Author Topic: Spin Time on The One? (Read 6853 times)

scotts33 · « **on:** March 05, 2006, 02:27:21 AM »

So does anybody know? Brick asked this question but not sure anybody really knows.

http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=113579&ForumID=5&CategoryID=2
--------------------
Scott

Jeffrevs · « **Reply #16 on:** March 13, 2006, 06:32:59 AM »

Brick,
If I remember correctly, ....king of the mill has answered your question in detail in another post a while back. The issue you're seeing is being affected by the drilling and how the ball is matching up. A low RG, fast spin time ball CAN match up with you if drilled correctly....period
--------------------
JEFF
"...nowhere is the dreamer, or the misfit so alone...."

charlest · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2006, 06:39:59 AM »

quote:

quote:
But I'd bet the driller was not there on the alleys when you found those balls didn't work for you either.plus they don;t have your style, so, by your logic, they can't know either.

Sorry, you are wrong again here. It appears by your logic that these low spin time balls will work for anyone which is not true.

where in heaven's name could you possibly have gotten this idea from??

quote:

You have been around long enough that I know that you know that all balls don't match up to everyone, whether you want to admit it or not regardless of whether they are low spin time balls or not low spin time balls or Lane 1 balls or etc.
quote:
It never did guarantee every ball will work for every bowler. There are far too many factors involved.

Aha..... You said here in your own words that....."It never did guarantee every ball will work for every bowler. There are too many factors involved." Well, the low spin time balls is "one of those balls".

That rationale does not justify placing all these balls into that category. That's just too bizarre!

--------------------
"...for advice is a dangerous gift, even from the wise to the wise...."
J. R. R. Tolkien

Brickguy221 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2006, 10:45:05 AM »

quote:
where in heaven's name could you possibly have gotten this idea from??

It is obvious from what you have said during out discussions here.

quote:
That rationale does not justify placing all these balls into that category. That's just too bizarre!

Unless there is a rationdale on your part, there is none as we've been discusing 3 balls of which I own.

--------------------
Brick

Edited on 3/13/2006 11:04 AM

Brickguy221 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2006, 10:59:47 AM »

quote:
Brick,
If I remember correctly, ....king of the mill has answered your question in detail in another post a while back. The issue you're seeing is being affected by the drilling and how the ball is matching up.

Jeff, I don't believe 7 different drillings could all be wrong.

quote:
A low RG, fast spin time ball CAN match up with you if drilled correctly....period

Jeff just remember, all balls don't match up to everyone regardless of how drilled or who drilled them.

--------------------
Brick

BackToBasics · « **Reply #20 on:** March 14, 2006, 09:24:17 AM »

quote:
Jeff, I don't believe 7 different drillings could all be wrong

If you use basic pin distances of 6", 5", 4", 3", 2" and then use just 3 basic MB placements (30*, 45*, 75*) you have 15 different drills. This is not even considering weighthole placements and midline distances. So that means you have at least 8 more to try

I don't know what layout's you've tried or what factors you're using to determine that they don't work for you (nor do you indicate why) but it definately sounds like a drill mismatch. I've seen strong MB balls work extremely well for all styles, especially low speed/low rev women in our area (MoRich was king until the One came along).

Edited on 3/14/2006 10:24 AM

charlest · « **Reply #21 on:** March 14, 2006, 10:35:55 PM »

Brick,

I will not participate in "apparent" dialogues or discussions where you ignore facts and factors that are inconvenient to your position.

If you want to see ONLY what you want to see, then I can no longer be of any help to you. I have spent hours typing posts and private messages to you explaining many facets and factors involved in ball reactions. You ignore what I have told you when it does not agree with what you think you have seen, without your giving 2 seconds worth of thought to the entire picture I have endeavored to draw for you. I cannot deal with a reality of convenience. You just cannot pick and choose the facts of your belief system. Live by facts or live by faith. Your choice.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
(That includes me too, at times!

)

Brickguy221 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 14, 2006, 11:36:02 PM »

quote:
Brick,

I will not participate in "apparent" dialogues or discussions where you ignore facts and factors that are inconvenient to your position.

If you want to see ONLY what you want to see, then I can no longer be of any help to you. I have spent hours typing posts and private messages to you explaining many facets and factors involved in ball reactions.

Charlest, this is all fine and dandy with me to cease communications between you and I. I do thank you for help you have given me in the past, but on this topic we have been discussing here, all I have heard from you is your telling me I am wrong and don't know what I am talking about and so forth. And maybe so, and maybe not, but that isn't what I call help/advice, that is called critizm. You are entitled to your beliefs of which I have no problem with that. I am entitled to mine also. While you have been doing that, others have messaged me wanting details so they might help fix my problem. I have given them details and they are trying to help.

quote:
You ignore what I have told you when it does not agree with what you think you have seen, without your giving 2 seconds worth of thought to the entire picture I have endeavored to draw for you.

lol.......Since when does this mean you are always right?

quote:
I cannot deal with a reality of convenience. You just cannot pick and choose the facts of your belief system. Live by facts or live by faith. Your choice.

