USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits

You can post any bowling related topics here.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Mongo
Certified Coach
Certified Coach
Posts: 471
Joined: March 13th, 2014, 5:33 am
THS Average: 225
Positive Axis Point: 4 1/2" over, 1 1/2" up
Speed: 18 MPH
Rev Rate: 375
Axis Tilt: 12
Axis Rotation: 80
Preferred Company: DV8/Radical

USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits

Post by Mongo » April 19th, 2018, 12:11 am

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.

User avatar
MegaMav
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4528
Joined: April 27th, 2007, 5:00 am
THS Average: 230
Sport Average: 200
Positive Axis Point: 5.25 Over 5/8 Up
Speed: 15.25 MPH - Camera
Rev Rate: 350
Axis Tilt: 20
Axis Rotation: 45
Heavy Oil Ball: Radical - The Closer
Medium Oil Ball: Brunswck - Forest Quantum
Light Oil Ball: DV8 - Poison Pearl
Preferred Company: Radical Bowling Technologies
Location: Malta, NY

Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits

Post by MegaMav » April 19th, 2018, 12:57 am

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

User avatar
Mongo
Certified Coach
Certified Coach
Posts: 471
Joined: March 13th, 2014, 5:33 am
THS Average: 225
Positive Axis Point: 4 1/2" over, 1 1/2" up
Speed: 18 MPH
Rev Rate: 375
Axis Tilt: 12
Axis Rotation: 80
Preferred Company: DV8/Radical

Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits

Post by Mongo » April 19th, 2018, 3:29 am

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.

User avatar
deanchamp
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 402
Joined: August 4th, 2010, 10:23 am
THS Average: 220
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits

Post by deanchamp » April 19th, 2018, 1:29 pm

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

Daryl
Member
Member
Posts: 187
Joined: January 10th, 2012, 5:02 pm
THS Average: 226
Positive Axis Point: 5 13/16 x 5/16 up
Speed: 15.38 at foul line
Rev Rate: 390
Axis Tilt: 18
Axis Rotation: 55
Location: Augusta, Georgia
Contact:

Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits

Post by Daryl » April 19th, 2018, 2:11 pm

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

User avatar
purduepaul
Member
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: June 26th, 2009, 3:13 am
THS Average: 215
Positive Axis Point: 4 5/8 over by 5/8" up
Speed: 19
Rev Rate: 300
Axis Tilt: 13
Axis Rotation: 65
Preferred Company: Radical Bowling

Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits

Post by purduepaul » April 19th, 2018, 10:08 pm

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
Radical Bowling Technologies Staffer

Arkansas
BCU Graduate Layouts
BCU Graduate Layouts
Posts: 477
Joined: January 24th, 2012, 11:02 pm
Positive Axis Point: 4 1/2 Left x 3/4 Up
Speed: 18.5 off Hand
Rev Rate: 350
Axis Tilt: 17
Axis Rotation: 55
Heavy Oil Ball: Guru Mighty
Medium Oil Ball: Guru
Light Oil Ball: Torrid Affair
Preferred Company: Radical

Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits

Post by Arkansas » April 20th, 2018, 2:54 pm

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

Post Reply