Board index » General Forums » General Bowling




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Wed May 09, 2018 11:54 pm Post Number: #141 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: October 5, 2012
Posts: 11
Reputation: 1
Reputation Power: 1
I think that it would behoove Brunswick to have done something more than just the three examples. Three data points do not make a valid curve. If you look at the USBC's data, you can see that their data shows ups and downs. At some point you get more extreme and the reaction drops off (of course because it's a sphere, that should be expected.)

Anyway - not excited about filling in holes and such either, but would rather see robust research (which at least USBC seems to be trying to do - whether successful or not) instead of what seems to be cherry picking examples (which seems to be the Brunswick video).


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 4:06 am Post Number: #142 Post
Offline
Guru

Joined: March 31, 2010
Posts: 996
Location: Camp Springs MD
Reputation: 317
Reputation Power: 4
boomer wrote:
I think that it would behoove Brunswick to have done something more than just the three examples. Three data points do not make a valid curve.


I agree, BUT the point of the video was to summarized the findings of Bill Wassenburger's research. Unfortunately, Bill who WAS a first rate scientist die soon after this. His work was collaborated, I believe, by ALL the ball companies. Again, the video was not meant to be a research paper being offered at a scientific convention but an attempt to explain the findings for the bowlers who do not have a background in research. RIP Bill, we miss you.

_________________
-Gary Parsons
If one does not know one's product, one can not manage nor promote the product one does not know.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 4:13 pm Post Number: #143 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: October 5, 2012
Posts: 11
Reputation: 1
Reputation Power: 1
Granted, but scientists know that only three data points presented can be incredibly misleading. His point was that the xtra hole made little-to-no difference at the pins. He presented only three points which can mean anything.

Image

Bill could have presented these three, and shown the trend graph in a 5-10 second slide to prove the point.

My reason for nitpicking on this (and I think it's more than a nit) is that USBC's much larger body of statistics show the opposite. in really basic - more holes = more flare. More flare = more hook. More hook = greater entry angle. More entry angle = greater strike area and chance. Thus more holes = more sloppy strikes. (in general, and yes, I'm over generalizing. :) I said really basic. :P )

So when I see a lot of data points placed on a table, with box-and-whiskers to show tolerances, and getting a true curve --vs-- three data points with no error correction but being used to disprove a larger body of data . . . I either think cherry picking or sloppy work or sloppy presentation. You said Bill was a first rate scientist so that leads me to eliminate sloppy work so either Brunswick asked him to cherry pick or he just slopped on his presentation.


guruU2 wrote:

I agree, BUT the point of the video was to summarized the findings of Bill Wassenburger's research. Unfortunately, Bill who WAS a first rate scientist die soon after this. His work was collaborated, I believe, by ALL the ball companies. Again, the video was not meant to be a research paper being offered at a scientific convention but an attempt to explain the findings for the bowlers who do not have a background in research. RIP Bill, we miss you.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 5:28 pm Post Number: #144 Post
Offline
Pro Shop

Joined: July 19, 2010
Posts: 270
Reputation: 72
Reputation Power: 1


This video depicts real life examples on how weight holes can influence ball motion. The video is 9 years old. Many of us have known about the effects weight holes, placed in various positions, have had on bowling balls for over 30 years.

An interesting note, the bowler in this video appears to be an accomplished bowler. He has the knowledge to recognize the correct angle of entry and the physical ability to make the appropriate adjustment. He is able and capable of moving to the right with weaker equipment, left with stronger.

How many average bowlers bowling three to six games with no practice can make those types of moves effectively? Beyond that, forcing everyone to play in relatively the same area will bring the scores down. Somewhere along the line, the ball will make an unanticipated move. The end result at should be less 300's and 800's.

So, ultimately, what is USBC's goal? One thing is certain, they are not leveling the playing field. I doubt that new regulation is going to keep a good bowler from winning.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 6:28 pm Post Number: #145 Post
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: July 9, 2012
Posts: 1292
Location: Central Florida
Reputation: 436
Reputation Power: 5
imagonman wrote:
I can't the lemmings here that are just going along with this BS!
Did we forget this...........




I think that old Brunswick video doesn't really pertain to the current rule changes.

It's about 13 years old and it leaves out how the USBC was also going to require you to keep the Center of Gravity (CG) mark to be within 1 inch of the center of (the) grip. (They weren't changing the static weight rules then, like they are now). Which they didn't do that to the balls in that video.

Brunswick also didn't like the CG part because they said "The CG-distance rule would effectively ban the future of Asymmetric cores (because of the static weight rules back then) and layouts that are used by thousands of bowlers." and because "Brunswick uses a shallow punch mark to indicate CG positions. One resurfacing is usually enough to remove the CG mark from the surface of the ball, rendering most Brunswick balls illegal after one resurfacing."

Plus other stuff about how if you plugged a ball the CG would move inches away from the CG mark and all the balls would be illegal etc.

(Also they didn't like the proposed rule to make the USBC logo/serial number a little bigger, because it would "reduce throughput" and they'd have to charge the customers $10 more because they increased of the size the letters.)

So the argument presented in the video against banning x-holes then wouldn't necessarily be same now.

Something to think about is that Brunswick said "that the x-hole ban rule (the ones at the time this took place) will result in little or no change to the range of available ball reactions."

So they were saying then that banning x-holes wouldn't really change anything as far as the ball reactions you could achieve.

Then that means that x-holes are superfluous, that if you don't have to worry about static weights rules then you don't need the hole, because you can make the ball get the same reaction without it that you could with it.

Looking at Brunswicks response back when that video was made, Big B had a vested interest in shooting down that rule. because it could have cost them sales of Asym. balls. and because they don't mark the CG's good on their balls.


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

_________________
Click my green + rep button if this helps!
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."


Last edited by bowl1820 on Thu May 10, 2018 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 8:16 pm Post Number: #146 Post
Offline
Certified Coach
User avatar

Joined: March 10, 2013
Posts: 236
Location: Svolvær, Lofoten, Norway
Reputation: 13
Reputation Power: 1
bowl1820 wrote:
I think that old Brunswick video doesn't really pertain to the current rule changes.

It's about 13 years old and it leaves out how the USBC was also going to require you to keep the Center of Gravity (CG) mark to be within 1 inch of the center of (the) grip. (They weren't changing the static weight rules then, like they are now). Which they didn't do that to the balls in that video.

Brunswick also didn't like the CG part because they said "The CG-distance rule would effectively ban the future of Asymmetric cores (because of the static weight rules back then) and layouts that are used by thousands of bowlers." and because "Brunswick uses a shallow punch mark to indicate CG positions. One resurfacing is usually enough to remove the CG mark from the surface of the ball, rendering most Brunswick balls illegal after one resurfacing."

Plus other stuff about how if you plugged a ball the CG would move inches away from the CG mark and all the balls would be illegal etc.

(Also they didn't like the proposed rule to make the USBC logo/serial number a little bigger, because it would "reduce throughput" and they'd have to charge the customers $10 more because they increased of the size the letters.)

So the argument presented in the video against banning x-holes then wouldn't necessarily be same now.

Something to think about is that Brunswick said "that the x-hole ban rule (the ones at the time this took place) will result in little or no change to the range of available ball reactions."

So they were saying then that banning x-holes wouldn't really change anything as far as the ball reactions you could achieve.

Then that means that x-holes are superfluous, that if you don't have to worry about static weights rules then you don't need the hole, because you can make the ball get the same reaction without it that you could with it.

Looking at Brunswicks response back when that video was made, Big B had a vested interest in shooting down that rule. because it could have cost them sales of Asym. balls. and because they don't mark the CG's good on their balls.

But that video isn't Brunswick, its BrunsNick, a guy who made videos and wrote articles way back. Wrote about sarge easter, one of few written sources back when I got the grip in 2008.

_________________
    PAP: 3 1/2" right 1 1/2" up
    Speed: 15.5 downlane
    RPM: 450
    Axis rotation: 30°
    Axis tilt: 0°

    Years bowling: 11
    Average (sport patterns, 4:1 ratio and less): 175
    High game: 290
    High series: 756


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 8:38 pm Post Number: #147 Post
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: July 9, 2012
Posts: 1292
Location: Central Florida
Reputation: 436
Reputation Power: 5
JJakobsen wrote:
But that video isn't Brunswick, its BrunsNick, a guy who made videos and wrote articles way back. Wrote about sarge easter, one of few written sources back when I got the grip in 2008.


I wasn't referring to the BrunsNick video, I was talking about the Brunswick Extra Hole Demostration video that was posted earlier by imagonman.

_________________
Click my green + rep button if this helps!
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 4:47 pm Post Number: #148 Post
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: September 8, 2012
Posts: 641
Reputation: 15
Reputation Power: 1
Has anyone plugged any of their balance holes yet and if so, have you noticed a performance difference?

_________________
Full Roller
Axis Rotation: 90
Axis Tilt: 0
Rev rate: 150
Ball speed: 10.5 mph at the Pin Deck
Composite Average: 175
High Game: 259 bowled with Billy Hardwick rubber ball. The back 9.
High Series: 648 bowled with Purple Hammer Urethane.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 4:52 pm Post Number: #149 Post
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2007
Posts: 4175
Location: Malta, NY
Reputation: 916
Reputation Power: 10
Nord wrote:
Has anyone plugged any of their balance holes yet and if so, have you noticed a performance difference?


I dont think too many people will be plugging balance holes until the start of 2020 when the static weight rules loosen up.

