Author Topic: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core" (Read 2787 times)

rockerbowler18 · « **on:** February 21, 2009, 12:50:02 PM »

"This [pba's plastic ball] tournament shows how much money is wasted on bowling technology. The cores are too strong. The covers are too strong. Bowling centers have to put too much oil down so clowns can throw their Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core. The game of bowling is simple, the best in the world will score regardless of what is out there."

This brings to mind a few things which I've had in my head for a while...

1. Bowling is the only sport which has no limitations on technology. There are golf balls which will fly for years, but they can't use them on tour. There is a limit to the number of dimples, size of drivers, etc. Technology is not allowed to just grow exponentially and unchecked in sports...except for bowling. This leads to better athletes not necessarily being the best. Sports and athletes in every other sport in the world have greater physical capabilities. The pitcher who throws fastest generally has more success. Some weak guy out there cannot compete. However, in bowling, the strokers go and drill something stronger and the playing field is suddenly level. I've worked a long time on my form (and still have a long way to go) in order to create more entry angle for myself. Now I find myself having to drill things weaker and weaker so I don't have to stand on top of the ball return. I don't think that bowling can be considered a sport until the physically gifted and the physically trained are the ones with the entry angle and the upper hand...not just the guy with the technology.

2. It seems like everyone has a great upper level ($200 price range) ball out right now, and this has been the trend for a while...Brunswick Maxxx Zone, Storm Virtual Gravity, Hammer Sauce, Ebonite Magic, etc. Everyone also has decent entry level equipment ($110 price range) (for example, ebonite clash, which is fairly weak in both coverstock and weight block). However, it seems like the "mid level" ($165 price range) equipment is just as strong as the upper level stuff...Gamebreaker is one of the most aggressive balls ever...playmaker, pinslasher, Rapid Fire, HyRoad, Black Widows, Swarm, Copperhead, Rattler...all very strong. I'm giving props to Hammer right now...they seem to be the only ones who have mastered the weaker equipment FOR SOMETHING ABOVE THE ENTRY LEVEL GAME: THE VIBE SERIES!!! The Vibes are great balls for the upper average bowlers who need something a little milder. Performance without too much aggression in the cover/weight block.
--------------------
JAT Junior Amateur Tour

Robb''s Pro Shops: Bakersfield, California

Rob Stone Supporters of America!

SVstar34 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 21, 2009, 08:54:14 PM »

Well, there are limitations on the technology
--------------------
My Arsenal:
Bounty(4.5 x 4.75 Fresh 1000 Abralon)
Twisted Fury(5 x 4 500 Abralon + Reacta Shine)
Raw Hammer Pain(Leverage 1000 Abralon)
Blue Vibe(5 x 5 4000 Abralon + Reacta Shine)

tdub36tjt · « **Reply #2 on:** February 21, 2009, 08:59:17 PM »

I'm sick of hearing people complain about technology, it happens in a lot of sports get over it....

jbuzz31 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 21, 2009, 09:00:42 PM »

quote:
Well, there are limitations on the technology
--------------------
My Arsenal:
Bounty(4.5 x 4.75 Fresh 1000 Abralon)
Twisted Fury(5 x 4 500 Abralon + Reacta Shine)
Raw Hammer Pain(Leverage 1000 Abralon)
Blue Vibe(5 x 5 4000 Abralon + Reacta Shine)

yep. no diff. over .60
rumor is there getting ready to clamp down on the RA values as well.

oh yea. also isnt there a limit on coverstock softness too? nothing lower then 73 on the durometer i beleive?
--------------------
Ive Eaten From The Insane Root That Imprisons Reason

JustRico · « **Reply #4 on:** February 21, 2009, 09:01:24 PM »

Lest us not forget, that the amount of revs a person has, does not dictates the amount of talent they possess. If the bowling centers put more oil on the lanes, this eliminates the accurate bowler, as opposed to the higher rev player, due to what is done to a lane surface-specifically the front part of the lane. The only alternative a lower rev, accurate-contemporary type player has, to compete on a level playing field, is to drill up a stronger piece of equipment-either cover or core.

No matter the condition it will always favor a type of player...

