win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Does this statement hold truth?  (Read 6164 times)

tkkshop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
Does this statement hold truth?
« on: March 29, 2016, 01:16:44 PM »
Well guys, does the attached statement hold any truth?

 

jpolreis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: Does this statement hold truth?
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2016, 08:33:22 AM »
I'll take a some what different view point.  I know many bowlers who are frustrated by the equipment.  There are so many bowling balls and they don't know which one to choose when they get a new.  Then when they do get a new one it is normally a high end ball because they think those balls are the best and their pro shop pushes those balls. When in reality a lower end ball might match up to their game better.  So now they struggle to shoot big numbers but still bowl good.  However they get frustrated that people who average less are shooting big numbers all the time and they can't pop off the big game or series. 

Just within the last month I've suggested to a couple people that they should try a lower end ball, mainly telling them to get a symmetrical ball instead of asymmetrical.  From the point being made in the post that usually there isn't enough oil on the lane for the new high end balls today.  Within the last two weeks they have both thanked me as they are now scoring better and like their ball reaction much better.  As I told them just because a ball costs more doesn't mean it is better.  If you look in most pros bowling bags they might have 1 or 2 high end balls but then the other 20 balls are symmetrical lower end equipment.   

On the flip side if you took resin out of these players hands more than likely they would be disappointed that their ball doesn't hook.   

Today's game is a lot about matching up with the environment that you are playing on.  I didn't bowl then but I'm sure this was also the case in the era of plastic and urethane too.   
 

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2779
Re: Does this statement hold truth?
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2016, 10:31:15 AM »
It always has been about matching up with the environment.  Back before WWII they used shellac lane finish and didn't oil it.  Guys threw 2 hole conventional grip balls because all they needed to do was dump the ball onto the lane and burn a track in the shellac.  The modern finger tip grip only became popular on the lacquer finish that replaced shellac, and was oiled to protect it.  For the first time the skid, roll, hook reaction became useful to enhance carry, and the semi roll release started to supplant the full roller as the most effective release. 

The polyester ball was introduced in 1960, but didn't gain wide popularity among top level bowlers until Don Johnson started having great success with it on the harder urethane lane finishes that were starting to replace lacquer around 1970.  Polyester wasn't a disadvantage on the lacquer.  Indeed Harry Smith won a PBA stop using an early Crown Jewel in the mid 60's.  Lacquer tracked so nicely that the ball coverstock wasn't a big issue.  On urethane finish the oil tended to push off the heads, and even when the track dried out, the harder rubber balls didn't have the friction that the softer polyester balls did.  Polyester was better because it would skid through the oil just as easy as rubber, but it would grab the dry harder.  This characteristic was soon discovered by younger bowlers who started lifting the ball harder creating even more revs giving them more hitting power.  Soon Roth and Holman appeared on the tour with their high rev big hooks and a host of others followed suit. 

Lane men also discovered that too much oil down the lane hurt scoring, so they began cutting the oil distance back and stripping the back ends.  They also began putting much less oil outside in and attempt to build a track on the new finishes that didn't track as nicely as lacquer did.  They had blocked lanes on lacquer too, but this usually involved leaving the outside 5 boards dry.  On Urethane they left the outside 10 dry to accommodate the bigger hooks that were starting to dominate the game.

When urethane was introduced it again changed the dynamic because urethane unlike polyester could be roughed up to create friction on the dry without reducing the skid throught the heads.  If you had done this to polyester, taking it down to 500 grit, it would have increased the friction in the heads too much, causing the big hooking releases to burn up early on the short patterns.

Resin enhanced urethane created yet another new friction characteristic.  Unlike pure urethane, resin created friction in the dry without needing to be roughed up.  It also did two other things that were even more important.  First, it absorbed more oil, causing less oil to be pushed down lane.  Second, the friction coefficient was higher on the oil that did carry down than was the case for urethane.  All these factors worked together to allow rotational energy to be released more effectively at the end of the oil.  Lower rev traditional styles were now able to carry better because they could play straighter through the oil and still get energy into the pocket.  Many power players struggled with the resin equipment because high revs and slow ball speed caused  their balls to burn out when they looped the lane. 

As the power players learned to create more ball speed, and lane men started oiling longer after the short oil experiment during the 80's the advantage of the power game again returned. This, because the power players could follow the oil much deeper inside than was the case in earlier eras, and still get strong down lane recovery.

During all the eras I have described, certain bowlers were able to understand the changes and modify their games to best take advantage of the changes.  WRW was a high rev power player when he first went on tour.  Even before resin he discovered that he could use ball speed and more end over end roll to compete.  When resin came in he was ahead of the curve.  Norm Duke was incredibly versatile when he was young.  He could hook the lane and he could go straight.  When resin came in he went away from his bigger slow hook and utilized his straight game.  Others have continued to evolve during the resin era.  Barnes tore the cover off the ball at Wichita State, now he relies on ball speed.  Even Sean Rash has changed his axis rotation to go straighter without giving up the revs. 


Aloarjr810

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Alley Katz Strike!
Re: Does this statement hold truth?
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2016, 11:08:57 AM »
Back in the day when the new technology was polyester (Plastic) balls according to Don Johnson.

They looked at plastic balls back then , like a lot of people look at resin balls today.

Don Johnson told about how hard plastic balls snapped into the pocket (which shows how much lane conditions have changed today) and Glenn Allison made the comment back then that plastic carried more garbage hits than rubber.

Sounds familiar doesn't

Imagine the posts you'd have back then about how the game has lost it's integrity and they should go back to using rubber and wood balls and oiling the lanes with a mop.

They didn't go back to rubber or wood balls and We're not going back to the 80's.

So quit living in the past and complaining about today's game, learn how to use modern equipment.

If you we're a good bowler back then you should be able to make the conversion to today's game. 

if you can't then your SOL.







« Last Edit: March 30, 2016, 11:38:59 AM by Aloarjr810 »
Aloarjr810
----------
Click For My Grip

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2779
Re: Does this statement hold truth?
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2016, 11:39:39 AM »
Agree totally.  Also just as an aside, my average jumped more when Polyester came in than it did with urethane or resin.  I never averaged over 200 with hard rubber.  I averaged as high as 215 with polyester.  I averaged about 225 with urethane, and went to about 230 with resin.  My award scores did go way up with resin, but the same carrying power that lead to those 300 games, also made transitions much more difficult over a series of games.   

Bull_winkle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Re: Does this statement hold truth?
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2016, 11:45:47 AM »
It always has been about matching up with the environment.  Back before WWII they used shellac lane finish and didn't oil it.  Guys threw 2 hole conventional grip balls because all they needed to do was dump the ball onto the lane and burn a track in the shellac.  The modern finger tip grip only became popular on the lacquer finish that replaced shellac, and was oiled to protect it.  For the first time the skid, roll, hook reaction became useful to enhance carry, and the semi roll release started to supplant the full roller as the most effective release. 

The polyester ball was introduced in 1960, but didn't gain wide popularity among top level bowlers until Don Johnson started having great success with it on the harder urethane lane finishes that were starting to replace lacquer around 1970.  Polyester wasn't a disadvantage on the lacquer.  Indeed Harry Smith won a PBA stop using an early Crown Jewel in the mid 60's.  Lacquer tracked so nicely that the ball coverstock wasn't a big issue.  On urethane finish the oil tended to push off the heads, and even when the track dried out, the harder rubber balls didn't have the friction that the softer polyester balls did.  Polyester was better because it would skid through the oil just as easy as rubber, but it would grab the dry harder.  This characteristic was soon discovered by younger bowlers who started lifting the ball harder creating even more revs giving them more hitting power.  Soon Roth and Holman appeared on the tour with their high rev big hooks and a host of others followed suit. 

Lane men also discovered that too much oil down the lane hurt scoring, so they began cutting the oil distance back and stripping the back ends.  They also began putting much less oil outside in and attempt to build a track on the new finishes that didn't track as nicely as lacquer did.  They had blocked lanes on lacquer too, but this usually involved leaving the outside 5 boards dry.  On Urethane they left the outside 10 dry to accommodate the bigger hooks that were starting to dominate the game.

