I just have one question for all of the posters in this thread/ pro shop operators also.  Im getting a little older now and this 15lb ball i have is just a little heavy for my old bones. i weighed it and it came out 15lbs 1oz.  

is it possible to make this ball a 13lber?? i mean it's my favorite ball...i shot 890 with it OOB, the first set, at the toughest house i bowl at...

point of the story, who really cares if the weights matter or not??? "some" older guys think it matters, because it always used to.  i have customers come in all the time and ask for some side weight or to "weight it" so they can hook it more.  

this is human nature people, no matter what, everyone is not going to have the same point of view.  everyone is not going to listen to people that study this game so in depth.  everyone is (at least on BR.com) not going to admit they could be wrong.  and yes you will always have the "keyboard pounders" and the anal retentive a-holes that hijack every thread on the board.

in conclusion, the fact of the matter is WHO REALLY GIVES A CRAP....

thanks for reading and good luck!!

Look guys, lets admit several things to each other.

1. Static weights matter. Maybe only slightly, but they do.
2. Location and depth of x-holes matters even more.
3. Pin and MB placement matter more than X-holes
4. Surface finish matters MOST OF ALL.

 The In depth, lengthy study the USBC did PROVES that static weights do have SOME influence, even though the effects are limited. The test results showed that balls WITHOUT X-HOLES, REACTED SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY, DUE TO CG (STATIC WEIGHT) PLACEMENT.

 The studies done by them, as well as studied individuals in the field, have also proven that X-holes matter, and their placement and depth CAN have far more influence that static weights do.

 Surface matters most of all. Pin placement matters next, as well as MB placement.  But, somewhere in there, static weights DO have an influence.

 With the strength of all the other factors having increased exponentially over the last decade, static weight influence has become ALMOST negligible, and pale in comparison to them, but they DO still exist, that is unless some of you rocket scientists have managed to completely change the laws of physics without telling anyone.

 In short, even back in "the old days", static weights had their limitations, but we used them because THAT WAS ALL WE HAD, except for surface alterations. They probably only influenced a balls reaction by MAYBE 5-10% even then and surface mattered much more then as well in a balls reaction. Surface was used to CREATE a ball reaction and static weights were used to ENHANCE a ball reaction.

 In example, I had two identical white dots ( yes, they had the same topweight and same coloring), but had different drillings and surfaces on them. I had a dull (800 grit) finish on one with thumb and negative side weight for lanes with carrydown, and a polished one with finger and positive side weight for fresh lanes. They didn't even react remotely similarly to one another, but the BIGGEST factor was the surface, while the static weights were used to COMPLIMENT the surface finish.

 Moral.

 "OLD DAYS" = Static weights mattered 5-10% of total influence on reaction while surfce mattered 90-95% = STATIC WEIGHTS SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT.

 "NEW DAYS" = Static weights matter 1-2% of possible influence on reaction while "other" factors matter 98-99% = STATIC WEIGHTS OF NEGLIGIBLE IMPORTANCE.

 I can/could see and pick out a 10% difference in reaction, especially when reaction was so limited with rubber and plastic, but I most likely CAN'T pick out a 1-2% difference in reaction, especially when reactives are so strong to begin with, and I wonder if anyone really can, but it IS still there.
--------------------
Good transactions list in my profile

 ILLEGITIMI, NON-CARBORUNDUM!