Then don't deal with it. I am dealing with actual happenings and not opinions of how it should be. I am going to repeat here what I said in my post Sunday........."The bottom line is I am not going to discuss this with you any further as regardless of whether you agree or disagree or you understand or don't understand, I really don't care as it is I and not you that knows what works and doesn't work for me so as far as I am concerned, further discussion of this topic is fruitless."........Now let me finish by saying that this is all I am going to say about this. If you want to say more, so be it, but this is all for me.

--------------------
Brick

Edited on 3/15/2006 0:44 AM

chitown · « **Reply #23 on:** March 15, 2006, 12:48:07 AM »

After reading the reply on this post I have come to the conclusion that most of you guys have said that Brickguy is wrong with saying that 5sec spin times have nothing to do with matching up to a bowler.

I have also read that his layout is what caused the balls not to match up for him.

I'm sorry guys but all of you are off base. Listen some balls just don't match up well for certain bowlers. That is a fact. I'm not reading that from you guys though. The way you guys talk any asymmetrical ball will work for any bowler as long as it is drilled correctly for that bowler. That is BS!

Some balls match up well for a particluar bowler and some do not. That's like saying the Xception from Track is a great match for every bowler in the world. The bolwer just has to have it drilled correctly. What crap.

Listen the guy has tried 3 balls and had them plugged and redrilled many times. He didn't like the reactions from any of the layouts on these balls. The one thing these balls had in common were 5 sec spin times which he read from the manufactures site. So he has stayed clear of these type of balls.

I have had success with 3 asymmetrical balls. I have tried about ten of them. I have deducted from experiance that I prefer symmetrical balls. Why is it that symmetrical balls seem to work better for me than asymmetrical? I guess by what you guys have said it's because I had them drilled wrong. I think not. I feel that the cores themselves along with the covers just didn't work well for me. I seem to have a lot better luck with symmetrical balls.

So some bolwers match up better to certain balls and layouts than others.

BackToBasics · « **Reply #24 on:** March 15, 2006, 09:26:40 AM »

quote:
I'm sorry guys but all of you are off base

No, we're not.

quote:
Some balls match up well for a particluar bowler and some do not. That's like saying the Xception from Track is a great match for every bowler in the world. The bolwer just has to have it drilled correctly. What crap

That's a specific ball and not a type (i.e low RG, strong MB, low flare).

chitown · « **Reply #25 on:** March 15, 2006, 04:11:03 PM »

quote:
quote:
I'm sorry guys but all of you are off base

No, we're not.

quote:
Some balls match up well for a particluar bowler and some do not. That's like saying the Xception from Track is a great match for every bowler in the world. The bolwer just has to have it drilled correctly. What crap

That's a specific ball and not a type (i.e low RG, strong MB, low flare).

No the xception has the goo ls cover which I don't match up well with. I also tried the delta and once again I don't match up well with. So I will never buy any ball with the goo ls cover.

Smae as brickguy. He didn't match up well with low spin time balls. So he will not try any of them again.

How come some bowlers wont buy low rg equipment? Because those types of balls don't work well for them. I have seen this time and time again.

I'm sorry bud but I have to disagee that brickguy just had the wrong drill layout for the 3 balls he didn't do well with. Now does this mean it was because of the spin times? No that may not be the case but not every bowler will match up to every ball. I don;t care how many different layouts are tried.

Now from the replys to his comments I have read that most feel he didn't have the right drill layout. I didn't once read that may be he just didn't match up to the rg or the core or the cover combitnation. All I read was that he didn't have the correct layout. I'm sorry but that is saying the balls would have worked for him if they were drilled different. Wrong we don't know that.

So he will stay away from low spin time balls because he feels they don't work for him. I stay away from any ball with the goo ls cover because that cover sucks in my opinion. Why take a chance on a ball with that cover if I have struck out with two balls with that cover. I wont gamble on a 3rd ball with that cover. Why should Brick guy gamble on a type of ball he has had bad luck with? He should just stay with what works for him. Just like myself I will stay with what works for me.

Greg T · « **Reply #26 on:** March 15, 2006, 04:35:01 PM »

All this crap cracks me up. How did everyone pick balls 3 years ago??? Spin times??? Whats that?? Thats what you heard three years ago. Spin times dont mean sht. You look at the rg, the diff, and strength of the coverstock and make a choice. Spin times are nothing but hype. As soon as the ball is drilled the spin times are changed anyway. And, depending upon the layout, the spin times are higher or lower than undrilled. So, what do we do next? Change all the layouts to mid spin time, low spin time, and long spin time layouts?? How rediculous.

BackToBasics · « **Reply #27 on:** March 15, 2006, 07:01:16 PM »

quote:
No the xception has the goo ls cover which I don't match up well with. I also tried the delta and once again I don't match up well with. So I will never buy any ball with the goo ls cover.

