Author Topic: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC (Read 18471 times)

Luke Rosdahl · « **on:** December 18, 2017, 11:33:23 AM »

First of all, personally I don't care. If it's legal, I'll bowl with it, if it's not, I won't, don't care. I think USBC is missing a chance to differentiate recreation from sport though. The average bowler doesn't get patterns. Yeah the blue oil looks cool on the PBA shows, but there's no blue oil at league, so they have no basis for comparison. You can show them lane graphs and pictures, but until they actually see it AND bowl on it, they're not going to get it or understand. HOWEVER, it's really easy to understand the difference between college baseball players using aluminum bats and the pros using wood, and it's nothing that has to be explained to be understood. All you have to say is that the pros have equipment restrictions, they can't use the balls that make it "easier" to score like league bowlers can, because when people see pros using the same balls they do bowling on lanes that look the same as theirs, they see no difference.

Now the issue for the manufacturers becomes that they lose advertisement for balls that aren't legal for use on the PBA, but I really don't think the PBA has much influence on ball purchases anymore. Literally not once in the last three years have I had anyone come into the shop and say, "I want the ball -insert random pro- won with the other day." I could be wrong, but 10-15 years ago, that happened all the time. Somebody would win with a ball on a Sunday, and Monday I'd have people in there wanting one. Now it seems to be primarily consumer and manufacturer driven.

This idea makes sense to me, continue with the current specs, but put spec restrictions on equipment for use in higher level competition. The funny thing is it doesn't even matter, most people I know use equipment that's inside the new rumored specs anyway, not going to hurt my feelings, but it could hurt manufacturers who all the sudden lose maybe a couple ball lines, and more limited specs means more limited reactions which means more limited choices which means less revenue most likely. There NEEDS to be a bolder line between recreation and sport, and it needs to be achieved without adjusting the recreation side.

JazlarVonSteich · « **Reply #61 on:** December 20, 2017, 10:29:55 AM »

Quote from: BossTull on December 19, 2017, 06:08:01 PM

.045 Diff once the grace period is over who is going to enforce it. Leagues , tournaments? You would have to have stats on every ball then weight them. Diff by weights may vary and may or may not be within limits Take the Hy-Road 16 is.058 15 is .046 14 is .037. Track Logix 16 is .040 15 is .046 and 14 is .048. So some weights are legal some are not. Just to suggest a Diff limit .045 and give a grace period is crazy.

This is what I was wondering. Since I throw 14, my Hy-roads are under .045 differential. Would all balls be banned just because 15 and 16 are over, or would the lower weights be allowed? How would you police that? And how do you think someone who throws 15 or 16 would feel that their hy-road is now illegal, but others are not? Especially those who are just casual league bowlers.

HackJandy · « **Reply #62 on:** December 20, 2017, 10:33:23 AM »

Chad would just say everyone needs to shell out hundreds more on new equipment and quit whining. That will do wonders for the sport especially since the grey beard loyalists are barely hanging on as it is. Sure they want to buy lots of new equipment.

rocky61201 · « **Reply #63 on:** December 20, 2017, 03:43:39 PM »

if/when USBC publishes their new rule on maximum diff, Storm should re-release all of the now banned balls but just tweak the diff to make them USBC legal.

Then give them all the same names but call them USBC version 2.0 or maybe name them Chad Murphy Specials. Then make them smell like ass.

giddyupddp · « **Reply #64 on:** December 20, 2017, 09:08:05 PM »

USBC puts these new rules into affect what stops the
Ball companies start their own league sanctioning body partnering with BPAA? Have a sanction fee of $10. They can have the same concepts of 3 levels of league: standard, competitive, and scratch. Come up with oil patterns for each that the BPAA would agree to and ball standards that are capped where balls made today meet and revisit both standards every year to tweak but not go backwards. Come up with awards and programs that cater to each type of bowler. The ball companies and the proprietors should work together and both know more about the sport or entertainment aspects of bowling far more than the dumb asses at the USBC.

Who needs the USBC???
It can go just like that and the USBC becomes a thing of the past. And no one would miss it......

HackJandy · « **Reply #65 on:** December 20, 2017, 09:17:23 PM »

^^^^ this needs to happen yesterday.

lilpossum1 · « **Reply #66 on:** December 20, 2017, 09:27:12 PM »

Quote from: rocky61201 on December 20, 2017, 03:43:39 PM

if/when USBC publishes their new rule on maximum diff, Storm should re-release all of the now banned balls but just tweak the diff to make them USBC legal.

Then give them all the same names but call them USBC version 2.0 or maybe name them Chad Murphy Specials. Then make them smell like ass.

I'll take a Paradox Black Neutered version please

itsallaboutme · « **Reply #67 on:** December 21, 2017, 05:18:52 AM »

Sanction leagues, come up with lane patterns and ball standards and have an awards program for $10. An existing organization can't do it for $10 and you think a new startup organization could?

Impending Doom · « **Reply #68 on:** December 21, 2017, 07:48:33 AM »

Payment should be much more, and I'd be happy to pay even $100 a year for a sane sanctioning body.

leftybowler70 · « **Reply #69 on:** December 21, 2017, 08:14:04 AM »

This ^^^^

Luke Rosdahl · « **Reply #70 on:** December 21, 2017, 08:28:13 AM »

Yeah this is something I've been harping on for years. What can ANYONE do with $10? It probably costs them half that just to enter your information into the computer and issue your sanction card. People want some really dumb stuff for 83 CENTS A MONTH. If I gave you 83 cents a month, what could you do for me? 83 cents isn't even worth the hassle of carrying it around in your pocket.

Maybe it would be rough to charge it all at the same time, but what if it was like a monthly membership? I'd pay $10 a month to belong to an organization that was an actual organization, but to be fair, I don't know how much of an organization USBC can be on $10 a YEAR. People want to complain about Chad Murphy, but on $10 a year, that's all they can afford. You get what you pay for. USBC sucks, but they don't have the money to be better.

Quote from: Impending Doom on December 21, 2017, 07:48:33 AM

Payment should be much more, and I'd be happy to pay even $100 a year for a sane sanctioning body.

Impending Doom · « **Reply #71 on:** December 21, 2017, 09:26:42 AM »

Quote from: Luke Rosdahl on December 21, 2017, 08:28:13 AM

Yeah this is something I've been harping on for years. What can ANYONE do with $10? It probably costs them half that just to enter your information into the computer and issue your sanction card. People want some really dumb stuff for 83 CENTS A MONTH. If I gave you 83 cents a month, what could you do for me? 83 cents isn't even worth the hassle of carrying it around in your pocket.

Maybe it would be rough to charge it all at the same time, but what if it was like a monthly membership? I'd pay $10 a month to belong to an organization that was an actual organization, but to be fair, I don't know how much of an organization USBC can be on $10 a YEAR. People want to complain about Chad Murphy, but on $10 a year, that's all they can afford. You get what you pay for. USBC sucks, but they don't have the money to be better.

Quote from: Impending Doom on December 21, 2017, 07:48:33 AM
Payment should be much more, and I'd be happy to pay even $100 a year for a sane sanctioning body.

I think part of the problem is the perceived diminished return on investment. Most people bowl for 36 weeks a year sanctioned. Most people don't care about the other 16 weeks. They're not bowling. They've gotten used to multiple rings for shooting 800 and 300 on the China, and when USBC finally came to their senses about awards, people get angry. "It used to cost me $10 a year to get my yearly 300 ring where I can spray and pray the ball and exhibit the minimum amount of skill, and now I only get one!!!"

Years of USBC giving away stuff, along with soft league conditions, has lead us here. There is no "fixing" USBC in it's current state. "You want me to bowl on something tougher AND pay more? I'm not paying USBC for that!!"

Instead, USBC needs to be where the bowlers whom enjoy the GAME reside. After all of this talk, there HAS to be a separate sanctioning body that is for the SPORT of bowling ONLY. Make it cost alot! Make the benefits great too! "Oh, you're a member of USBC? Open bowling is $3." "Oh, you're a member of *insert new association name here*? Open bowling is $1.50. Would you like to bowl on something you would like to learn on, or on the house shot?"

There's a difference between saying you're a pro baseball player and saying you go to the batting cages to mess around.

I'll sign up right now for $10 a month to be able to compete and grow and learn as an athlete. No need for paper newsletters. Email blasts. Save printing costs.

BeerLeague · « **Reply #72 on:** December 21, 2017, 09:32:52 AM »

I advocate for rules to toughen up the league conditions.

Return to the days where you needed to have a score validated by the local sanction body with lane tapes before an honor score is approved.

