Author Topic: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls (Read 7741 times)

Coolerman · « **on:** July 06, 2011, 11:53:04 AM »

http://www.bowlingdigital.com/bowl/node/9819

JustRico · « **Reply #16 on:** July 07, 2011, 01:37:23 PM »

Stan did not mean to make it personal...it just when people talk about moving the mass or core..the core is centered under the pin, it does nto take an enormous amount of shifting the core to create a pin on the surface.

The views and opinions expressed by myself are solely those of mine and NO one else, nor are they affiliated with anyone else.

Pinbuster · « **Reply #17 on:** July 07, 2011, 02:51:44 PM »

I don't understand why everyone gets so jacked up about the static weight rule.

Any driller with a modicum of talent and scale can hit the static weight limits.

And if you are so sure that statics don't matter then why does the static rule matter? The limit shouldn't effect your ability to impart the ball motion you are looking for.

I feel the USBC continues to study the rule because there is some opinion out there who feel the rule should be changed, mostly so they can just punch holes in a ball and forget it.

SKIDSNAP · « **Reply #18 on:** July 07, 2011, 03:32:59 PM »

Shoot me a link to the article....

JustRico wrote on 7/7/2011 1:24 PM:
Stan you have no clue what you are talking about....you do not move the core what so ever...to create a 1" pin out or 1oz of top weight, the core is shifted a 1/32" off the true center of the bowling ball....one thirty second of an inch. You really think that influences ball motion?

And you really want to defend that they needed to go back and waste monies on another ALL important 6 month test? SERIOUSLY?

The USBC needs to start using ALL the frickin league bowlers that they have employed in Texas to actually go out and get people to start bowling again. Ball motion studies and ball dynamic regulations are NOT...I reitterate... NOT GOING TO BRING BOWLERS BACK TO THE GAME....these limitations & studies honestly probably impact 5% of all sanctioned bowlers.

Try and follow golf's lead on having free lesson days at bowling centers for juniors & parents. Go to a golf course during the summer and see how many kids are playing...many for free if they walk.

Try and do something with all the so-called talent they have hired to start promoting the game to EVERYONE and try to do whatever possible to get them in bowling centers. Help eductate owners and managers on how to keep the bowlers once they get them back in the centers.

They need to start using some of the $50 million a year working budget for something NO? Their model is as they lose bowlers, rais the dues to compensate.

Read the article Bill Vint wrote on what has transpired inside the USBC in the past 10 yrs or so and see where your dollars are going....too many wanna-be chiefs and NO indians doing the job to get bowlers back.

The views and opinions expressed by myself are solely those of mine and NO one else, nor are they affiliated with anyone else.

dwandel · « **Reply #19 on:** July 07, 2011, 03:50:35 PM »

I was present at the Ball Motion Task force meeting when the second report was given last month. The "white noise" showed up only in extreme cases. In the second set of tests, the "white noise" only showed up in two out of 15 cases and they were extreme imbalances. The "white noise" only showed up at 5.22 oz. of negative side and a combination of 3.5 oz of negative side and 3.5 oz. of bottom. The USBC has not abandoned this project. Because of the data produced, they do have to do additional research before they can propose legislation. This is how science works. It didn't turn out to be as simple as it was first hoped it was, but there is a possible solution after additional research is completed. The goal is still to guarantee consumers that if they have a drilled ball with the USBC approval star on it, the ball cannot be made illegal unless the coverstock is chemically altered. I hope this better explains what is going on.

This quote is from Mo Pinel in regards to this study.

dwandel · « **Reply #20 on:** July 07, 2011, 03:50:46 PM »

I was present at the Ball Motion Task force meeting when the second report was given last month. The "white noise" showed up only in extreme cases. In the second set of tests, the "white noise" only showed up in two out of 15 cases and they were extreme imbalances. The "white noise" only showed up at 5.22 oz. of negative side and a combination of 3.5 oz of negative side and 3.5 oz. of bottom. The USBC has not abandoned this project. Because of the data produced, they do have to do additional research before they can propose legislation. This is how science works. It didn't turn out to be as simple as it was first hoped it was, but there is a possible solution after additional research is completed. The goal is still to guarantee consumers that if they have a drilled ball with the USBC approval star on it, the ball cannot be made illegal unless the coverstock is chemically altered. I hope this better explains what is going on.

This quote is from Mo Pinel in regards to this study.

JustRico · « **Reply #21 on:** July 07, 2011, 03:52:24 PM »

http://host.madison.com/pdf_9e0fd200-c40c-11df-a017-001cc4c002e0.html

The views and opinions expressed by myself are solely those of mine and NO one else, nor are they affiliated with anyone else.

The Bowling Pariah · « **Reply #22 on:** July 07, 2011, 10:18:15 PM »

.

Unless they plan on limiting ALL the factors involved, keeping this set of rules is almost asinine in its nature.

I agree that there should be limitations on equipment, maybe even some that are more stringent than the current ones, and to choose to keep these static weight rules, while ignoring the ones that have far more influence, is ignorant. Why even bother?

JustRico · « **Reply #23 on:** July 08, 2011, 05:35:48 AM »

As I have stated befoore, it is there way of justifying their existence in the universe which translates to them justifying their salaries. It gives the defense, as well as appearance, that they are doing something if nothing else. There are way too many chiefs running around, that have amazingly huge egos. Instead of trying to find ways to get bowlers back, they rather stand around and show everyone what they are trying to do to control ball motion and/or reaction when in the big scheme of things...means NOTHING.

