USBC New Ball Specs
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Member
- Posts: 305
- 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
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).
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).
Re: USBC New Ball Specs
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.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.
-Gary Parsons
If one does not know one's product, one can not manage nor promote the product one does not know.
If one does not know one's product, one can not manage nor promote the product one does not know.
-
- Member
- Posts: 305
- 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
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.
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. )
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.
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. )
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.
Re: USBC New Ball Specs
[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.
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.
Re: USBC New Ball Specs
I think that old Brunswick video doesn't really pertain to the current rule changes.imagonman wrote:I can't the lemmings here that are just going along with this BS!
Did we forget this...........
[youtube][/youtube]
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."
- JJakobsen
- Certified Coach
- Posts: 283
- 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
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.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.
68.2353°N 14.5636°E is where it happens!
Re: USBC New Ball Specs
I wasn't referring to the BrunsNick video, I was talking about the Brunswick Extra Hole Demostration video that was posted earlier by imagonman.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.
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."
- Nord
- Member
- Posts: 772
- 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
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: 145
Ball speed: 13 mph at launch
Composite Average: 180
High Game: 269 bowled with Pitch Black.
High Series: 683 clean using the DV8 Poison Solid.
Axis Rotation: 90
Axis Tilt: 0
PAP: 6 3/16 x 2 5/8
Rev rate: 145
Ball speed: 13 mph at launch
Composite Average: 180
High Game: 269 bowled with Pitch Black.
High Series: 683 clean using the DV8 Poison Solid.
- 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 New Ball Specs
I dont think too many people will be plugging balance holes until the start of 2020 when the static weight rules loosen up.Nord wrote:Has anyone plugged any of their balance holes yet and if so, have you noticed a performance difference?
-
- Trusted Source
- Posts: 1386
- Joined: December 14th, 2014, 3:08 am
- Preferred Company: Radical
- Location: San Juan, PR
Re: USBC New Ball Specs
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”
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”
Silver Level Coach
Kegel KCMP1 and KCMP2 Completed /Approved Exam
Kegel KCMP3 Completed
Kegel Certified Pro Shop Operator
Free agent
Kegel KCMP1 and KCMP2 Completed /Approved Exam
Kegel KCMP3 Completed
Kegel Certified Pro Shop Operator
Free agent
- snick
- BCU Graduate Layouts
- Posts: 759
- Joined: August 31st, 2014, 8:00 pm
- THS Average: 196
- Sport Average: 180
- Positive Axis Point: 5.5625" x .625 up
- Speed: 17 off hand
- Rev Rate: 360
- Axis Tilt: 17
- Axis Rotation: 55
- Heavy Oil Ball: Storm Physix
- Medium Oil Ball: Storm Streetfight
- Light Oil Ball: Rotogrip Hustle Pearl
- Preferred Company: Rotogrip
- Location: Tucson, AZ
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.
Benchmark Bowling Pro Shop
Byron
RH
PAP: 5.5625 x .625 up
REVRATE: 360
SPEED: 17mph at release
AR: 55º
AT: 17º
Byron
RH
PAP: 5.5625 x .625 up
REVRATE: 360
SPEED: 17mph at release
AR: 55º
AT: 17º
-
- Member
- Posts: 26
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 8:24 pm
- THS Average: 203
- Speed: 14-16
- Heavy Oil Ball: Results solid
- Medium Oil Ball: Ludicrous solid& pearl and Zing hybrid
- Light Oil Ball: Ridiculous pearl
- Preferred Company: Radical
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.
- JJakobsen
- Certified Coach
- Posts: 283
- 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
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!
- soupy1957
- Member
- Posts: 123
- Joined: April 8th, 2018, 8:50 am
- Preferred Company: Storm
- Location: Connecticut
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).
“Perfection is only a delusion; a lack of personality!” - sdc
-
- Member
- Posts: 26
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 8:24 pm
- THS Average: 203
- Speed: 14-16
- Heavy Oil Ball: Results solid
- Medium Oil Ball: Ludicrous solid& pearl and Zing hybrid
- Light Oil Ball: Ridiculous pearl
- Preferred Company: Radical
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?
- 2y2
- Certified Coach
- Posts: 356
- 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
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.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?
If you think I helped, please click on the "+" button, Thanks.
-
- 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
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
-
- 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
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.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
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
-
- Member
- Posts: 26
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 8:24 pm
- THS Average: 203
- Speed: 14-16
- Heavy Oil Ball: Results solid
- Medium Oil Ball: Ludicrous solid& pearl and Zing hybrid
- Light Oil Ball: Ridiculous pearl
- Preferred Company: Radical
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?
-
- Trusted Source
- Posts: 1386
- Joined: December 14th, 2014, 3:08 am
- Preferred Company: Radical
- Location: San Juan, PR
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.
Silver Level Coach
Kegel KCMP1 and KCMP2 Completed /Approved Exam
Kegel KCMP3 Completed
Kegel Certified Pro Shop Operator
Free agent
Kegel KCMP1 and KCMP2 Completed /Approved Exam
Kegel KCMP3 Completed
Kegel Certified Pro Shop Operator
Free agent