win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Degree vs. MB to PAP  (Read 5694 times)

Track900

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
Degree vs. MB to PAP
« on: October 30, 2009, 08:24:46 AM »
A debate for the best brightest minds on Ballreviews.  Degree Layout system versus Mass Bias to PAP distance for determining mass bias placement?  Which is better and why?  Feel free to be as technical as you would like.

 

walterrayseggs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
Re: Degree vs. MB to PAP
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2009, 06:25:28 PM »
Well aren't they the same? Degree system just being pretty universally easier to understand? Lower number, earlier roll ect....?

bluerrpilot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Degree vs. MB to PAP
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2009, 07:24:48 PM »
Degree system is quicker to layout and maybe a bit more accurate
--------------------
"USBC is concerned that technology has overtaken player skill in determining success in the sport of bowling"

http://www.phxbowling.com/acba
http://www.viseinserts.com/

JohnP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5819
Re: Degree vs. MB to PAP
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2009, 10:06:48 PM »
I can (and have) used all the layout systems, but they do the same thing -- exactly define where the pin and cg or mb are located in relation to the PAP and gripping holes.  I have an Armadillo, so it's easiest to use the pin and cg/mb to PAP distances to lay a ball out.  Mo's dual angle system has the advantage of helping match a bowler to a layout.  --  JohnP

Xcessive_Evil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
Re: Degree vs. MB to PAP
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2009, 11:18:58 AM »
If you have been "in the game" for a very long time, then the "new" idea of dual angle isn't really new at all.  Since I really didn't start paying attention to that sort of thing until maybe last year, dual angle makes it alot easier for me to understand.

If that made any sense.  


--------------------
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v690/Phoenix_RsX/Arsenal/

Uroboros will be released into the atmosphere, ensuring...complete...global...saturation.

icefiction

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Degree vs. MB to PAP
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2009, 11:22:30 AM »
degree system is more accurate because the ball is a sphere
--------------------





JohnP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5819
Re: Degree vs. MB to PAP
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2009, 11:34:24 AM »
ice -- In what way is the degree system more accurate?  The same layout can be achieved using any of the systems.  --  JohnP

Track900

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
Re: Degree vs. MB to PAP
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2009, 04:18:50 PM »
Ok, I changed this post in an effort to be more clear.

We''re missing the point.

They are not the same.  For all drilling angles other than 90 and 270 the MB to PAP distance is variable (dependent on Pin to PAP distance).  Hence, the degree system only sets core angle.  How is this method of influencing ball reaction superior or inferior to setting a specific MB to PAP distance?  Please be as technical/specific as possible.  Thank You.

Edited on 10/31/2009 7:09 PM

Edited on 10/31/2009 7:10 PM

Xcessive_Evil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
Re: Degree vs. MB to PAP
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2009, 09:17:58 PM »
They really are the same.  The only "real" difference in my eyes is the technicality involved in the Dual angle system.

The dual angle does more than set the MB position, but sets your pin to val as well.  It may not dictate how early the ball will roll, but will dictate the type of backend you get which is pretty important as well.  Just saying "I have a 4x4 layout and my Pap is this", is unfortunately pretty generic, as this way of stating it is only saying "My pin is 4" from pap, and my mb is 4" pap".  For me, this honestly tells me nothing.  This could be a strong layout, this could be a weak layout.  It depends on the pin to val.

Now, I'll take a ball that I have and say that I have a 55* 5" 65* http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v690/Phoenix_RsX/Arsenal/?action=view¤t=IMG_0001.jpg

After reading Mo's dual angle lecture on his page, this tells me that the 55* is going to give me medium length, with the 5" pin creates large flare-more of the ball making contact with the lane.  The 65* is going to give me sooner, yet continuous backend.  And this is exactly what I got.

