He bases everything off single individual situations and makes it gospel...

The issue is you are basing too much on the 5% instead the reality which is the other 95% of reality....I base ALL of experience off of years of actual testing in real situations with with REAL data not what I think I see or someone else thinks they see...that's reality
So understand that when posting YOUR views...

I don't base ball reaction off something that simple as you do...you CANNOT prove to anyone other than YOURSELF that statement....I can prove what dictates ball reaction...when you place weight holes in the ball to adjust reaction after SURFACE has been altered...you end up with 'bottom weight' more times than not....and NO freaks out!
You again base your statements off of YOUR results not (F)actual results...sorry you will NOT win this discussion argument or debate....you see what you think you see 10 times out of 10 not what's really happening...

I did answer your question...can't you read?
The simplicity of my answer is just that...the success I've seen is based upon bowling ball type, flare management, surface and whether or not there's a weight hole needed to adjust reaction...surface dictates length and how the ball slows down...once the bowling ball slows down flare influences....if a ball maintain rotational integrity properly your potential to strike increases...not whether the is imaginary top weight or bottom weight....having in a 15lb orb, 121oz above the equator as opposed to 119oz below the equator does not dictate any reaction...but I guess you can't SEE that...
I cannot answer your question the way you want because I do NOT set out to lay a ball out with or without static weights to have any outcome on the reaction and I'm pretty sure I've had a decent track record so far...

JustRico,

Thank you for explaining your answer.  I  did get it.  I believe you are an expert in putting together the elements you discussed.

For Itsallaboutme,  I am not sure of the link at this second but I have heard on youtube that Norm Duke insists on I believe it is 3/8 top and 3/8 side in every ball.  I hear he is a pretty good bowler.  I could find it but it is from an Ashley Galante interview with one of the drillers from the tour.

SO, whether 121 ounces versus 119 ounces is important or not, my suggestion is that I bet some of Just Rico success on dry lanes for his clients has been built in to the balls by the manufacturers as it doesn't sound like it is checked after  setup,

It seems to me that based on the discussion here, manufacturers  no longer need to go to any effort to add top weight to balls as they have done since near the beginning of bowling.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/15-lb-Columbia-300-White-Dot-Blue-Black-Silver-Plastic-Spare-Bowling-Ball-NEW-/230816937308?pt=Bowling&hash=item35bdc2f55c

As a result of this set of posts I suggest eliminating these top weight creating pucks in all balls.  The proper amount of skid hook and roll can be controlled by the other factors, even if the balls end up at minus 3 ounces of top weight, Right?

REgards,

Luckylefty

 

Lucky,

Are you really comparing a pancake weightblock to the monster weightblocks you see in balls now? Seriously?

In a pancake weightblock, the ONLY factor is where that pancake is placed. No pin (that means anything anyways), no multi density weightblock, no assymetrical weightblock.

That post right there makes you look like you have even less of a clue. I'm sorry to say, but plugging weight holes and redrilling them in a different place can not be used as a testbed, because you are not replacing the core densities that you have removed with the original hole. It will make your ball move in a different manner, but not because of bottom weight. It will be because you just took another hunk out of the weightblock, creating yet ANOTHER shape, which will influence movement.

And as for pro shops who "believe" that bottom weight is a factor that they should take into consideration for anything other than "Oh, you're going to USBC's and don't want them to put a hole in the bottom of your ball?", they have you hook line and sinker. They will tell you that the getback hole, the negative pin, the bottom weight and whatever mumbo jumbo you want to believe means something, because that means that you keep putting money in their pockets.

After all, that's their business. Some are honest, some are used car dealers. It's easy to pick out the used car dealers that don't know their butts from a hole in the ground. But yet, they keep people like you happy. You keep them happy by paying them.

Top weight is there to offset the holes drilled in the top half of the ball. It can and is manipulated by layouts and x-hole locations.

Luckylefty seems like a nice guy from the times I have chatted with him on here especially when I had access to the free trial of blueprint software.

He believes in static weights heavily. He argued that with the drill sheets from the Bounty because they list CG to PAP distances as a relevant factor on layout aggressiveness. Not where an x-hole should be added but on the actual weight itself. Which is very flawed when you consider no matter what it cannot be 1 oz or more.

He argued that when watching Mika and others on the PBA you never saw anyone playing deep inside angles and carrying with a cg in the palm. I tried showing that with the BP software if you have one ounce positive side weight, no side weight and one ounce negative side weight the difference is only up to 1 to 1.5 boards total. His belief is that as mentioned every board counts and that is the difference in carry and not carrying.

I can not see a board difference 20, 30, 50 feet down lane and also cannot adjust off of it. I would assume it is also the difference in a strike and a stone 9, a fast 8, a big 4 or any other number of spare possibilities. Still for him it confirmed that 1 ounce of side weight was relevant versus no side weight because it gave almost a board difference.

I can live with that. BP software has helped me get over some things I use to think were a big deal. Talking to Ric and Mo and other professionals online I have learned much more important things to look for and try when bowling on dry conditions.(or any condition)

My most recent problem as a right hander.......7 pins. Yes freaking 7 pins. Light hit 7 pins and crushing the pocket 7 pins. Seriously I have no idea what to do off of it. That is my new goal to try and learn to correct. When I posed the problem to Mo and others with the conditions I am currently seeing he suggested shortening the 1st phase of the ball with a little surface and x-hole locations in the down position. When asked about pin to paps that may help since I have way too many drilled bowling balls he advised 3-4" range. Easy enough. Sad thing is I have had success with some of those ball in my arsenal with the surface and pin to pap distance and forgot about them because of trying newer equipment.

I may not always agree with Mo or others on some things but I have learned they are right more times then me. I can live with that.

Guys, I am not talking about side weight or all final statics.  That is a more involved discussion.

Kidlost accurately noted exactly noted my point.  Top weight has been added to balls(all) to account for the removal of weight of the fingers and thumb.

My suggestion was that since statics don't matter we can elimate these pucks or shifign of the core and end up with all balls near the 3 ounce legal maximum bottom weight.

The disciples of the "statics don't matter" would be now be able to now fully test that theory, against the "dumber" group of bowlers that would "Insist" on starting top weight(like me).


AS to bowling pro shops taking my money,,, nobodies pulling any wool over my eyes, I can punch the holes myself, but I have a marvelous relationship with my local pro shop, and gladly give him money for any professional services I ask for.

Impending,

There doesn't seem to be a test that a layman can do out here to please the "statics" don't matter crowd short of renting "Earl" or the Brunswick Throwbot for a few hours , putting out CATS and going forward.  Yet tests of bowlers throwing first a positive ball on a lane and then following up with a negative ball on a now more dried up midlane surface ball are considered adequate test if one likes the results.  OK.

My test in my mind had as much validity as this test which I learned a lot from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c93ZRsWbF7U (note these replacement slugs are not replacing the proper density of core either).

I also point out that many of my weightholes do not hit core.

At this juncture I would also like to thank Just Rico I have tried some of his flare altering ideas on a 1 .5 pin to pap ball I have and it has increased the flare and the reaction to create more of what I was looking for.

For the nth time in this set of posts I am going to reiterate.

I believe in the power of todays cores(this year on a soggy  backend shot I have gone to almost all asymetrics with gratifying results), I am a believer in surface often applying two different grits before adding polish or not, and I am a believer in drillings, and I am a believer in weightholes and finally ending statics.

As a competitor in this sport and others I don't understand why bowlers would ignore any factor that could give them an edge against similar or better talent.

Regards,

Luckylefty