Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2 (Read 18254 times)

BrunsNick · « **on:** April 08, 2007, 08:57:29 PM »

Amending Brunswick's conclusive data of CG irrelevancy for ball reaction & track flare, using Lane #1 Equipment.

Video debuting 04.16.07
edit: 04.18.07 is the new date
--------------------
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!

Edited on 4/9/2007 4:57 AM

Edited on 4/9/2007 8:43 PM

Edited on 4/13/2007 4:17 PM

C-G ProShop-Carl · « **Reply #91 on:** April 15, 2007, 01:55:12 AM »

The point I was trying to get across was very simple....cg location does not matter......ok.

If I kick the CG out 3 inches from the grip center and a balance hole is required......then the cg location does matter because that balance hole is going to make a difference in the ball's reaction depending on where I place it/pitch it/and its size.

I still think the grits on the coverstocks looked different as well.
--------------------
Carl Hurd
C-G Pro Shop (owner/operator)
Youngstown Ohio

Tag Team Member #1

TAG TEAM COACHING!!!!!!/Co-Founder

BrunsNick · « **Reply #92 on:** April 15, 2007, 02:32:07 AM »

Here's another tidbit...

In the Brunswick video, if the bowling balls were flip flopped in the order they were thrown, I'd be willing to bet the negatives go thru the nose. Of course, that is just speculation...

Shooting video tomorrow night.
--------------------
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!

Lillen · « **Reply #93 on:** April 15, 2007, 05:22:10 AM »

Not to hijack this thread but what's the max legal sideweight on a ball in the US

Just curious if it's the same as over here in Sweden and here it's 1oz = 28 grams..

laufaye · « **Reply #94 on:** April 15, 2007, 10:39:33 AM »

quote:
Not to hijack this thread but what's the max legal sideweight on a ball in the US

Just curious if it's the same as over here in Sweden and here it's 1oz = 28 grams..

pos/neg 1oz, fingers/thumb 1 oz, top/bottom 3oz.
--------------------
Laufaye

laufaye · « **Reply #95 on:** April 15, 2007, 10:46:12 AM »

I am thinking of making a video too, 2 balls drilled identical, everything the same.

Ball 1 with 1000 grit wet sand.
Ball 2 with 1001 grit wet sand.

After discussion with T-God, we have the conclusion, and believe ball 2 should start sooner, its a no brainer, law of physic. In order to make this video, I need to find a 1001 grit sand paper first.

Test 2

Ball 1 pin to pap 4"
Ball 2 pin to pap 4 1/64"

This test is to find out which ball flare more.

--------------------
Laufaye

T-GOD · « **Reply #96 on:** April 15, 2007, 12:58:36 PM »

quote:
In the Brunswick video, if the bowling balls were flip flopped in the order they were thrown, I'd be willing to bet the negatives go thru the nose.

Nick, the negative didn't go thru the nose on the 8th and final shot. So, if the neg. ball didn't go thru the nose on the 8th shot, what makes you think it'll go thru the nose on earlier shots..?

quote:
Of course, that is just speculation...

If you use your brain the way it's designed to work, you won't have to speculate. You will conclude based on the data, that the neg. ball won't go high. If it didn't go high in 8 shots, it won't go high in 6 or 7. =:^D

BrunsNick · « **Reply #97 on:** April 15, 2007, 01:56:56 PM »

If you use the positive balls twice in a row early, they'll pick up the oil on the lane just like the negative balls did. They'll skid in the later shots, while the negative balls are thrown thru the burnt. Hell, why not throw the 4 positive balls first, then 4 negative?

So based on 8 shots, we can shut the case on this discussion? Sounds like you're an idiot, but we all knew that. (and I can be insulting without being passive about it)

--------------------
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 #98 on:** April 15, 2007, 03:27:52 PM »

quote:
Notice how my questions got passed over. He answers what he wants, how he wants.

He reminds me of one of my favorite groups...

TOOL.

Ric: T-GOD has been on here for many years -- longer than most. During that time, he's provided a lot of advice to anyone asking questions and looking for legitimate help. I've been conversing with him on this site for a long time, and while we've had on-and-off battles, his advice has been very valuable to me. He's helped me with ball selection, appropriate drill patterns and surface prep with a remarkable level of effectiveness. In the past two years, I've gone from a THS 220 to 235, at least partially due to input he's provided me.

I don't believe T-GOD (or anyone) is under any obligation to lay out their identity and personal life on an Internet forum. It's a crazy world out there, and too many whacos to take chances unless it's your choice to do so. Anyway, I suspect T-GOD is someone prominent in the bowling industry. Regardless, it's his choice what he wants to share about himself.

The bottom line is that I choose to focus little on the bowling shingle someone plasters on the forum, and instead make evaluations based on the quality of input provided. In this case T-GOD passes the test.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

Steven · « **Reply #99 on:** April 15, 2007, 06:11:13 PM »

quote:
So now, let's count how many responses will appear, saying things such as 'more Brunswick BS' or how I didn't answer any questions.

Ric: I hope the above is not the case.

And I don't think anyone is questioning your credentials or background. But to be frank, the way you come across is that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a troll or an uninformed idiot. As a major manufacturer representative, that's not the smartest way to come across.

The effect (or non-effect) of CG placement has always been a controversial subject. There are a lot of smart (and credentialed) people on both sides of the fence that can argue valid points. For that reason alone, when Brunswick stuck their toe in the water to present a 'definitive' video on the subject, they had a professional responsibility to make sure it completely closed the case. Clearly, the video didn't.

As far as your following statement:

quote:
The thing to understand is with any demonstration or test, there will always be unseen variables, especially human error. What Brunswick tried to teach is the simplest way to look at ball reaction and/or motion. You can look at or believe the way you do.

That's just a rationalization for not doing a complete job in this case. They show different flare rings between the balls with different CG placements, and the balls (at least in the last few shots) did not react the same. There should have been some further explanation to leave viewers with some comfort levels regarding these discrepancies. Unfortunately, there weren't.

I do give Nick credit for putting out another video, regardless of his motivations for doing it. I just hope he understands the shortcoming of the Brunswick video, and tries to address them in his.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

Edited on 4/15/2007 10:09 PM

Musky300 · « **Reply #100 on:** April 15, 2007, 06:49:37 PM »

Question to Nick:

If the position of the CG doesn't matter, then...

...is the whole "degree layout" system bunk???

It would seem to me that this is what it would mean since the degree layout is based on pin-to-PAP and pin-to-CG.

Yes or No??? Just trying to figure this stuff out myself.

Borincano · « **Reply #101 on:** April 15, 2007, 07:02:57 PM »

Nick Smith,

This discussion is where the cg will be position. Which I see by the video it does not matter where you put it in relation to the pin it will give the same reaction. But lets say we put the CG in the middle of the grip and move the pin left, right, down and up. I will say that then we have different reactions.

Strapper_Squared · « **Reply #102 on:** April 15, 2007, 07:17:20 PM »

quote:

As far as your following statement:

quote:
The thing to understand is with any demonstration or test, there will always be unseen variables, especially human error. What Brunswick tried to teach is the simplest way to look at ball reaction and/or motion. You can look at or believe the way you do.

That's just a rationalization for not doing a complete job in this case.

Obviously you have never done anything in a research/laboratory type setting. There are an infinite number of variables, most of which you have no control over, that come into play during any type of experiment. Temperature, humidity, a slight breeze coming through the window that blew a dust particle, natural vibrations of the building you are in, etc., etc. In science there is a general rule that you can never prove anything, only disprove it. As more and more experiments are conducted and come to the same conclusion, then we can say...this is probably how it works. NEVER will you be able to run one experiment and say without a shadow of doubt that this is absolutely true.

However, by saying I think this occurs...or although its not measurable, I can tell the difference.. etc. holds no scientific credential whatsoever. Until you (or anyone else) can set-up a controlled experiment and show that a difference in static weight results in different amounts of "hook", a change in flare, follows a different ball path, or has a different entry angle, or SOMETHING to quantify a difference (and saying its the difference between carrying a 10 pin and not is totally bogus), these statements hold no scientific merit whatsoever.

Now, if Nick's results come out and show that one ball reacts differently (in any measurable sense) than the other, we can conclude that possibly static weights have some sort of measurable effect (or that he threw the ball differently, or that the lane oil changed from one shot to another). If Nick's results show the same results as those presented in the Brunswick video, then we say that here is more proof to support the idea that static weight really have no measurable effect on ball reaction.

So rather than just stating these people are wrong.. or don't know what they are talking about, or they don't know how to properly run an experiment, give it a shot yourself. Run your own experiment and prove them wrong.

S^2
--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Thank You... Only a Year Late!

I was shocked! says Theismann

Steven · « **Reply #103 on:** April 15, 2007, 08:03:28 PM »

quote:
So rather than just stating these people are wrong.. or don't know what they are talking about, or they don't know how to properly run an experiment, give it a shot yourself. Run your own experiment and prove them wrong.

Strapper: By profession, I'm responsible for a segment of software quality assurance testing for a major Investment Management company. We live and die by the accuracy of fund pricing calculations, so in essence there is almost zero tolerance for errors. I more than understand how to set up tests to prove results, so I don't need a lecture on what I don't get in this area.

Even Nick was fumbling to explain the different ball reactions in the 8 tests. To remedy the confusion (and help validate their conclusions), they could have also run the ball tests in a different order to show consistency. A Ph.D. is not needed to understand that few simple additional tweaks could have been included to solidify their presentation.

And I don't need to set up anything myself. Brunswick created this video of their own free will for their own purposes. The reality of all presentations, videos (or whatever) is that they will be critiqued -- your head is in the sand if you don't understand and accept that.

Man, I just don't understand some of the denial that goes on around here.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

laufaye · « **Reply #104 on:** April 15, 2007, 11:43:52 PM »

When Brunswick as a major ball company put up a vid like these I try to learn something from it, if I see something sems not right I won't say BS, I probably ask questions, suggestions for a more complete test. Instead of bashing and trash talking about someone education while that person cannot back it up, however its a public forum, what can we do, nothing.

Ric and Nick, be honest with you, this is not a proper place for you to argue with someone not even able to present themselves. If you guys have hosting a seminar then yes, thats legit. You two have done your part, believe it or not totally up to them, take it or leave it.
--------------------
Laufaye

ptythefool · « **Reply #105 on:** April 16, 2007, 12:06:13 AM »

Lol, nick no... if you watch the video it tells you the order.. Postive, negative, negative, positive, negative, positive, positive, and negative.. the positives were the ones through the nose

lol.. Negative seems to provide a little more length or something.

quote:
Here's another tidbit...

In the Brunswick video, if the bowling balls were flip flopped in the order they were thrown, I'd be willing to bet the negatives go thru the nose. Of course, that is just speculation...

Shooting video tomorrow night.
--------------------
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!

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2 (Read 18254 times)

BrunsNick

CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

C-G ProShop-Carl

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

BrunsNick

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

Lillen

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

laufaye

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

laufaye

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

T-GOD

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

BrunsNick

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

Musky300

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

Borincano

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

Strapper_Squared

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

Steven

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

laufaye

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

ptythefool

Re: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO *Pic Page 2* (Read 18254 times)

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH VIDEO Pic Page 2 (Read 18254 times)