Knowing what I know now, they are all the same.  However, pro shops for the most part(in my experience) do not take the time to watch your style and help you pick the best layout for your style or explain why.  They seem to be more concerned with getting your money and tell you what you WANT to hear and not what you NEED to hear.  Yet, I prefer going the DA route because it's honestly easier for me to understand and I know exactly what look I'm going to get and when it's best to use it.
--------------------
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v690/Phoenix_RsX/Arsenal/

Uroboros will be released into the atmosphere, ensuring...complete...global...saturation.

Track900

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
Re: Degree vs. MB to PAP
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2009, 12:24:03 AM »
I understand 4x4 doesn't mean much if some explanation of pin height isn't included.  That is not the point of this thread.

Using a drilling angle is absolutely not the same as setting a specific MB to PAP distance.

Can anyone explain why using core angles (drilling angle techniques) is superior of inferior to using specific MB to PAP distances as a way of choosing MB placement in a layout?  Which method will allow the competitive player with a large arsenal to more easily "create" specific ball reactions to compliment/fill gaps as that player continues to drill balls?

snowspike1

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Degree vs. MB to PAP
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2009, 01:14:22 AM »
Is there more pages to the morich dual angle drill sheet?  I have a high track but my pap is 4 3/4 over up 7/16.

The site has high track with pap of 5 1/4 and more over...

By that i should be a med. track but thats not the case.  My track is no more that 1" from the thumb.

Would like to learn more so i am not left to the mercy of the drillers (not that i dont trust them) (well maybe some).

FrontTwelv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
Re: Degree vs. MB to PAP
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2009, 06:56:58 AM »
quote:
I understand 4x4 doesn't mean much if some explanation of pin height isn't included.  That is not the point of this thread.

Using a drilling angle is absolutely not the same as setting a specific MB to PAP distance.

Can anyone explain why using core angles (drilling angle techniques) is superior of inferior to using specific MB to PAP distances as a way of choosing MB placement in a layout?  Which method will allow the competitive player with a large arsenal to more easily "create" specific ball reactions to compliment/fill gaps as that player continues to drill balls?


It seems we are all talking around each other.  The 'degree' system is indeed doing the same thing as the 'length' system.  placing the MB close to the PAP, is the same thing as using a smaller drill angle and visa-versa.
Storm says a 4" MB-PAP is very strong, it's prob right around 45*.  
when you are using the 'degree' system you are putting the core at a specific angle, but so are you when you put the MB at a specific position.
The only way to prove to yourself is go and lay out a few balls, you'll see what I'm talking about.
--------------------
Drew Jordan
Columbus, OH

icefiction

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Degree vs. MB to PAP
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2009, 07:50:11 AM »
degrees are used to measure distances in the 3 dimensional plane where as normal x y cooardinates are used for two dimensonal
--------------------





bluerrpilot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Degree vs. MB to PAP
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2009, 08:41:17 AM »
First lets understand that the MB is a SECONDARY influence on ball reaction.

Yes, they are the same. They are just different ways of achieving the same end result. The angle method is used by drillers because it’s a very easy and accurate way to match a layout to many different bowlers needs.

Using an angle sets the core at a specific strength regardless of a person’s pap coordinates, using a distance does not. That’s what makes the angle method more accurate for drillers. Regardless of the bowler specs (rev rate, tilt, pap, speed)

 If you’re a driller and want a strong layout you could use 45 degrees for just about any bowler type. If your using a distance of 4” from pap for example, that may not put the core in a strong position. It’s not quite the same for the pin to VAL. Pin distance from VAL does not care what the PtoPAP is. We would use smaller distances to get the ball to transition quicker and larger distances to transition slower. But if the degree system is going to be used to layout the ball, the it makes sense to continue to use it to determine PtoVal

--------------------
"USBC is concerned that technology has overtaken player skill in determining success in the sport of bowling"

http://www.phxbowling.com/acba
http://www.viseinserts.com/

Edited on 11/1/2009 9:41 AM

Edited on 11/1/2009 9:41 AM