In the end, he just ended up zeroing them out. We thought about going 1/8 or 1/16 away, but after playing around on a test ball, we found that we could keep them at zero and still avoid having the holes run into one another.

Yeah, we only went like 1.5" deep for the finger holes.

I'm not committing to going no-thumb permanently, but I am going to dedicate some practice time to. When it's right, it's tough to match the hitting power.

Bill,

1. Yes, the tracking is hilarious. Since it was new to me, I was flipping the ball all around and using all six configurations. As such, the ball had lines going every which way. Clearly, I will have to wipe the ball down after every shot (maybe even using one of the "approved during use" cleaners) and give it a good cleaning after each set: otherwise, that ball can/will have gunk on just about every inch of the surface.

2. We kept the layout pretty basic for this first one. We basically went 12-6, 1:30-7:30, 3-9, and 4:30-10:30. We considered starting with a slight shift off of that in order to bring in different characteristics, but, again, since it was the first ball we've played with like this, we thought it best to stay simple. If we do others, we'll likely play around a bit more.

I definitely saw reaction differences, but it's going to take some time and practice to really hash it out, especially since no-thumb is something that I've just started experimenting with again. For now, it would be more beneficial to watch someone who has a finely-honed no-thumb delivery since he or she can repeat shots better than I can at this point.

On a side note, my driller also pointed out that a doubles team, whether it be two righties, two lefties, or one of each, could use the same ball(s) and simply flip the layouts around as long as their fingers were of comparable size. That would be too funny to watch!

You're certainly not alone in feeling that way, but I respectfully disagree. It still comes down to execution because if you think it's easy to deliver the ball consistently using those no-thumb styles, I challenge you to give it a shot (assuming you haven't).

Also, what is it about no-thumb/two hands that provides the advantage you're speaking of? If you're talking about speed/revs, how is that any different from any other situation where one bowler can create more speed/revs than others? I assume you're going to claim that it takes more skill, technique, and talent to impart that kind of speed and those revs using your thumb, but, again, some would argue that it takes more flexibility and athleticism to deliver a ball using one of the no-thumb styles.

Now, in regard to the specific idea of being able to lay balls out like this, I can definitely understand where you're coming from there since you can theoretically get 18 different ball reactions out of three bowling balls. But still, I can tell you just from the playing around I did last night that that doesn't do you much good if you can't the ball onto the lane properly using that delivery.

In any case, all of this is just a sign of the times in the world of bowling. Now, if we all vote to turn back the clock and take Brian Voss' suggestions - require everyone to use their thumb and use plastic, pancake-cored balls to actually demand shot-making - I'll be right there ready to give it a shot. My first youth leagues were during the urethane days, so I've seen first hand just how much easier the game has gotten as the equipment changed. However, I'm not into shaking my fist at the wind. As such, until/unless those changes are made mandatory, I will adapt rather than spit in the wind and rant about all of the terrible changes that have taken place.

I hear what you're saying, but there are "traditional" bowlers who create huge speed and revs rates too, so don't they have the exact same advantage on those walled-up house shots you're talking about? Plus, you kind of proved my point with the second part you brought up. Sure, some of those two-hand/no thumb guys look great when they have two arrows worth of area to throw at, but when you put them on something tough, they have to execute, or they're done just like everyone else.

That's what I think a lot of people, BV included, seem to miss. You don't automatically gain an advantage the second you take your thumb out of the ball and start putting 650 revs on it. You still have to throw the ball to the right spot, with the right speed, and achieve the right angle in order to score. So, you still have to make shots. Now, if you can make those shots, your carry percentage will probably be better than most due to the speed and revs, but, again, there have always been bowlers out there who are able to generate more speed and revs than others. Was Mark Roth a cheater for hammering on the ball back in the day? Were Robert Smith, Rudy Revs, etc. cheaters because they could do it? Why is doing that with your thumb in okay but doing it with your thumb out wrong? 

I did it for a full year. In terms of how good I got, I shot 1548 at the Open Championships shortly after starting the experiment. The next year, I shot 1740, so, yes, I saw quite a bit of improvement.

I didn't stick with two-handed all that long after the project ended because I lacked the flexibility to ever truly be comfortable using that delivery. Still, I saw some amazing things and had a ton of fun during that experiment!

To me the one thing that nobody ever mentions is the stupid 3 units of oil rule.That was 80s an early 90s.3 units of oil is plenty for urethane balls.Since reactive urethane has came out the rule hasn't changed.Should be at least triple that with the equipment of today.That would fix a lot of guys creating so much margin of error.I know its not gonna change at this point.But I think that's where they missed the boat on all this.Ball companies are the only ones that seem to be profiting.Its really a shame.Got to be be profit when you can come out with 3 to 4 balls every 3 months.When the USBC crumbles I bet Ball companies and the BPAA take over.Oh well is what it is.

I agree with you.  There is so much friction and free hook  outside, and at the back part of the lane, guys can throw the ball 20 + MPH and still have the ball hook and rev up at the pins and carry the world.  There is a speed (I don't know what it is) that after you get past that point you don't even need to worry about entry angle most of the time.  No pin ever gets trapped in the gutter and there is always 1,2 or 3 messengers flying around the deck to take out whatever is standing.  With all these patterns having dry backends, no one has to slow down or change hand position to get the correct roll to get to the pocket and carry.  I thought back in the 90s and earlier, they put the pattern down and then buffed the oil to the pins.  USBC need to mandate 3 units (or more) of oil all the way to the pin decks.  That would make people have to bowl with release and speed control... And yes, I know it will probably cause more ball calls for the mechanics....Just saying they need to do something so that 220+ average isn't the norm.