How do you say it's the cover you don't match up well with when both balls have very strong MB? Your taking one aspect and eliminating all the rest when that cover very well may work in a low RG symmetrical (ala Artillery). I tried the Xception 4 different ways before I got it right. Then it became one of my favorites and on paper it's not a ball that I normally would like since I have a high rev count and high axis rotation (pearl and strong asymmetrical). I just had to match the layout to what the ball was designed to do and what I wanted it to do.

The GOO cover is one of Track's best resin covers but if you want to eliminate it that's your prerogative. And unfortunately, you'll miss out on some great balls if you take one spec of a ball and assume that was the reason you didn't matchup.

O-Zone · « **Reply #28 on:** March 15, 2006, 08:50:51 PM »

A-Chappy is 100% dead-on, and Charlest isn't far behind. To blatantly disregard their knowledge, which has come from numerous balls tested and hundreds of questions from other bowlers, not to mention plain COMMON SENSE, is utter BS and one of the reasons why I mainly lurk and refrain from posting these days. Not to be rude, but there are too many brash individuals and trolls for me to post everyday anymore.

Greg T · « **Reply #29 on:** March 15, 2006, 09:46:01 PM »

You really think so? Then I'll make this challenge. Take some of your favorite balls, if you still have them, and spin them. See if they are all the same. Also, take some you didn't like much, spin them. I'll bet you find something very perplexing. You'll end up with with high and low times in the likes and the dislikes. Spin won't matter. Guaranteed.

--------------------

Manfred von Richthoffen for moderator!!!

chitown · « **Reply #30 on:** March 15, 2006, 10:26:37 PM »

quote:
quote:
No the xception has the goo ls cover which I don't match up well with. I also tried the delta and once again I don't match up well with. So I will never buy any ball with the goo ls cover.

How do you say it's the cover you don't match up well with when both balls have very strong MB? Your taking one aspect and eliminating all the rest when that cover very well may work in a low RG symmetrical (ala Artillery). I tried the Xception 4 different ways before I got it right. Then it became one of my favorites and on paper it's not a ball that I normally would like since I have a high rev count and high axis rotation (pearl and strong asymmetrical). I just had to match the layout to what the ball was designed to do and what I wanted it to do.

The GOO cover is one of Track's best resin covers but if you want to eliminate it that's your prerogative. And unfortunately, you'll miss out on some great balls if you take one spec of a ball and assume that was the reason you didn't matchup.

Achappy you maybe right. I may have just not matched up well with the strong asymmetrical core. That is very possiable. I guess the only way to test that theory would be to buy the artillery and see if that ball matches up for me. Then if it doesn't I guess someone would say it must be the drilling. That is my point.

The reason I replyed to this post is because people just couldn't understand that Brickguy didn't match up well to the 3 balls he tried that were strong MB balls. Yes he looks at it like the spin times were responsable. That is probably not the case. However to say the only reason he didn't match up to these balls were because he didn't have the correct drill layout is rediculous. There was probably many resons why he didn't match up to those balls not just incorrect layout.

Now back to the Goo LS cover. Yes I didn't match up well to the xception or Delta and that could have been because of the strong asymmetrical cores. It also could have been because of the goo ls cover and not the cores. I owned two xceptions and two Delta's each with different layouts. I also tried many different cover changes and lane conditions. Those balls just didn;t match up well for me. The Xception was just too uncontrollable even with a control type layout. The Delta hit like crap and was uncontrollable a lot of the time just not as bad as the xception. Now others may have had great success with these balls. I didn't!

Achappy I understand what your saying believe me. I have been around this site for a while and have a good understanding of balls. I spent a good amount of money on the xceptions and delta's. I'm not about to spend any more money on a ball with that cover. Yes the artillery could be a great ball but i'm not willing to take the chance. I will just look else where. That is why I gave the Doom from Hammer a try. I wanted to try a different reactive cover and see if I had the same problems. I'm glad I did because I found a really awesome ball. So in a sense if it wasn;t for the goo ls cover I wouldn't have found the Raw Hammer Doom. A blessing in disguise.

Author Topic: Spin Time on The One? (Read 6853 times)

scotts33

Spin Time on The One?

Jeffrevs

Re: Spin Time on The One?

charlest

Re: Spin Time on The One?

Brickguy221

Re: Spin Time on The One?

Brickguy221

Re: Spin Time on The One?

BackToBasics

Re: Spin Time on The One?

charlest

Re: Spin Time on The One?

Brickguy221

Re: Spin Time on The One?

chitown

Re: Spin Time on The One?

BackToBasics

Re: Spin Time on The One?

chitown

Re: Spin Time on The One?

Greg T

Re: Spin Time on The One?

BackToBasics

Re: Spin Time on The One?

O-Zone

Re: Spin Time on The One?

Greg T

Re: Spin Time on The One?

chitown

Re: Spin Time on The One?