BallReviews

General Category => Drilling & Layouts => Topic started by: DP3 on August 21, 2006, 01:52:25 PM

Title: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: DP3 on August 21, 2006, 01:52:25 PM
Is anyone going back to basics?  After looking at my long list of equipment and taking notes of gaps in what reactions I needed and was looking for I came to realize that just about everything is a bit too exotic, layout wise.  I am revamping everything I have for the fall season.  The only two balls I am keeping from last season are a Rush and Classic Zone which both have the same type of layout.  I'm staring at 4 balls that I have to punch before next week when leagues start and I think I'm just going to go back to basics instead of trying all the fancy mumbo jumbo.  Anyone else going back to basics(ex. label leverage no x-hole, pin over bridge, pin near axis)?
--------------------
- DP3
Hoss Central Inc.
Respect the Game
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: Juggernaut on August 21, 2006, 10:06:02 PM
You've hit the nail on the head for me, so to speak!  For the last couple of years, the shop here has developed a taste for strong drills and has lots of people convinced now that the new balls just won't act right unless they are drilled to "flip" on the backends.

  Lots of balls in our house now have high pins over the bridge with the c.g. at 45* and the m.b. STRONG!

  After a year of fighting the reaction I am getting, I am going back to basics myself this year.  I am going to get a couple of balls, maybe 3 at most, and drill them with a basic label drilling and just use surface adjustments for carrydown issues.

  Tired of fighting the wild hooking, monster flipping, powerballs they've been drilling up here lately.  Maybe a saturn, venus, and mercury all drilled alike for rolling, arcing backends WITHOUT the "snap" off the dry boards.
--------------------
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein



Edited on 8/21/2006 10:00 PM
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: charlest on August 22, 2006, 03:02:46 AM
DP3,

My philosophy has almost always been that ball designers do not design balls so that you need to drill it with the PAP at 5" or at 2". If a ball overreacts when you put the pin at 4" or so from your PAP, then you bought the wrong ball.

Somewhere around 4-7 years ago, ball reps began suggesting that the Pros use their company's strongest (therefore their most expensive, therefore their biggest moneymakers, therefore their best balls) balls and put the pin at 6" from their PAP solely so they could them on the short, light oil that the PBA put out. Somehow this strange method caught on at the pro shop level and seems to have become the norm:

Drill the strongest ball you can super-weak and use it on the lightest oil you can.

Hey, virtually anything works for the bowler's with great games; We lesser skilled mortals -- not so much.

I say, buy the right ball for the condition on which you intend to use, for your style. Drill it with your favorite drill. Have one other drill for alternatives. Then bowl already.

We will all make mistakes in choosing the wrong ball once in a while. We will all want to try some fabulous new ball and force it to fit in whether or not it really does. Then you can try some exotic drill to make the ball usable for you. Otherwise, stick to basics.

Yeah, it's a bitter pill to swallow - buying only those balls suitable for your release/style/ballspeed plus your lane condition, but a sadder and wiser man am I.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."


Edited on 8/22/2006 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: Noy on August 22, 2006, 03:45:20 AM
This topic has always concerned me.  I've been told by many that drill layouts on different balls should complement each other, so it wouldnt be so great to drill each ball the same.  But my thinking is, if you have 3 or 4 different balls that are supposed to give different looks down the lane due to their different covers, wouldn't it just be easier to eliminate the layout aspect of it all by drilling everything the same, then using your knowledge of each coverstock/ball reaction to decide which ball is best to use?  For instance:

Action
Black Widow
Radical Inferno
Equation

4 balls, all have different reactions and cater to different oil patterns.  Why would it be so bad to drill each ball the same?
--------------------
Bowling Since March 2006 - "Get coaching, don't worry about it"...blah blah balh...Just answer the questions please

Arsenal:
Storm Agent
Soon:
Action
Radical Inferno
Track Equation
Black Widow (May replace the Action or RI)


Turkey Adobo (Me and my friends' bowling site)
http://turkeyadobo.multiply.com
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: dizzyfugu on August 22, 2006, 03:47:18 AM
Hmmm, concerning league/tournament I am conservative, too. I find myself bagging those balls that work best for me and which yield the most stable/predictable reactions.
For medium conditions, pin 1" above the ring finger and CG/MB stacked works pretty well, on almost any ball so far.

