BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Juggernaut on March 07, 2022, 05:07:17 PM
-
https://www.bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337345
At least you can get a replacement ball.
Find it a bit odd that they said it was still USBC approved, you just can’t use it in a national tournament.
-
Doesn't anyone have an effing Durometer anymore. This is getting ridiculous. If the ball is too soft you throw it out if not you don't go by manufacturing date. Same with the PBA. They went even more crazy outlawing all urethane more than 2 years old
-
Hmm.. and weren't we just talking about the slippery slope in the other thread? Here we are with it now.
That said, props to Brunswick for offering to replace this, not only with just a Reynosa pour, but any ball of the bowler's choice. I could see the Hopkinsville Purples being swapped out for a Widow Pink Pearl Urethane, if not for a Reynosa Purple.
Chris Beans does have a good point in his latest video: If hardness is indeed a problem (as dictated by the PBA), then why are only the Purple Hammers being sin binned here, and not the Pitches, or anything else that now according to the PBA, is out of specifications?
Granted the PBA and the USBC are completely different organizations, but that does leave a lot of open-ended questions because one organization is doing something completely different than the other. If softness and specifications are the issue, then something needs to be addressed from whichever organization is higher and have that blanket apply.
Prime example: The Masters and the US Open are USBC events, not PBA events. Because of that, the PBA's 2-year rule wouldn't apply.
BL.
-
Doesn't anyone have an effing Durometer anymore. This is getting ridiculous. If the ball is too soft you throw it out if not you don't go by manufacturing date. Same with the PBA. They went even more crazy outlawing all urethane more than 2 years old
They do have durometers, but the procedure for testing the balls is so convoluted there isn't enough time to check them all. They take readings in 10 spots on the ball, add up the results, and determine the average hardness. There is also an allowance for durometer error. So as long as the average hardness is 68D or higher it passes.
Some of these PBA guys come rolling in with 20 balls. Say there are 100 bowlers checking in, and each one has 2 urethane balls. Guesstimate 5 minutes to check each ball with the durometer. Now you are looking at 16 hours spent just checking those 200 urethane balls. That is partly why the PBA was originally only checking before finals. There simply was not enough time and resources to check during check-in.
USBC tournaments would be even longer since there are more people checking in before each squad.
The path of least resistance is to just exclude them from use. Not that it solves the problem in its entirety, but it is the easiest solution to administer. The intention of going by manufacturing date is to eliminate those alleged soft Kentucky Purple Hammers that may have been shipped out.
-
Like most USBC rules it is only relative at one tournament.
How many Eagles have been won with purple hammers? The Mcneil who crushed it for years on the left side at nationals wasn't using urethane to do it.
It is an easy solution to a non issue and requires no work on USBCs part. Same for the rule the PBA recently added.
-
Like most USBC rules it is only relative at one tournament.
How many Eagles have been won with purple hammers? The Mcneil who crushed it for years on the left side at nationals wasn't using urethane to do it.
It is an easy solution to a non issue and requires no work on USBCs part. Same for the rule the PBA recently added.
That is Chad's favorite kind of rule...
-
Avabob's solution is the best one. Perhaps it's too time consuming and labor intensive to resort to the durometer solution.
Welcome to the present day world where you now need a 2 tractor trailers just to haul all of the balls to a tournament.
You know, sometimes the old-schoolers have the best solution to a problem. Avabob's is one of them.
-
The ironic thing is that softness is pretty much irrelevant. I remember when resin first came out. They called them cheater balls. Funny thing. A friend of mine had an old soft Shore D. He brought it out and threw it next to a 75+ hardness Excaliber. The resin ball out hit the Shore D by a huge margin. Likewise any resin ball out hits a purple hammer. The fact that a purple hammer out hits other urethane by a little has little to do with hardness
-
I think USBC does use a durameter for the Open Championships.
-
I thought so too.
-
Avabob's solution is the best one. Perhaps it's too time consuming and labor intensive to resort to the durometer solution.
Welcome to the present day world where you now need a 2 tractor trailers just to haul all of the balls to a tournament.
You know, sometimes the old-schoolers have the best solution to a problem. Avabob's is one of them.
Yeah this "bring 30 balls to the event" is out of hand. My opinion for what it's actually worth? We need more Petersens with random mystery patterns and a 2 ball limit.
-
No it's not irrelevant, the softer balls create a lot more reaction consistency, this is a big facet of the "illegal" purple hammers. It has nothing to do with hit and everything to do with the consistency of the reaction, especially throughout transition. Hit isn't a ball attribute, it's a matchup attribute, urethane can "out-hit" resin given the right situations. If it was irrelevant, this wouldn't be a thing.
The ironic thing is that softness is pretty much irrelevant. I remember when resin first came out. They called them cheater balls. Funny thing. A friend of mine had an old soft Shore D. He brought it out and threw it next to a 75+ hardness Excaliber. The resin ball out hit the Shore D by a huge margin. Likewise any resin ball out hits a purple hammer. The fact that a purple hammer out hits other urethane by a little has little to do with hardness
-
No it's not irrelevant, the softer balls create a lot more reaction consistency, this is a big facet of the "illegal" purple hammers. It has nothing to do with hit and everything to do with the consistency of the reaction, especially throughout transition. Hit isn't a ball attribute, it's a matchup attribute, urethane can "out-hit" resin given the right situations. If it was irrelevant, this wouldn't be a thing.
The ironic thing is that softness is pretty much irrelevant. I remember when resin first came out. They called them cheater balls. Funny thing. A friend of mine had an old soft Shore D. He brought it out and threw it next to a 75+ hardness Excaliber. The resin ball out hit the Shore D by a huge margin. Likewise any resin ball out hits a purple hammer. The fact that a purple hammer out hits other urethane by a little has little to do with hardness
What happens when urethane less then two years old is still winning tournaments on the pba tour and certain players still complain?
-
Or what happens when new purple hammers are still beating the other urethane. Urethane is what it is. Purple hammer is marginally better for me than other urethane I have thrown but it is still urethane with all of the issues. The super high rev guys can use it longer but they still run into issues.
-
The ambiguous words here that are causing confusion are "national tournaments". Does this only mean the USBC Open Championships? Or is this to mean all USBC national tournaments?
That's why I brought up the US Open and the Masters. If it is only the USBC Open, then picture the complaining when a non-PBA member registers for the Masters (I'll use it as the example since it is coming up in 2 weeks), and according to the assumption that the banning is only for the USBC Open Championships, will be able to use a 2016/2017 Purple Hammer, while the PBA member will be subject to the rolling 2-year rule, and gets beat by the non-PBA member.
To make it worse, if the ban is only for the USBC Open Championships, will the PBA member be able to use the 2016/2017 Purple Hammers because this is a USBC tournament whose title is recognized by the PBA? That would then circumvent the rolling 2-year rule.
There is major ambiguity here that needs to be clarified.
BL.
-
Urethane is here to stay, and it will still win tournaments, but there was an obvious performance advantage to those specific balls, and not even just the model, specific batches of that model. I think the PBA looked to avoid the appearance of targeting with their rule, or to avoid getting specific with it, but the USBC just did it. It's not urethane in general that people are complaining about or that led them to this, yeah there's a few players that don't like urethane, but that's called bowling everywhere, and they're not going to straight up ban a piece of a equipment that people just don't like.
No it's not irrelevant, the softer balls create a lot more reaction consistency, this is a big facet of the "illegal" purple hammers. It has nothing to do with hit and everything to do with the consistency of the reaction, especially throughout transition. Hit isn't a ball attribute, it's a matchup attribute, urethane can "out-hit" resin given the right situations. If it was irrelevant, this wouldn't be a thing.
The ironic thing is that softness is pretty much irrelevant. I remember when resin first came out. They called them cheater balls. Funny thing. A friend of mine had an old soft Shore D. He brought it out and threw it next to a 75+ hardness Excaliber. The resin ball out hit the Shore D by a huge margin. Likewise any resin ball out hits a purple hammer. The fact that a purple hammer out hits other urethane by a little has little to do with hardness
What happens when urethane less then two years old is still winning tournaments on the pba tour and certain players still complain?
