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 Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits
Moderator: Moderators
- Mongo
- 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
USBC Silver Certified Coach
JMerrell wrote:Mongo,
We need to work on getting that teddy bear body of yours more open throughout the approach.
- MegaMav
- Moderator
- Posts: 4694
- Joined: April 27th, 2007, 5:00 am
- THS Average: 225
- Sport Average: 200
- Positive Axis Point: 5.5 Over & 1 Up
- Speed: 16.0 MPH - Camera
- Rev Rate: 375
- Axis Tilt: 14
- Axis Rotation: 45
- Heavy Oil Ball: Radical - Informer
- Medium Oil Ball: Brunswick - Fearless
- Light Oil Ball: Radical - Bonus Pearl
- Preferred Company: Radical Bowling Technologies
- Location: Malta, NY
Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits
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.
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.
- Mongo
- 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
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.
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.
- deanchamp
- Trusted Source
- Posts: 455
- Joined: August 4th, 2010, 10:23 am
- THS Average: 220
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits
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
BTM contributor
BCU Graduate - Mastery of Layouts
BTM contributor
-
- Member
- Posts: 206
- 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
Re: USBC Possibly Going After Ball Specification Limits
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.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.
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
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
- purduepaul
- 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
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”.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.
Paul Ridenour
former Sr Research Engineer at USBC
Radical Bowling Technologies Staffer
former Sr Research Engineer at USBC
Radical Bowling Technologies Staffer
-
- 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
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.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”.
James Talley