Author Topic: Let's try a different spin on the USBC ball spec issue (Read 812 times)

jimsey · « **on:** May 02, 2005, 02:43:44 AM »

Maybe we should be looking at the big picture here. It took 3 years and several different versions to make USBC a reality, something that most of us believed was the right thing initially but demanded modifications to make it acceptable. Let's assume that the new ball specs are a first proposal and are intended to gain the support of the manufacturers for the future potential changes in pins, lane surfaces and conditioning. The ball specs issue has raised enough discussion and debate that many bowlers are beginning to point at lane conditions as the primary issue.

If USBC had started with the thought of revamping the lane conditioning requirements, would we have had the same outcry and lack of support? Let's give the USBC some credit, these folks and especially the tech department, have put a lot of time and research into this. They are more informed and knowledgeable than most bowlers, and yes, many of the posters on this board.

Don't forget, the make up of the new USBC board includes some BPAA members. In order to gain acceptance of any changes that will pass, they may have to sacrifice a few preliminary attempts to get to the real issues.

Steven · « **Reply #1 on:** May 02, 2005, 11:40:52 AM »

jimsey: You were doing fine until you got to this part:

quote:
Let's give the USBC some credit, these folks and especially the tech department, have put a lot of time and research into this. They are more informed and knowledgeable than most bowlers, and yes, many of the posters on this board.

The USBC (previously the ABC) has a track record that's laughable at best. Their main value has been reduced to dispensing trinkets (patches, rings, etc.) for watered down achievements.

At this point, they're going to have to work very hard to earn even the smallest amount of 'credit'. Their latest attempt with these less than well thought out proposals is not a step in the right direction. If their goal is to restore integrity, they're missing the boat.

--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

jimsey · « **Reply #2 on:** May 02, 2005, 12:01:38 PM »

steven

I'll agree with you that ABC/WIBC has been powerless to to anything effective other than dispensing "gumballs". I believe that in part this has been due to its inability to have the delegates pass any meaningful chnages in rules and legislation. It was always a long and tenuous project to implement changes that had to be voted on by two governing bodies made up of volunteers. If you have ever been to some of these conventions than you know why it often seems like the organization has been living in the past.

I do think it is a good first "attempt", to check out the depth and temperature of the water before diving in. It looks like the approach might be lets walk before we try to run.

I'm sure that at the top levels, USBC is well aware of the trouble that the sport is in. Getting the industry to all move in the same direction may be like trying to herd cats.

Steven · « **Reply #3 on:** May 02, 2005, 12:14:49 PM »

Jim: If these proposals are nothing more than a 'trial balloon' for achieving broader objectives, I guess that's fine, but they don't seem to make sense at any level.

1) They'll weaken the ball industry -- this is a given. I can't see the equipment industry embracing this at any level; so much for consensus building.

2) They'll adversely affect middle tier bowlers (bread-and-butter income to most houses) while leaving the scratch level bowlers largely unscathed. I can really see the BPAA rooting for this one.

3) Honor scores will still be out of control.

I'd really like to understand the USBC's perverted logic in pursuing these changes.
--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

Edited on 5/2/2005 12:23 PM

jimsey · « **Reply #4 on:** May 02, 2005, 12:44:34 PM »

Steven

1)I don't agree that it will weaken the ball industry, the manufacturers will still be able to come out with newer balls of the month that bowlers will believe are the majic bean. The pro shops will be a risk, however, since a drilling with borderline side weight will not be able to be made legal with a balance hole. If keeping the cg to within 1" of grip center aleveates the problem, the driller will still be limited in types of layout available to match up to an individual bowlers style.

2)It will reduce the number of high average bowlers downward to fill in the middle tier who will also see some decline in average. I don't know if this is a good thing although many currently complain about inflated averages.

3)Yep, the major factor here has always been and always will be lane conditions. This will always be a problem until the standards change or a rating system is developed that better identifies the scoring differences between lane surfaces and conditions patterns (as the pba now does).

One of the equipment issues that I am surprised was not addressed in the first attempt of changes was the amount of oil that current equipment removes from the lane. The standard for hardness of the additives (particles) makes sense in limitting the friction that a ball surface adds to the equation. Restricting the layout by eliminating the balance hole may change the flare characteristics and therefore change the overall amount of oil removed, but will not change the fact that any lane condition will transition into a THS if played correctly with the correct equipment.

I'm guessing that it will be a long difficult "work in progress" until we see any significant change.

loose5682 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 02, 2005, 12:47:13 PM »

I don't understand why it weakens the ball industry...without bowling, there would be no need for bowling balls...and as has been said MANY times before, manufacturers will always come up with balls/cores/coverstocks/etc. that match to lane conditions. Times change and so do rules...
--------------------
Andrew Loose
"Evolutionary. Revolutionary."

Doug Sterner · « **Reply #6 on:** May 02, 2005, 01:09:32 PM »

I have been doing a lot of thinking on this issue since I first heard of it and I have come to a few conclusions...

1. Companies like track will start to rule the game. The cores on most Track balls are so strong that even with a label layout they will still flare a lot and be able to make the big move.

2. Companies that use mostly symmetrical cores like Lane 1 and Brunswick and to a certain extent Hammer will suffer. These balls perform better with the CG out drill patterns that we have all become accustomed to.

3. I see the "within 1" of grip center" rule being modified to "within the triangle formed by the 3 gripping holes." This would prove a little more reasonable as it would give the driller a bit more leeway in drilling a ball. OR.....

4. Elimination of the balance hole is insane. Instead of eliminating the balance hole. Let's govern the size or depth. Any competent ball driller is able to order a ball with appropriate top weight (assuming of course the manufacturer actually puts out balls with tops low enough to use) so that no weighthole is needed. I have drilled several balls stacked leverage or even 4x2 and such and not needed balance holes because I ordered a ball in with appropriate top weight. Don't try and make a ball with 4 oz of top legal on a 4x3 drill....that's ludicrous. Why not limit the balance hole to a 3/4" bit 2" deep and let it go at that? That hole will affect ball reaction but not to the extent that 1-1/8 x 3" crater will.

5. And of course, lane conditions, lane conditions, lane conditions.....why not set a volume AND length limit on the oil now? Why not modify the SPORT pattern ratio to say 5:1 anywhere on the lane and see what happens? The wall will be forced to disappear and turn into a blend....what a perfect world eh??

Opinions?

?
--------------------
Doug Sterner
Doug's Pro Shop
Owego, NY
http://dougsproshop@aol.com
www.dougsproshop.net
Although a small elite group, the bond among fellows can never be broken...FOS members rejoice!

Steven · « **Reply #7 on:** May 02, 2005, 01:12:17 PM »

The 'ball industry' is composed of a combination of equipment manufacturers, distributors, and pros shops.

This industry will will be weakened at all levels. Consider the spirit of the new proposed rules, which is to start taking core dynamics out of the equation. When you can do fewer things to change the reaction of a ball, fewer balls will be purchased. If that doesn't weaken the food chain, nothing will.

You don't 'fix' a problem by destroying (or significantly weakening) an industry. Again, all that these proposed rules will accomplish is to punish the handicap bowlers who are keeping the houses alive. Most scratch bowlers will not see more than a blip in their averages. Heck, I'm nothing special, and I booked 222 this year using equipment that will be legal under the proposed rules. We have a 235 average in my primary scratch league who uses an old Hammer. Some scratch bowlers will take a hit, but not enough to make a difference in the overall number of honor scores.

So what will we be accomplishing?
--------------------
"You want the truth? -- You can't handle the truth! "

Edited on 5/2/2005 1:07 PM

Author Topic: Let's try a different spin on the USBC ball spec issue (Read 812 times)

jimsey

Let's try a different spin on the USBC ball spec issue

Steven

Re: Let's try a different spin on the USBC ball spec issue

jimsey

Re: Let's try a different spin on the USBC ball spec issue

Steven

Re: Let's try a different spin on the USBC ball spec issue

jimsey

Re: Let's try a different spin on the USBC ball spec issue

loose5682

Re: Let's try a different spin on the USBC ball spec issue

Doug Sterner

Re: Let's try a different spin on the USBC ball spec issue

Steven

Re: Let's try a different spin on the USBC ball spec issue