BallReviews
General Category => Drilling & Layouts => Topic started by: lefty50 on February 12, 2014, 10:56:44 AM
-
I know I should be able to find this simple answer, but it escapes me at the moment.
In the old days, the rule of thumb used to be that minimum top weight was preferred for oily lane conditions in order to get the ball to turn sooner, while more top weight pushed the ball down the lanes and seem to continue thru the pins better.
Notice that I said "in the old days". These days, what (if anything) can be attributed to a ball with the maximum top weight after drilling as opposed to a ball with zero top weight or slightly bottom weight.
Thanks
-
"these days" I don't believe that static weights (that are within the USBC min/max) have any affect on ball motion.
-
Static weights are still on the list on what makes a ball hook, but way down the list. Today Top Weight basically means how big the weight hole will be. The more top, the larger and deeper the hole.
-
Thanks guys...
-
I couldn't disagree more.
Doubt it? Roll a bottom weight ending static ball on dry.
Regards,
Luckylefty
In the modern era I've had 0/0 balls after drilling give me the smoothness needed to really control what other better competitors couldn't do. $ One of my drillers a multi regional champ creates good ball reactions for his bowlers by customizing these statics for our house. Without the right surface/drilling/finish and ending statics and weightholes for flare control, you are giving up an edge to your competitors.
-
As usual you are wrong...you are basing your results on non-educated tests...
Unless you do actual testing do not make 'educated' responses please
-
Does anyone give credit to the results given by blueprint software????
When using the trial version I tested identical layouts and only adjusted the static weight within usbc guidelines. From 1oz pos side weight, to 0 side weight, to 1oz neg side weight. Ect ect. I could get up to an almost full board difference.
It also showed adjusting ball surface to be one of the best ways to tweak ball reactions on a drilled ball. X-hole locations were second.
-
99% of ALL bowlers can't release the bowling ball the same way twice more or less once and something that translates to less than 5% in overall reaction they still stress over...
-
I stress over leaving 7s, 8s, and 9s. 10 pins I expect. I wish I could blame static weight for it.
-
It's ALL their fault...everyone of em!
-
It's ALL their fault...everyone of em!
I needed to hear that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIETlxquzY
-
Actually have tested much like a Brunswick video where weightholes were filled and new ones drilled.
But I guess all anyone need do is bowl with some bottom weight balls on dry and enjoy. Or Super high top weight balls on oil.
Bon Appetit.
Regards,
Luckylefty
-
1/32" shift of the core from the true center of the mass equals 1oz or 1" pin out...
-
To not take advantage of every last item to have an advantage only makes sense.
If only 5% of reaction today is top weights bottom weights etc, why not have it?
Again, throw bottom weight on dry conditions and compete other against other equally talented bowlers who use the proper top weight and I like their situation.over you. I'll be surprised if you hang. Throw against someone you are much better than, you probably win still!
Regards,
Luckylefty
-
The fact you give static weight that much credit for dry conditions is interesting. I would not.
-
He bases everything off single individual situations and makes it gospel...
-
I actually have talked to many very good tournament bowlers about their experiences, done many tests of having weight holes, filling, and putting other ones in for balls I personally own.
Do my number of experiences equal someone who works for a ball company and gets many balls to test ....NO!
I ask both of the posters here who seek to refute many experienced bowlers regarding their experiences on different conditions to tell of their
experiences winning dry tournaments with bottom weight of over 1 ounce.
I again ask the question. If you admit it is up to 5% of reaction, why deny yourself every advantage in your preparation to compete against equal talent?
REgards,
Luckylefty
-
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...
-
As a superior bowler and intellect for all to admire on this site you can win I'm sure with a rock rolled over a parking lot.
As a somewhat so so bowler that needs every advantage possible I have occasionally beaten superior by being aware of every variable that I possible could think of in preparing if it had some importance to me. As a believer in most of the principles of the Gravity Balance system from Lane 1 and a client of two pro shop with multiple regional champs that wouldn't think of letting me bowl on dry with a dull ball, a strong core, and tons of bottom weight. I am very satisfied with their attention to detail in all areas.
I still await your tales, and tales of bowlers you have prepared for competition the thrills of victory while using bottom weight balls on dry conditions, please tell of these experiences. Thank you.
I note your comments on the other 95 percent are more important. I believe in surface, cores, and weightholes also.
Again, why would neglect every advantage for your disciples?
Regards,
Luckylefty
-
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...
-
Just,
For the arrogance in your answer thank you.