Higher volumes for higher rev players
Lesser volumes for lower rev players
Bad surface favors the left handers

There is nothing the matter with the tools that are provided for all bowlers. Talent still always prevail. The issue is what is talent and what is strength?

Voss is one of the truly gifted, ability wise, players ever and Fagan beat him. Is Fagan less talented?

Is Couch or PA better, physically, than PBIII?

The game has changed due to conditions, not equipment. The equipment attepmts to level the playing field.
--------------------
Formerly BrunsRico

gtkpr31 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2009, 09:16:15 PM »

I think the companies put out these really strong, most-hookingness balls of all time according to them because that's what the demand is. It's simple economics. 90% of the younger generation of bowlers want their balls to go sideways at the end of the pattern. That's what they want and that's what the companies are giving them.

I'm a rev dominant player and I find myself running out of room a lot as well but I think that IS what makes a player good. If someone like a Robert Smith or Tommy Jones can loft the gutter caps and beat someone like a Jack Jurek who is playing up ten then more power to them. I think that adjusting to lane conditions and being able to choose from a variety of equipment is what makes bowling better than those other sports, not inferior.

And as it comes to the plastic ball tournament, they cut the cheetah volume basically in half. ANY reactive ball out there even the entry level stuff wouldn't have stayed on the lane during that tournament. They went completely retro with it even with the oil. I think it was a terrible idea for a mid-season tournament especially when guys are fighting for their jobs/lives but it is what it is.
--------------------
This is life.
This is struggle.
This is love.
This is war.

rockerbowler18 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2009, 09:21:20 PM »

quote:
Lest us not forget, that the amount of revs a person has, does not dictates the amount of talent they possess. If the bowling centers put more oil on the lanes, this eliminates the accurate bowler, as opposed to the higher rev player, due to what is done to a lane surface-specifically the front part of the lane. The only alternative a lower rev, accurate-contemporary type player has, to compete on a level playing field, is to drill up a stronger piece of equipment-either cover or core.

No matter the condition it will always favor a type of player...

Higher volumes for higher rev players
Lesser volumes for lower rev players
Bad surface favors the left handers

There is nothing the matter with the tools that are provided for all bowlers. Talent still always prevail. The issue is what is talent and what is strength?

Voss is one of the truly gifted, ability wise, players ever and Fagan beat him. Is Fagan less talented?

Is Couch or PA better, physically, than PBIII?

The game has changed due to conditions, not equipment. The equipment attepmts to level the playing field.
--------------------
Formerly BrunsRico

I know, I am not saying that high revs are better. I'm saying that premium shot making should not be made by the ball...but the bowler. Your PA/Couch better than PBIII is perfect for proving my point. I don't think there is a better bowler out there than PBIII. He has taken the time to sculpt his physical game into an AMAZING spectacle to see.
--------------------
JAT Junior Amateur Tour

Robb's Pro Shops: Bakersfield, California

Rob Stone Supporters of America!

los2003 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2009, 09:59:12 PM »

I can handles most shot other than 48 to 50ft with an arsenal of vibes.. and my only issue with a lot of these company is the new big hook ball move just as much as the last one basically. just a slight tweak to the coverstock..but its basically the same ball as the last one..

Juggernaut · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2009, 10:20:45 PM »

I am probably not a good one to reply to this thread, but I am going to anyway, things being what they are.

I agree completely with the Snowchains/R particle theory. Thing is, as much as bowling has changed due to technology, there are now two completely different and seperate factions of bowlers. Old school bowlers who remember the plastic and urethane days, and the younger/newer bowlers who grew up throwing only resin and have never known anyting else.

As most of the old school bowlers have gone away ( or quietly accepted their fates), and the younger guys began to take over, the entire philosophy of the game has undergone a change. Now, instead of older guys who played the game of accuracy and thought the power players were just a passing fad, the power game has taken over and the old, accurate guys are told they are the ones who need to accept reality and "learn how to bowl".

So, we are left with two ideologies. One that thinks bowling should be the way it was and that "power players" need to learn how to play the game properly, and another that thinks the game is correct now and that "old school" guys should just shut up and quit whining. Unfortunately, I am one of the old guys.

