Author Topic: Do we make the game way too complicated? (Read 10903 times)

Russell · « **on:** April 14, 2011, 10:22:25 PM »

I was reading another forum where a ball driller suggested a couple of layouts for a bowler going to nationals. On one it was like a 4 and 3/4" with a couple of degree coordinates. The other ball had the same degree coordinates but the pin distance was listed as 4 and 13/16".

Let's be real....does a 1/16" make any difference when most bowlers aren't tolerant by less than 2" at the breakpoint? I am a "KISS" (Keep It Simple Stupid) kind of guy. I have seen bowling try to go to the space age with core technology over the past few years, and what has it given us?

Most of the super cores roll like crap overall. Mo Pinell has been designing cores that are at the cutting edge of physics for 2 decades, and for the most part his balls roll like a wet turd. I can take a Tornado and sand it to 220 and make it roll like most MoRich balls...and at 1/2 the price. I'm not hating on Mo himself...he's an incredibly bright man, I just question how much technology we REALLY need.

The game is still the same...the pins are 3.5lbs, the ball is 27" around, and the lane is 60' long. Most of the BEST balls over the past years have had simple cores with good stable covers on them:

Gamebreaker

V2

Tour Power

Hyroad

Black Widow (Int Diff wasn't that high)

505C

There are plenty of others, and yes I know there are some balls that people have loved that were highly asymmetrical. Most of those balls end up being condition specific, and very sensitive to release. For example at Nationals this year, very few people seem to be having success with hook monsters, and most are throwing balls that are asymm with weaker covers or symmetrical cores altogether.

I had a fellow ball driller tell me a while back when I had a ball that was baffling me on why it wouldn't hook "oh you should have done a 4" mass bias not a 4.5"....really? 1/2" would make a ball go from hitting flush in the 3/6 pocket to high flush? Have we really convinced ourselves that this stuff matters THAT much?

Am I the only one that feels this way?

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"

« **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2011, 06:54:22 AM »

To answer your question, YES!

Understand that when the ball encounters adequate friction it will travel in the direction of it's rotation, and then you can learn and become very adept at reading ball reaction. It really is that simple. Fail to learn that and you will become another member of the "Ball of the Month Club". Always searching for that magic pill and never quite finding it.

Work on sound body mechanics so you can repeat a shot and you won't need to memorize the RG, Differential, and Mass Bias numbers of every ball you own, plus a few that you don't.

Become content with rolling the ball your way instead of trying to be someone you are not. Face it. We bowl on house shots 99% of the time using "grenades". It should not be overly complicated.

Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
Brunswick Pro Shop Staff

www.brunswickbowling.com

The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer and not of Brunswick Corporation.

BowlingChat · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2011, 06:58:07 AM »

" Mo Pinel has been designing cores that are at the cutting edge of physics for 2 decades, and for the most part his balls roll like a wet turd. "

Pretty bold statement, sounds like you're one of the many that do not understand the difference between symmetricals and asymmetricals in terms of layouts and how balls roll.

There is a significant difference, which I will not get into here.

I'd be willing to bet your pin to pap distances on asymmetrics are too long.

Education is key to understanding technology, unfortunately bowlers, and the current generation expect instant gratification. Even proshops rest on their laurels. Take the time to educate yourself, and you'll have a better understanding of technology.

You can start here:

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:DualAngle.pdf

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:01DualAngleSweetSpot.pdf

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:Trackflarechart.JPG

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:Differential-Mo_Pinel-Nov_10.pdf

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:GradientLine.pdf

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=Gradient_Line_Balance_Hole

Its not as difficult as you're making it out to be.

http://www.bowlingchat.net/banner.png" alt="" />

Russell · « **Reply #3 on:** April 15, 2011, 07:18:30 AM »

Or maybe I'm one of the few that understand good bowlers make balls strike, not cores?

I understand core dynamics, and have no issues laying out high tech balls. I just don't see anything about these balls that makes them "better". They don't carry better, or hook more, or anything "BETTER" than symmetrical balls. I have drilled 2 Taboos that roll just fine...but when given the option I'll reach for my Hyroad or Gamebreaker almost every time. I have no issues getting those balls to hook, and can control the downlane motion with them MUCH better.

If high tech cores are so wonderful, why are most pros throwing midline balls during the week? Why weren't pros lining up in the truck to throw Morich balls when they were available? Why weren't they seen on tv more than once or twice a year?....

I think a lot of it is placebo effect. We convince ourselves these balls are better, so we strike more with them. Same way companies like Mona Vie and Limu dupe MILLIONS of people into buying $50 bottles of fruit juice. The same way Brunswick is selling people bracelets with magnets that "help balance"....how many times are people going to buy into crap like that before they realize there are no magic cures?

BowlingChat wrote on 4/15/2011 6:58 AM:
" Mo Pinel has been designing cores that are at the cutting edge of physics for 2 decades, and for the most part his balls roll like a wet turd. "

Pretty bold statement, sounds like you're one of the many that do not understand the difference between symmetricals and asymmetricals in terms of layouts and how balls roll.

There is a significant difference, which I will not get into here.

I'd be willing to bet your pin to pap distances on asymmetrics are too long.

Education is key to understanding technology, unfortunately bowlers, and the current generation expect instant gratification. Even proshops rest on their laurels. Take the time to educate yourself, and you'll have a better understanding of technology.

You can start here:

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:DualAngle.pdf

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:01DualAngleSweetSpot.pdf

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:Trackflarechart.JPG

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:Differential-Mo_Pinel-Nov_10.pdf

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:GradientLine.pdf

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=Gradient_Line_Balance_Hole

Its not as difficult as you're making it out to be.

http://www.bowlingchat.net/banner.png" />

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"

BowlingChat · « **Reply #4 on:** April 15, 2011, 07:29:00 AM »

I think, you're making my point here.

Get to know spin time and intermediate differential.

You can achieve lower spin times with asymmetrics than symmetrics everyday of the week.

Spin time is a measure of how fast a ball will respond to friction and change direction.

The tunability of asymmetrics far surpases symmetrics.

You probably like symmetrics because they're hard to screw up in terms of layouts.

However, the ceiling of tunability is much higher in asymmetrics.

I was like you a few years ago, I just wouldnt touch asymmetrics, I thought they just werent for me. I just didnt understand the tecnology, now over 1/2 my drilled balls are asymmetrics.

Let me help you here, you're a smart guy, you know your stuff and your specs.

Come over to BowlingChat.net and post your specs on the Mo & Friends forum, get your Dual Angle sweet spot from Mo himself, and find out how close it is to what you have on your current asymmetrics.

They really have this stuff down, and are willing to help anyone.

Russell wrote on 4/15/2011 7:18 AM:
Or maybe I'm one of the few that understand good bowlers make balls strike, not cores?

I understand core dynamics, and have no issues laying out high tech balls. I just don't see anything about these balls that makes them "better". They don't carry better, or hook more, or anything "BETTER" than symmetrical balls. I have drilled 2 Taboos that roll just fine...but when given the option I'll reach for my Hyroad or Gamebreaker almost every time. I have no issues getting those balls to hook, and can control the downlane motion with them MUCH better.

If high tech cores are so wonderful, why are most pros throwing midline balls during the week? Why weren't pros lining up in the truck to throw Morich balls when they were available? Why weren't they seen on tv more than once or twice a year?....

I think a lot of it is placebo effect. We convince ourselves these balls are better, so we strike more with them. Same way companies like Mona Vie and Limu dupe MILLIONS of people into buying $50 bottles of fruit juice. The same way Brunswick is selling people bracelets with magnets that "help balance"....how many times are people going to buy into crap like that before they realize there are no magic cures?

BowlingChat wrote on 4/15/2011 6:58 AM:

" Mo Pinel has been designing cores that are at the cutting edge of physics for 2 decades, and for the most part his balls roll like a wet turd. "

Pretty bold statement, sounds like you're one of the many that do not understand the difference between symmetricals and asymmetricals in terms of layouts and how balls roll.

There is a significant difference, which I will not get into here.

I'd be willing to bet your pin to pap distances on asymmetrics are too long.

Education is key to understanding technology, unfortunately bowlers, and the current generation expect instant gratification. Even proshops rest on their laurels. Take the time to educate yourself, and you'll have a better understanding of technology.

You can start here:

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:DualAngle.pdf

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:01DualAngleSweetSpot.pdf

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:Trackflarechart.JPG

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:Differential-Mo_Pinel-Nov_10.pdf

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:GradientLine.pdf

http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=Gradient_Line_Balance_Hole

Its not as difficult as you're making it out to be.

http://www.bowlingchat.net/banner.png" />

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"

http://www.bowlingchat.net/banner.png" alt="" />

storm making it rain · « **Reply #5 on:** April 15, 2011, 07:47:11 AM »

I believe the topic you're talking about is from the Storm forum about a layout for Nationals.

The reply from Chris Forry @ Buddies Pro Shop indicates the measurements you're speaking of. I for one would with out a doubt trust Forry's knowledge of ball drilling and ball dynamics. Before I started drilling my own equipment he drilled all my stuff and Inever had a problem with finding a reaction I was looking for. And I'm willing to bet there's 1000's of other people that feel the same way!

Russell · « **Reply #6 on:** April 15, 2011, 07:49:43 AM »

I've had stuff laid out from Mo...and disciples of his. I have never liked the motion they make down the lane. I know what my "sweet spot" is...I completely understand that asymmetrics are more "tunable" than symmetrics....but my question....

Is it really necessary?

Are we really helping advance the game of bowling by convincing people that the new "hook in a box" that is going to die in 40 games is the answer to their game? Do we need a "sweet spot" drilling pattern? To me when we quantify everything we get away from what makes good players good....FEEL.

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"

Russell · « **Reply #7 on:** April 15, 2011, 07:52:37 AM »

You're right it is....but I'm not trying to question his knowledge as I know of him and know he is extremely good at what he does. Please understand I'm just questioning the environment we have all created where these fine lines are "needed".

Let me be clear in saying that I am not trying to specifically call him out...that's why I chose a new topic to question this. There are tons of examples that is just one I saw recently.

Another is in that forum right now where someone wants a ball to fit between the Midnight Vibe and Victory Road. Those balls really aren't that different (yes their different....but the gap is pretty small)....yet they need a ball to fit between them. We just make things much more complicated than they need to be.

storm making it rain wrote on 4/15/2011 7:47 AM:
I believe the topic you're talking about is from the Storm forum about a layout for Nationals.

The reply from Chris Forry @ Buddies Pro Shop indicates the measurements you're speaking of. I for one would with out a doubt trust Forry's knowledge of ball drilling and ball dynamics. Before I started drilling my own equipment he drilled all my stuff and Inever had a problem with finding a reaction I was looking for. And I'm willing to bet there's 1000's of other people that feel the same way!

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"

BowlingChat · « **Reply #8 on:** April 15, 2011, 07:56:56 AM »

Everyone deserves to get the most out of their game.

Dual Angle Sweetspots gives everyone a layout ranger that will best suit their game.

I think layouts are less about advancing the game and more about matching up.

If you've been participating or watching tournaments, its more about matching up now than purely talent. We're not all throwing LT-48's and Black Beauty's.

If you want to start talking about advancing the game, discuss getting rid of these awful house shots and put in a playable lower ratio shot.

You cant stop technology.

http://www.bowlingchat.net/banner.png" alt="" />

storm making it rain · « **Reply #9 on:** April 15, 2011, 08:00:06 AM »

I agree with you're statement here, alot of time these bowlers would rather just switch to a different ball than actually have to move their feet, target, hand position, etc. On most modern lane condition a good bowler could get by with a 3 ball arsenal, yet some people on here have a 10 ball league arsenal. I didn't mean to call you out either just expressing my opinion.

Russell wrote on 4/15/2011 7:52 AM:
You're right it is....but I'm not trying to question his knowledge as I know of him and know he is extremely good at what he does. Please understand I'm just questioning the environment we have all created where these fine lines are "needed".

Let me be clear in saying that I am not trying to specifically call him out...that's why I chose a new topic to question this. There are tons of examples that is just one I saw recently.

Another is in that forum right now where someone wants a ball to fit between the Midnight Vibe and Victory Road. Those balls really aren't that different (yes their different....but the gap is pretty small)....yet they need a ball to fit between them. We just make things much more complicated than they need to be.

storm making it rain wrote on 4/15/2011 7:47 AM:

I believe the topic you're talking about is from the Storm forum about a layout for Nationals.

The reply from Chris Forry @ Buddies Pro Shop indicates the measurements you're speaking of. I for one would with out a doubt trust Forry's knowledge of ball drilling and ball dynamics. Before I started drilling my own equipment he drilled all my stuff and Inever had a problem with finding a reaction I was looking for. And I'm willing to bet there's 1000's of other people that feel the same way!

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"

Urethane Game · « **Reply #10 on:** April 15, 2011, 08:00:17 AM »

I agree with your post Russell. Your only mistake was referencing the allmighty Mo Pinel in your post.

It seems to me some bowlers want to make bowling like fishing. I don't fish myself but when I accidentally end up on a fishing show on ESPN they are always talking about all the little tricks they use to catch fish.

Classic Rock and Blues Net Radio

Russell · « **Reply #11 on:** April 15, 2011, 08:29:14 AM »

I agree....you can't stop technology...but is it really helping the game?

People buy Taboos, Nanos, World Beaters, etc...and what do they all do...they quit hooking after 100 games at most. Even if kept clean the newer covers don't last more than a league season.

Bowling used to be the game that the blue collar player could do. Now it is more expensive than golf for a remotely competitive bowler. If you bowl a few tournaments a year you need to have a 4 or 5 ball arsenal at $180-$200 a piece. Most of those balls have to be replaced every 12 to 18 months, at a cost of another $1000.

I think most bowlers get lost in it now and eventually give up. Rather than finding ways to help advance the game, ball companies just keep throwing stuff against the wall trying to get it to stick to the average consumer. All the while alienating more and more people from the game.

BowlingChat wrote on 4/15/2011 7:56 AM:Everyone deserves to get the most out of their game.

Dual Angle Sweetspots gives everyone a layout ranger that will best suit their game.

I think layouts are less about advancing the game and more about matching up.

If you've been participating or watching tournaments, its more about matching up now than purely talent. We're not all throwing LT-48's and Black Beauty's.

If you want to start talking about advancing the game, discuss getting rid of these awful house shots and put in a playable lower ratio shot.

You cant stop technology.

http://www.bowlingchat.net/banner.png" />

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"

BowlingChat · « **Reply #12 on:** April 15, 2011, 08:43:11 AM »

On THS? No.

On sport compliant? Yes, I think there is an advantage to having more friction at your disposal. Wouldnt you agree? Line up on a medium length sport compliant shot with an Absolute Inferno, roll and game, the switch to an Alpha Max and tell me its not helping.

"Stop hooking" meaning oil soaked?

You probably spent $200+ on a super cover ball, why not spend 10 bucks and put it in a revivor oven at your local proshop, and reset the oil clock?

Seems easy enough, and will be the new standard for longevity with these sponges.

Russell wrote on 4/15/2011 8:29 AM:
I agree....you can't stop technology...but is it really helping the game?

People buy Taboos, Nanos, World Beaters, etc...and what do they all do...they quit hooking after 100 games at most. Even if kept clean the newer covers don't last more than a league season.

http://www.bowlingchat.net/banner.png" alt="" />

Russell · « **Reply #13 on:** April 15, 2011, 08:58:42 AM »

We'll just have to disagree here...I rarely see anything where I think "god I wish I had a lot of hook in my hand". Most bowlers I see using Alpha Max's and Nano's could strike just as much with less ball in their hands. I just think there is a lot of Kool Aid being swallowed by the industry now....

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"

BowlingChat · « **Reply #14 on:** April 15, 2011, 09:05:24 AM »

On THS or Sport?

Those are 2 different worlds of bowling.

Tom Hess won the Masters with the VG Nano.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at with all of this discussion.

I think you just want to argue just for the sake of argument.

Now you've got one.

Remember, we're not all like you Russell, whats good for you may not be good for someone else.

http://www.bowlingchat.net/banner.png" alt="" />

Edited by BowlingChat on 4/15/2011 at 9:07 AM

Author Topic: Do we make the game way too complicated? (Read 10903 times)

Russell

Do we make the game way too complicated?

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

BowlingChat

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Russell

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

BowlingChat

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

storm making it rain

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Russell

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Russell

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

BowlingChat

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

storm making it rain

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Urethane Game

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Russell

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

BowlingChat

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Russell

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

BowlingChat

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?