BowlingChat.net
http://forum.bowlingchat.net/

USBC New Ball Specs
http://forum.bowlingchat.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13765
Page 8 of 9

Author:  boomer [ Wed May 09, 2018 11:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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).

Author:  guruU2 [ Thu May 10, 2018 4:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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.

Author:  boomer [ Thu May 10, 2018 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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.

Author:  TomaHawk [ Thu May 10, 2018 5:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs



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.

Author:  bowl1820 [ Thu May 10, 2018 6:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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.

Author:  JJakobsen [ Thu May 10, 2018 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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.

Author:  bowl1820 [ Thu May 10, 2018 8:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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.

Author:  Nord [ Mon May 14, 2018 4:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

Has anyone plugged any of their balance holes yet and if so, have you noticed a performance difference?

Author:  MegaMav [ Mon May 14, 2018 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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.

Author:  TonyPR [ Mon May 14, 2018 7:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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”

Author:  snick [ Mon May 14, 2018 9:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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.

Author:  pocket710guy [ Wed May 16, 2018 6:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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.

Author:  JJakobsen [ Wed May 16, 2018 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

It isn't in effect for another TWO years. I wouldn't worry too much.

Author:  soupy1957 [ Thu May 17, 2018 7:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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).

Author:  pocket710guy [ Wed May 23, 2018 2:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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?

Author:  2y2 [ Wed May 23, 2018 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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.

Author:  JohnP [ Wed May 23, 2018 4:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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

Author:  Arkansas [ Wed May 23, 2018 5:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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.

Author:  pocket710guy [ Thu May 24, 2018 3:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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

Author:  TonyPR [ Thu May 24, 2018 3:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USBC New Ball Specs

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.

Page 8 of 9 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/