BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Remmah on February 28, 2022, 07:02:57 PM
-
3 balls fail testing before the show and the lane man fired after the show
-
Well at least give us a link to this story please.
-
Where are you getting this information? Link please.
-
Where are you getting this information? Link please.
Lucas Wiseman has a Tweet up that has a picture of the guy's Facebook post where he says he was let go both by the tour and by his primary employer, AMF Bowlero. He says he hasn't been given a reason yet.
-
It's posted on Jeff Richgels 11th Frame blog. (You need to be a subscriber to read the whole story.) Both instances.
https://www.11thframe.com/news/article/13358/3-balls-used-during-2022-KIA-PBA-Tournament-of-Champions-fail-pre-TV
https://www.11thframe.com/news/article/13361/Sean-Parry-says-he-was-fired-as-PBA-lane-man-PBA-Commissioner?filter=all
-
3 balls fail testing before the show and the lane man fired after the show
Starting to wonder if they are going to have to discontinue the Purple Hammer at some point due to this. How much longer is this going to continue before they say enough is enough or there is some adjustment done to the coverstock so this doesnt continue to happen? It is just a bad look.
-
With regards to the lane man, this could just be the case of a publicly held company doing what publicly held companies do all the time. Keep expenses as low as possible to please the shareholders. Florida is an at will employment state as well, so Bowlero technically doesn't have to offer a reason for terminating employment. Probably no story here, just that it came during the tournament weekend.
The Purple Hammer is a whole other issue. Some bowlers have known and complained that the ball tends to soften up over time. I am not sure the USBC minimum hardness specification applies to anything other than when the ball is brand new. As long as the test sampling of balls meet spec, they will be USBC approved. Maybe a shipment of balls will magically show up on the USBC's door similar to what happened with the Jackal. Who knows. There have also been unconfirmed rumors that the Purple Hammer is going to be discontinued soon anyway, so it may not be much of an issue in the near future.
The PBA is going to have to decide if they will continue to allow the Purple Hammer to be used in competition. The strangest thing about the current rule is that the balls get checked before the finals, but bowlers can use them during qualifying and match play. Why allow bowlers to use potentially non-compliant equipment to reach the finals? That makes no sense and it kind of validates Sean Rash's grievances [not how he personally handled the situation.] ALL balls should be checked during tournament check in, prior to the start of each new round/after each cut, and again before the finals. Be consistent.
-
Story is all 3 Purple Hammers were Kentucky balls.
-
With regards to the lane man, this could just be the case of a publicly held company doing what publicly held companies do all the time. Keep expenses as low as possible to please the shareholders. Florida is an at will employment state as well, so Bowlero technically doesn't have to offer a reason for terminating employment. Probably no story here, just that it came during the tournament weekend.
The Purple Hammer is a whole other issue. Some bowlers have known and complained that the ball tends to soften up over time. I am not sure the USBC minimum hardness specification applies to anything other than when the ball is brand new. As long as the test sampling of balls meet spec, they will be USBC approved. Maybe a shipment of balls will magically show up on the USBC's door similar to what happened with the Jackal. Who knows. There have also been unconfirmed rumors that the Purple Hammer is going to be discontinued soon anyway, so it may not be much of an issue in the near future.
The PBA is going to have to decide if they will continue to allow the Purple Hammer to be used in competition. The strangest thing about the current rule is that the balls get checked before the finals, but bowlers can use them during qualifying and match play. Why allow bowlers to use potentially non-compliant equipment to reach the finals? That makes no sense and it kind of validates Sean Rash's grievances [not how he personally handled the situation.] ALL balls should be checked during tournament check in, prior to the start of each new round/after each cut, and again before the finals. Be consistent.
As a resident of Florida; most companies are not going to fire you just because even though it is an at will employment state. What companies do like to do down here; is use staffing agencies to rotate employees in and out. They list positions as "3 month or 6 month contract" or "temp to perm" positions when in fact they are permanent positions within the company but will rotate employees out so they dont have to offer any benefits. I have fallen victim to this a few times since my move down here and now refuse to use staffing agencies to help find jobs. Thankfully I am at a place where my job feels secure and it was a direct hire as opposed to obtaining it through an agency. Regarding Sean Parry; something had to happen for him to get let go. While we do not know the specifics; I seriously doubt this was an attempt to cut costs because bowling is thriving down here. At my home house just south of Spring Hill where Sean is from; we have a league that is 44 teams and 4 member teams on Thursdays and the center is full when I am bowling league on Mondays. Plus, they also run a tournament virtually every weekend which also fills the center. First year touring pro, Trevor Roberts, has a Youtube channel and he does his ball reviews from that same Spring Hill bowling center and be willing to bet he knows Sean pretty well. Another tidbit is the PBA South Regional Tour is stopping in Spring Hill this July. So something had to happen.
-
I also live in an at will state, and work for a publicly held company. We regularly release employees to manage expenses. Those employees are rarely ever given a reason for release, other than to be told it was in the best financial interest of the company and its shareholders. Many times these employees only fault is that they have been with the company too long and are making too much money. Sometimes corporations simply make decisions that on the surface don't make sense.
The Bowlero where I bowl is the highest profit Bowlero center in our region (which consists of 3 Bowleros.) We have ONE lane mechanic, ONE bartender, and no food or drink waiters/waitresses [front counter employees are sharing those duties currently.] Every night there is at least a 2 page waiting list for open lanes, and the rest of the house is league bowling. They are running lean and mean and profiting greatly from it.
-
If the comments made by Mitch Beasley on the Purple Hammers is validated, there is absolutely no way in my mind the PBA or USBC can continue to allow the USA made Purple Hammers in competition. When the narrative goes from balls getting soft over time to balls that came from the production line too soft, everything changes IMO. This is going to be a massive topic for the PBA to have to address.
-
Full USBC enforcement of the 73D hardness standard is effective 7/31/22. After this date, manufacturers will no longer be permitted to manufacture additional quantities of ANY ball previously approved below the 73D standard. I have heard rumors that the Purple Hammer falls under this and will cease production as a result.
-
Full USBC enforcement of the 73D hardness standard is effective 7/31/22. After this date, manufacturers will no longer be permitted to manufacture additional quantities of ANY ball previously approved below the 73D standard. I have heard rumors that the Purple Hammer falls under this and will cease production as a result.
This lends credence to the Black, Purple Solid, and Red Pearl Urethanes showing up on the USBC Approved List as of late December 2021/early January 2022. However, an argument against those being catalog balls is that thought I saw the Black Urethane in an overseas video. We'll wait and see.
BL.
-
Full USBC enforcement of the 73D hardness standard is effective 7/31/22. After this date, manufacturers will no longer be permitted to manufacture additional quantities of ANY ball previously approved below the 73D standard. I have heard rumors that the Purple Hammer falls under this and will cease production as a result.
Heard this as well from a friend on hammer staff, they may or may not have been told to stock up.
-
It is interesting that the minimum hardness spec was increased from 72D to 73D. Is that really that significant of a change? If it is, it is also interesting that balls previously approved at 72D will be grandfathered in and maintain their approval status.
Has anyone actually heard what hardness these non-compliant Purple Hammers were reading at when tested?
-
USBC put out a statement on the Purple Hammers.
https://bowl.com/Equipment_Specs/Equipment_Specs_Home/USBC_Statement_on_Purple_Hammer_Hardness/
-
PBA just put out a notice, all pre 2020 Urethane balls are not allowed.
There is talk that more rules are to follow, but it's been communicated to national PBA members and all signed up to WSOB if your urethane is from before 2020, you can't use it.
-
PBA just put out a notice, all pre 2020 Urethane balls are not allowed.
There is talk that more rules are to follow, but it's been communicated to national PBA members and all signed up to WSOB if your urethane is from before 2020, you can't use it.
The questions to ask:
- Is this is based off of manufacturer's date, URD, or USBC Approved list date? That will make a difference as to what could be used.
- Is this a rolling two years, or a static two years? In 2024, will this ban effect balls (based on #1 above) made/released in 2022?
- If this is based on hardness, will balls made prior to 2020 that pass the hardness test still be banned? Read: old school Fab Hammers, Rhinos, U2, U-Dots, etc.
- will the USBC also adopt this change? If so, overseas balls will be affected.
- This is currently main tour. will this be going blanket across all PBA tours (PBA50, PBA60, PBA Juniors, etc.)?
Lots of questions here that do not have any answers yet, and hopefully they get clarified. Otherwise, this could be a rather nasty slippery slope that could limit most people to catalog balls and nothing OEM/overseas/limited stock.
BL.
-
PBA just put out a notice, all pre 2020 Urethane balls are not allowed.
There is talk that more rules are to follow, but it's been communicated to national PBA members and all signed up to WSOB if your urethane is from before 2020, you can't use it.
The questions to ask:
- Is this is based off of manufacturer's date, URD, or USBC Approved list date? That will make a difference as to what could be used.
- Is this a rolling two years, or a static two years? In 2024, will this ban effect balls (based on #1 above) made/released in 2022?
- If this is based on hardness, will balls made prior to 2020 that pass the hardness test still be banned? Read: old school Fab Hammers, Rhinos, U2, U-Dots, etc.
- will the USBC also adopt this change? If so, overseas balls will be affected.
- This is currently main tour. will this be going blanket across all PBA tours (PBA50, PBA60, PBA Juniors, etc.)?
Lots of questions here that do not have any answers yet, and hopefully they get clarified. Otherwise, this could be a rather nasty slippery slope that could limit most people to catalog balls and nothing OEM/overseas/limited stock.
BL.
So initial rule is balls manufactured before 2020. The verbiage sounds like moving forward would be any urethane ball that's 2 years old or more won't be allowed, and it is based on manufactured date. Other than that I got nothing, this is just PBA National tour for now.
-
PBA just put out a notice, all pre 2020 Urethane balls are not allowed.
There is talk that more rules are to follow, but it's been communicated to national PBA members and all signed up to WSOB if your urethane is from before 2020, you can't use it.
The questions to ask:
- Is this is based off of manufacturer's date, URD, or USBC Approved list date? That will make a difference as to what could be used.
- Is this a rolling two years, or a static two years? In 2024, will this ban effect balls (based on #1 above) made/released in 2022?
- If this is based on hardness, will balls made prior to 2020 that pass the hardness test still be banned? Read: old school Fab Hammers, Rhinos, U2, U-Dots, etc.
- will the USBC also adopt this change? If so, overseas balls will be affected.
- This is currently main tour. will this be going blanket across all PBA tours (PBA50, PBA60, PBA Juniors, etc.)?
Lots of questions here that do not have any answers yet, and hopefully they get clarified. Otherwise, this could be a rather nasty slippery slope that could limit most people to catalog balls and nothing OEM/overseas/limited stock.
BL.
So initial rule is balls manufactured before 2020. The verbiage sounds like moving forward would be any urethane ball that's 2 years old or more won't be allowed, and it is based on manufactured date. Other than that I got nothing, this is just PBA National tour for now.
If that’s the case, the 3 Urethane Hammers on the USBC approved list will be gone in 2024 along with the Black Widow Pink Pearl Urethane. Will this require the companies to keep making them every year in perpetuity?
I ask that because your post makes it sound like it is a rolling 2 years.
BL.
-
I sure am glad I sold all my inventory last spring. 8) 8)
-
It really sounds like they want to get rid of urethane on tour.
If that's what they're really going to do, they have to do some pattern modification as well. No one really likes seeing urethane roll down the lane but I'd rather see urethane look competent than guys be forced to use resin on patterns more or less designed to lock it out.
-
Unless they are trying to get rid of urethane as suggested, why make this difficult? There is a hardness spec. If a ball fails, it can't be used, period. In the past the guys used to drill a bunch of new balls each week. If their current urethane balls fails, drill up another. If it's not available, tough. Why have a rule and allow some to skirt past it? Lots of people have had balls be declared unusable at the ABC/USBC nationals tournament, usually for static weights.
-
They made a new rule because they don't have the staff to test balls every week to enforce the rules they already have. Up until the last couple of majors the PBA hasn't weighed or checked hardness of balls in about 20 years.
-
I didn't know that. I wonder why they started recently? If it were only for the majors, why didn't they test those in past years? Anyway, if it's a rule and a ball failed, it shouldn't have allowed to be used, period. Either enforce the rule or get rid of it (or change it), but until you do, it should be enforced.
-
They started checking hardness because of all the grumbling about the purple hammers being too soft.
Once a ball fails it is not allowed to be used again. The issue was they were testing after the fact and if a ball failed it was out going forward, there were no penalties for using it up until then. So 3 guys qualified for a show that had balls that were thrown out for the show and future use.
-
This issue was discussed thoroughly on last night's Sweep the Rack podcast. Some very interesting things came out of that discussion.
1. The three Purple Hammers that failed the hardness test were "Kentucky" balls from 2016/2017. When they failed, they were confiscated.
2. Mitch Beasley posted on Facebook that there was a batch of Kentucky Purple Hammers in a specific serial number range that were manufactured too soft, and tested in the 60's for hardness. Due to the actions of a "bad employee", they made it out of the factory and were shipped. Mitch also alleges that there are bowlers that actively seek out balls that fall in the serial number range so they can have the softer covers.
Now, getting back to the USBC's latest statement which was not mentioned on the podcast (the urethane ball study was, however.) The USBC has been aware that urethane softens over time, but then stabilizes after a certain amount of time. If the USBC is aware of this, and knows that all urethane balls soften to a level well below the minimum hardness requirement when new, why would they continue to approve any urethane ball? If that is the case, the argument could easily be made that balls should not be deemed illegal simply because of age. Are we going to reach a point in USBC competition where a urethane ball tests at 68D, but is still legal due to age? The USBC's statement seems to condone the softening below minimum due to age.
Increasing the minimum hardness spec to 73D as of 8/1/22 doesn't do anything to address the issue. If 72D urethane balls are already dropping below 70D due to age, increasing the starting hardness to 73D isn't going to stop that from happening.
Ultimately this whole issue is just pointless. A human still has to be able to accurately and consistently throw a ball. As they say, "it isn't the ball, it's the bowler." If these urethane balls were really causing that much havoc on tour, you would be seeing bowlers every week winning the championship using urethane. I don't see urethane winning each and every week. It may be in the hands of people in match play, but it isn't in the champion's hand every week.
The PBA made the best decision they could to address the problem. It simply means that Simo won't be using his Roto Grip Grenade any longer. The Kentucky Purple Hammers are out of play. No more Hot Cells, early Mixes, Pitch Blacks or Pitch Blues, etc. Tommy Jones was using a U-Motion for spares in the ToC. That is still legal but only by a couple of months. The PBA equipment truck is going to be really busy the next couple of tournaments. Hope the ball companies get it stocked up with fresh urethane ;)
-
They made a new rule because they don't have the staff to test balls every week to enforce the rules they already have. Up until the last couple of majors the PBA hasn't weighed or checked hardness of balls in about 20 years.
No different then how USBC works.
As an example with the PBA you can have an undrilled original purple urethane but with a rule using the serial number to determine age/use then it wouldn't matter because the ball is out of range even if it is undrilled.
If bowlers really wanted to cheat the system wouldn't they need to figure out what makes the ball softer and attempt to speed up the process. We know temperature affects hardness if oil does as well then you go back to soaking them? The pba isnt going to check so you get the appearance of integrity.
What would be easier and make sense is if the PBA went to USBC and used throwbot to compare urethane with a high number of games, low number of games and one freshly drilled to see if there is a concernable difference. That requires effort and half a thought.
-
This isn't a urethane issue, it's a purple hammer issue. The way I see it is the problem is the company that is the biggest supporter of competitive bowling, Storm, doesn't have a ball that matches up against the purple hammer.
-
People hoping to ban urethanes are jumping for joy now.
-
This isn't a urethane issue, it's a purple hammer issue. The way I see it is the problem is the company that is the biggest supporter of competitive bowling, Storm, doesn't have a ball that matches up against the purple hammer.
BINGO!!!!! Nailed it!
This is the real "problem", if you want to call it that!
I have been following Darren Chang's regular vlog as well as Packy Hanrahan's vlog during PBA match play and regionals. These guys love throwing urethane!!
Why? Because it doesn't over react on the back end and on a lot of the flatter patterns that they see. So, the PBA is gonna bend over and eliminate a specific ball just because of a few grumblings and one company's perception of inferiority.
Sounds like lunacy to me!
Rather than changing rules, someone needs to bowl better and do R&D better!
-
This isn't a urethane issue, it's a purple hammer issue. The way I see it is the problem is the company that is the biggest supporter of competitive bowling, Storm, doesn't have a ball that matches up against the purple hammer.
If the PBA had banned just the Purple Hammer, then Brunswick would have demanded that older Storm Pitch Blacks or Simo's 30yo Grenade get tested. Then, if the USBC's study is accurate, those would have failed as well. The PBA would then have to come to the conclusion that it is a urethane problem not specific to any single ball, but all urethane balls of a certain age.
It's pretty telling when players seek out old equipment to use. The PBA should have been clued in when they saw Simo seeking out 30yo urethane, or Brunswick staffers seeking "Kentucky" Purple Hammers, or other Storm staffers using 8yo Pitch Blacks. These are players that have access to any brand new ball (reactive and pure urethane) they want in the equipment truck for ~$50. Why would they even want to throw 5, 10, 20, even 30 year old equipment? Lucky charm? Nostalgia? No, there has to be some sort of performance advantage to seek those older pieces out or continue to use them for years/decades.
-
Bring back the soakers!
Seriously, the issue is the hardness, not who makes it or when. All this time and effort and they can't scratch up a guy to run a durometer test? I haven't used it in ages, but if I wanted to use my Slate Blue Gargoyle (or equivalent older urethane before people were trying to make them into hook monsters) I wouldn't be able to only because of the age? One of the benefits of urethane is that it last forever. But like they've limited core strength, the covers on some of the urethane balls are just stupid strong. The hardness, not porosity or other things that matter for resin, is probably the easiest thing to measure and control.
-
The problem isn't finding somebody to sit behind a table and punch balls with a durometer, the problem is the PBA would have to PAY that person.
-
Now they will have to pay someone to check the serial numbers of all of the urethane balls at check-in to make sure they are 2020 or newer. If the reason for the inability to test balls with a durometer really is staffing, they gained nothing with this change.
-
They will just spot check if they think somebody is using something questionable. They won't check every ball.
-
Anyone up for a little test?
How easy would it be to get hold of a durometer for a test? How much do they cost?
I ask, because I'm now half tempted to see if I can find one (cost depending) and test out my Hopkinsville Black Widow Purple Pearl Urethane, followed by both my Fab Blue and Blue Pearl Hammers, both from the St. Louis plant. I'd love to see what hardness they come out with and if they pass muster to the USBC's rule change. If they do, then we have a problem with the rule, as a ball with less 50 games should definitely pass that test, while two 32 year old balls with over 150 games on it should fail. If the Fab balls pass, then I defer to itsallaboutme's post about ball companies.
Perhaps someone should get hold of Vic from King of Bowling TV, and have him do a durometer test on all of his relics. He has a huge stash of U2s, Thunderbolts, Gyros, Phantoms, Fabs, and Rhinos, that by the PBA's stance, all should fail a hardness test.
BL.
-
Testing 30 year old urethane covers will be a waste of time. Pat Nolan said he was the last person who did ball checks for the PBA and in 4 years never had a ball not pass hardness. And I believe the PBA rule then was 75, with USBC being 72. Obviously the chemists found a formula to make modern urethane covers relevant on today's conditions. Nobody is going to take the time or money to test if it's oil, friction, time or what it is that causes them to get softer.
-
Any update on the lane man? Haven’t heard anything recent about why he lost his job.
-
Bring back the soakers!
Seriously, the issue is the hardness, not who makes it or when. All this time and effort and they can't scratch up a guy to run a durometer test? I haven't used it in ages, but if I wanted to use my Slate Blue Gargoyle (or equivalent older urethane before people were trying to make them into hook monsters) I wouldn't be able to only because of the age? One of the benefits of urethane is that it last forever. But like they've limited core strength, the covers on some of the urethane balls are just stupid strong. The hardness, not porosity or other things that matter for resin, is probably the easiest thing to measure and control.
In regard to the SBG -- and I have 2 of them and will never part with them -- you can't use Visionary in a PBA event anyway. Or Lane #1, or even AMF these days.
But I get the larger point, and at this point, it's only relevant to me what is going on at the USBC level or at most, the PBA50 and regional levels, sadly. I've always tried to "support" the PBA by adhering to their rules and guidelines, within reason, even though I'll never be a pro myself. But at this point, the rules are diverging so much from the USBC book that I don't think I can do that anymore. No more plugged balls after 2023, no more wrist devices (even though I don't use one currently, who knows what I'll need in 20-30 years when I'm a senior), and now no more equipment beyond a certain age.
This is similar to what the USGA did with square-groove golf clubs a few years ago and it was a big mistake. The push to change it came from the PGA, but it filtered down onto the amateur player, including amateurs who were capable of occasionally making a pro tourney field or the U.S. Open, etc. Originally, they were going to let the equipment "age out" and simply not allow new clubs to be made with the old specs, but then they reversed that. The reason that's significant in golf is that equipment is a lot more expensive and most guys don't buy new stuff that often unless they're just equipment noodlers.
I had just made a set of clubs when that rule came out and I'm not sure whether they conform, but it was part of the reason I let my USGA membership lapse. I don't want to see the USBC/PBA situation turn into the same thing, although I won't let my USBC membership lapse -- I just won't partake in activities where I'll have to check equipment.
-
The introduction of the resin enhanced urethane ball made the hardness rule irrelevant 30 years ago. In fact it was largely irrelevant in the urethane era. Aggressive sanding of urethane regardless of hardness was more effective than a soft shell. The Excaliber with a 75+ hardness shell out hit 500 grit blue hammers and soft yellow dots because it absorbed oil and cut through carry down that had a big impact on polyester and urethane
-
This is a reach . . it's not like our staffers haven't won plenty with a Pitch Black. We saw what happened on the TOC show with fresh Mexico Purple Hammers, you can't tell me it's a company/R&D/money thing when there's a definite link between balls failing the hardness tests and success with those balls. Nobody would be succeeding consistently with or complaining about the purple hammer if it acted like the ones did on the show last weekend.
In regards to the lane guy, he put a post up saying that 'Bowlero didn't appreciate his honesty on show days,' whatever that means. The other thing I've heard is that he was responsible for the durometer testing and caused a lot of these recent issues. Didn't know it needed to be calibrated, and didn't have the equipment TO calibrate it.
This isn't a urethane issue, it's a purple hammer issue. The way I see it is the problem is the company that is the biggest supporter of competitive bowling, Storm, doesn't have a ball that matches up against the purple hammer.
BINGO!!!!! Nailed it!
This is the real "problem", if you want to call it that!
I have been following Darren Chang's regular vlog as well as Packy Hanrahan's vlog during PBA match play and regionals. These guys love throwing urethane!!
Why? Because it doesn't over react on the back end and on a lot of the flatter patterns that they see. So, the PBA is gonna bend over and eliminate a specific ball just because of a few grumblings and one company's perception of inferiority.
Sounds like lunacy to me!
Rather than changing rules, someone needs to bowl better and do R&D better!
-
It's not a reach. Banning older urethane is an overreaction to a problem created by one ball.
If 5 years ago Storm had a ball that was remotely close to the Purple Hammer no one would have ever put a durometer to the ball. But they didn't so guys start trying to figure out what is different about it. Oh, it punched 68. This one reacts better than this other one that punched 74. Huh, hardness still does make a difference. It wouldn't surprise me if Ebonite new about the soft balls and let them go out anyway. I've seen things when I worked for them that would lead me to believe that could happen.
-
So i'm curious on if this is a thing with the Storm IQ Tour also. Many people say that the pre-2015 IQT roll significantly better than the newer versions and I never tested this out.
-
So i'm curious on if this is a thing with the Storm IQ Tour also. Many people say that the pre-2015 IQT roll significantly better than the newer versions and I never tested this out.
I honestly believe it's more of a memory thing, like how everything seemed better in your past.
When I was selling my collection of bowling balls I saw something interesting points with the Storm Hy-Road. In 2009, I bought a case(4) of them that I got for a great price. My thoughts were it would be discontinued within a year or two and everyone would want them. In 2012, Storm fooled me again, and I bought some more. Fast forward to last spring and the 2009 balls sold for $300+. The 2012 balls sold for $200+.
This when I can buy all the Hy-Roads I can haul away for $130 each. Not to mention, the new ones have a warranty.
Every person I exchanged messages with knew that the older R2S was better than the new.
Seems like Storm Bowling would be able to figure that out doesn't it? ::)
(Last statement is sarcasm in case you didn't get it.)
-
So i'm curious on if this is a thing with the Storm IQ Tour also. Many people say that the pre-2015 IQT roll significantly better than the newer versions and I never tested this out.
Milo is right with his response.
It's also like how people search out Utah poured Hustle Inks over San Antonio poured because of the slight differences
-
So i'm curious on if this is a thing with the Storm IQ Tour also. Many people say that the pre-2015 IQT roll significantly better than the newer versions and I never tested this out.
Milo is right with his response.
It's also like how people search out Utah poured Hustle Inks over San Antonio poured because of the slight differences
Wonder if it is a climate issue affecting the covers? There is a big difference between Utah and Southern Texas and not just temperature wise. San Antonio is a few hours away from the Gulf and Utah is up in the mountains. Also, conditions have changed quite a bit over the past 7+ years (different oils have come out as well as lane conditions as a whole).
-
So i'm curious on if this is a thing with the Storm IQ Tour also. Many people say that the pre-2015 IQT roll significantly better than the newer versions and I never tested this out.
Milo is right with his response.
It's also like how people search out Utah poured Hustle Inks over San Antonio poured because of the slight differences
Or in my case, if you asked me to tell you what the best-rolling ball of all time for me was, I would say the original Storm Thunder.
A few years ago, I came across a ball called a Storm Big D, and it had never been drilled. It was a USBC-approved ball from around 2010 that had been specifically poured for a giveaway at Don Carter West at a pro-am. I guess everyone who bowled that particular pro-am got one.
What was significant about it? It apparently had the old Curelyon coverstock and the FE2 core -- i.e., the same combination as the Thunder. I jumped on it.
I was dreaming of watching that familiar old Thunder roll ... right up to the point I tried to play with it on modern-day oils. It's a great dry-lane ball now. And I do mean DRY.
-
Wonder if it is a climate issue affecting the covers? There is a big difference between Utah and Southern Texas and not just temperature wise.
Given that it's a specific serial number range it's far more likely to be a manufacturing issu.e
-
The more things change..........
In the 1970s Mcune and others discovered that polyester hit better when it was softer and that it could be made softer by soaking with everything from acetone to MEK. Soaking was quickly outlawed but Columbia started producing softer balls on yellow dots and the shore D. For whatever reason Brunswick and AMF weren't able to replicate the process. Lo and behold the ABC introduced the hardness rule along with the PBA. Most of us knew at the time that this wouldn't have happened if Big B or AMF had discovered the process.
-
That's why I jokingly mentioned the soakers earlier. Seriously, for urethane, softness is the important parameter. That's why softness, not age, should be the thing they measure and control. If they care about integrity (wow, guess I'm agreeing with Sean Rash), that's where their efforts should go. The USBC stupidly hung on to the static weight rule when basically everyone was throwing resin for years. If they plan on doing similar with urethane, there will be a lot of unhappy consumers. Of course there's no easy way to measure/enforce softness at the local level. And no one should care for most leagues, but their might be some belly aching at some big tournaments if they decide to do something about urethane at our level.
-
Actually I don't think hardness is a big factor with urethane. Urethane increased friction thru sanding to increase abrasiveness. We pretty much stopped paying attention to hardness during the urethane era because balls were commonly sanded down to 400 grit. Likewise with the resin enhanced balls which increased friction chemically rather than thru softness.
-
I was guessing that hardness seems to play a big part since there has been a lot of super sanded urethane being used over the past few years, but only a certain one has been dominating. I kind of doubt that their urethane formulation is head and shoulders above everyone else.
-
Sanding increases the aggressiveness without impacting hardness. The purple hammer is a strange animal. My purple pearl out if Kentucky never came remotely close to lane shining. I think there is some type of additive that gives the cover its characteristic. Also interesting that it has a very weak core.
-
Sanding increases the aggressiveness without impacting hardness. The purple hammer is a strange animal. My purple pearl out if Kentucky never came remotely close to lane shining. I think there is some type of additive that gives the cover its characteristic. Also interesting that it has a very weak core.
One of the guys on our sport league throws a "soft" Purple Hammer. I haven't seen a cover look like that since getting the chance many years ago to actually hold a soaker Yellow Dot. It feels like you could scar the coverstock with your fingernail if you wanted to. On top of that, this guy has a rev rate of about 100-120, no exaggeration, and he gets uncommon carry and shape from that PH compared to any of his resin gear on that particular shot.
On the other hand, I think I could lob my old Slate Blue Gargoyle at a tank and knock it out of service. I have no doubt both my SBGs would punch legal. Same for my three-year-old Fever Pitch.
If you can find two of them to compare, put an old gray Angle up against a gold Angle and see how much softer the gold feels.