When urethane was introduced it again changed the dynamic because urethane unlike polyester could be roughed up to create friction on the dry without reducing the skid throught the heads.  If you had done this to polyester, taking it down to 500 grit, it would have increased the friction in the heads too much, causing the big hooking releases to burn up early on the short patterns.

Resin enhanced urethane created yet another new friction characteristic.  Unlike pure urethane, resin created friction in the dry without needing to be roughed up.  It also did two other things that were even more important.  First, it absorbed more oil, causing less oil to be pushed down lane.  Second, the friction coefficient was higher on the oil that did carry down than was the case for urethane.  All these factors worked together to allow rotational energy to be released more effectively at the end of the oil.  Lower rev traditional styles were now able to carry better because they could play straighter through the oil and still get energy into the pocket.  Many power players struggled with the resin equipment because high revs and slow ball speed caused  their balls to burn out when they looped the lane. 

As the power players learned to create more ball speed, and lane men started oiling longer after the short oil experiment during the 80's the advantage of the power game again returned. This, because the power players could follow the oil much deeper inside than was the case in earlier eras, and still get strong down lane recovery.

During all the eras I have described, certain bowlers were able to understand the changes and modify their games to best take advantage of the changes.  WRW was a high rev power player when he first went on tour.  Even before resin he discovered that he could use ball speed and more end over end roll to compete.  When resin came in he was ahead of the curve.  Norm Duke was incredibly versatile when he was young.  He could hook the lane and he could go straight.  When resin came in he went away from his bigger slow hook and utilized his straight game.  Others have continued to evolve during the resin era.  Barnes tore the cover off the ball at Wichita State, now he relies on ball speed.  Even Sean Rash has changed his axis rotation to go straighter without giving up the revs.

Having lived through the Shellac-Lacquer-Urethane transition in the 60s-70s-80s, I have a couple of comments.

"Blocking" lanes, as I recall, was an attempt to simulate what would naturally happen to Shellac over time.

Also, the reason the industry moved away from Shellac and Lacquer was safety-related, specifically fires. Every summer one or two bowling alleys in my neighborhood would go up in smoke when they were refinishing the lanes. Urethane finish essentially fixes that.

The biggest difference between high level bowling in the 1960s-70s and today is entry angle and the effect on pin action and spares. For right handers, 4-pin and 10-pin leaves were much more common than they are today. As were spares with a 5-pin in them, especially the 4-5-7. Another hit that was very common was the mixing strike where the headpin hit the side board and the went through the 4-5-7 like an arrow from a bow.

To add one more item to the discussion: I think left handers had much more of an advantage in the 70s than they do today.
 

tommygn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
Re: Does this statement hold truth?
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2016, 12:01:30 PM »
Here is one thing to think about, when talking about the true elite of any sport. You can visually see who the best qb's are in football. You can visually see who the best basketball players are. Any sport, you can "see" what makes the elite better than everyone else. It can be quantified. There will always be one or two exceptions to the rule, but 99 out of 100 times, you can see what makes the great players great.

With bowling, not so much. Maybe, that is why the game is SO hard to sell to corporate America, when it comes to advertising dollars. With all of the different styles of delivery, and only relying on score to be the basis of what makes a player great, good or just average, it's hard to quantify what excellence is. Throw in the fact that lane conditions also affect the scoring pace, you have a very complex question with no answers on your had. Or is there an answer.... ?? Basically, we have come to a point that as long as you stay behind the fouline(and even that is debatable, as KNOW ONE EVER fouls anymore, just foul light malfunctions  ::)) and don't use the opposite hand, it's a good delivery. Soon, we won't need coaches anymore, either.
God creates us with a blank canvas, and the "picture" we paint is up to us. Paint a picture you like and love!

