Board index » General Forums » General Bowling




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits
 Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:11 am Post Number: #1 Post
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: March 12, 2014
Posts: 329
Reputation: 23
Reputation Power: 1
Jeff Richgels at 11thframe.com is reporting that the USBC could be moving forward on their ball specification changes that have been discussed for some time.

These include
- Differential limit of 0.54
- Static weight allowance of up to 3 ounces, but eliminates weight holes
- A vaguely described limit on coverstock oil absorption

According to Jeff, this could be announced sooner rather than later....possibly before the convention.

Personally, other than the static weight allowance being bumped, I feel this does nothing but hurt ball manufacturers and pro shops. You can do whatever you want to to the balls, but, at the end of the day, it's the lane conditions.

Would love to hear Mo's thoughts on this....or anybody else's.

_________________
USBC Silver Certified Coach

JMerrell wrote:
Mongo,
We need to work on getting that teddy bear body of yours more open throughout the approach.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits
 Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:57 am Post Number: #2 Post
Online
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2007
Posts: 4332
Location: Malta, NY
Reputation: 956
Reputation Power: 10
You're right.
This limp wristed attempt at credibility is an indictment of the state of the USBC.
All facade, no substance.

The problem is, Arlington isnt willing to give up power to local associations to enforce lane conditions and lane specs.
On the record: I have visually seen many instances of lane surface warping that would not pass inspection, but year after year they somehow do. I wonder why. BPAA is in the same building.

This game as become a farce and each and every member that pays sanctioning is kicking this rusty can down the road. I cant wait for the USBC to fold, at least we'll have a chance of getting a grassroots organization with some onions to restore credibility. Until then bowlers will be frustrated with what they're bowling on (lanes & conditioner), and will slowly withdraw.

I have not paid sanctioning this year and run a non-sanctioned challenge league.
USBC will not see my money until they grow a set.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Please press the Image button if you feel I've been helpful.

“When you prepare for everything, you’re ready for anything.” - Bill Walsh


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits
 Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:29 am Post Number: #3 Post
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: March 12, 2014
Posts: 329
Reputation: 23
Reputation Power: 1
Bumping the static weight to 3 oz. is the only semblance of common sense I can see in the whole thing

Have you read Riggs' article on Murphy and the USBC? It's pretty damning.

Local associations are fed up with new requirements and fees.

If anybody shows up, this years convention could be interesting.

_________________
USBC Silver Certified Coach

JMerrell wrote:
Mongo,
We need to work on getting that teddy bear body of yours more open throughout the approach.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits
 Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:29 pm Post Number: #4 Post
Offline
Certified Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 4, 2010
Posts: 348
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Reputation: 200
Reputation Power: 3
Bill Sempsrott wrote an article in BTM recently examining the proposed changes, and opening up the static imbalance limitations can allow for more performance than what weight holes can currently provide. He concluded that seems a step in the wrong direction if they want to limit ball performance.

_________________
USBC Silver Level Coach
BCU Graduate - Mastery of Layouts


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits
 Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:11 pm Post Number: #5 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: January 10, 2012
Posts: 178
Location: Augusta, Georgia
Reputation: 45
Reputation Power: 1
MegaMav wrote:
You're right.
This limp wristed attempt at credibility is an indictment of the state of the USBC.
All facade, no substance.

The problem is, Arlington isnt willing to give up power to local associations to enforce lane conditions and lane specs.
On the record: I have visually seen many instances of lane surface warping that would not pass inspection, but year after year they somehow do. I wonder why. BPAA is in the same building.

This game as become a farce and each and every member that pays sanctioning is kicking this rusty can down the road. I cant wait for the USBC to fold, at least we'll have a chance of getting a grassroots organization with some onions to restore credibility. Until then bowlers will be frustrated with what they're bowling on (lanes & conditioner), and will slowly withdraw.

I have not paid sanctioning this year and run a non-sanctioned challenge league.
USBC will not see my money until they grow a set.


I agree. The USBC has not seen my money for three years now. If I bowl league it will be non-sanctioned as well. For now I just bowl non league open bowling with friends. I will not feed the monster anymore.

_________________
Right Handed Stats:
RPM (off hand) 390
Speed (off hand) 15.3 mph
Axis Tilt; 18 degrees
Axis Rotation: 55 degrees
PAP: 5 13/16" x 5/16" up


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits
 Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm Post Number: #6 Post
Offline
Trusted Source
User avatar

Joined: June 25, 2009
Posts: 205
Reputation: 101
Reputation Power: 2
deanchamp wrote:
Bill Sempsrott wrote an article in BTM recently examining the proposed changes, and opening up the static imbalance limitations can allow for more performance than what weight holes can currently provide. He concluded that seems a step in the wrong direction if they want to limit ball performance.


That would be incorrect, the static weight loosening will change the potential influence of static weights from less than one percent to about two percent, not as big of a change as taking a 0.049” total differential ball and drilled with double thumb hole to 0.070”.

_________________
Paul Ridenour
former Sr Research Engineer at USBC
Owner WorXshop Bowling


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits
 Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:54 pm Post Number: #7 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts

Joined: January 24, 2012
Posts: 472
Reputation: 73
Reputation Power: 1
purduepaul wrote:

That would be incorrect, the static weight loosening will change the potential influence of static weights from less than one percent to about two percent, not as big of a change as taking a 0.049” total differential ball and drilled with double thumb hole to 0.070”.


Have you read the article Paul? He makes a pretty convincing case that once you go above 0.050" of differential, the impact on hook is negligible.

_________________
James Talley


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

Board index » General Forums » General Bowling


 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: