win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***  (Read 32816 times)

BrunsNick

  • Brunswick Rep
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7306
CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« on: April 18, 2007, 12:10:11 PM »
The CGNOMADDAH video is up and running on www.brunsnick.com

Enjoy.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Nick Smith
Digital Media Manager - Brunswick Bowling
http://www.brunswickbowling.com
http://www.youtube.com/c/brunsnick

 

BrunsNick

  • Brunswick Rep
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7306
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #106 on: April 20, 2007, 05:17:46 PM »
Kman,

So where is this mysterious cg sweet spot? I'll be glad to keep punching Buzzsaws in order to find it, just contact Lane #1 and have them keep shipping more. Give me 10 more HRG's, I'll show every degree layout to show they don't do anything different.

Steven,

I've already given a theory on the Brunswick video as to why:

1) The track flare looks to start closer on the negative.
2) Why shots 6 & 7 hooked while 8 held.

The balls were thrown once each before the 8 shots to show the track flare. Negative was first, Positive was second. If your setdown point is exactly the same like Throwbot, then you will not pick up the same amount of oil each shot. Flare separation is the same, bowtie is the same, surface is the same, they are identical. You cannot control the breakdown of the lane.

So while the Negative balls were thrown twice early in the 8 shots, and once prior, it had oil left on the track. Imagine what happens to a setdown point when it is absolutely identical everytime. Now take into account that one ball will have a little oil on the first track flare ring, and the other one doesn't. One will chirp early, and the other will glide easier. It isn't the CG positive causing the ball to go thru the face, it is FRICTION.


--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Nick Smith
Digital Media Manager - Brunswick Bowling
http://www.brunswickbowling.com
http://www.youtube.com/c/brunsnick

kmanestor22

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 969
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #107 on: April 20, 2007, 05:20:57 PM »
quote:
while nick and brunswick have shown that cg has minimal or no effect on ball motion... all the CGMADDAHS have produced is dialogue..until you(CGMADDAHS) come up with some proof other than words there isnt really much to discuss...
--------------------
Hard work pays off in the future, laziness pays off now!
myspace profile...
 http://www.myspace.com/chad__gordon  
 
http://

current arsenal

  super carbide bomb
  solid cobalt
  tsunami
  black xxxl
  raw toxic
  total NV
  smashtime pearl
  black ice

MEMBER OF THE F.O.S.

Edited on 4/20/2007 5:10 PM

Edited on 4/20/2007 5:11 PM


What PROOF has Brunswick or BrunsNick shown?  If there was irrefutable proof, there would be no debate!
--------------------
Where is the bait?  I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer

kmanestor22

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 969
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #108 on: April 20, 2007, 05:24:40 PM »
quote:
Kman,

So where is this mysterious cg sweet spot? I'll be glad to keep punching Buzzsaws in order to find it, just contact Lane #1 and have them keep shipping more. Give me 10 more HRG's, I'll show every degree layout to show they don't do anything different.

Steven,

I've already given a theory on the Brunswick video as to why:

1) The track flare looks to start closer on the negative.
2) Why shots 6 & 7 hooked while 8 held.

The balls were thrown once each before the 8 shots to show the track flare. Negative was first, Positive was second. If your setdown point is exactly the same like Throwbot, then you will not pick up the same amount of oil each shot. Flare separation is the same, bowtie is the same, surface is the same, they are identical. You cannot control the breakdown of the lane.

So while the Negative balls were thrown twice early in the 8 shots, and once prior, it had oil left on the track. Imagine what happens to a setdown point when it is absolutely identical everytime. Now take into account that one ball will have a little oil on the first track flare ring, and the other one doesn't. One will chirp early, and the other will glide easier. It isn't the CG positive causing the ball to go thru the face, it is FRICTION.


--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!



I'll contact Lane #1 and then you could contact Brunswick to send me a couple Furys and Ebonite to hook me up with a camera and a laptop loaded with DigiTrax so I can make a definitive CGMADDAH video!!!
--------------------
Where is the bait?  I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer

BrunsNick

  • Brunswick Rep
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7306
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #109 on: April 20, 2007, 05:26:52 PM »
DigiTrax > CATS?

News to me.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Nick Smith
Digital Media Manager - Brunswick Bowling
http://www.brunswickbowling.com
http://www.youtube.com/c/brunsnick

strikealot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1485
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #110 on: April 20, 2007, 05:50:20 PM »
there is no debate..you said perfectly....CGNOMADDAH....until you prove otherwise...
--------------------
Hard work pays off in the future, laziness pays off now!
myspace profile...
 http://www.myspace.com/chad__gordon  
 
http://

current arsenal

  super carbide bomb
  solid cobalt
  tsunami
  black xxxl
  raw toxic
  total NV
  smashtime pearl
  black ice

MEMBER OF THE F.O.S.
~<:-0======"IN CG WE TRUST" i chant as i pray to the static weight God...======

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #111 on: April 20, 2007, 06:51:26 PM »
Nick: Thanks for reiterating your explanation. I accept your reasoning as possible, but I wish there was a way of determining an absolute yes or no. It would probably require an endless number of tests that no-one wants to get into. It's just when you do tests yourself (I have for my own curiousity) and experience something that can be seen, even if its small, you tend to question. Regardless, nice work on your effort. It was a good job.

As far as Mav..............

 
quote:
Time to lay it all out, forgive me if I offend anyone.
 


The definitve voice. I knew something was coming.

 
quote:
Lets get this out of the way first, Steven you have showed no inclination of experience or education in the matter of controlled, objective, and empiric testing. I laugh whenever I see your uneducated assumptions based on single cases within an entire case sample.


LOL. Mav, you know nothing about my "inclination of experience or education in the matter of controlled, objective, and empiric testing". I do this for a living (IT infrasrtucture for institutional investment management), where serious money is at stake if we make errors in systems and infrastructure compliance testing. I run a department with lots CS degreed people who actually enjoy thinking, and we know how to develop test cases and conditions that hold up to the scrutiny of SAS 70 level compliance audits. So please, spare me the school yard lectures.

 
quote:
You're pointing out outlyer cases, comparing them, and trying to imply a conclusion based on no knowledge of the ENTIRE shot, or what is going on like ball speed, oil wear, surface friction, coverstock temperature, etc. These assumptions based on a small sample bases are ludicrous, and completely out of line, especially to ignore the core of the experiment and the majority of the cases presented over multiple shots.


Mav, you're trying to get eligent. Just a little advice -- simpler is usually better. Anyway, I thought the whole point of using Throwbot was to minimize variables, especially over the short span of 8 shots. I've acknowledged the role that oil and surface friction may have played. But you're going overboard with all the factors you referenced. This isn't a league night with 5 bowlers spraying shots all over the lane. If Brunswick can't manage consistency over the first 8 shots with a Throwbot that should be consistent in every way, there are more issues with the test than I've brought out.

 
quote:
Did you ever think X shot stayed in the pocket and Y shot didnt because the ball speed was slightly different?


Does Throwbot have those types of variances? You obviously have inside information. Please share.

 
quote:
Nick did a damn good job controlling as many variables as possible.
He's not a robot, he doesn't hit the same mark to the millimeter like thro-bot does. You've seen a great human bowler and a robot throw the ball with the same results, its STILL not enough.


I've complimented Nick several times on his production. Most of the recent discussion was how the original Brunswick video played into the whole picture. As far as Nick's abilities, you've never heard me slam him. I've bowled side-by-side with him in a few environments (he doesn't know me), so your pronouncements of his ability is old news.  

   
quote:
There is no statistically significant difference here, I can guarantee it, I've seen many case studies with psychology, statistics, and probability classes. Trust me, if there was a statistically significant difference, the masses would see it.


And I'm supposed to accept this from a guy who's major contribution to this thread is a link to animated dancing bears?

Just stop making this so personal and deal with the questions people ask. Nick didn't have a problem formulating and giving answers. In the future, you might want to try the same.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

Edited on 4/21/2007 9:06 AM

DON DRAPER

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5576
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #112 on: April 20, 2007, 07:23:10 PM »
my view on this subject had always been that the position of the cg made little difference since the surface of the ball makes the majority of the difference when it comes to ball reaction. the placement of the pin would make the biggest difference as far as the drilling pattern goes.

on 2/12/05 i had my biggest night of bowling----a monster 847 series with games of 289-289-269. my choice of weapon that night was a brunswick zone classic. this ball was appx. 7 months old and had been resurfaced with a haus machine and run through the rejuvenator the day before. the coverstock was finished off with a 2,000 grit abralon pad and a coat of brunswicks high gloss polish. this ball was drilled with the pin butted right up against the ring finger, the cg was swung ever so slighly towards the grip center, and the psa locater pin was just below the middle of the thumbhole. no balance hole.

i knew during shadow balls i was throwing the ball well and i could tell that this ball gave me a great reaction. i was able to use my bread-and-butter style of a down and in shot straight down 6-7, appx. 18mph, and appx. 20-25 degrees axis rotation.

game #1....i had the first 10 and 7 of them were high flush, the other three were a messenger 10, a rip the rack, and a very quick tripped 4. the 11th shot was a ringing 10, probably the best shot all night. the 6 pin went around the bottom of the 10 pin, not around the top of the 10. probably a bad rack or bad luck.

game #2....i had the first 10 and 6 of these were high flush, the others were 2 swishing 7's that fell late, one solid 9 that got tripped out by another pin, and a messenger 10. the 11th shot was another ringing 10, this time where the 6 pin flew around the top of the 10 pin.

game #3....i left a flat 10 in the first frame....probably threw it a little too hard. had the next 6 as they were all high flush. had another flat 10 in the 8th....again, maybe a hair too much speed. then struck out, all high flush

well, that was some night for me. 847 was and is a great night for anybody. everything was in perfect sync that night----me physically and the ball i was using was the perfect choice as well.

would the position of the cg and the addition of a balance hole made enough difference to carry those four 10 pins ? i doubt it very much. i've asked several learned people this question as well. one is a man who bowled at wichita state in the mid 1990's and has coached the national team of a middle eastern country. another man bowled at nebraska and is now the head of r&d for a bowling ball company. both of these men say it wouldn't have made any difference. i tended to agree with their opinions then and i still agree with them now more than ever.

Edited on 4/20/2007 7:24 PM

MegaMav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #113 on: April 20, 2007, 07:57:37 PM »
The marginal benefit of a response is not worth the marginal cost of moving my fingers.

Keep living in your static dream, you've convinced yourself its a reality.

DON DRAPER

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5576
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #114 on: April 20, 2007, 08:13:23 PM »
when all bowlers had was a hard rubber ball it's too bad they didn't know or care that much about the surface of the ball. most bowlers( even the world class ones )didn't carry a dull one for oily lanes and a polished one for drier lanes. that makes perfect sense to me. i doubt static weights had little if any effect on these balls either.

leftehh- LG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #115 on: April 20, 2007, 10:53:28 PM »
This whole subject is stupid and people who believe CG ALONE matters is SILLY! ..oh and they are stupid also
--------------------
Bowl to Win!

kmanestor22

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 969
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #116 on: April 20, 2007, 11:53:07 PM »
quote:
DigiTrax > CATS?

News to me.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!



Never said it was better.  Never had the opportunity to use either.  Just a more affordable route to go.  Like I said before, I commend you, Nick, for doing this to prove to yourself that what you believe is true.  Now that you have see that for yourself, I know that there is no amount of arguing or video evidence that would change your mind.  I have seen for myself that what I believe is indeed true.  That is why I will not accept what you have done as proof nor can I expect anything I do or say to be proof enough for anyone else that hasn't tried it themself.  I will say kudos, Nick, on the effort.  I will go as far as to say that you might have even done a better job than Brunswick.

To the guys backing Nick without trying it yourself: put up or shut up.
--------------------
Where is the bait?  I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer

BrunsNick

  • Brunswick Rep
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7306
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #117 on: April 21, 2007, 04:53:42 AM »
kman,

Just like with the X-hole video, I didn't need to do the test to find out answers. The point of the video was to display the results to the world. Telling isn't selling, so I make videos to show my art.

In the near future, I'll put out a video showing the correct usage of CG's in modern day equipment. And not too far beyond that, I will be working on some big projects with some guru's and other big wigs in the industry.

Exciting times are ahead!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Nick Smith
Digital Media Manager - Brunswick Bowling
http://www.brunswickbowling.com
http://www.youtube.com/c/brunsnick

novawagonmaster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4279
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #118 on: April 21, 2007, 06:31:24 AM »
*Manamunup!*
I love the Muppets!
Nice vid Nick.
--------------------
Jon (in Ohio)
CHROME WON'T GET YOU HOME!
F.O.S. Proud Saw user...see profile.


Edited on 4/21/2007 6:31 AM

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #119 on: April 21, 2007, 09:03:01 AM »
Lane1bowler: Our thoughts on this are largely the same, and you've mostly laid out much of what I had already said. But in fairness to Nick, he did address (from his view) the Brunswick video with regard to shots 7 and 8:

 
quote:
The balls were thrown once each before the 8 shots to show the track flare. Negative was first, Positive was second. If your setdown point is exactly the same like Throwbot, then you will not pick up the same amount of oil each shot. Flare separation is the same, bowtie is the same, surface is the same, they are identical. You cannot control the breakdown of the lane.

So while the Negative balls were thrown twice early in the 8 shots, and once prior, it had oil left on the track. Imagine what happens to a setdown point when it is absolutely identical everytime. Now take into account that one ball will have a little oil on the first track flare ring, and the other one doesn't. One will chirp early, and the other will glide easier. It isn't the CG positive causing the ball to go thru the face, it is FRICTION.


Give Nick credit for an attempt at a credible explanation. The Brunswick groupies who follow him around like lost puppy dogs haven't done anything but  toss mud (and play pen toys within reach).

In essence Nick is saying that accumulated oil on the negative ball surface overrode the effect of the drying out track on the lane. In many ways, this defies logic of what we see on lanes in the real world. And worse, Big B's CGNOMADDAH video crumples like a cheap house of cards if he's wrong. That's why I still have doubts. But again, at least give Nick credit for trying.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #120 on: April 21, 2007, 09:16:16 AM »
First off, everyone agrees that the CG mattered back in the day with weak differential, 3-piece pancake core urethane balls. Is that correct Nick and Rick..?

If that's the case, then the CG will matter with a 3-piece resin ball. Correct..?

A 3-piece pancake core was just a big round ball with a heavy puddle at the top of the core.

Now, if you shrink that down to a smaller, denser round ball in the center with a higher density puddle/knob on the top, does that automatically mean the CG doesn't matter anymore..? =:^D