For the lack of answer to my question, no surprise. As to me being by myself in the overt attention to ingnoring statics many pro shops giggle over this site and this mantra.
It is not just me.
Regards,
Luckylefty
-
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...
-
What Rico is trying to say in a professional manner is that no one is good enough to tell the difference.
If the best bowlers in the world, that bowl to feed their children, don't worry about something so trivial, why should anyone?
-
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
-
Wow you win I'm wrong I am now changing all of views going forward! Thank you!
Some day you may understand physics and what creates what! It's a mass at the top not a STATIC weight...
Yes I'm a smartass that at this moment have nothing better to do than apparently beat my head into the wall trying to explain this to you
Gotta go hold an HYBC school of knowledge and help bowlers...feel bad for them 😢 *sarcasm off*
-
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.
-
Norm Duke is the one in a million that it MAY make a difference for.
But no one on this website should compare themselves to him unless Chris Barnes is posting under an alias.
-
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.
-
In regards to Duke...there is a difference in what one believes works and what is reality
-
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
-
There are too many much more influential factors in ball motion to worry about which ball in your bag has more bottom weight, unless you're bowling with all 3 piece pancake bowling balls. Surface response to the lane surface, core dynamics, layout and how soon it will transition while it is rolling down the lane, proper lane play... Heck, I think the right interchangeable sole and heel combo is more important than bottom weight.
Also, if you're going to think that bottom weight is going to save you sometime, you could, you know, practice on getting the ball into a roll sooner with... Hand positions *gasp*
-
Here's my views on a couple of comments or thoughts
No matter the mass that is used to create the dynamics inside a bowling ball, they are dynamics not a 2-piece 3-piece multi-core...the object in discussion is a spinning object being influenced my the outside making contact with the lane surface...as it 'spins' or rolls, at what point is the top influencing it or the bottom? I'm pretty sure it's the applied forces of the bowler plus the surface dictating a majority of the created reaction...flare is prolly the next influence as it is created by the placement of the mass in relationship to the positive axis point and/or track...once it's slows down from the cover surface & applied forces
As I've stated previously a shift of approx 1/32" from the true center of the core creates a 1" or 1oz of core movement with the pin which 4.5" from the true center or a marked spot on the outside of the bowling ball...
With ALL the variables that dictate the movement of a bowling ball traveling down the lane, I can make you this promise that when you are doing your tests with top weight & bottom weight, I alter your 'tests' quite easily....it's called Abralon...
-
Just curious but most balls with 2-3ozs top weight if drilled with an xhole are likely going to be even or under on topweight. For the vast majority of people.
But for fun my question is this: If you had two identical bowling balls on the same layout with one having 2ozs top weight and the other 2ozs bottom weight. Once the ball completes a half rotation does it matter? Are we really arguing over the affects of a half rotation?
-
Let me see if I got this right,Ric
No matter how many times you lead a horse to a troth, you still won't be able to determine how many times it'll drink ?
-
I like to go with 'if the horse is dead and you continue to beat it, will it remain dead?'
-
Knowing most of the bowlers I know, that would be a Yes !
-
Hey, maybe if we can get a few guys to gang up we can Win this discussion.
The "Cult" lives! (at least these are real posters!)
OK, back to the main point. I want to make sure I understand exactly what Just Rico is proposing. You are proposing that if a ball ends up with bottom weight or top weight you can mask the increase of skid from Top Weight or lack of skid due to bottom weight by surface alone?
Is that right?
Thanks,
Luckylefty
-
Sorry big guy it's not masking...and you 'believe' what you will...
-
I didn't say masking!
I said the Cult lives. Your Cult.
Now this question was posted
OK, back to the main point. I want to make sure I understand exactly what Just Rico is proposing. You are proposing that if a ball ends up with bottom weight or top weight you can mask the increase of skid from Top Weight or lack of skid due to bottom weight by surface alone?
Is that right?
Thanks,
Luckylefty
Dying to understand that point.
-
And if you could comprehend a sentence I said that adjusting the surface is masking nothing in your words not mine...please pay attention and the only cult is the one you're in...
-
Understand this...I am not proposing anything I am stating a fact plain & simple...you believe one thing and I know another...you are beating the proverbial dead horse to glue
-
LL quoted "You are proposing that if a ball ends up with bottom weight or top weight you can mask the increase of skid from Top Weight or lack of skid due to bottom weight by surface alone?"
Maybe you can message Mo on bowling chat or email USBC and ask them more about their results on ball motion study.
