Brunswick Ivory Rhino Pro VS Storm Phaze AI | High Rev & Low Rev Players Pick Their Favorite

Рет қаралды 4,940

Virtue Bowling Supply

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 9

@apd0327 2 ай бұрын

Yeah I don't quite get this comparison to be honest. Two completely different balls.

@VirtueBowlingSupply 2 ай бұрын

They are both symmetrical pearl balls. Completely different would likely be an expensive price point solid asym and cheap price point pearl low diff sym. Our goal here is to provide unbiased match ups of different brands and see which ball our testers actually like best.

@rb8bowls 2 ай бұрын

@@VirtueBowlingSupply They're both symmetrical pearl, but that's about the only thing they have in common. Before even watching the video, I knew both would pick the Ivory Rhino Pro considering you're bowling on a burnt up Bowlero house shot where the IRP would shine considering it has a MUCH higher RG and MUCH lower diff. I get wanting to do comparisons on equipment that come out around the same time, but it's just not a fair comparison without any adequate explanation on why the IRP looks better in this video. There wasn't one mention that the Phaze AI was burning up like crazy, just that it "didn't go through the pins the right way".

@VirtueBowlingSupply 2 ай бұрын

Thanks so much for your feedback-we really appreciate it! We’re trying to create videos that offer something different from what’s already out there and reflect the kinds of situations we see in our pro shops which is people choosing between new releases to try in league or on house shots. We hope to do a lot of these with many balls, so that no matter what your preference is, you can find the VS video for your unique situation. In this video, both players picked the same ball, but in others, like the Ion Max vs. Pure Envy, they didn’t. While the Rhino has a higher RG and lower diff, that alone doesn’t explain the performance gap we saw between the Rhino and Phaze. Even when both players adjusted to create more angle and get more in the oil, the Rhino still outperformed significantly. From our experience, the biggest factor often overlooked are the coverstock elements not disclosed by the manufacture (RA/RS values, oil absorption rate, softness etc). Balls with the same core numbers can behave very differently depending on the cover technology that we get no info on. It’s common to see pearls that are earlier than some hybrids or solids, even when they shouldn’t be based on their specs. This comes down to coverstock characteristics that aren’t reflected in marketing materials. It’s also why we see balls identical in marketing materials (cover material and core numbers) from different manufactures perform WAY differently. Coverstock technology is the IP race that we (consumers) get no info on and generally aren’t aware of either. Since these key cover-stock factors aren’t measurable or marketed, the best way to understand ball performance is by comparing different styles in the same environment and taking marketing info from the manufacture with a grain of salt. I hope this helps clarify why we’re approaching our comparisons this way! Thanks for watching!