Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO (Read 32812 times)

BrunsNick · « **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
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

jgreenwd · « **Reply #91 on:** April 20, 2007, 02:22:07 PM »

I figured I'd chime in on this, even though it's a bit late:

1. In the original Brunswick video, they didn't actually say that CG placement had NO effect. They stated that CG placement had minimal and/or statistically insignificant effect.

2. I think most folks watched Nick's video looking for the wrong thing. If anything, the variability in ball placement at the arrows and the breakpoint was a more accurate depiction of the effect of CG placement in a real-world environment. No league bowler can duplicate the effects of ThrowBot. Typical league bowlers display the same amount of errancy that Nick's shots displayed. Instead of looking at the line he was playing, watch where the ball loses its axis tilt. Nick's got enough tilt to make it very visible. Pretty much every shot lost its tilt at the same point downlane. After they lost their tilt, they all reacted similarly.

3. As far as the condition being a factor, so long as both balls were used on the same lanes within a reasonable time frame, then the results are still valid. It may not have been the optimum condition for those balls, but they both had the same plus's and minus's for the condition. With regards to testing in general, the only 100% optimal condition would be to test on completely stripped lanes, since there is then 0% chance of lane breakdown or carrydown. In fact, I'd be interested in seeing ThrowBot tested on those conditions, just as a control condition for the previous Brunswick video. Noone would like the ball reaction, so, it probably wouldn't sell any balls by itself, but it would probably more clearly demonstrate and significantly amplify any actual differences in the respective drillings.

4. There's a whole lot of "lack of respect" that gets tossed around this site, especially in threads like this. Have some class, please. I tend to think behavior in public forums is often a reflection of behavior in public places. If people act like this here, it's no wonder league bowling can't attract enough new customers.

BrunsNick · « **Reply #92 on:** April 20, 2007, 02:23:25 PM »

Mushroom Mushrooooom!
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

Steven · « **Reply #93 on:** April 20, 2007, 02:39:34 PM »

greenwd: Nice post. Just a few comments about the following:

quote:
As far as the condition being a factor, so long as both balls were used on the same lanes within a reasonable time frame, then the results are still valid.

So according to the above, Nick could have conducted the test with a Lane#1 XXXL (plastic with a diamond core). Both test balls would have gone perfectly straight with possibly a couple boards of flare the last few feet. A valid test? I don't think so.

That was my whole point about the ball cover and lane surface match. Unless the match is such that the core has the ability to kick in, the results are suspect.

Now for the next round of dancing animals and blooming mushrooms!
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

JohnnyRocket · « **Reply #94 on:** April 20, 2007, 03:27:58 PM »

RicOH: You have to watch out when you assume because it makes ass/u/me.
But I do think that Nick did a good job in showing that ITDNTMADDAH. There are just people that like to argue and there are others who want to learn.

JR

Edited on 4/20/2007 3:29 PM

kmanestor22 · « **Reply #95 on:** April 20, 2007, 03:28:00 PM »

Somebody please make a cgmaddah video and watch them question the same exact things.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer

jgreenwd · « **Reply #96 on:** April 20, 2007, 03:41:38 PM »

quote:

quote:
As far as the condition being a factor, so long as both balls were used on the same lanes within a reasonable time frame, then the results are still valid.

So according to the above, Nick could have conducted the test with a Lane#1 XXXL (plastic with a diamond core). Both test balls would have gone perfectly straight with possibly a couple boards of flare the last few feet. A valid test? I don't think so.

That was my whole point about the ball cover and lane surface match. Unless the match is such that the core has the ability to kick in, the results are suspect.

Even with the XXXL, the test and results would still be valid. The results aren't invalidated by the condition. The lane condition is just another variable in the equation. In fact, the results would be valid on any condition with any ball. The caveat is that the results from that test are ONLY valid for that condition and the margin of error for applicability towards other conditions increases. If Nick gets the chance to repeat the test on multiple conditions, then, its direct applicability towards other conditions increases and he could narrow down the margin of error.

It boils down to this: was the test instrument used actually testing for the effect he was trying to measure? In simplest terms, yes. Are the results universally uniform and applicable to multiple situations? Not from this specific test run. However, include the original Brunswick test and they begin to apply to more differing conditions. It's the same reason that medical studies do more than one test phase. You have to be able to replicate the results with varying population samples. This specific lane condition and ball combination was just a very small population sample. That doesn't invalidate the results, just limits how much you can use them.

My own personal opinion is that his test holds true for many THS centers. The shot he was playing on seemed rather wet in the middle and amply dry on the outside. That seems the norm around here. So, he seemed to be playing with a pattern that was representative of normal league conditions, with a footnote that it might lean more towards the end of 1st shift, or start of 2nd shift league.

kmanestor22 · « **Reply #97 on:** April 20, 2007, 04:31:13 PM »

In my own test similar to this I have found that Cg does matter TO ME. Most of the time it does not matter enough to consider it, I will admit that. In fact, I throw mostly asymmetrical pieces so that it matters even less. I have stayed silent long enough and I would like to offer the cgmaddah group some rationale behind their complaints about the video.

1. If there was little to no lengthwise taper to the pattern, you would see little to no midlane reaction (grip not flare) out of any polished ball. Furthermore, if Nick was bowling on leftovers, which I do every week, the result of the previous leagues wear would be even more of a top hat than fresh oil. There would be two extremes: wet and dry. Under these conditions, I could easily produce a pin nomaddah video because you are only taking the cover into play if the ball has only two choices: skid or grab. If these balls were tested upon a tapered, blended pattern; you would have been better able to tell whether there was a difference or not. I don't know what type of pattern Nick was bowling on, but it would come into play if in fact cgdoesmaddah.

2. I never agreed with the concept of way negative and way positive in the testing. I stated this months ago when he did the x-hole video and hinted at doing this. It is my theory, that I verified for myself, that the cg has properties not unlike the riser pin. While 3-3/8" from the PAP seems to be the sweet spot for most people to get maximum flare, moving past this point or closer to the PAP weakens the reaction (assuming no x-holes). I believe the same to be true for the cg. The "sweet spot" maybe different for everyone, but moving past it or back from it will produce the same weakening result (again no x-hole). Therefore the offsets in Nick's experiment negate each other. It is my belief that a third one drilled with no side weight would provide a different reaction than the first two. Also, I belief than the cg being above or below the midline also plays a role in reaction much like the pin being above, below or even with the fingers. Again, most of the time the difference is not noticed but it is there.

MORE TO COME.......
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer

Steven · « **Reply #98 on:** April 20, 2007, 04:34:50 PM »

quote:
Just my opinion but I assume you were the kid in class that made sure that the teacher remembered to give homework EVERYDAY.

Ric: I hated homework. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night!

greenwd: As for the following:

quote:
the results would be valid on any condition with any ball. The caveat is that the results from that test are ONLY valid for that condition and the margin of error for applicability towards other conditions increases. If Nick gets the chance to repeat the test on multiple conditions, then, its direct applicability towards other conditions increases and he could narrow down the margin of error.

You're continuing with the nice analysis. However, the above breaks down to a politically correct way of saying all tests have value, even if they are minimal, as long as they're evaluated in the context of additional tests on other conditions. True, but if all we had to go on was a single Nick test, a XXXL demo would prove almost nothing. And all we've had is one HRG test so far.

You've referenced the first Brunswick demo a few times, so I'd like your input on a few things that I can't get a coherent response to from most who have posted.

1) In the video, 'positive' shots #6 & #7 go through the nose, and 'negative' shot #8 is a pocket strike. Could one reason be that since the shot was starting to break down, the true core characteristics of the two balls were starting to be displayed?

2) While minimal, the flare ring patterns were slightly different. The bowtie seemed the same, but the first ring on the negative weight ball was a little closer to the finger/thumb than the positive ball. Could that have possibly explained some of the difference we saw in the last 2 shots?
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

Edited on 4/20/2007 4:45 PM

MegaMav · « **Reply #99 on:** April 20, 2007, 04:46:53 PM »

You can get elegant with words all you want, you still havent proven ANYTHING like what Brunswick and BrunsNick have.

Chirp about it all you want, until you come up with proof that something is occuring with variables controled and independent variables isolated, you're wasting keystrokes.

You're playing devil's advocate here, not a scientist.

Steven · « **Reply #100 on:** April 20, 2007, 04:56:26 PM »

Gee Mav, there is anything 'elegant' going on here. That should be clear to a College educated guy like yourself.

And no waste of key strokes here. I'm asking clarifying questions that folks like you seem allergic to. The original Brunswick test actually had me until some of the question marks popped out toward the end of the test.

Don't get offended because some doesn't automatically take everything Brunswick hook, line and sinker. Extend yourself every once in a while. You might find it invigorating.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

kmanestor22 · « **Reply #101 on:** April 20, 2007, 05:00:55 PM »

I cannot prove anything with words or videos on the internet....and neither can Brunswick or BrunsNick. If you care enough to be right or wrong, try it yourself like I did. Being told something is fact does not make it fact. Believing anything Brunswick says as gospel closes your mind to extreme possibilities (oh great now I sound like Mulder!). Nick gave it a try and believes Brunswick's claim to be true. He cared enough to try it for himself. Trying to make believers out of non-believers with even the amount of effort that he put into the isn't going to change anything. A cgmadduhs video is a REAL possibility. No one, including myself, has put forth the effort to do it.
--------------------
Where is the bait? I'm goin' to jail!!! - Chocolate GAYzer

qstick777 · « **Reply #102 on:** April 20, 2007, 05:05:29 PM »

I'm not sure which side to take. I only know what I saw, but then again I see things all the time.

All this arguing has made me hungry. Time for some strawberry pancakes!
--------------------
FAQ:http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5

Search Ballreviews entire database here: http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html

strikealot · « **Reply #103 on:** April 20, 2007, 05:11:17 PM »

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

jgreenwd · « **Reply #104 on:** April 20, 2007, 05:11:43 PM »

quote:
greenwd: As for the following:

quote:
the results would be valid on any condition with any ball. The caveat is that the results from that test are ONLY valid for that condition and the margin of error for applicability towards other conditions increases. If Nick gets the chance to repeat the test on multiple conditions, then, its direct applicability towards other conditions increases and he could narrow down the margin of error.

You're continuing with the nice analysis. However, the above breaks down to a politically correct way of saying all tests have value, even if they are minimal, as long as they're evaluated in the context of additional tests on other conditions. True, but if all we had to go was a single Nick test, a XXXL demo would prove almost nothing. And all we've had is one Nick test so far.

Don't misconstrue my leanings as being politically correct. I'm just trying to hold true to the tenets of empirical evidence and statistical analysis. On that day, on those lanes, with those balls, the CG placement exhibited no statistical significance. Change any of those variables and who knows. Wacky things happen even under controlled conditions. If you can't reproduce those results, then that day was likely just a fluke - the statistically insignificant result. You can't plan for those kinds of things, and very seldom are able to use them to any advantage or detriment.

quote:

You've referenced the first Brunswick demo a few times, so I'd like your input on a few things that I can't get a coherent response to from most who have posted.

1) In the video, 'positive' shots #6 & #7 go through the nose, and 'negative' shot #8 is a pocket strike. Could one reason be that since the shot was starting to break down, the true core characteristics of the two balls were starting to be displayed?

2) While minimal, the flare ring patterns were slightly different. The bowtie seemed the same, but the first ring on the negative weight ball was a little closer to the finger/thumb than the positive ball. Could that have possibly explained some of the difference we saw in the last 2 shots?

It's been a while since I watched the Brunswick video, but I'll give it a shot. Bear in mind, I only have two affiliations with Brunswick: I throw their equipment (mostly because I can find plenty of it on eBay dirt cheap - and sticking with one manufacturer seems to make ball comparisons easier to me) and I was trained as a ball driller by a pro-shop school which taught using Brunswick's test data and product information.

1. Is it possible that the drilled core characteristics were more amplified in those 2 shots for any reason, including lane breakdown? Sure. Heck, it might even be likely. It could also be just as likely that the previous shot carried enough oil down to give the 2nd shot the length it needed to finish. It goes back to sample size. Everyone seems to be comparing those 2 shots, but they're only 2 shots out of the sample. To really determine if the CG placement was the cause for those 2 particular shots would require more information than you or I have at the moment. What I WILL say though, is that Brunswick has had ThrowBot toss a few hundred - probably few ten thousand - balls. They have a large enough sampling of shots to identify whether or not the CG played a significant role. On some shots, it probably did! Those 2 shots may very well have been examples of those times! But, over the long haul, across a large sampling, the CG placement didn't make enough of a difference to matter to the average bowler.

2. My answer to this is similar to the above. We simply don't have enough information to draw a conclusion. It's possible that the CG was the mitigating factor in the perceived variance of the flare rings. It's also possible that the lighting was just different enough to make a perceived difference where there was none. Here's my guess: assuming the photos were taken after the session, the lack of head oil - due to ThrowBot's ability to split boards - was causing some early lane friction. This could be enough to push it out of line from where it had been throwing and alter the ball's path. This slight alteration would then be enough for the ball to get into some oil on the inside of the line it was traveling - diminishing the volume on this new trajectory as it traveled. On the next shot, it got into that same line of reduced oil. It would be like seeing the ball extract the oil from the lane, one shot at a time by examining the flare rings. This would then, likely, be enough to cause the flare rings to differ in appearance.

MegaMav · « **Reply #105 on:** April 20, 2007, 05:16:28 PM »

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

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.

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

You're grasping at straws here to hold your head above water.
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.

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.

To pitch out all shot comparisons, only to focus on a single pair, is not only irresponsible, but ignorant.

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO (Read 32812 times)

BrunsNick

CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

jgreenwd

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

BrunsNick

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

JohnnyRocket

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

kmanestor22

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

jgreenwd

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

kmanestor22

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

MegaMav

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

kmanestor22

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

qstick777

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

strikealot

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

jgreenwd

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

MegaMav

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO*** (Read 32812 times)

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO (Read 32812 times)