The views and opinions expressed by myself are solely those of mine and NO one else, nor are they affiliated with anyone else.

SKIDSNAP · « **Reply #24 on:** July 08, 2011, 05:54:58 AM »

Ignoring the ones that have far more influence is not what they are doing at all. What an incredibly ignorant statement.

It is only in the last five years that the factors that influence ball motion have been quantified. Any changes in the rules will require changes on the part of the ball manufacturers. Some of these changes could result in new engineering practices that might increase the price of each ball made and /or might have an effect on bowling centers as well.

If a major change is made then how do you deal with the equipment that is currently on the market?

There is a great deal of responsibility that comes with the rules and specifications department that has an influence over all of the bowlers. To say that they are ignoring other factors is just irresponsible on your part.

You would like USBC to snap their fingers and "fix" things... the world does not work that way.

The static weight argument started well before the ball motion study was released.

The USBC did make changes in the rules regarding RG and RG Differential. Factors that have more influence than static weights.

They are getting there.

I personally feel they are too focused on the balls. There are basically only 2 pin manufacturers. Much easier to change the scoring pace by changing the pins versus changing the balls.

They also have clearly identified that oil patters as a cause for higher scores but no one has the guts to implement an across the board policy flattening out the patterns used in your local center.

The static weights study put to rest an argument that has been going on this site for years.

Now we know how much CG matters.

The Bowling Pariah wrote on 7/7/2011 10:18 PM:
.

Unless they plan on limiting ALL the factors involved, keeping this set of rules is almost asinine in its nature.

I agree that there should be limitations on equipment, maybe even some that are more stringent than the current ones, and to choose to keep these static weight rules, while ignoring the ones that have far more influence, is ignorant. Why even bother?

Brickguy221 · « **Reply #25 on:** July 08, 2011, 06:33:47 AM »

+1

JustRico wrote on 7/6/2011 8:04 PM:
What I love about this whole story is that the USBC wasted monies for 6 months study the overall effect of static weights in ball motion.

The USBC has a working budget of approx $50 million a year and this is what it is going to...the best part of this whole study is in another few years, the way bowling is going....this will be totally irrelevant due to there will be NO bowlers left.

Why doesn't the USBC maybe try to figure out ways to spend these exuberant salaries in bringing bowlers back to the sport instead of worrying about these so-called issues....talk about a waste of monies. Individuals trying to justify their existance in the universe....

The views and opinions expressed by myself are solely those of mine and NO one else, nor are they affiliated with anyone else.

**********************************************************************

"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away."

Brick

Steven · « **Reply #26 on:** July 08, 2011, 08:18:27 AM »

First, I want to say I agree with Rico's take on what's important here. I've battled him as much as anyone on the board regarding the importance static weights. But what's more important than anything else right now is getting more bowlers onto the lanes. Shame on the USBC for not focusing on what's most important in keeping the game healthy.

To Skid.... What study are you referring to that put the static weights argument to rest?

SKIDSNAP wrote on 7/8/2011 5:54 AM:
The static weights study put to rest an argument that has been going on this site for years.

Now we know how much CG matters.

DON DRAPER · « **Reply #27 on:** July 08, 2011, 10:30:05 AM »

I agree with SKIDSNAP it that the bowling pin itself has not been looked into enough. Heavier, solid bodied pins would make carry much more difficult and as a result scores would dramatically go down. However, I also feel that heavier, solid bodied pins may NEGATIVELY effect juniors, seniors, and many women.

JustRico · « **Reply #28 on:** July 08, 2011, 10:38:11 AM »

As I stated before, look at golf they are doing everything possible to get new golfers into the game...giving them lessons and programs for kids.

Also Steven for ONCE we agree! Can it get any better! And for the record, Steven I am a true believer in that if you feel it helps your game and improves you scores, so be it. I am a big believer in the psychological side of the game and I believe this may feed into it.

Golf, a couple of years ago, was considering enlarging the hole from 4 1/4-4 1/2" to 6"....and mark which courses have these sized holes, to speed up play and help lower scores...I am glad they chose not to.

The views and opinions expressed by myself are solely those of mine and NO one else, nor are they affiliated with anyone else.

kidlost2000 · « **Reply #29 on:** July 08, 2011, 01:49:15 PM »

The USBC isn't the only one that should be trying to get new bowlers.

I think this falls heavily on the local bowling centers. We have one that has a manager that doesn't want to deal with the youth bowlers, because it is extra work, and does the very least to promote bowling at all. The results over the past few years is obvious in how the places is ran, and the numbers falling off in this same period.

30 mins away is a slightly newer center with a new manager that is running all kinds of promotions to get people to bowl. They had youth state tournament there, they have the high school teams bowling there, had a college womens tournaments during the spring, they promote the sport to everyone and as a result have leagues starting to fill up and get waiting list. They promote specials for leagues, for open bowlers, for anyone that will come to try and grow the sport, but that is also money in their pockets, It doesn't makes sense not to.

So I think a lot falls on the center as well as any business. If you want to get new bowlers, promote it. The world is full of free mass advertising with twitter and facebook. What more can you ask for except a little effort

Be good, or be good at it.

Author Topic: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls (Read 7741 times)

Coolerman

USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

JustRico

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

Pinbuster

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

SKIDSNAP

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

dwandel

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

dwandel

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

JustRico

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

The Bowling Pariah

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

JustRico

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

SKIDSNAP

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

Brickguy221

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

Steven

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

DON DRAPER

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

JustRico

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls

kidlost2000

Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls