USBC New Ball Specs

You can post any bowling related topics here.

Moderator: Moderators

boomer
Member
Member
Posts: 229
Joined: October 5th, 2012, 3:47 pm
THS Average: 200
Positive Axis Point: 6 3/16 x 1/2 up
Speed: 13.8 at pindeck
Rev Rate: 230
Preferred Company: Storm (it smells pretty)

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by boomer » May 9th, 2018, 11:54 pm

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).

guruU2
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1048
Joined: March 31st, 2010, 7:27 pm
Location: Camp Springs MD

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by guruU2 » May 10th, 2018, 4:06 am

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.

boomer
Member
Member
Posts: 229
Joined: October 5th, 2012, 3:47 pm
THS Average: 200
Positive Axis Point: 6 3/16 x 1/2 up
Speed: 13.8 at pindeck
Rev Rate: 230
Preferred Company: Storm (it smells pretty)

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by boomer » May 10th, 2018, 4:13 pm

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.

TomaHawk
Pro Shop
Pro Shop
Posts: 375
Joined: July 19th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by TomaHawk » May 10th, 2018, 5:28 pm

[youtube][/youtube]

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.

User avatar
bowl1820
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1443
Joined: July 9th, 2012, 10:09 pm
Location: Central Florida

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by bowl1820 » May 10th, 2018, 6:28 pm

imagonman wrote:I can't the lemmings here that are just going along with this BS!
Did we forget this...........


[youtube][/youtube]
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.
Last edited by bowl1820 on May 10th, 2018, 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."

User avatar
JJakobsen
Certified Coach
Certified Coach
Posts: 271
Joined: March 10th, 2013, 9:59 pm
Sport Average: 180
Positive Axis Point: 3 1/2 right, 1 1/2 up
Speed: 15.5 downlane
Rev Rate: 450
Axis Tilt: 0
Axis Rotation: 30
Heavy Oil Ball: Storm Marvel Pearl
Medium Oil Ball: Brunswick Inferno
Light Oil Ball: Storm Timeless
Preferred Company: 900 Global
Location: Svolvær, Lofoten, Norway

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by JJakobsen » May 10th, 2018, 8:16 pm

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.
68.2353°N 14.5636°E is where it happens!

User avatar
bowl1820
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1443
Joined: July 9th, 2012, 10:09 pm
Location: Central Florida

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by bowl1820 » May 10th, 2018, 8:38 pm

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.
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."

User avatar
Nord
Member
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: September 8th, 2012, 9:12 am
THS Average: 180
Speed: 12-14 mph at Foul Line
Rev Rate: 120
Axis Tilt: 0
Axis Rotation: 90
Heavy Oil Ball: Visionary Midnight Scorcher Particle Urethane
Medium Oil Ball: DV8 Poison
Light Oil Ball: Brunswick True Motion

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by Nord » May 14th, 2018, 4:47 pm

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
PAP: 6 3/16 x 2 5/8
Rev rate: 135
Ball speed: 12 mph at launch
Composite Average: 180
High Game: 259 bowled with Billy Hardwick rubber ball. The back 9.
High Series: 683 clean using the DV8 Poison Solid.

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 New Ball Specs

Post by MegaMav » May 14th, 2018, 4:52 pm

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

TonyPR
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1331
Joined: December 14th, 2014, 3:08 am
Preferred Company: Radical
Location: San Juan, PR

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by TonyPR » May 14th, 2018, 7:23 pm

Mo has spoken:

http://www.gobowlingshow.com/listen/050918_lgb.mp3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

22:37

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

User avatar
snick
BCU Graduate Layouts
BCU Graduate Layouts
Posts: 756
Joined: August 31st, 2014, 8:00 pm
THS Average: 190
Positive Axis Point: 5.625" x 0
Speed: 17 off hand
Rev Rate: 360
Axis Tilt: 7
Axis Rotation: 55
Heavy Oil Ball: Radical Fix
Medium Oil Ball: Storm JoyRide
Light Oil Ball: Storm Tropical Breeze
Preferred Company: Storm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by snick » May 14th, 2018, 9:41 pm

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

pocket710guy
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Preferred Company: Roto Grip

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by pocket710guy » May 16th, 2018, 6:13 am

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.

User avatar
JJakobsen
Certified Coach
Certified Coach
Posts: 271
Joined: March 10th, 2013, 9:59 pm
Sport Average: 180
Positive Axis Point: 3 1/2 right, 1 1/2 up
Speed: 15.5 downlane
Rev Rate: 450
Axis Tilt: 0
Axis Rotation: 30
Heavy Oil Ball: Storm Marvel Pearl
Medium Oil Ball: Brunswick Inferno
Light Oil Ball: Storm Timeless
Preferred Company: 900 Global
Location: Svolvær, Lofoten, Norway

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by JJakobsen » May 16th, 2018, 5:29 pm

It isn't in effect for another TWO years. I wouldn't worry too much.
68.2353°N 14.5636°E is where it happens!

User avatar
soupy1957
Member
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: April 8th, 2018, 8:50 am
Preferred Company: Storm
Location: Connecticut

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by soupy1957 » May 17th, 2018, 7:46 am

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

pocket710guy
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Preferred Company: Roto Grip

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by pocket710guy » May 23rd, 2018, 2:46 pm

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?

User avatar
2y2
Certified Coach
Certified Coach
Posts: 354
Joined: July 25th, 2010, 11:09 pm
Positive Axis Point: 5 1/8 and 3/8 over
Speed: 17 mph
Rev Rate: 350
Axis Tilt: 10º
Axis Rotation: 45º
Heavy Oil Ball: Storm CodeX
Medium Oil Ball: Brunswick Python
Light Oil Ball: Pitch Blue
Preferred Company: None
Location: Merida City, Yucatan, Mexico
Contact:

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by 2y2 » May 23rd, 2018, 3:25 pm

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.

JohnP
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 3432
Joined: January 31st, 2010, 1:04 am
Positive Axis Point: 15 15/16 x 3/16
Speed: 13.5 (Qubica)
Axis Tilt: 13
Axis Rotation: 45
Location: Hawesville KY/Tell City IN

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by JohnP » May 23rd, 2018, 4:49 pm

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

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 New Ball Specs

Post by Arkansas » May 23rd, 2018, 5:07 pm

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

pocket710guy
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Preferred Company: Roto Grip

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by pocket710guy » May 24th, 2018, 3:19 am

Another question. Will we be seeing more longer pin balls, more shorter pin balls or will things not change a whole lot?

TonyPR
Trusted Source
Trusted Source
Posts: 1331
Joined: December 14th, 2014, 3:08 am
Preferred Company: Radical
Location: San Juan, PR

Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Post by TonyPR » May 24th, 2018, 3:29 am

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.

Post Reply