Does it have to be dead flat .... NO. But less taper and ramp would be a welcome change. Wet/Dry SUCKS anyway.

milorafferty · « **Reply #73 on:** December 21, 2017, 09:55:26 AM »

Sorry, but as has been said before. League bowlers DO NOT WANT
TOUGHER conditions. Making the shot tougher is not going to save bowling.

What is so f'ing hard to understand about that? Bowling proprietors want to make a profit, so they give bowlers the conditions they want, otherwise, those bowlers to go a house that will, or quit bowling entirely.

If you think I'm wrong, get off your complaining, lazy asses and start up some sport pattern leagues...oh and enjoy that night alone in the bowling alley because bowlers have proven over and over again that they just aren't going to do it. You MIGHT get a decent(or even full league) the first season, but probably not. And if you do, it will be empty the next year.

Luke Rosdahl · « **Reply #74 on:** December 21, 2017, 10:01:24 AM »

"Here's what I want. I as a family man with kids in school, busy constantly, money going everywhere constantly, etc., what I want when I go out for recreation is to have to drop a grand on equipment, and I want something that really challenges me to the point where I have to find extra hours in the week and extra money in the bank to really go practice and focus on my mechanics and spare game. Then of course I need tape with copper in it and compression sleeves and rolls of KT tape, after I spend several hours watching videos on how to properly apply it, just so that I can feel good about myself shooting 200 on a 'tough' condition, or so I don't get condescended to or called a house hack anymore, or yelled at for 'screwing up someone else's line because I'm a dumbass.' That's the dream right there. Yeap, that's what I really want."

- Said no one ever. Case closed.

Quote from: milorafferty on December 21, 2017, 09:55:26 AM

Sorry, but as has been said before. League bowlers DO NOT WANT
TOUGHER conditions. Making the shot tougher is not going to save bowling.

What is so f'ing hard to understand about that? Bowling proprietors want to make a profit, so they give bowlers the conditions they want, otherwise, those bowlers to go a house that will, or quit bowling entirely.

If you think I'm wrong, get off your complaining, lazy asses and start up some sport pattern leagues...oh and enjoy that night alone in the bowling alley because bowlers have proven over and over again that they just aren't going to do it. You MIGHT get a decent(or even full league) the first season, but probably not. And if you do, it will be empty the next year.

HackJandy · « **Reply #75 on:** December 21, 2017, 10:17:36 AM »

Quote from: Luke Rosdahl on December 21, 2017, 10:01:24 AM

"Here's what I want. I as a family man with kids in school, busy constantly, money going everywhere constantly, etc., what I want when I go out for recreation is to have to drop a grand on equipment, and I want something that really challenges me to the point where I have to find extra hours in the week and extra money in the bank to really go practice and focus on my mechanics and spare game. Then of course I need tape with copper in it and compression sleeves and rolls of KT tape, after I spend several hours watching videos on how to properly apply it, just so that I can feel good about myself shooting 200 on a 'tough' condition, or so I don't get condescended to or called a house hack anymore, or yelled at for 'screwing up someone else's line because I'm a dumbass.' That's the dream right there. Yeap, that's what I really want."

- Said no one ever. Case closed.

Quote from: milorafferty on December 21, 2017, 09:55:26 AM
Sorry, but as has been said before. League bowlers DO NOT WANT
TOUGHER conditions. Making the shot tougher is not going to save bowling.

What is so f'ing hard to understand about that? Bowling proprietors want to make a profit, so they give bowlers the conditions they want, otherwise, those bowlers to go a house that will, or quit bowling entirely.

If you think I'm wrong, get off your complaining, lazy asses and start up some sport pattern leagues...oh and enjoy that night alone in the bowling alley because bowlers have proven over and over again that they just aren't going to do it. You MIGHT get a decent(or even full league) the first season, but probably not. And if you do, it will be empty the next year.

+1

Author Topic: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC (Read 18471 times)

Luke Rosdahl

A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

JazlarVonSteich

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

HackJandy

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

rocky61201

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

giddyupddp

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

HackJandy

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

lilpossum1

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

itsallaboutme

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

Impending Doom

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

leftybowler70

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

Luke Rosdahl

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

Impending Doom

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

BeerLeague

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

milorafferty

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

Luke Rosdahl

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC

HackJandy

Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC