Author Topic: Do we make the game way too complicated? (Read 10902 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"

The Stroke · « **Reply #31 on:** April 15, 2011, 01:36:49 PM »

well i'm sure someday you would like to average 215 with all your so- called knowledge. Until then, keep posting shots and using the broomstick technique.

BowlingChat wrote on 4/15/2011 1:22 PM:
Does a league bowler want to average 225 or 215, you tell me.

Toodles

Juggernaut · « **Reply #32 on:** April 15, 2011, 01:42:42 PM »

BC.net,

I get all that. And, while not nearly the mind that Mo and some are, I am rather intelligent and understand what they are doing. What I fail to see is how it ISN'T over-complicating things that shouldn't need to be, or how it makes things better.

It's great that somebodies VG Nano can hook through those special condition designed specifically to make scoring harder, but if we had left things alone, we wouldn't NEED the VG Nano because we wouldn't HAVE special sport conditions, because you don't have to artificially create hard conditions unless the equipment helps bowlers more than it should.

The ball companies are the main culprits, preying on those who could never get their physical game to the levels they wanted, so when equipment became available that would allow them to do things they couldn't before (like hook it 15 boards and carry), they rushed to the manufacturers door. Once this began, it became a micro-culture of "latest,greatest, ball-of-the-week, better than ever" bowling equipment, which we have been struggling to keep up with ever since.

When you need to know:

1. Speed to within 1 mph

2. Tilt to within one degree

3. Axis rotation within one degree

4. Rotation speed within 5 revlolutions

5. Lane topography

6. oil type

7. oil pattern

just to get a drill pattern for your recreational league bowling ball, it is TOO COMPLICATED.

We now have $250 balls that are designed to last 5 (YES, FIVE) games before they start losing reaction, because after that point they begin to get oil soaking and loss of Ra and Rs values, which must be brought back to normal at significant cost, ESPECIALLY if you intend to try to use this ball for an entire season.

I'm not a guru, and Mo, admittedly by me, is. Thing is, when you NEED a guru, just to help understand how to drill a ball, it is FAR TOO COMPLICATED.

BowlingChat wrote on 4/15/2011 12:51 PM:
Jug,

I think in general, if you educate yourself on some of the modern techniques involved in layouts as well as the ability to tune with a Determinator, the concepts from some manufacturers are a little easier to grasp.

If you walk into a gunfight blindfolded you're going to get shot.

You cant just start slapping the same layout on different balls and expect it all to pan out the same.

There are very few genuine turds manufactured today, just poor matchups from poor layout decisions or using the wrong ball on the wrong conditiion or the wrong part of the lane.

Once people are educated en masse on these cutting edge techniques, you'll see more: "Oh, wow, thats what he meant".

I think we're on the front end of the era of enlightenment, the truly elite minds understand the meaning of this new cover and core technology, and how to leverage it.

Its their responsibility as creators to communicate effectively with the people buying and drilling these creations so they do exactly what the customer wants.

Once the public understands the whys and hows, I think the embrace of this technology will happen. Most are resistant to change and new ideas, think you're seeing this now.

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

NoseofRI · « **Reply #33 on:** April 15, 2011, 01:50:40 PM »

Again, you are missing the point being made and instead specifically picking a phrase or two out of an entire statement and breaking it down.

I do know what I am talking about, and was trying to make a generalized point.

But, even if you do know this vast amount more than I do, why am I 20 pins better than you?

I fully undestand matching up is still important. But again, matching up mainly starts with just selecting the correct ball, and NOT taking just any ball and using all the drilling knowledge out there and getting a specific reaction. I have bowled plenty of tournaments where a matchup has been a 20 pin a game difference. But again, that's for me, and guys like me bowling many tournaments.

But I'm sorry a 215 league bowler is 215 for a reason and it's not match up. It's mainly spare shooting, 2-3 bad shots a game, and very inconsistent ball roll, not to mention most likely a lack of making adjustments.

I will address this again. A bowler who's physical game is bad will NOT benefit from all this layout fine tuning. The fine tuning that Russell is speaking of if more for high end tournament players looking for specific reactions. SO again, 90+% of bowlers won't benefit at all, no matter how much you fine tune their equipment. If this was the case then Mo would have gotten you to the 220-230s by now.

BowlingChat wrote on 4/15/2011 1:22 PM:
spin differential? What is that? You mean spin time?

You dont even know what you're talking about.

I addressed the fact that Russell's original post is riddled with evidence that many antiquated drillers do not know how to leverage *new* technology with their archaic drilling techniques. This is bleeding into a bowlers arsenal.

Its the ball drillers that stay on the cusp of technology with Advanced IBPSIA HOTS and other high level training courses that truly understad how to leverage these types balls.

Matching up is more important than you're leading on, even for league bowlers.

Does a league bowler want to average 225 or 215, you tell me.

Give him a strong asymmetric with a long pin to pap and no tilt, and I guarantee he wont be happy with the reaction, no matter how good he is.

These new balls coming out with strong cores need to be tuned just as much as a race car does. Are you going to run a serious race car on 87 octane? To get its full potential, I'd hope not.

Education is key here, get it, or get left behind.

Keep your customers happy, its good for business.

Have a nice day.

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

northface28 · « **Reply #34 on:** April 15, 2011, 01:59:01 PM »

BowlingChat wrote on 4/15/2011 1:22 PM:spin differential? What is that? You mean spin time?

You dont even know what you're talking about.

I addressed the fact that Russell's original post is riddled with evidence that many antiquated drillers do not know how to leverage *new* technology with their archaic drilling techniques. This is bleeding into a bowlers arsenal.

Its the ball drillers that stay on the cusp of technology with Advanced IBPSIA HOTS and other high level training courses that truly understad how to leverage these types balls.

Matching up is more important than you're leading on, even for league bowlers.

Does a league bowler want to average 225 or 215, you tell me.

Give him a strong asymmetric with a long pin to pap and no tilt, and I guarantee he wont be happy with the reaction, no matter how good he is.

These new balls coming out with strong cores need to be tuned just as much as a race car does. Are you going to run a serious race car on 87 octane? To get its full potential, I'd hope not.

Education is key here, get it, or get left behind.

Keep your customers happy, its good for business.

Have a nice day.

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

Pretentious much???

*˙ǝɟıן ɹnoʎ ɟo spuoɔǝs ǝʌıɟ ʇsoן ʇsnɾ ǝʌɐɥ noʎ ʇɐɥʇ ʎɐs oʇ ʎɹɹos ɯɐ ı sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ noʎ ɟı

NoseofRI · « **Reply #35 on:** April 15, 2011, 02:34:05 PM »

Oh and Meva,

I do fully understand your point here. But using the racecar anology, you wouldn't give a racecar to a brand new driver, nor would you sell the fuel for racecars at a regular gas station.

BowlingChat · « **Reply #36 on:** April 15, 2011, 03:41:58 PM »

Let me make this clear, I am only representing my thoughts on this, I have only mentioned Asymmetrics in this, and I am not speaking on Mr Pinel's behalf, he speaks for himself.

Jug,

I will address you, since you're obviously here for the conversation and not personal jabs. (Who cares who has a higher average in this conversation, c'mon grow up.)

I think a lot of what you're saying may seem more complex, only because we have learned more about ball motion and ball reaction in the past few years than what we knew in 2 decades previous.

What you're seeing now is science, not guess and try operation, and guess what caused a difference like the eras previous.

Science has methods and proven reasons for outcomes.

In order to get to these outcomes you need precise input information and a defined process to get expected results.

CAD is used to get a reasonably close to real life model of expected results without trial and error.

Ball companies produce balls with the highest scoring potential possible within the bounds of USBC and the technology at the time. I wouldnt blame them for anything, they're trying to make money, I dont think their intent is to ruin the scoring environment.

What you view as "special" sport environments should have been the oil condition requirements response from the USBC when the technology boom started in the 1990's to keep the sport a sport and not a jewelry contest. Sport conditions should be viewed as a more realistic reflection of a bowler than the scores on a house shot. Do you honestly think ball companies target the less physically gifted bowlers with their products? Why are the pros using these products, scoring and winning titles?

I think ball companies target anyone that would purchase their product.

If you could get what you want, what would it be?

You think bowling would be better off if the cat went back in the bag, and we all throw LT-48's and Black Beauties with pancake cores again?

Unfortnately its not going to happen, and I dont think we'll be any better off, there will always be someone looking for an edge.

It happened then and it would happen again.

Juggernaut wrote on 4/15/2011 1:42 PM:

BC.net,

I get all that. And, while not nearly the mind that Mo and some are, I am rather intelligent and understand what they are doing. What I fail to see is how it ISN'T over-complicating things that shouldn't need to be, or how it makes things better.

It's great that somebodies VG Nano can hook through those special condition designed specifically to make scoring harder, but if we had left things alone, we wouldn't NEED the VG Nano because we wouldn't HAVE special sport conditions, because you don't have to artificially create hard conditions unless the equipment helps bowlers more than it should.

The ball companies are the main culprits, preying on those who could never get their physical game to the levels they wanted, so when equipment became available that would allow them to do things they couldn't before (like hook it 15 boards and carry), they rushed to the manufacturers door. Once this began, it became a micro-culture of "latest,greatest, ball-of-the-week, better than ever" bowling equipment, which we have been struggling to keep up with ever since.

When you need to know:

1. Speed to within 1 mph

2. Tilt to within one degree

3. Axis rotation within one degree

4. Rotation speed within 5 revlolutions

5. Lane topography

6. oil type

7. oil pattern

just to get a drill pattern for your recreational league bowling ball, it is TOO COMPLICATED.

We now have $250 balls that are designed to last 5 (YES, FIVE) games before they start losing reaction, because after that point they begin to get oil soaking and loss of Ra and Rs values, which must be brought back to normal at significant cost, ESPECIALLY if you intend to try to use this ball for an entire season.

I'm not a guru, and Mo, admittedly by me, is. Thing is, when you NEED a guru, just to help understand how to drill a ball, it is FAR TOO COMPLICATED.

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

NoseofRI · « **Reply #37 on:** April 15, 2011, 04:06:42 PM »

Meva,

You are right it was a jab, but it's not being childish, nor was it meant as a "I'm better than you statement." In fact it is actually a very valid question.

As you have stated, matchup and fine tuning a layout can maximize the potential for the bowler and help to improve their average. You clearly have talked to Mo, quite a bit and picked up on a lot of what he is teaching. But when it comes down to it, why is it that myself or others in your league, or others that you know, may consistently score better than you? Is it because I always have a better matchup or more finely tuned layout? I highly doubt that considering you have Mo right there giving you layouts to use.

Back to the original question asked, "Do we make the game way too complicated?" My answer to this question is for 90 or % of bowlers, including a lot of guys on here, we absolutely do. My whole point in this conversation is, some practice and lessons for a lot of these 180-210 bowlers is going to go much, MUCH further than them having their Dual Angle Sweetspot. A 180 bowler can be turned into a 200 bowler with practice AND matchup, not matchup alone. And I mean actually be a 200 "bowler" not just "average" 200, very big difference there.

Just to close, I am absolutely for advancement of technology and the knowledge we have, but as always there are those that rely of that instead of just actually learning how to bowl.

BowlingChat wrote on 4/15/2011 3:41 PM:
Let me make this clear, I am only representing my thoughts on this, I have only mentioned Asymmetrics in this, and I am not speaking on Mr Pinel's behalf, he speaks for himself.

Jug,

I will address you, since you're obviously here for the conversation and not personal jabs. (Who cares who has a higher average in this conversation, c'mon grow up.)

I think a lot of what you're saying may seem more complex, only because we have learned more about ball motion and ball reaction in the past few years than what we knew in 2 decades previous.

What you're seeing now is science, not guess and try operation, and guess what caused a difference like the eras previous.

Science has methods and proven reasons for outcomes.

In order to get to these outcomes you need precise input information and a defined process to get expected results.

CAD is used to get a reasonably close to real life model of expected results without trial and error.

Ball companies produce balls with the highest scoring potential possible within the bounds of USBC and the technology at the time. I wouldnt blame them for anything, they're trying to make money, I dont think their intent is to ruin the scoring environment.

What you view as "special" sport environments should have been the oil condition requirements response from the USBC when the technology boom started in the 1990's to keep the sport a sport and not a jewelry contest. Sport conditions should be viewed as a more realistic reflection of a bowler than the scores on a house shot. Do you honestly think ball companies target the less physically gifted bowlers with their products? Why are the pros using these products, scoring and winning titles?

I think ball companies target anyone that would purchase their product.

If you could get what you want, what would it be?

You think bowling would be better off if the cat went back in the bag, and we all throw LT-48's and Black Beauties with pancake cores again?

Unfortnately its not going to happen, and I dont think we'll be any better off, there will always be someone looking for an edge.

It happened then and it would happen again.

Juggernaut wrote on 4/15/2011 1:42 PM:

BC.net,

I get all that. And, while not nearly the mind that Mo and some are, I am rather intelligent and understand what they are doing. What I fail to see is how it ISN'T over-complicating things that shouldn't need to be, or how it makes things better.

It's great that somebodies VG Nano can hook through those special condition designed specifically to make scoring harder, but if we had left things alone, we wouldn't NEED the VG Nano because we wouldn't HAVE special sport conditions, because you don't have to artificially create hard conditions unless the equipment helps bowlers more than it should.

The ball companies are the main culprits, preying on those who could never get their physical game to the levels they wanted, so when equipment became available that would allow them to do things they couldn't before (like hook it 15 boards and carry), they rushed to the manufacturers door. Once this began, it became a micro-culture of "latest,greatest, ball-of-the-week, better than ever" bowling equipment, which we have been struggling to keep up with ever since.

When you need to know:

1. Speed to within 1 mph

2. Tilt to within one degree

3. Axis rotation within one degree

4. Rotation speed within 5 revlolutions

5. Lane topography

6. oil type

7. oil pattern

just to get a drill pattern for your recreational league bowling ball, it is TOO COMPLICATED.

We now have $250 balls that are designed to last 5 (YES, FIVE) games before they start losing reaction, because after that point they begin to get oil soaking and loss of Ra and Rs values, which must be brought back to normal at significant cost, ESPECIALLY if you intend to try to use this ball for an entire season.

I'm not a guru, and Mo, admittedly by me, is. Thing is, when you NEED a guru, just to help understand how to drill a ball, it is FAR TOO COMPLICATED.

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

BowlingChat · « **Reply #38 on:** April 15, 2011, 04:26:14 PM »

If you dont address me by my screen name or my real name, im not going to respond to you. You're doing that to invoke a response you're not going to get. Grow up.

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

Juggernaut · « **Reply #39 on:** April 15, 2011, 04:33:35 PM »

BC.net,

Of course I am here for the conversation. Personal jabs only hurt feelings, and sidetrack anything that might've been constructive.

That being said, we are obviously trying to discuss a topic that we will NEVER see in the same light, because you cannot seem to get over how this is now a science, and how perfect the system is becoming because of the great minds working on it, while I'm trying to tell you that that very science, and the need for it in the first place, is OVERKILL on a MASSIVE scale, and should never have been made necessary, at least not nearly to the degree that it is.

You talk about needing precise input to calculate precise results, thing is, we are ALL human, and NOBODY is that precise. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human to perform within such detailed and minute parameters.

You talk about ball manufacturers producing balls with the highest scoring potential within the bounds of the rules, and I agree. THE RULES ARE ONE THING I DISAGREE WITH STRONGLY. They should've been much stricter and much more restrictive, but they weren't. And, the ball companies could care less about the "scoring pace", they're only interested in lining their pockets by over inflating the artificial market that they created. They don't care if you SCORE, only that you BUY.

And conditions. Yes, conditions should've kept up with technology, but to now have two different factions (sport and recreational) of bowlers is ridiculous. ALL BOWLING SHOULD BE DONE ON EQUITABLE LANE CONDITIONS THAT ARE THE SAME FOR ALL.

I don't believe the ball companies intentionallt targetted the lower level bowlers initially, but that is where the great majority of the market sprang from, so that is the sector they soon started to target and model for, and sell to, and those factors have worked together to get us the results we see today. As for the pros, what choice do they have with the way things are. I have no argument that the new stuff performs at a superior pace, what I'm saying is that that uplifted pace is far more than was ever needed, and far too technical for the average bowler. Even the pros now have special "ball reps" whose job it is to follow the pros around and figure out their ball problems for them, something few, if any, amatuers has.

No, I'm not talking about going THAT far back (but it would be ok), what I'm talking about is limits that should be put in place, FAR stricter than what we have now. Cut the differential limits in half, going toward the high end, and set tight limits on the core dynamics with MB limits in the .020 range for the max. Limit frictional capabilities of coverstocks to about half of what it currently is, and limit oil absorption capabilities to significantly lower levels.

And don't stop there. MANDATE AND ENFORCE LANE CONDITIONS. U.S.B.C. always claims that they certify lane playing conditions, but that is hogwash, and you know it. Have an upper limit of 4:1 ratio.

And KILL THESE EMPTY, HOLLOW, EASILY KNOCKED OVER PINS. Bring them up to 4lbs and remove all voids.

Sadly, I know these things will never happen. The horse is out of the barn, and too many people would suffer and go broke if it did now. Thing is, it should've happened back when it still could've, and it just didn't, so now weve ended up with this over complicated, artificially inflated, self fulfilling environment we have now.

NoseofRI · « **Reply #40 on:** April 15, 2011, 04:34:06 PM »

Ok BowlingChat,

I have asked one question of you in this discussion. As your point was that all this is necessary as people want to average 225 not 215, I made a point regarding why myself or others may consistently perform better than you on the lanes when you clearly have more finely tuned layouts?

I am attempting to have a valid discussion regarding the question that Russell has asked, and my last post was basically everything from my side of the debate, so I would like to hear your responses to the things I specifically addressed.

BowlingChat wrote on 4/15/2011 4:26 PM:If you dont address me by my screen name or my real name, im not going to respond to you. You're doing that to invoke a response you're not going to get. Grow up.

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

BowlingChat · « **Reply #41 on:** April 15, 2011, 05:17:41 PM »

This science is not perfect, no science is, but its better than what we had. Which was mostly guess work and trial and error. Providing bowler release specs and target conditions will give an accurate as possible result in terms of layout. This science will offer the most consistent results we can give at this moment.

You and I both know we dont need super covers unless the oils change, which they have. League bowlers still buy these bombers, and try to bring them to 50 year old wood houses and wonder why they roll forward at 25 feet. It happens without education of the product.

I agree with you on a personal level about the restrictions on RA, differential, but RG has less effect on ball reaction than you think. Even at .020 total differential, you can raise the value quite a bit with a double thumb layout or P4 hole. Until there are limitations on equipment specifications, you will see technology continue to evolve at this pace.

So are you going to eliminate weight holes too? static weight limitations?

In terms of lane conditions being equal for all, unfortunately lane topography is different in every house, and that alone has a drastic impact on scoring pace.

I can agree with 4:1 or 5:1, higher unit minimum with a 40 foot minimum.

Heavier pins wont happen, as even the gold pins damaged some pinsetters.

Im not sure if we're beyond the point of no return here, I still think one thing holds true, balls still dont hook in oil, flatten these patterns out, lengthen them, and we'll see what happens.

Thanks for the conversation.

Juggernaut wrote on 4/15/2011 4:33 PM:
BC.net,

Of course I am here for the conversation. Personal jabs only hurt feelings, and sidetrack anything that might've been constructive.

That being said, we are obviously trying to discuss a topic that we will NEVER see in the same light, because you cannot seem to get over how this is now a science, and how perfect the system is becoming because of the great minds working on it, while I'm trying to tell you that that very science, and the need for it in the first place, is OVERKILL on a MASSIVE scale, and should never have been made necessary, at least not nearly to the degree that it is.

You talk about needing precise input to calculate precise results, thing is, we are ALL human, and NOBODY is that precise. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human to perform within such detailed and minute parameters.

You talk about ball manufacturers producing balls with the highest scoring potential within the bounds of the rules, and I agree. THE RULES ARE ONE THING I DISAGREE WITH STRONGLY. They should've been much stricter and much more restrictive, but they weren't. And, the ball companies could care less about the "scoring pace", they're only interested in lining their pockets by over inflating the artificial market that they created. They don't care if you SCORE, only that you BUY.

And conditions. Yes, conditions should've kept up with technology, but to now have two different factions (sport and recreational) of bowlers is ridiculous. ALL BOWLING SHOULD BE DONE ON EQUITABLE LANE CONDITIONS THAT ARE THE SAME FOR ALL.

I don't believe the ball companies intentionallt targetted the lower level bowlers initially, but that is where the great majority of the market sprang from, so that is the sector they soon started to target and model for, and sell to, and those factors have worked together to get us the results we see today. As for the pros, what choice do they have with the way things are. I have no argument that the new stuff performs at a superior pace, what I'm saying is that that uplifted pace is far more than was ever needed, and far too technical for the average bowler. Even the pros now have special "ball reps" whose job it is to follow the pros around and figure out their ball problems for them, something few, if any, amatuers has.

No, I'm not talking about going THAT far back (but it would be ok), what I'm talking about is limits that should be put in place, FAR stricter than what we have now. Cut the differential limits in half, going toward the high end, and set tight limits on the core dynamics with MB limits in the .020 range for the max. Limit frictional capabilities of coverstocks to about half of what it currently is, and limit oil absorption capabilities to significantly lower levels.

And don't stop there. MANDATE AND ENFORCE LANE CONDITIONS. U.S.B.C. always claims that they certify lane playing conditions, but that is hogwash, and you know it. Have an upper limit of 4:1 ratio.

And KILL THESE EMPTY, HOLLOW, EASILY KNOCKED OVER PINS. Bring them up to 4lbs and remove all voids.

Sadly, I know these things will never happen. The horse is out of the barn, and too many people would suffer and go broke if it did now. Thing is, it should've happened back when it still could've, and it just didn't, so now weve ended up with this over complicated, artificially inflated, self fulfilling environment we have now.

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

BowlingChat · « **Reply #42 on:** April 15, 2011, 05:33:07 PM »

OK,

Nowhere did I say layouts make you a 215-225 average bowler, I just made a reference to how much layouts can affect your game. Poorly executed layouts or surface prep can dip your scoring potential. It can be the difference between 215 and 225. League bowlers want to average as high as possible, you're not competitive if you done.

Why are you obsessed with me as a bowler? Im not sure that has anything to do with this conversation.

I didnt bowl league this year due to major changes in my game, you have no idea what I average now.

I have arthritis in my slide knee that restricts me to bowling once per week including practice, and I have other obligations to business, family, fitness, my home, and 2 websites that take up my time. Giving back to bowling is more important to me than becoming a better bowler.

There are other people that work with Mo (including prominent pros) that average much higher after working with him, so im not sure what your point is here.

Dedicating yourself to the game should be the first step in becoming a good bowler, I'll never argue that, that passion goes farthest in any endeavor.

We're off track here, my original point was, dont give asymmetrics a bad rap because yourself or your ball driller do not understand them.

They are what they are, and you or your ball driller should honestly understand how they work, for the benefit of your own game, they can give you a look symmetrics cant.

Manufacturers dont make bad balls anymore, poor layouts and uses make bad balls.

NoseofRI wrote on 4/15/2011 4:34 PM:
Ok BowlingChat,

I have asked one question of you in this discussion. As your point was that all this is necessary as people want to average 225 not 215, I made a point regarding why myself or others may consistently perform better than you on the lanes when you clearly have more finely tuned layouts?

I am attempting to have a valid discussion regarding the question that Russell has asked, and my last post was basically everything from my side of the debate, so I would like to hear your responses to the things I specifically addressed.