I am trying to accept things the way they are. What I would like people to realize, I think, is that all the "old school" guys DID learn how to bowl and it wasn't us that changed, it was the game itself. It took away our advantage and gave people who could not previously compete with us the ability to beat us because it changed the requirements of being able to score well.

I can still average, most times, what I ever did or more. Thing is, there are people scoring now that would not have been able to before, unless they had learned much more technique than they are using. last league session, I, honest to God, got beat one game by a guy throwing the ball and spinning it almost backwards upon release. It was a high friction, high performance core, particle ball which literally turned itself around and rolled almost as hard as my "properly" delivered shot, especially after the lanes got too dry for me.

I have been disgusted, frustrated, and angry. After many discussions with others who have also experienced many of the things that I have, I guess the only thing to do is grit my teeth and move forward, accepting things that I cannot change.

Sport bowling isn't going to change anything, there are far too many little pockets of bowling (like mine) across the country that would totally die if you made bowling hard again. We had a sport league last summer, but the house wasn't able to recreate the shots accurately and only 24 guys showed up for it in the first place. And most of those said they wouldn't do it again.

I, personally, think that bowling let the technological "cat out of the bag" and waited too long to try to corral it. When it first started, there were those who complained, but the manufacturers had stars ( and money) in their eyes, as well as the guys who had formerely been "also rans" who could now compete. There were far more proponents for advancement that there were against it. The new guys call the old guys whiners who need to get with technology and the old guys call the new guys weak wristed losers who need to learn how to throw the ball right. Both are right and both are wrong at the same time.

You guys make me laugh sometimes. It was stated there was no limitation on technology, yet there were those who replied to that with remarks like "There ARE limitations on technology" and " diff is limited to 0.60 and hardness is limited to 73 durometer", not fully understanding that HARDNESS isn't truly a factor with todays modern chemical formulations and that DIFFERENTIAL is a term that wasn't ever relevant with three piece technology of the past. By the standards of the past, a diff of 0.60 IS out of control.

If you truly want to limit technology, limit surface friction to 0.25, limit porosity, and limit DIFF to 0.20 and RG to 2.600. The professionals have shown this week that you can score with balls like this, IF YOU KNOW HOW TO BOWL.

People should spend less money on equipment and more time practicing their technique to perfect it, but, if there is NO NEED to practice because your equipment does the work for you, why bother?

--------------------
Norm Duke was right

Good transactions list in my profile

My Bowl.com member page

JessN16 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2009, 10:27:40 PM »

quote:

1. Bowling is the only sport which has no limitations on technology. There are golf balls which will fly for years, but they can't use them on tour. There is a limit to the number of dimples, size of drivers, etc. Technology is not allowed to just grow exponentially and unchecked in sports...except for bowling. This leads to better athletes not necessarily being the best. Sports and athletes in every other sport in the world have greater physical capabilities. The pitcher who throws fastest generally has more success. Some weak guy out there cannot compete. However, in bowling, the strokers go and drill something stronger and the playing field is suddenly level. I've worked a long time on my form (and still have a long way to go) in order to create more entry angle for myself. Now I find myself having to drill things weaker and weaker so I don't have to stand on top of the ball return. I don't think that bowling can be considered a sport until the physically gifted and the physically trained are the ones with the entry angle and the upper hand...not just the guy with the technology.

Not to pick on you, but this first point is rife with errors or fuzzy logic.

There are plenty of restrictions on ball, lane and pin technology. If you want to know just how restrictive lane and pin tech is, volunteer to help your local association inspect lanes next year and check tolerances. For that matter, there's no other sport that has such a strict code for its playing surface, golf included. If the USBC decided to do nothing else than rein in oil absorption rates, ball tech at that point will actually exist within a fairly narrow window.

As far as the athletic ability of bowlers, that hasn't changed for better or worse in 100 years. The reason bowlers don't look like basketball forwards is that it's not needed, nor is it a guarantee of success. The history of both golf and bowling is peppered with guys who couldn't have played any other sports but the ones they chose. Both are low-impact, non-contact sports and in any of those (which include darts, archery, automobile racing) the skill sets are different.

As for your comment on what kind of bowler should dominate, take a look at the guys who ranked 1-2 in the PBA top 50 -- Anthony and Williams. Williams is a fitness buff who just happens to have an exceptional gift of repetition. Anthony looked like a college professor. Neither is/was a high-rev guy nor did they ever make their game based on entry angle. Neither does Norm Duke, who will probably end his career either No. 3 all-time or maybe higher.

It would be just as wrong to make bowling all about who could get deeper and hook the whole lane as it would be to revert to all-plastic and make it about who has the best eye and gets luckiest on tripping his corners. And I say this from the perspective of someone who, like you, has had to revert to drilling up 10-year-old equipment weak so I can play a decent line. But it's not about me or my personal preferences.

Jess

Dennis Rhodes · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2009, 11:01:12 PM »

This is an interesting topic. When I started bowling, I was considered a cranker. Every once in awhile, I would be all the way in to 15 with my lt-48 or black hammer. At times, I had an advantage, just like Rico stated. At other times, I didn't. The interesting thing was that I could play some of the same lines as the pros. That didn't mean that I could carry like them. That was what made the pros, the pros. Not only could they play anywhere, but the could play anywhere with roll, which they generated. Now a days, the ball can and will create the roll for the player (in amateur ranks). This weeks tournament proves that the pros can still roll the ball. But, many bowlers think that they can roll the ball until they try to throw good ol' plastic. I average higher now then I ever have, but when I pull out my plastic to practice, I see the difference. I can make plastic move, but the way the ball enters the pocket is way different. A little bit off, and it is a bucket, with no headpin coming off the wall to obliterate the bucket. Do I still enjoy the game, sure. But, that is just it, now I feel it has become only a game. In the past, I felt that it was a sport. Thanks for listening to my rambling.
Dennis
--------------------
You'd be good, if it wasn't for your brain!-My Older Brother

RevZiLLa · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2009, 11:55:16 PM »

Golf is not as pure as people like to think. When I learned to golf in the 60's the shafts were shorter and the woods were persimmon and so very much smaller. The balls were wound with rubber and didn't fly as far as they do now. There were no hollow back irons...no diamond faced wedges...no high coefficient of restitution woods, etc.

Nope, golf is a LOT easier now....except the putting.

This is does not change the fact that bowling has gone too far. Interesting that scores are so high in the plastic tournament.... Could it be that plastic doesn't absorb oil and the volumes out there are appropriate for plastic, so the shot is much more predictable??
--------------------
RevZ=======================

\I/

Juggernaut · « **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2009, 12:06:14 AM »

quote:
Interesting that scores are so high in the plastic tournament.... Could it be that plastic doesn't absorb oil and the volumes out there are appropriate for plastic, so the shot is much more predictable??
--------------------
RevZ=======================
\I/

DING DING DING DING, you can stop calling folks, we have a winner!
--------------------
Norm Duke was right

Good transactions list in my profile

My Bowl.com member page

rockerbowler18 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 22, 2009, 12:54:00 AM »

quote:
I am probably not a good one to reply to this thread, but I am going to anyway, things being what they are.

I agree completely with the Snowchains/R particle theory. Thing is, as much as bowling has changed due to technology, there are now two completely different and seperate factions of bowlers. Old school bowlers who remember the plastic and urethane days, and the younger/newer bowlers who grew up throwing only resin and have never known anyting else.

As most of the old school bowlers have gone away ( or quietly accepted their fates), and the younger guys began to take over, the entire philosophy of the game has undergone a change. Now, instead of older guys who played the game of accuracy and thought the power players were just a passing fad, the power game has taken over and the old, accurate guys are told they are the ones who need to accept reality and "learn how to bowl".

So, we are left with two ideologies. One that thinks bowling should be the way it was and that "power players" need to learn how to play the game properly, and another that thinks the game is correct now and that "old school" guys should just shut up and quit whining. Unfortunately, I am one of the old guys.

I am trying to accept things the way they are. What I would like people to realize, I think, is that all the "old school" guys DID learn how to bowl and it wasn't us that changed, it was the game itself. It took away our advantage and gave people who could not previously compete with us the ability to beat us because it changed the requirements of being able to score well.

I can still average, most times, what I ever did or more. Thing is, there are people scoring now that would not have been able to before, unless they had learned much more technique than they are using. last league session, I, honest to God, got beat one game by a guy throwing the ball and spinning it almost backwards upon release. It was a high friction, high performance core, particle ball which literally turned itself around and rolled almost as hard as my "properly" delivered shot, especially after the lanes got too dry for me.

I have been disgusted, frustrated, and angry. After many discussions with others who have also experienced many of the things that I have, I guess the only thing to do is grit my teeth and move forward, accepting things that I cannot change.

Sport bowling isn't going to change anything, there are far too many little pockets of bowling (like mine) across the country that would totally die if you made bowling hard again. We had a sport league last summer, but the house wasn't able to recreate the shots accurately and only 24 guys showed up for it in the first place. And most of those said they wouldn't do it again.

I, personally, think that bowling let the technological "cat out of the bag" and waited too long to try to corral it. When it first started, there were those who complained, but the manufacturers had stars ( and money) in their eyes, as well as the guys who had formerely been "also rans" who could now compete. There were far more proponents for advancement that there were against it. The new guys call the old guys whiners who need to get with technology and the old guys call the new guys weak wristed losers who need to learn how to throw the ball right. Both are right and both are wrong at the same time.

You guys make me laugh sometimes. It was stated there was no limitation on technology, yet there were those who replied to that with remarks like "There ARE limitations on technology" and " diff is limited to 0.60 and hardness is limited to 73 durometer", not fully understanding that HARDNESS isn't truly a factor with todays modern chemical formulations and that DIFFERENTIAL is a term that wasn't ever relevant with three piece technology of the past. By the standards of the past, a diff of 0.60 IS out of control.

If you truly want to limit technology, limit surface friction to 0.25, limit porosity, and limit DIFF to 0.20 and RG to 2.600. The professionals have shown this week that you can score with balls like this, IF YOU KNOW HOW TO BOWL.

People should spend less money on equipment and more time practicing their technique to perfect it, but, if there is NO NEED to practice because your equipment does the work for you, why bother?

--------------------
Norm Duke was right

Good transactions list in my profile

My Bowl.com member page

*slow clap, standing ovation* Thank you. You said it. I am one of the older guys as well, except for the fact that I'm only 18 years old. But I am of the old school where shotmaking is at a premium. I learned form...it's not great, but better than some goofy form I see now. I think, to a degree, that every style can work. No. Everyone doesn't have to bowl the same. But I think that there should be an element of repetition rather than an element of luck and new technology.

quote:
Do I still enjoy the game, sure. But, that is just it, now I feel it has become only a game. In the past, I felt that it was a sport.

Thank you. That's what I'm getting at. In a sport, the physically trained, gifted, and those who work very hard are rewarded for their work, sacrifice, and the advantages they have (either natural, like a big football player who was just genetically destined to be big or taught, like Parker Bohn, who trained long long long hours to get that perfect knee bend). In a game, people simply apply strategy based on what they've learned and bought to adapt with.

quote:
This is does not change the fact that bowling has gone too far. Interesting that scores are so high in the plastic tournament.... Could it be that plastic doesn't absorb oil and the volumes out there are appropriate for plastic, so the shot is much more predictable??

I think that was the basic premise behind the quote in my original post...The lower volume is what should be used...the only reason higher volumes are used is because normal equipment is too strong. If we just went back to plastic, we'd be able to use lower volumes and shotmaking would be the most important part of the game again.

I couldn't agree more. And I am not complaining at all about the plastic ball tournament. I like the idea.

Hamburglar · « **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2009, 07:09:59 AM »

quote:
Higher volumes for higher rev players
Lesser volumes for lower rev players
Bad surface favors the left handers

I blow your theory out of the water...I'm not a high rev player but I bowl better on higher volumes of oil as compared to lesser volumes of oil where I tend to struggle mightily...
--------------------
That which doesn't kill you will only make you stronger, that which doesn't make you stronger is a waste of time!

Author Topic: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core" (Read 2787 times)

rockerbowler18

"Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

SVstar34

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

tdub36tjt

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

jbuzz31

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

JustRico

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

gtkpr31

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

rockerbowler18

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

los2003

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

Juggernaut

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

JessN16

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

Dennis Rhodes

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

RevZiLLa

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

Juggernaut

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

rockerbowler18

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"

Hamburglar

Re: "Snow-chains/R particle with the revinator core"