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

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...

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.........

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.

Me neither... Certainly not the intent of the original post.... Simple question, simple answer that was done 4 pages ago.

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...

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.

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.