Like all debates, this one has been going in a million different directions. My personal interest has been to analyze testing methodologies used in the original Brunswick test and the follow-up Nick test. I find it fascinating in the real world how the brightest and most credentialed can have major flaws in testing methodology (regardless of discipline), and Brunswick, as well as Nic, fell into the quicksand pit of inadequate controls.
The whole CGNOMADDAH thing is a nit in the overall scheme of things. There are at least a half a dozen items more important in setting up a ball, so this whole argument is an academic exercise in the obscure and insignificant.
However, if Brunswick is going to bring it up in videos, and if Nic is going to build a career out of peddling CGNOMADDAH cups and t-shirts
, then it's a challenge to look further into it.
I've done a CGNOMADDAH test in the past on Stingers. Yesterday, I had a second solid Uranium drilled up identical to my first to revisit the issue. Both of my Uraniums are drilled with the pin 4.5" from PAP (below the ring). On my first the CG is 5.5" from PAP (label leverage in grip, no X-hole required). On the new second, went with the CG 3.5" from PAP. Before drilling an X-hole the second for USBC legality, I took it out to lanes for a comparison test.
In fairness, there was little difference between the two Uraniums. But however small, there was a difference. The new CG-out Uranium did set up slightly sooner in the mid-lane. Not much, but there all the same. And the flare lines, while very similar, were slightly different. On the CG-out drill, the inside oil line was slightly further out from the thumb than on the label leverage drill.
I know the nay sayers will point out the uncontrolled variables in the test, my lack of skill, inconsistent shot making, failing eye sight, etc. But one of the advantages of being a 230 house hack, using a ball you know intimately, and testing in a house where you know the reaction characteristics of every lane and every shift, you know subtle variances when you experience them.
Are the differences large enough to make a big impact in the overall scheme of things? No. Are the differences large enough to consider when setting a ball up for the reaction (hook shape) you want to achieve? Yes, at least when you get to certain level.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"