Author Topic: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK? (Read 5059 times)

Ric Clint · « **on:** October 31, 2004, 11:05:08 AM »

I just drilled a Messenger Ti Pearl B/S/P with drilling of 4 x 3.5 (if it had a MASS BIAS from the PIN through the CG to 6 3/4", it would be like 1" right of the thumb). This is supose to be a strong drilling.

I compared it to my friend's SAME ball, with the PIN in the same spot... drilled 4 x 5 (if it had a MASS BIAS from the PIN through the CG to 6 3/4", it would be just to the left of the thumb). This is supose to be a weak drilling.

Well, my friend's ball is drilled supposedly weaker, but it's stronger on the backend!!!

Why?

I talked to a very knowlegable driller about this and he said that a label 1:30 drilling with the MB left of the thumb is suppose to retain Axis Rotation longer than something with the MB in the strong position.

And by looking at these balls on the lanes, I tend to agree it seems!

If this true, then why do people say that a strong positioned MB has got more backend than a weak positioned MB?

I have about 45 degrees of Axis Rotation and medium revs.

Re-Evolution · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2004, 07:19:48 PM »

It is a combination of the bowler, ball, and lane conditions.
If you switched ball or played on a different condition it may be the opposite or even more difference.

--------------------
STORMIN1

Doug Sterner · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2004, 07:22:24 PM »

the guy you talked to is correct.

a 1:30 drill will give an arcy backend reaction whereas a stacked drilling will be more sharp and coninuous

The sharp break makes it look like you have more backend so therefore the stacked drills do tend to appear to have more.
--------------------
Doug Sterner
Doug's Pro Shop
Owego, NY
http://dougsproshop@aol.com
www.dougsproshop.net
Hide the women and children...
The Dirty Bomb cometh!!!
Now accepting VISA/MC and Discover for your purchases

Ric Clint · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2004, 07:38:13 PM »

quote:
the guy you talked to is correct.

a 1:30 drill will give an arcy backend reaction whereas a stacked drilling will be more sharp and coninuous

The sharp break makes it look like you have more backend so therefore the stacked drills do tend to appear to have more.

Doug,

So are you saying that a stacked drill should have more backend? Because I found this 1:30 to have more backend and continuation than the stacked ball.

I'm confused...

TheBowlingKid25 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2004, 07:40:54 PM »

Not more backend, a sharper break point. Just because one snaps and one arcs doesnt mean the snappy one has 'more' backend, just a smoother one. All in all, they would probably hook about the same, one just makes a hard turn while the other arcs softly.
--------------------
16 years and still going strong! 16 years old that is!

The names Warrior Princess, Xena..Warrior Princess
And why would I "saw" pins in half, THATS A WASTE OF PINS!

a_ak57 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2004, 07:41:41 PM »

Well, isn't the "MB" in the messenger extremely weak? I mean, the drilling instructions are based off of CG placement. So isn't MB overshadowed by the CG? If that's true, then you would think the 4 x 3.5 ("weak" MB) would be stronger than the 4 x 5, since it's closer to that leverage position.

Just my take on it. But, I'm just a newbie with (as i see it) little understanding in these matters.
--------------------
-Andy

Brunswick Unofficial Amateur Staffer

Re-Evolution · « **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2004, 08:21:12 PM »

quote:
a mb near the track area, for a high axis rotation bowler will snap more than anything else, because it does maintain axis rotation for much longer.

That is not always true. I have a high degree of axis rotation and a 105Â° drilling doesn't snap at all for me because it doesn't loose rotation fast enough.
That is why I said that it is a combination of the bowler, ball, and condition.

The circumstance that stated do not tell us enough information to say why the "weaker" MB placement seems to be stronger. It could be any of the above variables that is causing it.
Example:
Ric could be loosing rotation to quick or too slow for the ball to have a strong reaction in the backend and the other guys ball is setting up at just the right time to have maximum reaction in the backend. If we had high quality video of the two we could maybe spot a difference in the way the two balls are rolling in the late midlane to determine why the "weaker" drilling has more backend.
The condition is the primary variable here and one just happens to get a stronger backend reaction than the other due to differences in their styles.

--------------------
STORMIN1

Burak Natal · « **Reply #7 on:** November 01, 2004, 05:21:50 AM »

Guys, have anyone of you noticed what a_ak57 just wrote?

Yes, in balls with high mass bias, location of the MB dictates the reaction shape. That's something you all know and just talking on..

However, Messenger Ti Pearl B/S/P is symmetrical ball with relatively no or weaker mass bias which will definitely has no effect on the ball. Therefore there is no MB question regarding the topic.

quote:
I compared it to my friend's SAME ball, with the PIN in the same spot..

Ric,
I'm sure you know that, being in the same spot does not always mean the same distance from PAP, since PAP location changes from bowler to bowler.

Furthermore, CG placement and static weights has no or minimal effect on reaction in symmetric balls, other than dictating the balance hole location and size..

So, instead of typing the very same things I will just quote Stormin1:

quote:
It is a combination of the bowler, ball, and lane conditions.
If you switched ball or played on a different condition it may be the opposite or even more difference..
..
The condition is the primary variable here and one just happens to get a stronger backend reaction than the other due to differences in their styles.

Burak

Ric Clint · « **Reply #8 on:** November 01, 2004, 05:37:52 AM »

quote:
Ric,
I'm sure you know that, being in the same spot does not always mean the same distance from PAP, since PAP location changes from bowler to bowler.

But when I throw each ball they would be in the same exact spot for my PAP, wouldn't they? Our PAP's are similar, but besides that, the PIN is in the same place on my ball as it is on his ball, so when I throw his, it's basically the same PIN position as mine.

quote:
Furthermore, CG placement and static weights has no or minimal effect on reaction in symmetric balls, other than dictating the balance hole location and size..

Correct... but what about core relation to the bowlers track? Even if we take the MASS BIAS out of the equation, and just look at the PIN and CG... well, the core is still shifted in a 1:30 direction, which I was always told was a weak drilling? Am I making sense or am I confused? I want to get this figured out so I'll know more about this stuff with future ball layouts.

Edited on 11/1/2004 6:40 AM

Burak Natal · « **Reply #9 on:** November 01, 2004, 06:02:06 AM »

quote:
But when I throw each ball they would be in the same exact spot for my PAP, wouldn't they? Our PAP's are similar, but besides that, the PIN is in the same place on my ball as it is on his ball, so when I throw his, it's basically the same PIN position as mine.

That is possible of course. However having the same PAP location with others does not mean you have the same axis rotation and axis tilt. Style still can be different..

quote:
Correct... but what about core relation to the bowlers track? Even if we take the MASS BIAS out of the equation, and just look at the PIN and CG... well, the core is still shifted in a 1:30 direction, which I was always told was a weak drilling? Am I making sense or am I confused? I want to get this figured out so I'll know more about this stuff with future ball layouts.

Hope we could have FAQ or at least we could search for previous posts from months ago. We wouldn't have to get back some very same subjects over and over. In symmetrical balls, CG placement does not effect the core position as much to have a "significant" effect on the reaction. Please note "significant". Again the static weights do not have "significant" effect on reaction with todays cores and covers.. This is a common consensus as far as I'm concerned. From my experience, this is 100% correct.
Please go to http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=66041&ForumID=18&CategoryID=5 and read the example given by stanski

However, due to the different weight distribution perceived by the bowler caused by static weights, one can release the ball in slightly different manner. For instance, some can feel more comfortable with finger weight while some others with thumb weight..

Hope this helps,
Burak

Edited on 11/1/2004 7:10 AM

Edited on 11/1/2004 7:11 AM

Strider · « **Reply #10 on:** November 01, 2004, 12:07:47 PM »

You might be throwing your friend's ball a little different without knowing it. If the span or pitches aren't exactly the same, you might be coming more around the side of the ball, delaying the hook for the backend. Also, 1:30 drillings retain their axis longer (as others have pointed out). IF there is enough dry, these balls can have a big backend. Your original ball has the cg kicked a little right, so that makes the ball want to read the midlane a bit earlier than the 1:30 drilled ball. For my style, I don't like 1:30 drills. When there is enough dry, they have a monster backend whick looks nice, but is hard to control, but once carrydown starts, they get very over/under.
--------------------
Penn State Proud

Ron Clifton's Bowling Tip Archive

T-GOD · « **Reply #11 on:** November 01, 2004, 02:53:21 PM »

My interpretation would be that a strong drilling works on oil, a weak drilling doesn't work on oil.

Because a 1:30 layout goes longer, it's weak on oil. Thus labeled a weak drilling/layout.

A ball that is strong on oil, hooks sooner. But a ball that goes longer will hook harder on the backend when it does hook.

Therefore, when the lanes are drier, a weak drilling will hook more on the back than a strong drilling, because the strong drilling burns up.

Hopefully this makes sense. =:^D

channel surfer · « **Reply #12 on:** November 01, 2004, 09:16:46 PM »

People say 1:30 drillings are weaker, which I find to be false.

I find this to be ball dependent, and also depends on the pap, obviously stated several times above.

But 1:30 drillings usually give strong backends

--------------------
www.csbowling.vze.com

www.bowlersdream.com - save an additional $3 off any $100 order by simply typing in CSB into the coupon code area at checkout.

channel surfer · « **Reply #13 on:** November 01, 2004, 09:17:33 PM »

quote:
My interpretation would be that a strong drilling works on oil, a weak drilling doesn't work on oil.

Because a 1:30 layout goes longer, it's weak on oil. Thus labeled a weak drilling/layout.

A ball that is strong on oil, hooks sooner. But a ball that goes longer will hook harder on the backend when it does hook.

Therefore, when the lanes are drier, a weak drilling will hook more on the back than a strong drilling, because the strong drilling burns up.

Hopefully this makes sense. =:^D

I second that.
--------------------
www.csbowling.vze.com

www.bowlersdream.com - save an additional $3 off any $100 order by simply typing in CSB into the coupon code area at checkout.

LuckyLefty · « **Reply #14 on:** November 06, 2004, 12:49:41 AM »

I third the esteemed T-God!

More midlane with cg out gives hook set look.

Less midlane with cg under grip leads to less hook in midlanes and more flip at back. Still will have ones feet more to the right with 4 X 5 due to later start of hook.

REgards,

Luckylefty

Author Topic: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK? (Read 5059 times)

Ric Clint

I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

Re-Evolution

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

Doug Sterner

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

Ric Clint

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

TheBowlingKid25

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

a_ak57

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

Re-Evolution

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

Burak Natal

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

Ric Clint

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

Burak Natal

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

Strider

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

T-GOD

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

channel surfer

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

channel surfer

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?

LuckyLefty

Re: I thought MB left of thumb was suppose to be WEAK?