_________________
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 New Ball Specs
 Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 7:23 pm Post Number: #150 Post
Offline
Certified Coach

Joined: December 13, 2014
Posts: 1075
Location: San Juan, PR
Reputation: 171
Reputation Power: 2
Mo has spoken:

http://www.gobowlingshow.com/listen/050918_lgb.mp3

22:37

Quote “the Easter bunny has slightly less effect on ball motion than static weight”


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 9:41 pm Post Number: #151 Post
Online
BCU Graduate Layouts
User avatar

Joined: August 31, 2014
Posts: 632
Location: Tucson, AZ
Reputation: 121
Reputation Power: 2
I would like to see a study on static weight effect that takes into account the location of the PAP and track relative to the measured static weights, rather than the center of grip.

_________________
Benchmark Bowling Pro Shop
Byron

RH
PAP: 5.625" x 0
REVRATE: 360
SPEED: 17mph at release
AR: 55º
AT: 7º


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 6:13 am Post Number: #152 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: May 9, 2018
Posts: 14
Reputation: -1
Reputation Power: 1
I would like the USBC in their infinite wisdom since they charge so much for us on a yearly basis to be apart of their organization and wield their power over us and they want to change bowling for the better i think we should send them the bill to plug all of our balls so they meet their specs. Seems only fair.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 5:29 pm Post Number: #153 Post
Offline
Certified Coach
User avatar

Joined: March 10, 2013
Posts: 236
Location: Svolvær, Lofoten, Norway
Reputation: 13
Reputation Power: 1
It isn't in effect for another TWO years. I wouldn't worry too much.

_________________
    PAP: 3 1/2" right 1 1/2" up
    Speed: 15.5 downlane
    RPM: 450
    Axis rotation: 30°
    Axis tilt: 0°

    Years bowling: 11
    Average (sport patterns, 4:1 ratio and less): 175
    High game: 290
    High series: 756


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:46 am Post Number: #154 Post
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: April 8, 2018
Posts: 119
Location: Connecticut
Reputation: 0
Reputation Power: 1
Ya know......come to think of it.........I don’t recall EVER noticing a balance hole in a “Professional” bowler’s ball. Not saying they don’t have em.....just saying “I’ve” never noticed one on any ball, on any televised event (never BEEN to a “Pro” event in person).

_________________
“Perfection is only a delusion; a lack of personality!” - sdc


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Wed May 23, 2018 2:46 pm Post Number: #155 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: May 9, 2018
Posts: 14
Reputation: -1
Reputation Power: 1
Quick ? for all. So by plugging the weight holes isn't this still going to make all the balls out of balance? You are going to have to replug the whole ball and re-drill it? And what about short pin to CG balls that are already drilled. How will that affect them?


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Wed May 23, 2018 3:25 pm Post Number: #156 Post
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: July 25, 2010
Posts: 332
Location: Merida City, Yucatan, Mexico
Reputation: 116
Reputation Power: 2
pocket710guy wrote:
Quick ? for all. So by plugging the weight holes isn't this still going to make all the balls out of balance? You are going to have to replug the whole ball and re-drill it? And what about short pin to CG balls that are already drilled. How will that affect them?


I don't think so as they raised the difference to 3oz so most balls will still be legal, only the ones that were at the limit could need to be completely replugged.

_________________
If you think I helped, please click on the "+" button, Thanks.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Wed May 23, 2018 4:49 pm Post Number: #157 Post
Offline
Trusted Source

Joined: January 30, 2010
Posts: 3351
Location: Hawesville KY/Tell City IN
Reputation: 276
Reputation Power: 3
I will be amazed if, after plugging the weight holes, any balls exceed the new 3 oz max imbalance in any direction. If they do they must have been over the current 1 oz limit. -- JohnP


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Wed May 23, 2018 5:07 pm Post Number: #158 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts

Joined: January 24, 2012
Posts: 446
Reputation: 64
Reputation Power: 1
JohnP wrote:
I will be amazed if, after plugging the weight holes, any balls exceed the new 3 oz max imbalance in any direction. If they do they must have been over the current 1 oz limit. -- JohnP

Exactly. I'm pretty sure that would not even be physically possible for a currently legal ball, when the balance holes get plugged, to be illegal under the 3 oz rule.

The only practical way that might be the case is if they currently have near 3 oz top weight and a balance hole on the top half ball, which when plugged, pushed them over the 3 oz top weight limit. While hypothetically possible, I'd guess you'd have had to start with maybe 5 oz of top weight pre-drilling to end with that situation. That would be the only extreme exception I can think of.

_________________
James Talley


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 3:19 am Post Number: #159 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: May 9, 2018
Posts: 14
Reputation: -1
Reputation Power: 1
Another question. Will we be seeing more longer pin balls, more shorter pin balls or will things not change a whole lot?


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USBC New Ball Specs
 Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 3:29 am Post Number: #160 Post
Offline
Certified Coach

Joined: December 13, 2014
Posts: 1075
Location: San Juan, PR
Reputation: 171
Reputation Power: 2
Don’t think manufacturers will tighten up their QC so we still will have the variation we have now with pin to cg distances. I know Radical has a very good QC, you don’t see too short or too long pins in their balls.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

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: