Compared to the Hammer Web Pearl & Hammer Web MB, Hammer Black Widow 2.0 & Hammer Black Widow Pink
For this comparison I went deeper into my arsenal. I brought out balls that have the same Gas Mask Core (2.0 and Pink), the same coverstock (Web Pearl) and a different asym with the same drilling (Web MB). The Black Widow Ghost Pearl is at box and the layout is 45×5”x25. All balls when tested were used with their box finish and cleaned regularly. My PAP is 5-1/4”x1/4”^ with low tilt at 1.67* and I’m considered matched rev rate to ball speed.
Hammer Web Pearl (Layout: 4-3/4”x30*) Hammer Black Widow Ghost Pearl (Layout: 45×5”x25)
Testing on this day was after a morning Trio League that was on the center’s 40’ house shot. Lately, the volume has been less but the shape of the pattern seems the same. For this, I used the Hammer Web Pearl to be the lane reading ball. The track area (RH) was a bit toasty, so moving in was the move. With the focal point splitting the 6/10, striking was really good standing 25 and targeting through 14. The Ghost has the same cover (Aggression Pearl) and finish (500/1000/1500 SiaAir/ Crown Factory Compound) as the Web Pearl. With the Ghost layout numbers the ball “should have gone longer and had a quicker response”. I had to move to 32 with my feet and target through 18 (7/4 move left) and open my angles to have the focal point to the 10 pin. This shows the core differences have a great effect on ball motion when other factors are the same or close. The Black Widow Ghost is a powerful Pearl and surface adjustments could make it stronger.
Hammer Web MB (Layout: 45×5”x25*) Hammer Black Widow Ghost Pearl (Layout: 45×5”x25)
As you can see here the layouts are identical and the differences again are the cores, finishes are the same (500/1000 SiaAir/Crown Factory Compound) but the Web MB has the Semtex NE Pearl formulation. The Web MB is a great length and quick response ball for me. Getting the ball to the pocket and having the pins fall correctly, the feet and targeting were moved right and the launch angle was decreased slightly. The move was to 30/17 with a focal point of the left side of the 10 pin. The Ghost Pearl was 2/1 stronger with more traction in the midlane (creating a longer hook phase) compared to the Web MB. Changing the surface of the Ghost by removing the compound would add a better separation and length and shape between these two balls.
Hammer Black Widow 2.0 (Layout: 45×5”x25*) Hammer Black Widow Ghost Pearl (Layout: 45×5”x25)
Again both are drilled the same. The Black Widow 2.0 has some lane shine, so a fresh cover would add more difference in when it reads friction, i.e. earlier hook. With the Aggression Solid cover the 2.0 read sooner and smoother than the Ghost. With the focal point staying the same (10 pin), my feet slid at 29 with targeting through 17 at the arrows. That’s a 3/1 move right, which makes sense since the Aggression Pearl cover will be more reactive near the end of the pattern.
These are my views and your results may vary. Please go to the FTF Ball Comparison Info post to see how I was able to get the above information. You can also download a PDF of the information in this post to read at your convenience.
It’s important to know your personal specs to help you make the proper choices for your game and increase your scoring. I believe bowling balls are tools and using the ones that work against your specs, skill set and environment will cause issues.
You can always contact me with any questions or schedule a consultation session on your current equipment. Visit the Coaching & Services page on our website, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org or you call and text messages to (310) 784-1901.
Thanks, be well & safe!
Fill The Frames Bowling Services