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2779
Re: Does this statement hold truth?
« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2016, 09:57:57 AM »
Just a couple of points on the lane finish.  Shellac was actually gone by the mid 50's.  Shellac came from southeast asia, and became difficult to get in WW2.  That is what spurred the change to lacquer.  There was certainly lane blocking from almost the day they started oiling lacquer.  However this was not considered an issue until the mid 60's, and there was no specific rule about oiling patterns until 1976.  Lacquer tracked pretty will without needing to be blocked.  I oiled lanes with a spray gun on lacquer when I was 15.  I sprayed from 45 feet back to the dots.  After the spray settled out I buffed from the foul line to the head pin and back.  Lanes were very slick, but even with rubber balls a track fairly quickly opened up between 2nd and 3rd arrow. 

The problem really came in when urethane finishes replaced lacquer around 1970. Oil sat on top of the harder urethane, and seemed to act like mercury on a counter top.  While it would eventually track, it pushed off the heads, and moved down lane during initial transitions.  Lane men first started stripping the back ends and shortening the oil length but the carrydown effect was even more noticeable when the back ends were fresh.  No hold area, and the swing area quickly disappeared.  Soft plastic balls helped, but the 10 to 10 top hat pattern with heavy shimming in the century lane machines became the best option.  However scores really took off on blocked urethane with the availability of soft polyester balls. 

It was the reaction of soft polyester on the blocked urethane lane finish that led to the flat oil rules, and subsequent limited distance dressing rule.

 

ICDeadMoney

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: Does this statement hold truth?
« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2016, 06:10:58 PM »
Just a couple of points on the lane finish.  Shellac was actually gone by the mid 50's.  Shellac came from southeast asia, and became difficult to get in WW2.  That is what spurred the change to lacquer.  There was certainly lane blocking from almost the day they started oiling lacquer.  However this was not considered an issue until the mid 60's, and there was no specific rule about oiling patterns until 1976.  Lacquer tracked pretty will without needing to be blocked.  I oiled lanes with a spray gun on lacquer when I was 15.  I sprayed from 45 feet back to the dots.  After the spray settled out I buffed from the foul line to the head pin and back.  Lanes were very slick, but even with rubber balls a track fairly quickly opened up between 2nd and 3rd arrow. 

The problem really came in when urethane finishes replaced lacquer around 1970. Oil sat on top of the harder urethane, and seemed to act like mercury on a counter top.  While it would eventually track, it pushed off the heads, and moved down lane during initial transitions.  Lane men first started stripping the back ends and shortening the oil length but the carrydown effect was even more noticeable when the back ends were fresh.  No hold area, and the swing area quickly disappeared.  Soft plastic balls helped, but the 10 to 10 top hat pattern with heavy shimming in the century lane machines became the best option.  However scores really took off on blocked urethane with the availability of soft polyester balls. 

It was the reaction of soft polyester on the blocked urethane lane finish that led to the flat oil rules, and subsequent limited distance dressing rule.

 


Back with shorter lighter oil, you could be accurate, or you could achieve angle of entry.  A few could achieve angle of entry and maintain accuracy.

There wasn't lanes that went to 10 to 10 with a century machine around me, but then again, we didn't have any scores in my area rejected.

Orange County however (across the mountains from us) had scores rejected.  One rejections was very public.

With Resin balls, and walled lanes, the oil gives you simulated accuracy, and the ball gives you angle of entry.

Too much giving, not enough earning.

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2779
Re: Does this statement hold truth?
« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2016, 08:52:14 PM »
Heavy 10 to 10 blocking came about in the 80's when they allowed it with short oil.  Prior to the 80's they shimmed the machines to put heavy crowns out.  There have been one house wonders for as long as I have been bowling
. Biggest difference over the last few years is that all house shots in our area play the same

ICDeadMoney

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: Does this statement hold truth?
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2016, 10:28:41 PM »
Heavy 10 to 10 blocking came about in the 80's when they allowed it with short oil.  Prior to the 80's they shimmed the machines to put heavy crowns out.  There have been one house wonders for as long as I have been bowling
. Biggest difference over the last few years is that all house shots in our area play the same

We didn't see 10 to 10 even with 24 feet of oil.

Besides, whats the point.

