The proposed rule changes sent to the manufacturers are in no way going to restore integrity and/or lower the scoring pace. What these changes will do is cause bowlers to be disgruntled, making them want to quit as well as putting pro shops and manufacturers out of business. Therefore, they should be rescinded immediately.
The game/sport of bowling never had any real integrity, which these rule changes are all about. The USBC should not be so concerned with high scoring, as long as it's fair for everyone.
Going back to the very beginning, in the days of lacquer coatings, bowlers on the right side of the lane wore a track in the lane. This created a wall of dry boards, now giving bowlers hook and carry, that was not previously there. Because of these dry boards, scores would now be much higher than normal..!!
As you can see, lane conditions, and/or more friction, is the cause of high scoring, not weight holes and CG placements.
Over the years, there have been many advancements that have helped bowlers score higher. We went from rubber to plastic coverstocks. Back in the late 60's, Don McCune soaked his ball in MEK, making it softer, giving it more grip on the lane, thus more striking power.
Bowlers went from a conventional grip, to a finger tip grip, creating more revs. More revs cause the ball to be more powerful. More revs equal more gripping power, thus creating a wider area to strike in the pocket. In the mid 70's, Mark Roth because a PBA mega star, showing all of the youth of America how to put massive revs on a bowling ball. This explosion of youth bowlers who now want to put as many revs on the ball as possible, has contributed in the marked increase of honor scores.
In the early 80's, Urethane coverstocks came about. This created more friction on the lane, gripping more, thus higher scores. Now, 2-piece balls came into prominence, because of the gripping action of the urethane coverstock. Dynamic cores were not invented in the 80's, they were invented in the 60's. These high tech dynamic cores didn't show much of an appreciable difference in a clear plastic coverstock and went by the way side. Not until the high friction/gripping coverstocks came out in the 80's did these exotic cores come into prominence.
Along with these high tech cores, came high tech drillings. Axis weight and off label drillings were around in the early 70's. These "off label" drillings created different kinds of ball reactions on the lane and were used by many bowlers.
What "off label" drillings do is balance the ball perfectly to the way you throw the ball. If bowler 1 has a low track, the core may be rotating at a 45 degree angle going down the lane, when drilled straight on the label. This release makes a ball drilled with zero side weight, but with 2 oz top weight, act like a ball with 1 1/2 oz. side weight. This is due to the fact that because of the bowlers release, the CG is now on the side of the ball going down the lane. This can give an advantage to certain types of bowlers. Technically speaking, the ball is illegal, based on where the CG is in relation to the bowlers PAP.
What off label drillings do is allow you to position the core at the same angle for bowler A as for bowler B. This helps level the playing field, keeping it fair for everyone. Off label drillings have been around for over 40 yrs. There was no concern in the beginning that balance holes created an unfair advantage, because they don't. You can argue that finger grips and wrist devices give bowlers an advantage and should be outlawed. But what will that do..? It'll give bowlers a reason to quit.
All of these things are available for everyone to use, so it's fair for everyone..!!
The USBC states that..."Our testing has shown that balance holes affect the dynamics of bowling balls, which therefore influence the amount of hook and ultimately the entry angle of a ball into the pocket. Increasing the entry angle of a bowling ball has a direct influence on scoring."
Lane #1's testing has shown that gripping holes affect the dynamics of bowling balls. Because weight is being removed from the ball, the addition of gripping holes change the position of the starting CG (center of gravity) of a bowling ball. The CG will now be in a different location from where it started. Our testing shows that the ending CG, in relationship to the bowlers PAP, has a greater affect on the dynamics of a bowling ball than does the starting CG (prick mark), in relation to the bowlers gripping holes. Because gripping holes change the ending position of the CG, a ball doctor can still manipulate the hole depths, changing where the ending CG will be in relation to the bowlers PAP.
Is the USBC going to outlaw gripping holes..?
Additionally, drilling the ball within 1" of the marked starting CG is not going to guarantee that the ball will be within USBC guidelines for side, finger, and top weight. If a ball has a starting top of 5 or more oz., then a 1" shirt will end with more than 1 oz. side weight. Also, a ball can be resurfaced and have a new "prick" marked on the ball. As you can see, a "prick mark" has nothing to do with if the ball will be within USBC specs for side, finger and top weights.
The USBC says..."Additionally, these proposed changes eliminate the ability to manipulate the RG differential of a drilled bowling ball via a balance hole. Increasing RG differential adds flare, which again has a direct relationship to increased entry angle and scoring. If others - including the bowling equipment industry - have other test results or facts, we hope this information will be submitted in writing and presented at the forum."
Our testing shows that the addition of weight holes DO NOT increase the differential, they LOWER the Differential of a ball, causing the ball to roll earlier, thus LOWERING the entry angle at the pins..!! Based on the USBC's position that weight holes increase differential, and the fact that weight holes actually lower differential, we must conclude that weight holes DO NOT have a direct influence on scoring..!!
Lane #1's testing has also shown that higher friction between the ball and the backend of the lane, combined with low friction in the front and middle part of the lane increases the entry angle of the ball. As a matter of fact, too much entry angle has a negative effect on scoring, so increased entry angle alone should not be a concern for the USBC.
"General consensus from pro shops and ball manufacturers is that balance holes don't give any assistance to today's bowlers due to the latest technology in cores and cover stocks. That raises a question: If that is truly the case, what does it matter if we remove the ability to put a balance hole in a ball?"
Over the past 20 years, it has been Lane #1's goal to educate ball drillers and elevate them to a professional level. Ball drilling is a business and pro shop operators need to make a living. Lane #1 developed the Gravity Balance System to educate pro shop operators on how to perfectly balance a bowling ball, concerning the core and the ending center of gravity, specifically targeting them at precise angles to the bowlers PAP. This system and method helps in taking out lope, creating a more even, predictable rolling ball for everyone. This will ensure that a pro shop is really a pro shop and not some "hack" drilling balls. Because the ball is better balanced, the bowler will score higher. This should not be seen as a negative.
Along with the USBC proposing to force all ball manufacturers to provide the USBC logo on their bowling balls, these proposals will directly effect the manufacturers, pro shops and bowlers in a negative way. We're here to attract bowlers to the game/sport. By helping bowlers score better, whether it be by lessons or by providing bowlers with PROPERLY drilled and balanced equipment, keeps bowlers interested in the sport/game. This is what everyone involved is trying to accomplish.
Do you really want to tell 50% of the USBC sanctioned bowlers that they'll have to buy new balls in 2008, because they can't use the ones they're using now..? Everyone knows that scoring, and integrity, is directly related to lane conditions, not bowling balls and drilling techniques.
What these changes will accomplish is the loss of sanctioned bowlers to the USBC. Another sanctioning organization, NABSO (North American Bowlers Sanctioning Organization) is wanting to grow. This will be fuel for them to start, now giving bowlers and manufacturers a sanctioning choice.
Lane #1's position is that lowering the overall friction between the ball and lane, especially on the backend of the lane, will provide steepest decline in the rate of award scores, if that's the USBC's intention, and belief to restore integrity. Lane #1 oppose's these rule changes, for the aforementioned reasons stated above, and feel that the USBC is headed in the wrong direction, with these proposals, as far as integrity goes.
Sincerely,
Richie Sposato
President/CEO
Lane #1
