Again it has zero to do with a perceived weight than it does with position of core in regards to abt possible flare created...when a weight hole is used in almost every situation, it is to increase flare...increasing flare slows the ball down...you plug the weight hole you’ve in theory tightened the flares and creating more length with potential angularity...
It’s physics and static weights are not part of the equation
Come to whatever conclusion you wish...it’s physics not perception 

It is measured on a scale in a static sense...not in a dynamic sense
Believe what you will but it’s been proven

And you’re assuming that 3 has to be bigger than 1 due to a scale reading but it’s not...thus my reference to physics...you obviously do not understand or care to, how a pin out or a marking on the surface, 4.25” from the center of the bowling ball is created or it’s actual impact
This has been a misconception for most of time even in the pre-core days

Many of the points made on the subject are  correct:

!. Static weight has at BEST, a MINIMAL effect on overall ball motion

2. 3 oz of static weight WILL have a larger effect than will 1 oz of static weight

3. Still, there will be little difference (between 3 oz v 1 oz static weight) In fact, a higher speed player could see a DECREASE if he really, really, REALLY has a very good eye.

4. What little difference there is will be most noticeable among lower-rev- slower speed bowlers  ( it's all in the physics).
     
5. It's the orientation of the core that makes the biggest difference (disregarding all other variables, such as coverstock, lane oil, lane topography, etc. etc.)

6. It is track flare that has by far, the biggest impact on hook (see #5, core orientation).

7. Track flare is caused by precession,  (#5)

8. Track flare slows down the ball's velocity.

9. When it comes to the many variables (besides the ball, itself) affecting hook,  it is the bowler's release that plays the biggest factor.

9. When it comes to the reason (s) FOR the rule change ( to minimize the so- called advantage that the 2 -handers allegedly have),  when it comes to the physics, the 2 -hander enjoys NO INCREASE in advantage in having the SAME amount of extra holes than the traditional bowler has. (perhaps this is an appropriate topic for a separate thread).


Back in the days of pancake weight blocks, bowlers would ask me to drill their balls with all different varieties of static weight imbalances. The results then were the same as they are today. Static weights made only a very slight difference in ball reaction IF AT ALL. In most cases, they made no difference  in affecting ball motion. The only exception again, was that static imbalances did make a very, very SLIGHT difference among slower speed- low-rev players. 

To see a noticeable effect of static imbalance on ball motion, you would need to extend the length of the lane beyond 60 feet and require all bowlers to reduce their revs and ball speeds (if they are already higher speed, higher rev players now).
Years ago, ball manufacturers figured this out. They understood the extreme limitations static weight had on ball motion. Thanks (or maybe, no thanks) , they gave us 2 piece cores, knowing that it is dynamic imbalance that rules the game and not static weights.  Again, it's all in the physics.

I used weight holes going back to the 80s.   Used an axis hole  on my angles to get the reaction I was looking for playing outside on short patterns.   I used flare increasing holes on lots of symetricals in the late 90s.  I haven't used balance holes much the last few years.   Exception  was the 2x2 layout that I put on the eruption which required a balance hole to get my sideweight down.  I put it on my PAP.  I decided to plug the hole to see where I would end up on side weight, and if I would be able to see a difference.  Side weight ended up at 2.5+. 

 I thought I saw a small increase in continuation coming off the end of the oil on a 40 foot house shot.  Some say what I saw was totally from the elimination of the hole.   They could be right.  My experience says the large increase in static sideweight also had some impact.   

Quote

Exception was the 2x2 layout that I put on the eruption which required a balance hole to get my side weight down.

Out of curiosity; did you go too far on core orientation causing the static weight to exceed the rule spec, and then compensated that with a balance hole?

I'll ask my PSO about the different holes to gain a bit more knowledge about it.

Thanks Avabob for the reply!

I'm hesitate on extra holes. My last 2 balls I laid out and drilled (HCF, Hot Cell), I was warned by my lead PSO to weigh it on the scale before drilling as a check.  I thought for sure I was way over 2 1/2oz of side weight but was a little over a 1oz. After drilling and reweighing it, I was at 1oz.

I'm not an expert at all on gyroscopic motion and persistence and have focused more on cover stock polymers and how they work. Something I have thought about is taking a new fresh manufactured ball, and determining that holes are required to dial in the motion (in which I must add that the bowler simply enhances the intended design motion) and modifying that motion based on how the ball looks in the moment. I think this is a mistake and should be avoided (IMHO) with a little more foresight in planning.

When I consider how much indifference 1oz can make in side weight versus the flexibility of the cover stocks rA peaks being able to flex for more traction and sharper cornering, the latter outweighs the weight. The ball motion will continue to change anyways and perhaps cancel out any modifications made. 

But if your a pro and that's how you earn your income, then the moment is now; to gain that edge in competition, then the ball will quickly be disposed of / or gifted anyways.

At this point I'd say the heck with learning much about balance holes since they will be illegal in what..like a year? I'm more interested in learning what to do going forward with my 35-4.5-30 layout that always seems to require a P2 hole

Yeah any layout you have ever used before should be legal now as long as your ball doesn't have 5oz of top weight or something.

Wouldn't the added backend motion and continuation be more attributed to the filling of material and the movement of the PSA and time to spin? You'd be moving the PSA closer to the biggest hole thereby increasing the drill angle, lengthening the time it takes for the ball to spin up and changing the differential. Correct?