While I understand your point, I don't agree with it.Gizmo823 wrote:Only on an internet forum will someone argue drilling technology with Mo Pinel . . if he says it works, and you say it doesn't or it's "marketing," you're doing something wrong. Yeah, you never want to just always believe everything you hear, but consider the source and use a bit of logic. I'm not brown-nosing here, but man I'm sick of seeing so many "average joes" arguing with and disrespecting people that clearly know what they're doing or talking about. If something isn't working for them or they don't understand it, it can't be their fault, it's gotta be the expert who doesn't know what they're talking about? Not everything has an every day use, some layouts, some things like the MOtion hole or DT have specific uses for specific conditions or situations, and some have even more niche uses than that. These things all work, they're all applicable, and they're all successful given that you're using them in the right situation. A 10 inch straw won't work well for a 10 inch tall cup, but it'll work great for an 8 inch tall cup. Common sense here people.
And continuation is a very valid, identifiable, and descriptive facet of ball motion.
A few years ago, MoRich strictly produced asymmetricals.
A year or two ago, the P1 position was the PAP.
Just a few months ago, Mo still gave symmetrical layouts in dual angle terminology.
Obviously I'm not meaning to call out Mo here. He is a Hall of Famer when it comes to the advancement of bowling technology and no one on here would argue with me saying he is the smartest bowling mind on this forum. That doesn't mean we shouldn't question him... his own philosophical changes are evidence that he doesn't stop questioning himself. Everyone here is capable of learning something, even the brightest in the industry.
(Note: The statements above are meant as a generality, not as a response to the specific topic being discussed in this thread.)