win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Question on USBC proposals  (Read 2083 times)

thedjs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1017
Question on USBC proposals
« on: May 02, 2005, 03:51:50 AM »
I see that we won't be able to use balls with balance holes after 2006 as well as having to have the cg within a certain distance from the center of the grip.  I also understand that all new balls after 2006 must have the USBC logo.

What I don't see is anything saying that balls (which meet all other requirements) without the logo will be illegal.  Only that all new balls after 2006 will have to have it.

So, it this is correct, my older reactive balls (without a balance hole and with the cg within the legal distance) will still be legal.

Is this correct?
Logged

 

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Question on USBC proposals
« Reply #16 on: May 03, 2005, 06:45:41 PM »
quote:

 Then, and only then,come up with a REASONABLE ball rule or rules.


I agree.  Limit the friction that can be created, limit the surface grit rating (though how to enforce it I don't know; this seems par for the course with bowling regs however), limit the differential, \emph{maybe} limit the mass bias differential (but not lower than currently available balls).  The differential rule was pretty easily accepted because there were so few balls out there that violated it and there was no plan to make existing balls illegal.  Someone who wants to use their SD-73 or Cherry Bomb ten years from now, even the NIB one sitting on the floor in the closet, can do so.  Don't limit drilling options.

SH
Logged

HamPster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5584
Re: Question on USBC proposals
« Reply #17 on: May 03, 2005, 06:49:25 PM »
While Shelley's suggestions are on the right track, I don't think people would ever accept it.  There's some sense of feel and a little rush people get when they get a break, and I think computer simulations takes away from the reality of everything.  Like playing poker, messing with chips and cards and everything is kind of a pain, and playing it on a computer is easier, but there's just something about reality that is the "x factor" for sports enjoyment.  It's like the simulated golf too, it's a nice novelty, but I'd much rather play outdoors the way it's always been played than hit into a screen over and over again.  They're going to have to do it just like they're doing it.  There's no way they can monitor lane conditions, so putting the restrictions on the bowling balls is the way to go.  The ball companies are going to lose a lot of sales unless they get creative, and the smaller ones will most likely fold.  In a world driven by the almighty buck, things will always get more and more out of control.  Even these so called more difficult PBA patterns they came out with a couple years ago are a joke.  As long as you have head oil and sharp backends, that's half the battle right there, of course it's going to be easier to be accurate.  The PBA realizes that the conditions have to be tougher, yes, but they also realize that nobody wants to watch Walter Ray beat Norm Duke in the finals of the World Championship 203-190.  People want to see 279-268, not reality.  Long heavy flat oil, then you'll separate things.
--------------------
Hey, I am NOT Michael Jackson.  I like little GIRLS, not little boys . .

Rock on kitty.
Logged

nd300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
Re: Question on USBC proposals
« Reply #18 on: May 03, 2005, 06:55:44 PM »
Shelly,
 While the idea of having leagues based on ratings/averages,etc is not bad, are you going to be the one to tell Joe Smith that he can't bowl with his buddies on Wednesday night because he has a lower average than the other guys?
 Or tell the team that's bowled on Thursday night for 20 years that because of the lower averages they carry they can only bowl on Tuesday now?? That would cause an uproar that I don't want to be within 10 miles of........
--------------------
Chris
 Lane#1--nothing else hits like 'em.
Logged

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Question on USBC proposals
« Reply #19 on: May 03, 2005, 11:26:56 PM »
quote:
Even these so called more difficult PBA patterns they came out with a couple years ago are a joke.  As long as you have head oil and sharp backends, that's half the battle right there, of course it's going to be easier to be accurate.


I think one thing they should do is change some or all of the patterns every year.  It seemed like every week I watched the telecast, Randy would say "You'll see Bob playing straight up the boards, Joe playing the swing shot, and as the oil dries up, they're gonna have to start moving left".  That doesn't tell anyone anything.  

It seemed like most shows that had very different types of players (TJ, WRW, Machuga, for example), someone was playing deep inside, someone was playing down and in, someone was playing in the track.  That suggests to me that there aren't many differences in the patterns, even though I'm sure there are.  Now if there's some aspect of the ball and drilling that allows someone to play those different lines, I'd like to see it.  Show how TJ can play the deep inside line with ball X but that just doesn't work with ball Y because of Z.

But that's getting kind of far afield.  As I was saying, change some of the patterns each year so that they don't get used to playing on them.  You wanna know why scores are rising every year, even on the harder patterns?  Players are learning how to play them most effectively.  Put new patterns out, ones they haven't seen (or are legitimately tough all the time like the US Open pattern) and that'll keep 'em on their toes, it'll make even the pros have to get better.

SH
Logged

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Question on USBC proposals
« Reply #20 on: May 03, 2005, 11:33:38 PM »
quote:
Shelly,
 While the idea of having leagues based on ratings/averages,etc is not bad, are you going to be the one to tell Joe Smith that he can't bowl with his buddies on Wednesday night because he has a lower average than the other guys?
 Or tell the team that's bowled on Thursday night for 20 years that because of the lower averages they carry they can only bowl on Tuesday now?? That would cause an uproar that I don't want to be within 10 miles of........


But that's the thing.  MOST bowlers won't be affected.  Their leagues will stay the same.  The bread-and-butter mixed leagues, and men's and women's handicap leagues can stay the same.  Don't adopt stricter rules for balls and lane conditions.  Have another league (probably geared towards the scratch whiners) that has the CG-grip-center rule and flatter oil.  Those people can still bowl in the "easy" leagues and they can even enforce the restrictions on themselves if they like.  It's exactly like it is now in scratch leagues.  They are intended for "serious" bowlers who "care" about the game and they can be just as integrity-oriented as they like.  Give rings and plaques for those leagues, give patches for the others.

You can make the rules a little more flexible by saying that if an honor score is shot with a ball that conforms to the new rule, you get a ring or plaque.  If it's shot with a ball with a weight hole or CG too far away from the grip center (not all of those drillings require a weight hole, correct?), then it's a minor achievement and the bowlers gets a patch.

SH
Logged

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Question on USBC proposals
« Reply #21 on: May 04, 2005, 08:29:48 AM »
quote:
and I think computer simulations takes away from the reality of everything.  


I'm not even talking about full simulation.  Just some pre-programmed leaves for different kinds of misses.  If you hit your target dead on, it's a strike.  Don't simulate the pins, because that's just as unreliable as real pins, if not moreso.  It's \emph{always} a strike.  Miss your target and it's never a strike.  Miss is a little right, it's a 10-pin.  Miss it a little left, it's a 7-pin or 4-9.  No simulation at all.

The key is to base scoring on something better than knocking over pins.  The pins are unreliable because there are so many ways to knock them over.  We clearly need a new system.  I think Randy Pederson would like my new system, because that last shot of his would have been a strike, not a 9-count.

SH
Logged

janderson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2181
Re: Question on USBC proposals
« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2005, 05:27:20 PM »
quote:
Even these so called more difficult PBA patterns they came out with a couple years ago are a joke. As long as you have head oil and sharp backends, that's half the battle right there, of course it's going to be easier to be accurate.


Wow.  Wow.  Every now and then you come across a statement on this site that really stops you in your tracks.

quote:
People seem to think that is ruining a sport where the WHOLE POINT IS TO KNOCK DOWN THE PINS.


Shelley, to this and all of your related posts, if you want to oversimplify things to that degree, than why stop at sensors in the lanes?  Why not rent a giant catepillar 20-story wrecking ball and crane and take it with you to the lanes.  According to your argument, that won't ruin the sport either as you would just be knocking down the pins.  It's now how, it's how many, I think you said that too.

Yes, a wrecking ball and crane is ludicrous, but at what point do you draw the line between what is and isn't too easy?


--------------------
J.J. "Waterola Kid" Anderson, the bLowling King  : Kill the back row
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »