Author Topic: Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough? (Read 5874 times)

trash heap · « **on:** April 19, 2012, 05:48:59 PM »

If USBC and PBA got together and banned all balls that had a core? What would that do?

Basically any coverstock could be used (Within the current regulations), but the ball would only have top weight.

I know most on here know my stance. I personally would like to see the reactive ball banned. I realize that won't happen, but what about eliminating the core?

trash heap · « **Reply #16 on:** April 23, 2012, 05:09:11 PM »

Was asking would it be enough to put some regulation on the equipment and make "ball choice" less of the factor in bowling competition. Let skill, abilities, and adjustment be the determining factors, not pick up the next ball in line and continue striking. Also not be able to pick up your oil soaker and burn line into the pattern before competition starts.

Sunshine n Lollipops wrote on 4/23/2012 1:31 PM:
Who cares how many youth bowlers did it the wrong way? Nobody is taking the cores out of bowling balls so what is your point? Bowling doesn't have to be expensive as pointed out previously. Put an IT in a used ball and you don't even have to plug it. Resurface it, good as new. So your price argument is moot. So why should cores be taken out of balls?

trash heap wrote on 4/23/2012 1:17 PM:
Let's take poll on this site. Anyone who has bowled as a youth within the past 4 years, what did you have as an arsenal, also what kind arsenal did kids have around you? I am not talking about 14 years old and under. I am looking more at the 15 - 17 year old range. Also try to give an estimate of total cost for equipment.

Don't believe in the Uzi, it just went off in my hand. I, I believe in love.

kidlost2000 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 23, 2012, 06:00:59 PM »

If your wanting to lower scores then take away they oil. Dry lanes and todays equipment cause the majority of bowlers big problems. Simple solutions that doesn't eliminate the vast majority of todays equipment.

"1 of 1."

avabob · « **Reply #18 on:** April 23, 2012, 09:33:16 PM »

You obviously have never been responsible for the maintenance of bowling lanes. While people tend to forget, the original, and still valid reason for using oil was to protect the lane surface. Thanks to high friction balls, todays synthetic lanes incur significant wear in less than 10 years even with high volume oiling procedures. Furthermore, the use of oil to produce a challenging scoring condition is as legitimate as cutting the greens short to promote true putting.

Just as another aside, it would be very possible to preserve the fundamentals of the current game for bowlers even with the elimination of resin and urethane balls. The modern power game began its evolution during the plastic ball era of the late 1970's. The big difference we would encounter would be that high rev players who wanted to hook the lane would struggle on longer patterns. Tweeners would struggle on shorter patterns. Carry would defintely drop off but not as drastically as some people believe. You would see more weak 10's from balls that didn't finish strong, but fewer roll out tens where a ball flips and burns.

Sunshine n Lollipops · « **Reply #19 on:** April 23, 2012, 10:24:07 PM »

You contradict yourself here. In fact, you're all over the map on this subject. Earlier, you said the expense of having multiple ball choices was tough on juniors. Now you're saying that taking the core out of the ball would limit a bowlers option. Shell and surface are the dominant factors in ball reaction.

Having eight different ball choices with you at the lanes is, in my opinion, a sign of weakness. It means a bowler doesn't have faith in his own abilities to adapt to a shot and is building in an excuse for not performing as in "I didn't bring the right ball today". The skilled an confident bowler needs three balls most of the time, maybe a fourth plastic spare ball. Any more, the bowler's just looking for a crutch .

trash heap wrote on 4/23/2012 3:09 PM:Was asking would it be enough to put some regulation on the equipment and make "ball choice" less of the factor in bowling competition. Let skill, abilities, and adjustment be the determining factors, not pick up the next ball in line and continue striking. Also not be able to pick up your oil soaker and burn line into the pattern before competition starts.

Sunshine n Lollipops wrote on 4/23/2012 1:31 PM:
Who cares how many youth bowlers did it the wrong way? Nobody is taking the cores out of bowling balls so what is your point? Bowling doesn't have to be expensive as pointed out previously. Put an IT in a used ball and you don't even have to plug it. Resurface it, good as new. So your price argument is moot. So why should cores be taken out of balls?

trash heap wrote on 4/23/2012 1:17 PM:
Let's take poll on this site. Anyone who has bowled as a youth within the past 4 years, what did you have as an arsenal, also what kind arsenal did kids have around you? I am not talking about 14 years old and under. I am looking more at the 15 - 17 year old range. Also try to give an estimate of total cost for equipment.

Don't believe in the Uzi, it just went off in my hand. I, I believe in love.

Don't believe in the Uzi, it just went off in my hand. I, I believe in love.

kidlost2000 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 24, 2012, 02:18:21 AM »

No i do not do lane maintenance but I have bowled many places and tournaments that put out dry conditions and force bowlers to start balling down and shooting a lot more spares. Then it becomes more about adjustments and spare game to score.

"1 of 1."

dizzyfugu · « **Reply #21 on:** April 24, 2012, 09:06:38 AM »

avabob wrote on 21.04.2012 12:13 PM:
Changes in ball specs should not be about scoring, but about what the balls are doing to lane sursfaces and oil patterns. Scoring is really a secondary issue that would be indirectly addressed by taming the surfaces.

In this regard I would do just the opposite. Let them do anything they want with cores, but outlaw high friction highly porous shells. We have the technology to control the scoring pace with high tech lane machines, but that cannot be accomplished so long as we allow balls that act like a combination sponge and bull dozer on the lane.

Agree pretty much. Limiting the core specs to pancake blocks would IMO "punish" only a certain group of player. I'd also rather suggest a technical limit to coverstock properties, like porosity or hardness. I think that a hardness limit/minimum of 80 (much like a polyester ball) instead of 74-78 right now would already change a lot, while everyone still could benefit from strong core dynamics. Surely no patent recipe, but that's what I personally see as current "main problem".

DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany
2010/11 Benrather BC Club Champion
Confused by bowling? Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

r534me · « **Reply #22 on:** April 24, 2012, 11:11:30 AM »

I won't disagree that the weight blocks doexn't make a difference between the u-dots and the hammers but a lot of credit should be given to the coverstock. The hammer coverstocks are really thick. I am guessing close to two inches thick. Combined with the core , the hammer barely deflects in the pocket when thrown properly in the correct conditions.

Once I have my black u-dot plugged and redrilled I will compare it to my blue hammer(I still use it on house shots).

Urethane Game wrote on 4/19/2012 4:33 PM:I really think that reaction is 70% cover goes away when you take away the 2 piece cores. Yes, I used different axis and leverage drillings back in the day but a three piece ball with those drillings doesn't flare near as much or rev up as quickly as the balls with modern cores especially asymmetrical cores.

The big difference between Hammers and U-Dots in the 80s was not the cover, in my opinion, but strength in core. Especially when applying the, then, exotic drillings like axis and leverage.

Classic Rock and Blues Net Radio

avabob · « **Reply #23 on:** April 24, 2012, 11:56:42 AM »

First, the impact of the core is much more limited than people think. I have thrown 2 piece low rg cores in plastic, and the impact is noticeable compared to pancake, only if the oil is significantly cut back. Lane 1 XXXL was still only a spare ball except on very dry conditions.

Friction is the biggest factor in ball reaction, and friction comes from ball surface. Urethane balls got their friction from abrasiveness of being sanded to 400 grit. Urethane enhanced resin balls get friction from the chemical additives that increase friction on the dry without increasing it significantly on the oil.

STL Cardinals · « **Reply #24 on:** April 24, 2012, 02:02:05 PM »

Just make the pins heavier. Give centers three years to change to the new pins and then the scores would go down. USBC is scared to do anything because of fear they might lose a member. Like that is not happening now....

Author Topic: Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough? (Read 5874 times)

trash heap

Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough?

trash heap

Re: Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough?

kidlost2000

Re: Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough?

avabob

Re: Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough?

Sunshine n Lollipops

Re: Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough?

kidlost2000

Re: Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough?

dizzyfugu

Re: Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough?

r534me

Re: Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough?

avabob

Re: Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough?

STL Cardinals

Re: Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough?