That core will still be used, Ebonite will only need to redistribute the weight, and or density somewhere.


Companies do it all the time. Like the Brunswick Inferno core used on many Brunswick balls. They all don't have the same Rg and dif. Some do, many are a little higher or lower from one ball line to the next.

I don't agree with changing the numbers on either the RG or Diff because it doesn't make that much of a difference. It is the coverstock on todays bowling balls that make up a huge part of what these bowling balls do.
--------------------
" men lie, women lie, numbers don't "

IMHO, a further reduction in differential has no effect. Remember that the RG diff. just determines how much a ball can potentially(!) flare, and how strong the forces are which drive the core from an instable position (determined by the drilling) towards its stable and roll axis.

Therefore, you can lower the RG. diff technically, but produce (unless you have to drill a ball totally strong) the same flare and reaction through a stronger pin position. It might be "harmful" to no rev players, but, heck, instead of complaining a coach session might compensate.

Besides, with the ever-aggressive covers, I think that players with a poor release need less and less help though the core to get a ball into a roll - the response to dry back end is so strong that you can send a low RG ball twisting down the lane, and it will grip and roll forward almost immediately in the back end.

IMHO, this limit - whether it is true or not - is pretty pointless. They should rather raise minimum shell hardness or find a rule concerning maximum coverstock porosity.
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling? Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section