-
So if I was able to 'mask' a variable you deem relevant, what would actually be more relevant, ie if I can alter or change your variable, wouldn't my variable be more relevant or more of a determinator in controlling the reaction thus your variable would be a moot point?
-
Aww...Ric, you are getting way to deep for these guys.Just keep it simple...I.E...What part of the ball touches the surface on the lane?
The outer shell, that is correct.You may come to the head of the class
-
Define static
-
Talking in parables, the art of the cult leader.
Now to my simple question and it's avoided answer.
Are you saying, "That a bottom weight ball can roll just like a top weight ball if it's surface is finer grit to compensate for the difference in weight"? ie your reference to abralon?
Thank you for the long awaited answer?
REgards,
Luckylefty
-
Dude first of all get off silly infintile attempt at humour with the cult reference...guys are educated and believe what they do as do you...we could say the same about you-no? And personally I enjoy the Cult...I've seen them multiple times...they rock
I have answered your question multiple times in the simplest of ways...Y E S
I can more control overall with surface than any other component
Answered now?
-
SO, a shiny 3 ounce bottom weight ball will react the same as a slightly duller 3 ounce top weight ball?
It sounds more and more like ball manufacturers are doing more than they need to .
Save the extra bucks forget the pucks on the top of all balls for top weight offset from drilled fingers. And roll away with bottom weight and shinier stuff.
More profits for ball companies should be a happy result. I'm sure you have tested this in your days as a ball rep. Please verify the veracity of the above probably performed test and what the results were.
Thanks,
Luckylefty
Regards,
-
Lucky,
Go ask Mo.
-
I find it rather humorous, how many times you ask the same question, by changing the wording to sound more credulous...and think you'll get a different answer...you bring up wanting my extensive test results yet all you've got is a single instance of when something occurred for you...the answer is not going to change no matter how many times you ask it
-
To summarize maybe......
1. Top weight vs bottom weight doesn't affect the balls reaction on oil or dry or medium conditions
2. Surface is the bigger determining factor for these conditions.
3. Any difference of the two reactions between top weight and bottom weight on two identically drilled balls would be so minimal you could not see the results, similar to positive and negative side weight.
***Rereading most of these post will cause an aneurysm and readers will need to seek immediate medical attention.
-
As I stated, no matter how he asks the question and how's it answered, he will continue to ask it until someone caves and sides with him...and his schtick is getting olde
-
I think the question is at this point, what will it take for LuckyLefty to believe the objective facts Rico has presented (in a million different illustrations)?
As kid noted in jest (which was great):
I stress over leaving 7s, 8s, and 9s. 10 pins I expect. I wish I could blame static weight for it.
My question for LL would be, do you honestly believe Kid has a case in blaming the statics for it (the 7s, 8s and 9s...assuming it was a shot he liked?
-
I think the question is at this point, what will it take for LuckyLefty to believe the objective facts Rico has presented (in a million different illustrations)?
Koolaid, obviously. Cult flavour.
-
I am good with being Ian Astbury...
-
-
I think the question is at this point, what will it take for LuckyLefty to believe the objective facts Rico has presented (in a million different illustrations)?
Koolaid, obviously. Cult flavour.
No doubt, I'm just struggling to grasp why one would absolutley cling to an idea, even in the face of EVIDENCE suggesting otherwise? Unless the static weight gods have him on payroll or something......... :P
This is probably more of a psychological question....
If I have a presupposition, and evidence shows otherwise, I'll accept that. I don't understand the absolute and fierce loyalty to a faulty presupposition.
-
Saw that concert...
25% of Americans believe that the sun circled the earth...
-
To summarize maybe......
1. Top weight vs bottom weight doesn't affect the balls reaction on oil or dry or medium conditions
2. Surface is the bigger determining factor for these conditions.
3. Any difference of the two reactions between top weight and bottom weight on two identically drilled balls would be so minimal you could not see the results, similar to positive and negative side weight.
***Rereading most of these post will cause an aneurysm and readers will need to seek immediate medical attention.
I finally just read this thread and I'm on my way to the emergency room for my much anticipated aneurysm. After my 80% recovery I should be able to carry the light hit instead of leaving the 7-10 split (once again).
For the record, I'm one that is constantly tweaking the surface on bowling balls to make up for my lack of actual talent. Gotta bridge the talent gap somehow... ;)
-
Lane,
You're just reading it for the first time. The aneurysm happens only if you reread it. You're in the clear.
-
Thanks, Doom, but I was looking forward to the side effects... (I know, be careful what we wish for).