I had my Sahara and Vicious Attack set up this way in my bag 2 weeks ago when I joined my club's championship, and these balls bombed me all the way to an obverall 3rd place in my average group with a total average of 190 through 16 games. Worked so well because I could switch between these balls (and my sanded Pure Hammer which has become a nice, arcing Sahara alternativ) at will and play lines between 2nd and 3rd arrow, adjusting to the changing lanes. It was just great and worked out the way I had planned it!

I think it is important to set up competition balls in a conservative fashion. It is a consolation to have balls at hand of which you know that they work for you, and how, on a wide range of conditions. Specific drills can[/] be a  good thing, but for a tournaments with so many unpredictable factors at hand (especially in a foreign alley), the more "simple", the better IMHO.

This is also a mental thing, and that's at least 50% of knocking down all 10 pins again and again.
--------------------

DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany
Team "X" website & more about me: http://web.mac.com/timlinked/iWeb/X/Thomas.html
"The Future's So Bright I Gotta Wear Shades" - PatMacDonald
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: mab on August 22, 2006, 04:51:07 AM
my entire arsenal is drilled label leverage with slight pin placement differences and i rely on the coverstock differences for lane condition changes to tell me which ball is right for that particular time. the big plus is i now am not moving all over the lane and making all the other hand,speed,release changes and scores are booming. it has simplified the game tremendously.
--------------------
X's for show, /'s for dough
ROTO GRIP  KING OF THEM ALL
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: DON DRAPER on August 22, 2006, 10:37:00 AM
i've been doing this for years. i use two(2) different drilling patterns on my equipment: both have the pin right next to the ring finger. the balls for heavier oil have the cg and/or mass bias stacked, and there is a hole down near the right thumb quadrant. the other balls have the cg swung towards the grip center to avoid a hole. i then rely on the surface preparation of the coverstock for the rest. i think bowlers( and some pro shops ) are making this way too complicated.

Edited on 8/22/2006 10:32 AM
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: Goof1073 on August 22, 2006, 11:58:43 AM
A great example of utilizing a few basic layouts with surface adjustments can be seen within Jeff Carter's aresenal (all be it he has more than a few to pick from though):

http://www.jeffcarterbowling.com/Arsenal2.html
--------------------
-Chris: DJ's Pro Shop : Auburn, MA
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: shelley on August 22, 2006, 12:03:52 PM
What about the notion of drilling your strong balls strong and your weak balls weak?  I agree that buying a strong ball and killing it with a 6" pin-to-PAP distance and eight coats of polish seems silly given that a lot of other balls naturally suit that condition.  

But what about drilling a ball to enhance it's built-in characteristics?  Balls that are designed to be long and strong (a la the Xception or X-factor), give them pin-up drillings with strong MB placements.  Balls that are early and arcy like the UI, give them pin-down, MB-towards-VAL layouts.

SH
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: BigHorhn on August 22, 2006, 01:00:33 PM
Ditto what GREG HOPPE said. I read on here last week I think that, you really don't need anything stronger for the house shot than a label drill. Sure I have stuff with the cg and mass bias in strong positions with weight holes in the thumb area, but I can't use them on just any shot. I also think that as my release has gotten better, I don't need anything crazy. I've gone through a lot of bowlingballs just to figure that out. Including a couple already this season.
I plan of separating the reaction on my bowlingballs by the surface (reactive, particle, solid or pearl) and go with the same drill (label). 2cents
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: charlest on August 22, 2006, 01:47:06 PM
quote:
What about the notion of drilling your strong balls strong and your weak balls weak?  I agree that buying a strong ball and killing it with a 6" pin-to-PAP distance and eight coats of polish seems silly given that a lot of other balls naturally suit that condition.  

But what about drilling a ball to enhance it's built-in characteristics?  Balls that are designed to be long and strong (a la the Xception or X-factor), give them pin-up drillings with strong MB placements.  Balls that are early and arcy like the UI, give them pin-down, MB-towards-VAL layouts.

SH


I disagree.

Enhancing a strong ball and weakening a weak ball, at the very least, spreads their utility further apart. A weak ball is already weak; often this means a very low RG differential and a high RG. Making the RG higher and reducing the RG differential by  weaker pin position seem to have little obvious effect other than giving you yet another exotic drilling to kepe track of.

The same goes for putting a very strong drill, like rev-leverage, on an already strong ball. It makes useless on anything except a total flood and how often do you face that?

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: CoachJim on August 22, 2006, 02:27:13 PM
I would suggest finding a pin to pap distance that works best for you and just change the pin buffer (distance from the midline to the pin) to match the characteristics of the ball for instance my favorite pin to pap distance is
4 3/8" and in a ball that flips I would use a 3 1/2 to 4" pin buffer in a pin out ball which would put the cg close to the mid line and the pin above the fingers and on a ball that has arc characteristics I would use less of a pin buffer like 1 to 1 1/2" in a pin out ball which puts the cg on the mid line and kicked toward the pap or in the thumb positive quadrant if I want more flare, and the pin is below the finger holes. These drillings help enhance what the ball is designed to do.

For refference I am a medium rev bowler around 300 to 350 rpm. If you have more revs you will probably need a longer pin to pap distance and if you have less revs you will need a shorter pin to pap distance.

Then you have your extreme condition balls like Charlest was talking about ie the 6" pin above the fingers drilling in a weak ball for extreme dry and a leverage drilled aggressive ball for floods, but for an every day arsenal that fits 90% of most condtions, you will do well to buy balls that fit the condition or reaction that you are looking for and drill the ball to enhance what the ball wants to do. This way you will be less likely to have duplicate balls in your arsenal.
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: JohnP on August 22, 2006, 03:45:13 PM
CoachJim -- Now, I may be wrong, but I think pin buffer is the distance from the pin to the VAL.  I did a quick check at a couple of we sites but didn't find a definition.  Pin height is the distance from the pin to the midline.  Please let me know if this is right.  --  JohnP
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: RSalas on August 22, 2006, 03:49:00 PM
Layout NoMadDah?
--------------------
...formerly "The Curse of Dusty," and "Poöter Boöf" before that...
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: Bluff on August 22, 2006, 03:58:46 PM
quote:
Is anyone going back to basics?  After looking at my long list of equipment and taking notes of gaps in what reactions I needed and was looking for I came to realize that just about everything is a bit too exotic, layout wise.  I am revamping everything I have for the fall season.  The only two balls I am keeping from last season are a Rush and Classic Zone which both have the same type of layout.  I'm staring at 4 balls that I have to punch before next week when leagues start and I think I'm just going to go back to basics instead of trying all the fancy mumbo jumbo.  Anyone else going back to basics(ex. label leverage no x-hole, pin over bridge, pin near axis)?
--------------------
- DP3
Hoss Central Inc.
Respect the Game



Unless diffrent pattern every 4 weeks why bother with Fanncy layout????  Lable drilling will do best on THS
--------------------
an undrill ball for me is like having hot naked chick in front of me and not have sex with her! Yea I got Balls!!!


Edited on 8/22/2006 3:53 PM
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: kmanestor22 on August 22, 2006, 05:19:15 PM
Label leverage works great on the THS, but when there is actually oil outside you see a lot of buckets and 2-10's.  Also, when the house shot breaks down (2nd shift), the lanes become wet/dry and label leverage goes through the nose if you get it out too early.  Label leverage on a strong ball can lead to a hook/set reaction for bowlers with a ton of revs.  There's is nothing wrong with any drilling, as long as it's used on the right conditions or for the right bowling style.  Having the basics along with some condition specific drillings can make a hell of an arsenal.
--------------------
Where is the bait?  I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: CoachJim on August 23, 2006, 03:43:46 AM
quote:
CoachJim -- Now, I may be wrong, but I think pin buffer is the distance from the pin to the VAL. I did a quick check at a couple of we sites but didn't find a definition. Pin height is the distance from the pin to the midline. Please let me know if this is right. -- JohnP  


The guy who drills my equipment showed it to me and is how he does it which is where I got these measurements, I think he got it from one of Storm's drilling sheets and prefered doing it that way instead. I have also heard it measured from the VAL, but of course that would be different measurements than what I gave and without the proshop tools at my disposal here to go and measure myself, I can't give those to you.

I personaly don't see a difference one way, you measure down from the pin and put a mark for your midline, and the other you starting off by putting a mark up for your val and tracing it around and measuring to the line and putting a mark on the line for the pap at what ever distance you are using to the pin it seems it to me it is a matter of prefference. You could probably do one against the other to double check before you drill if you knew what both distances should be.

Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: JohnP on August 23, 2006, 04:24:10 PM
CoachJim, -- You're right, it's just a matter or terminology.  But if we're not all using the same definitions for terms, we'll have mass confusion.  --  JohnP
Title: Re: Simplifying layouts.
Post by: CoachJim on August 23, 2006, 05:47:01 PM
quote:
CoachJim, -- You're right, it's just a matter or terminology. But if we're not all using the same definitions for terms, we'll have mass confusion. -- JohnP  


Understood, I wasn't getting testy, just clarifying. From now on I will just say pin above, below or on the finger line.