-
But do you have a purple hammer from one of the years in question? It's not just that it was slightly better than other urethane balls, it was suspiciously better, and specifically those, that's why people kept trying to seek out older Kentucky PHs, in addition to the fact that they continued to fail testing. Way too many red flags to continue to ignore. The way the legal PHs acted on the shows the last couple weeks, I don't think anyone's going to be worrying or complaining about them any more . .
Or what happens when new purple hammers are still beating the other urethane. Urethane is what it is. Purple hammer is marginally better for me than other urethane I have thrown but it is still urethane with all of the issues. The super high rev guys can use it longer but they still run into issues.
-
The ambiguous words here that are causing confusion are "national tournaments". Does this only mean the USBC Open Championships? Or is this to mean all USBC national tournaments?
That's why I brought up the US Open and the Masters. If it is only the USBC Open, then picture the complaining when a non-PBA member registers for the Masters (I'll use it as the example since it is coming up in 2 weeks), and according to the assumption that the banning is only for the USBC Open Championships, will be able to use a 2016/2017 Purple Hammer, while the PBA member will be subject to the rolling 2-year rule, and gets beat by the non-PBA member.
To make it worse, if the ban is only for the USBC Open Championships, will the PBA member be able to use the 2016/2017 Purple Hammers because this is a USBC tournament whose title is recognized by the PBA? That would then circumvent the rolling 2-year rule.
There is major ambiguity here that needs to be clarified.
BL.
From the release.
"Therefore, effective immediately, USBC is instituting a tournament rule at all USBC national tournaments prohibiting Purple Hammers manufactured in 2016 and 2017 from being used in these competitions"
-
So how much you think a NIB purple hammer from Hopkinsville made in 2018 would go for?
-
So how much you think a NIB purple hammer from Hopkinsville made in 2018 would go for?
PBA member = $0 (ball is older than 2 yrs)
USBC member = normal retail price...maybe slight up tick from there
-
OK. Just checked my purple hammer. Its a 9 apparently meaning I could throw it at nationals even though its a Kentucky ball. Is that correct.
-
My understanding the only ones banned by USBC at National Events are the 6s and 7s so 8s and 9s are good to go.
-
My understanding the only ones banned by USBC at National Events are the 6s and 7s so 8s and 9s are good to go.
Here's where the issue comes in: a PBA member couldn't throw that 2018/2019 Purple Hammer at the Masters or the US Open. they are already beyond the 2-year rolling ban. A USBC member CAN throw those 2018/2019 Purple Hammers at those events.
BL.
-
My understanding the only ones banned by USBC at National Events are the 6s and 7s so 8s and 9s are good to go.
Here's where the issue comes in: a PBA member couldn't throw that 2018/2019 Purple Hammer at the Masters or the US Open. they are already beyond the 2-year rolling ban. A USBC member CAN throw those 2018/2019 Purple Hammers at those events.
BL.
Does it say that? Or does it say that tournaments ran by the PBA has it's own rules and tournaments rand by USBC has it's own rules?
I don't see a conflict. Then again, what do I know, I'm just another dumb-ass, right handed, mouth breathing knuckle dragger who bowls on the china side of every pattern. ;D ;D
-
My understanding the only ones banned by USBC at National Events are the 6s and 7s so 8s and 9s are good to go.
Here's where the issue comes in: a PBA member couldn't throw that 2018/2019 Purple Hammer at the Masters or the US Open. they are already beyond the 2-year rolling ban. A USBC member CAN throw those 2018/2019 Purple Hammers at those events.
BL.
Does it say that? Or does it say that tournaments ran by the PBA has it's own rules and tournaments rand by USBC has it's own rules?
I don't see a conflict. Then again, what do I know, I'm just another dumb-ass, right handed, mouth breathing knuckle dragger who bowls on the china side of every pattern. ;D ;D
Here's where it gets potentially more interesting...
