on December 31, 2008, 04:33:18 PM
Just got back from the lanes and tried the BW and RS again.  The lanes had not been oiled since yesterday morning, so while there was still some oil on the lanes, it was not a fresh shot and I also did not bowl on one of the end pairs.

On this somewhat broken down condition, I did see more of a difference between the two balls but it was not a great difference.  The RS had a more even arcing movement while the BW had a stronger backend reaction.  They seemed to cover about the same number of boards in hook, but how they covered those boards was a bit different due to the coverstock - urethane vs reactive.


--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this:  BR FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: Nor Cal Bowler on December 31, 2008, 05:09:38 PM
Looks like my BW is staying undrilled...
--------------------
Visionary Test Staffer 08/09
www.visionarybowling.com

Looking for the following...
16# Visionary Frankie May Gryphon
16# Banger Hole Finder Pearl
16# InSite Revelation

Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: Nor Cal Bowler on January 05, 2009, 11:05:56 PM
quote:
The Blue Warlock is much more aggressive overall than the Sorceror.  Compared to many other reactive balls it is relatively mild and arching ball, but it is more aggressive than urethane.


Have you thrown the Red Sorceror???
--------------------
Visionary Test Staffer 08/09
www.visionarybowling.com

Looking for the following...
16# Visionary Frankie May Gryphon
16# Banger Hole Finder Pearl
16# InSite Revelation

Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: Berserk on January 06, 2009, 06:57:18 AM
I wouldn't call the sorcerer a mild ball!  Its pretty strong for a urethane.
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: scotts33 on January 06, 2009, 06:59:25 AM
quote:
The Blue Warlock is much more aggressive overall than the Sorceror.


I wouldn't agree with this.  I have both with basic same drill on same lane condtion Sorcerer is 3 to 4 boards total overall hook more and more backend.
--------------------
Scott

Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: Nor Cal Bowler on January 06, 2009, 10:43:27 AM
Well I use my Sorcerer on a 2nd shift shot and its pretty strong. But haven't drilled up a BW yet...
--------------------
Visionary Test Staffer 08/09
www.visionarybowling.com

Looking for the following...
16# Visionary Frankie May Gryphon
16# Banger Hole Finder Pearl
16# InSite Revelation

Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: A_P_K on August 13, 2009, 10:44:27 AM
I've found the Blue Warlock to have a special place in my arsenal.  Mine is laid out 65x4.5x65 pin under the ring finger.

At it's current surface the over all hook is under my upper medium and over my lower medium equipment.

At OOB it was a dog, rolled out early and didn't do anything at all in the back.  If I even got it to the pocket it hit like mush.  I fought with it a few games received over under and the initial impression left a bad taste in my mouth.  I kept it at 600 but had Black Magic applied to it by a spinner.  That helped some but not a lot.  

The league I use the BW on now oils longer and buffs to 44 feet but it is still a house shot.  I would call the volume medium at best, nothing really more than that.  I used it at that surface and had mixed reviews but received the reaction I was looking for.  It helped blend out over under, was smooth rolling, controllable without any freakish backend turns.  I found that even on some fresh oil the surface was a little too strong to bank off the wall since I don't have enough RPMs to stay inside the oil line.  I also had less than stellar results playing tighter and straighter, carry suffered greatly.

I recently sanded it to 4000ab matte and it's a completely different ball.  For the conditions I face the reaction became stronger. (for obvious reasons) Before I couldn't really play a swing shot, there wasn't much gas left on the back to finish, now the reaction is similar to my Break pearl. (which is slightly rolly by the way)  The biggest difference the Blue Warlock revs up stronger coming off the pattern and has better drive through the pins.  It gets down the lane much easier, doesn't require constant adjustments, the simplest ones get you back in business, and still handles the 44 foot pattern easily but finishes much cleaner.  I still face less over under with the ball as before and have much more room for mistakes.

For a 12 year old ball the hitting power is tremendous, slaps pins across the deck and back, doesn't keep any wood low for me at all.  The cover is extremely versatile, takes to adjustments easily.  I prefer the 4000ab matte surface the best so far.  It just absorbs oil a little more than I'd like it too.

It's working great as intended to for me on house walls, too bad I didn't pick one up 10 years ago.
--------------------
The original Pin Krusher


Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: scotts33 on August 13, 2009, 10:57:28 AM
It's a keeper just ask Gary aka MI 2 AZ!  
--------------------
Scott

Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: MI 2 AZ on August 13, 2009, 03:30:29 PM
One of my favorite balls.

A P K, were you able to see/read all two pages of this topic?



--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this:  BR FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")
Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: A_P_K on August 13, 2009, 04:56:33 PM
I would have to say I read or brushed through most of it while I was supposed to be working.  I possibly could have missed something though.

All the talk about it has been the reason I purchased it and I couldn't be happier.  You nailed it on the head with your description it's more of a benchmark type ball for me as well...than other's like the Heist and Code.

Bowling with it would be almost too easy if I didn't stink up the joint.

Oh and FYI Jeff and Krumpy - I know you asked about the Fireball Sorcerer but the BlW was plenty ball to handle Parkway's fresh condition at 4000ab matte.  It reacted as described or expected as well.
--------------------
The original Pin Krusher


Title: Re: Blue Warlock
Post by: MI 2 AZ on August 13, 2009, 11:44:57 PM
I think a lot of bowlers missed out on this ball because it was one of Visionary's first releases and they were not well-known and available online or through many distributors at the time.  



--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this:  BR FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")