-
Actually I believe the percentage goes up if you post...and then admit to altering the surface and not the top weight...
So here's a question for the doubter known as Lucky & left handed...
If I start with a ball that has an ounce or so of top weight and drill the gripping holes deeper lowering the top weight to bottom weight, in your world will the ball roll earlier?
In my world, of physics, the ball will react less due to less overall dynamics
Just wondering...
-
I have been quietly following this post. Isn't this the resurrection, albeit somewhat more refined, of the "cg nomaddah" debate?
Ultimately, what I have gained from all of this, is that within legal limits, shifting the static weight around has minimal to no discernable impact on how the ball performs.
Does everyone agree with that, or did I miss something.
-
Actually I believe the percentage goes up if you post...and then admit to altering the surface and not the top weight...
So here's a question for the doubter known as Lucky & left handed...
If I start with a ball that has an ounce or so of top weight and drill the gripping holes deeper lowering the top weight to bottom weight, in your world will the ball roll earlier?
In my world, of physics, the ball will react less due to less overall dynamics
Just wondering...
Damn.........
(https://www.ballreviews.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.boards.baltimoreravens.com%2Fpublic%2Fstyle_emoticons%2Fdefault%2Fpopcorn%2520drama.gif&hash=740cfcd08a9703484e27e6066d77a6420834ddc2)
-
*I need a fresh bag of popcorn.*
-
Ultimately, what I have gained from all of this, is that within legal limits, shifting the static weight around has minimal to no discernable impact on how the ball performs.
Does everyone agree with that, or did I miss something.
From what I've read, I believe LL disagrees with that (he can speak for himself) and would argue he CAN discern it whereas Rico's argument is that 99% CANNOT.
Again, we're talking about such a subtlety that some posters tend to absolutley fixate on.
COVER PREP is, without question, the dominant factor.
-
Ultimately, what I have gained from all of this, is that within legal limits, shifting the static weight around has minimal to no discernable impact on how the ball performs.
Does everyone agree with that, or did I miss something.
That is pretty much exactly what I said in the first response to the OP. I really don't understand why this thread has 5 pages now, lol...
-
Me neither... Certainly not the intent of the original post.... Simple question, simple answer that was done 4 pages ago.
-
Apparently bottom weighted balls roll differently than top weighted balls on the left side of the lane!
-
Actually I believe the percentage goes up if you post...and then admit to altering the surface and not the top weight...
So here's a question for the doubter known as Lucky & left handed...
If I start with a ball that has an ounce or so of top weight and drill the gripping holes deeper lowering the top weight to bottom weight, in your world will the ball roll earlier?
In my world, of physics, the ball will react less due to less overall dynamics
Just wondering...
Funny how LuckyLefty completely avoided this conversation after by question...
-
3 pages of piling on with group think.
I have still not heard your answer in all those pages of ballreviews cult following.
The question again posed by me. "Can we eliminate top weight pucks so all balls end up bottom weight after drilling and retain all the same range of reaction choice with just your pads?"
Regards,
Luckylefty
PS I have a response.
-
You're awesome and if nothing else...consistent....a majority of ores do not have your pucks that you continue to speak of but you keep trying to find a way to ask your question to see if I change my answer...and the answer still is...Y E S
Now what's your response there big guy?
-
3 pages of piling on with group think.
I have still not heard your answer in all those pages of ballreviews cult following.
The question again posed by me. "Can we eliminate top weight pucks so all balls end up bottom weight after drilling and retain all the same range of reaction choice with just your pads?"
Regards,
Luckylefty
PS I have a response.
25% of Americans also think that the Sun revolves around the Earth. The majority, even when backed by proof, must be engaged in "group think".
-
3 pages of piling on with group think.
I have still not heard your answer in all those pages of ballreviews cult following.
The question again posed by me. "Can we eliminate top weight pucks so all balls end up bottom weight after drilling and retain all the same range of reaction choice with just your pads?"
Regards,
Luckylefty
PS I have a response.
No we can not eliminate top weight pucks. We do not manufacture bowling balls. You would likely rather have low top weight bowling balls. That way you always have bottom weight and have less risk of being illegal on bottom weight. However using a Motion hole adds weight back to the top. So do not use that as a layout option.
-
Wow. LL is still looking at the horizon and claiming the world must be flat even though he's holding a globe in his hand.
Why did I click on this thread...
-
Why did I click on this thread...
Same reason I did...........b/c it's AWESOME! :P