I was told by my pro shop manger one time that with my slow ball speed that my ending Top weight should be at least around 1 1/4 oz. or more need some input please.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATICS
They drilled the guts out of the ball

Pin weight ball is a must have for every bowler................

I understand that with today's big cored equipment static weights are not going to make any difference.  With regard to 3 piece balls, I can say with certainty that I could see a difference between a ball drilled zero and one drilled 1/2 finger, 1/4 side.  In the scenario I described earlier, I had 2 Black Angles with those drillings and I could see a difference.  Is it the same effect as putting a fat hole in a ball to change core dynamics? No, but there most certainly was a difference.

I like the way all the young pups on this board think we're all idiots but a big part of science is observation.  I saw what I saw.

My experience with static weights in the old days when 3 piece cores were the norm was different. In short, I saw very little, if any difference in the roll characteristics
among all the balls I drilled for myself and my customers in those days, irrespective of how they were drilled.  The single most important factor affecting ball performance
then was , as it is today, the coverstock. When Brunswick came out with its "Grabber"
in 1970, its coverstock had a higher coefficient of friction than did the old hard rubber Ebonite Gyros or the Dick Weber Five Star balls.  With the introduction of polyester balls around that same time (such as the Columbia White Dot), friction was kicked up another small notch. Static weight variances only showed their variations
when the ball was rolled EXTREMELY slow--much slower than most bowlers normally
throw--MUCH slower or when balls were illegally  "do-doed" with lead, mercury, rolls of coins, etc. Otherwise static weights had no real effect on ball motion.

Also, balls were harder in those days and lane surfaces were softer in texture when compared with today's much harder lane surfaces. In addition, much less oil volumes were used 40-50 years ago than what is used today. The lane surfaces were the main friction source back then . Today, it's the equipment. Just the opposite.

However the difference in eras, ball (hooking action) is much more extreme in today's environment than in the rubber/plastic/urethane days. Those balls had
much longer, and MUCH shallower hooking motions. They never "jumped" off a spot like they do today. This is why targeting at the arrows (up front) was not a problem back then. On today's sport conditions, awareness of the "breakpoint" some 40 feet  or so away, is critical in determining when and how, the ball reacts --counterintuitive for many of us old timers. In so many ways, we are being forced to re-learn the game by today's rules. Rules mandated by all of the changes that have occurred in bowling's physical environment since that time. But it's a worthy challenge.