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

Juggernaut · « **Reply #43 on:** April 15, 2011, 06:48:49 PM »

BC.net,

I don't think we are far apart on what we should be seeing now, just differ on how it should've come about and what we should be doing now.

I think we should still be using, at the most, balls made from aggressive urethane with NO reactives. I also think that core technology should've stopped with the most basic of two piece technology similar to the old Hammers, Cobras, and Turbos of the day.

Then, to top that off, we should have conditions that will put a premium on well made shots and repetitiveness of those.

Create static limits on balls to be enforced POST drilling. Alongside those, create DYNAMIC limits as well.

We both feel that bowling well and scoring well should be something that you earn through practice and personal effort, not something you can do by purchasing equipment that allows you to artificially bolster you past your own true ability level.

I feel we should've handled this in the past and remained at that level. You feel like we should just keep adding oil and making the shots harder and harder to overpower no matter what equipment is used. The difference, to me, is this. My way we can keep the game relatively easy and simple while still controling the scoring pace while your way makes things intentionally hard and demanding in order to prevent people from being able to hit the shot/condition.

In essence, I think SCORING should be hard while you think BOWLING ITSSELF should be hard and challenging, thus making scores go down.

If bowling is easy and uncomplicated, it can attract many. If it gets like Chinese algebra, many are likely to find alternatives for their recreation.

CONTROL THE SCORING. If that means going back to hard rubber balls and wooden pins with oil put out merely to protect the lane surface, then let it be so.

I think my way is simple. I think yours is over complicated. I think they both do about the same thing.

Russell · « **Reply #44 on:** April 15, 2011, 08:25:09 PM »

BC,

Talking down to me about my "lack of knowledge" is really getting you nowhere to proving a point. I'd like to know what it is in my original post that remotely told you:

- I drill everything with long pins

- I have low tilt

- I don't know how to lay out asymmetricals

- I am using antiquated drilling techniques

You're a condescending little prude that thinks you know it all. I know plenty about ball motion and layouts, and I know enough about the real world of bowling to know that the best on the planet don't complicate things this much. You're kidding yourself if you think that the truly elite players out there really give 1/2 of one s**t whether the pin is 1/8" closer to their PAP, or the spin time of the new ball that comes out.

I just don't drink your kool aid, or Mo's. If he's so great at the technical side of bowling WHY DOES MORICH RELEASE TURD AFTER TURD AFTER TURD AFTER TURD? I know Mo is a genius...but the practical application of rocket science to a simple game with some huge variables is just unnecessary.

Now go ahead and tell me how little I know. I'll go back to making my customers happy with my "old school" layouts that seem to keep working.

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

scotts33 · « **Reply #45 on:** April 15, 2011, 08:29:08 PM »

I'll add to this thread slightly. I believe most refer back to the THS. That's the base line....let's face it most do not bowl on anything more than THS league conditions even the hacks that post on here myself included. Most with average ball speed 14 to 15 at the deck and average hand 300-325 on a wet/dry THS of 38 to 40 feet don't need high tech balls. So, be it purchase your low entry level ball and that performance will be above what you need if you have any hand.

Ball manuafcturers are not going to be making as much $$$ selling entry level pieces and we all know that. It's a chicken before the egg ,etc.

I've proved that to myself by purchasing medium to higher end balls...I don't need them expect for flatter conditions. BUT, most that post on these forums are not Joe Bowlers in our expectations or we are looking for the next best equation. That's where Russell's discussion comes in....you bowl on a THS use a low cost entry level piece line up and use it. No high end pieces are needed. That's the difference between high end and low end.....we don't need them and yes I understand the layout/surface/lane topography thingy. Most that use high end stuff lay them out weak to use them or have stats. that are way above most of us Joe Bowlers.

Scott

Author Topic: Do we make the game way too complicated? (Read 10902 times)

Russell

Do we make the game way too complicated?

The Stroke

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Juggernaut

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

NoseofRI

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

northface28

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

NoseofRI

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

BowlingChat

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

NoseofRI

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

BowlingChat

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Juggernaut

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

NoseofRI

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

BowlingChat

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

BowlingChat

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Juggernaut

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Russell

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

scotts33

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?