I'm remembering an issue back a while ago where Matt McNeill was on 900 Global staff and just missed making the show for the Masters. It was talked about how he wouldn't be able to use anything 900G on the show because it wasnt PBA Registered at the time and the show was ran by the PBA not USBC.
If this was the case, then we'd potentially be looking at PBA guys being able to use urethane older than 2 years old until the show?
If I'm also remembering correctly, for jerseys you have to wear H5G for the show because of the PBA when you can wear EFX/Logo Infusion/Coolwick/etc outside of the finals
-
My understanding the only ones banned by USBC at National Events are the 6s and 7s so 8s and 9s are good to go.
Here's where the issue comes in: a PBA member couldn't throw that 2018/2019 Purple Hammer at the Masters or the US Open. they are already beyond the 2-year rolling ban. A USBC member CAN throw those 2018/2019 Purple Hammers at those events.
BL.
Does it say that? Or does it say that tournaments ran by the PBA has it's own rules and tournaments rand by USBC has it's own rules?
I don't see a conflict. Then again, what do I know, I'm just another dumb-ass, right handed, mouth breathing knuckle dragger who bowls on the china side of every pattern. ;D ;D
Here's where it gets potentially more interesting...
I'm remembering an issue back a while ago where Matt McNeill was on 900 Global staff and just missed making the show for the Masters. It was talked about how he wouldn't be able to use anything 900G on the show because it wasnt PBA Registered at the time and the show was ran by the PBA not USBC.
If this was the case, then we'd potentially be looking at PBA guys being able to use urethane older than 2 years old until the show?
If I'm also remembering correctly, for jerseys you have to wear H5G for the show because of the PBA when you can wear EFX/Logo Infusion/Coolwick/etc outside of the finals
That's how it looks to me.
-
My understanding the only ones banned by USBC at National Events are the 6s and 7s so 8s and 9s are good to go.
Here's where the issue comes in: a PBA member couldn't throw that 2018/2019 Purple Hammer at the Masters or the US Open. they are already beyond the 2-year rolling ban. A USBC member CAN throw those 2018/2019 Purple Hammers at those events.
BL.
Does it say that? Or does it say that tournaments ran by the PBA has it's own rules and tournaments rand by USBC has it's own rules?
I don't see a conflict. Then again, what do I know, I'm just another dumb-ass, right handed, mouth breathing knuckle dragger who bowls on the china side of every pattern. ;D ;D
The problem is that we don’t know which body’s rules would hold away. Would the PBA member be subject to both PBA AND USBC rules during the USBC event that counts as a PBA title? We know that the USBC member would only be restricted to USBC rules.
If the PBA rules don’t apply, then you could see a 2-year old or older urethane ball in use at those tournaments by PBA members, up to and including in the finals.
BL.
-
My understanding the only ones banned by USBC at National Events are the 6s and 7s so 8s and 9s are good to go.
Here's where the issue comes in: a PBA member couldn't throw that 2018/2019 Purple Hammer at the Masters or the US Open. they are already beyond the 2-year rolling ban. A USBC member CAN throw those 2018/2019 Purple Hammers at those events.
BL.
Does it say that? Or does it say that tournaments ran by the PBA has it's own rules and tournaments rand by USBC has it's own rules?
I don't see a conflict. Then again, what do I know, I'm just another dumb-ass, right handed, mouth breathing knuckle dragger who bowls on the china side of every pattern. ;D ;D
Here's where it gets potentially more interesting...
I'm remembering an issue back a while ago where Matt McNeill was on 900 Global staff and just missed making the show for the Masters. It was talked about how he wouldn't be able to use anything 900G on the show because it wasnt PBA Registered at the time and the show was ran by the PBA not USBC.
If this was the case, then we'd potentially be looking at PBA guys being able to use urethane older than 2 years old until the show?
If I'm also remembering correctly, for jerseys you have to wear H5G for the show because of the PBA when you can wear EFX/Logo Infusion/Coolwick/etc outside of the finals
That's how it looks to me.
Let’s throw another wrench in the works.. what if a player makes the finals, but is NOT a PBA member? Would the PBA force their rules on the non-PBA member?
BL.
-
Let’s throw another wrench in the works.. what if a player makes the finals, but is NOT a PBA member? Would the PBA force their rules on the non-PBA member?
BL.
That's why I brought up the situation with Matt McNeill. All the talk had been that he wouldn't have been able to use 900 Global on the show if he made it since it wasn't PBA Registered at the time. I think I found it was the 2013 Masters where it almost happened.
-
Avabob's solution is the best one. Perhaps it's too time consuming and labor intensive to resort to the durometer solution.
Welcome to the present day world where you now need a 2 tractor trailers just to haul all of the balls to a tournament.
You know, sometimes the old-schoolers have the best solution to a problem. Avabob's is one of them.
THIS !!!!!
There really should be some kind of limit to the number of balls a player can bring. It is getting ridiculous. You can barely walk thru the seating areas anymore... there is crap everyplace. In golf, you can have no more than 14 clubs in play. You can have 114 in the bag, but only 14 can be determined "in-play". Why not institute a rule that says you cannot have more than 6 rocks in any session? Maybe 3 rocks? That would help to end the gripes about the lack of shotmaking. It could begin to roll back the advantages the 2 handed/thumbless bombers have. Power is awesome, but it shouldn't be as important as it is. I've seen good 2 handers shoot 270s and barely hit the pocket. It's like a bomb went off when the ball hits the pins. I know 2 handed and thumbless bowling is growing in popularity, but I'm old school and think it is hurting the game more than it is helping.
-
Avabob's solution is the best one. Perhaps it's too time consuming and labor intensive to resort to the durometer solution.
Welcome to the present day world where you now need a 2 tractor trailers just to haul all of the balls to a tournament.
You know, sometimes the old-schoolers have the best solution to a problem. Avabob's is one of them.
THIS !!!!!
There really should be some kind of limit to the number of balls a player can bring. It is getting ridiculous. You can barely walk thru the seating areas anymore... there is crap everyplace. In golf, you can have no more than 14 clubs in play. You can have 114 in the bag, but only 14 can be determined "in-play". Why not institute a rule that says you cannot have more than 6 rocks in any session? Maybe 3 rocks? That would help to end the gripes about the lack of shotmaking. It could begin to roll back the advantages the 2 handed/thumbless bombers have. Power is awesome, but it shouldn't be as important as it is. I've seen good 2 handers shoot 270s and barely hit the pocket. It's like a bomb went off when the ball hits the pins. I know 2 handed and thumbless bowling is growing in popularity, but I'm old school and think it is hurting the game more than it is helping.
If it weren’t for two handers bowling would be damn near dead if it’s not already
-
THIS !!!!!
There really should be some kind of limit to the number of balls a player can bring. It is getting ridiculous. You can barely walk thru the seating areas anymore... there is crap everyplace. In golf, you can have no more than 14 clubs in play. You can have 114 in the bag, but only 14 can be determined "in-play". Why not institute a rule that says you cannot have more than 6 rocks in any session? Maybe 3 rocks? That would help to end the gripes about the lack of shotmaking. It could begin to roll back the advantages the 2 handed/thumbless bombers have. Power is awesome, but it shouldn't be as important as it is. I've seen good 2 handers shoot 270s and barely hit the pocket. It's like a bomb went off when the ball hits the pins. I know 2 handed and thumbless bowling is growing in popularity, but I'm old school and think it is hurting the game more than it is helping.
Isn't the objective to knock down pins? If a bowler can do that consistanly without hitting the pocket, then more power to them. No one gets paid for making "pretty" shots.
FYI, I'm not a two hand bowler. I don't throw the ball 20 MPH, nor do I have 500 revs.
-
It goes even further now. The USBC has banned all 2016-2017 Hammer Purple Pearl Urethane balls from EVERY type of USBC competition.
https://www.bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337464
BL.
-
It appears consistent that USBC can't make a decisive decision at all. This should have been done from the beginning vs for USBC national tournaments then later all together.