The wall was for hold area, and on 24 feet, no matter how you oiled, there wasn't hold area

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2779
Re: Does this statement hold truth?
« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2016, 11:14:19 AM »
IC.  That was the point of the short oil rule.  The ABC was still trying to legislate against using oil to steer the ball to the pocket, while all the young power players were looing for mistake room to the gutter.  That is why it didn't work.  All they did was create skid through the heads and unlimited swing area if you cupped your wrist enough.  Also just for your information, they did indeed block the lanes 10 to 10 on short oil.  The requirement was that you had to even oil if you went longer than 24 feet, but you could puddle the middle as much as you wanted for 24 feet.

Just as a follow up, it is obvious that we all come from different histories in our bowling experience and that those differences shape our perceptions.  My history goes back 60 years.  I have lived in this area the entire time.  During that span the 3 or 4 best centers in our area were always dead easy to the pocket from lacquer to urethane, to synthetics.  Some were blocked off the corner others had a super nice inside track ( either natural or artificially made ). 

What changed during that 60 years is that the friction factor of balls increased from rubber to polyester to urethane to resin urethane.  Each increase in the friction increased the potential carry percentage of pocket hits.  The differences in lane finishes and oiling lengths did change what type of release was rewarded the most.  For example the reason high rev releases were not rewarded on lacquer with rubber balls was because there simply was not enough friction.  You had to throw slow and finesse the amount of side roll in order to create the most effective hook. When urethane balls and short oil came in it was possible to rev the ball more and loop the lane because of the increased friction sooner down the lane.  The resin balls were even higher friction and this friction is temporarily combated by more and longer oil.  However there is so much back end friction that much higher balls speeds can and must be achieved to keep the ball from losing its energy too quickly.  Big change over 60 years, but hitting the pocket is not easier today than in 1966 at the houses I have always bowled at in the Pacific Northwest.

bergman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
Re: Does this statement hold truth?
« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2016, 10:18:14 PM »
Great discussion. Avabob's chronology of the past 50 years is accurate. I have been bowling for over 50 years and have seen these changes to the game over that time span. It is also true that each of us have had different experiences based on where we
bowled. I spent the first 36 years of my life in the Pittsburgh area. I moved to California
a few years after the introduction of urethane balls (think AMF Angle). I returned to Pittsburgh a few years ago. I started bowling on lacquer, and with the old hard rubber balls.
Around 1969-70, urethane finishes started to replace lacquer .

Without repeating the history of all of the changes that have occurred to the game
over all of those years, my experience is that at least in Pittsburgh, lane conditions
in general were significantly more difficult back in those days.  We seldom, if ever,
seen lane blocking here. You could literally count on the fingers of one hand the number of bowlers who averaged 200+over an entire season. It is true that a favorable track could be developed with lacquer, but the scoring advantage it produced was not as great when compared to how lanes are dressed today. In my experience there is simply no comparison between these eras. In fact, lacquer often
produced conditions so unfavorable that the "track" had to be avoided entirely. Add to this were the inconsistencies that were inherent with wood lane beds----- which were
often exacerbated in houses with poor maintenance schedules.

I bowled on a lot of "brickyards" in those days . Many more so, than what I encounter
in today's environment. Our league conditions were tough and demanding. There was no differentiation between a "sport league" and a traditional league when it came to lane conditioning. The introduction of polyester balls, including the magnificent Columbia Yellow Dot, did little to change the scoring pace
in the early 70's. It wasn't  until the ABC dramatically relaxed their lane dressing standards circa 1977, that scores (and averages) really started to take off. At least in the Pittsburgh area.

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2779
Re: Does this statement hold truth?
« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2016, 10:53:45 PM »
Lots of major areas were tough during the lacquer era and lots were easy. St Louis was a high scoring area. Chicago not so much. Seattle was high scoring. It was really about how much oil they put out.  Most low scoring area simply didn't put out much oil compared to high scoring areas.  Most really high scoring houses were blocked off the corner.  A lot of full rollers really could whack those corner shots but couldn't do much even on a nice third arrow track.