Author Topic: Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough? (Read 5872 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?

charlest · « **Reply #1 on:** April 19, 2012, 06:17:45 PM »

There are ways to drill even pancake cores to give them enhanced ball reactions.

Besides coverstock and surface are 70% (60-80%) of ball reaction.

Now if you could restrict coverstocks to only pearl and solid urethanes with any current core ..

But in reality you can do neither.

"None are so blind as those who will not see."

BowlingChat.net

Urethane Game · « **Reply #2 on:** April 19, 2012, 06:33:49 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

Sunshine n Lollipops · « **Reply #3 on:** April 19, 2012, 10:25:57 PM »

Enough to do what? Is this another tired old thread about how scoring is the downfall of the sport of bowling? Even though most people understand and have stated on here that scoring is relative? Are you taking the stance of the 60+ bowler who can't admit that the way people impart revs to the ball is just as important as the ball itself? Are you taking the stance that bowling should be the only sport that goes backwards in terms of equipment and technique just so you can re-live the "glory days" of bowling on lacquer and hooking the ball all of two boards? Is that what this post is about? Really? Really?

Here's a thought. If you think the balls are too powerful, the shots too easy, I suggest you quit bowling on THS and start bowling tourneys exclusively. Either that or walk away.

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

Edited by Sunshine n Lollipops on 4/19/2012 at 8:31 PM

BrianCRX90 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2012, 12:34:00 AM »

So sick of these discussions on the equipment. This was a tiring subject for like 10 years on PBA.com. The problem isn't the equipment as it is the governing body that sanctions our leagues. There could be restrictions on balls which already has happened but not to the degree some want. The real issue is the lanes themselves.

There is no such thing as a legal shot anymore and whatever that meant anyways. The first 900 by Glenn Allison was rejected supposedly by ABC saying it was an illegal shot. Then Jeremy Sonnenfeld shot one in the late 90's with resin and a guy from New York became the 19th I believe to shoot a perfect series. Before this, we were allowed to make up games in league or post bowl without any supervision (though they say you have to) and had a cheater teenager in New York spoil this for everyone by staging a 900 series (Mushtare). Probably something that should have been a rule in the first place.

What should happen is USBC should have mandatory revolving lane conditions issued by USBC in sanctioned leagues and tournaments. How to implement this is the hard part without fining houses or stripping awards.

trackfiend · « **Reply #5 on:** April 21, 2012, 08:24:37 AM »

+1 to sunshine i bowled a team for the last night of my mens league thursday night amd this was all they were talking about all night. I have alot of hand and the other 4 guys on my team r strokers that play mostly up ten so after hearing the comment "It should be illegal to hook the ball from the left side to the right side and all the way back to the left side again" i knew the comment was pointed at me so i had a laugh to myself and pulled my 300t what i had been playing all night with and put my clear dice spare ball on the rack turned to my teams cap and said "old school rest of the night" his reply was o you herd them too huh lol ok. Well that was half way threw the 2nd game 3 out of the last five frames i struck and the other 2 were 7s easy spares. The last game had the front 6 so it was ok playing up 5 for a change lol.

TamerBowling · « **Reply #6 on:** April 21, 2012, 10:25:18 AM »

I'm really not for reverting technology. I don't see how that benefits any sport. You think youth will be interested in the game if it still looks like our grandparents' game? While I throw my urethane ball from time to time, I'm not even sure I would want that situation all the time. For better or worse, the two-handed style. for example, has drawn youth into the game. Seeing how to take more advantage with power and revs seems more interesting than telling people they have to use a pancake core ball.

I don't think tennis or golf will go back in time. The game has evolved with the equipment. So bowling must do the same.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.tamerbowling.com">www.TamerBowling.com

Everything Bowling, coaching tips, ball reviews, General bowling discussions
USBC Certified Level I

Juggernaut · « **Reply #7 on:** April 21, 2012, 01:11:02 PM »

Rather that give you the "technology" beatdown, I will simply try to answer your question.

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

I am going to assume (yes, I know what assume is) that you are merely talking about the effects it would have on the bowling ball itsself.

1. It would greatly limit the available RG differential, which would greatly limit a balls flare potential. You could still get SOME dynamics out of the drilling techniques, but not nearly as much as today.

2. Having a greatly diminished capability to flare, would also greatly diminish the balls ability to handle ever greater volumes of lane conditioner (oil).

3. Having far less innate ability to flare and create hooking recovery, the focus would begin to shift from the equipments ability to create area with friction back to the players ability to create it with skill.

NOW, IF YOU MEAN WHAT WOULD IT DO TO BOWLING IN GENERAL, THAT FOLLOWS.

4. Taking dynamic weightblocks out of bowling balls would mean MANY peoples averages would suffer a great reduction.

5. Bowling/scoring would become much more challenging to a great many participants, who would not appreciate bowling under those parameters, and would most likely quit bowling.

6. Bowling would continue to exist on life support until it finally becam an unviable business for anyone to get into, and then it would die.

Like you, I wish we could go back to a simpler system, but realize at the same time that we can no longer do that. No, I do not want to drive a model T automobile, nor do I want to give up my air conditioning or my digital TV. The improvements in those things were on an even scale, and improved everyones life on an even scale. Technological advancements in bowling were NOT even, and helped some far more than others.

At some point, technological improvements can become self important, and are simply progression for progressions sake. Just because you CAN make something, doesn't always mean you SHOULD make it, and I believe bowling ball technology became this way around the late 1980's.

_______________________________________________________________________
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein
_______________________________________________________________________

Edited by Juggernaut on 4/21/2012 at 11:13 AM

avabob · « **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2012, 02:13:53 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.

Require polyester or similar technology on the ball surface, outlaw surface adjustments, and we could put out lane conditions of varying degrees of challenge with as little as 10 ml of oil on the lane. Lanes would still transition, requiring adjustments, but guys couldn't build their own pattern in 6 frames.

Right now we have a situation where longer formats without intermediate oiling is impossible. Good bowlers don't have to adjust to the lane condition, because they can too easily make the lane condition adjust to them.

High scoring is not the real problem, just the symptom.

Edited by avabob on 4/21/2012 at 12:17 PM

trash heap · « **Reply #9 on:** April 23, 2012, 12:26:39 PM »

Good replies Juggernaut and avabob.

Tamer, I really think the game would have evolved enough that it wouldn't look like our grandparent's game. The PBA plastic ball tournament proved that. Put down a short oil pattern, a plastic ball will hook. The youth with two hand approach and the crankers today would have no problem ripping through the pins.

It's just not the score its the cost. These balls are not cheap. I am coming from a youth perspective. You have a kid who does not have a lot of money, but has plenty of talent. This kid is not going to make it in this Sport. He needs to have the right equipment in order to compete. For a kid to have a 4 - 5 ball arsenal is going to be somewhere in the area of $600. Not too many parents can afford that.

TamerBowling wrote on 4/21/2012 8:25 AM:
I'm really not for reverting technology. I don't see how that benefits any sport. You think youth will be interested in the game if it still looks like our grandparents' game? While I throw my urethane ball from time to time, I'm not even sure I would want that situation all the time. For better or worse, the two-handed style. for example, has drawn youth into the game. Seeing how to take more advantage with power and revs seems more interesting than telling people they have to use a pancake core ball.

I don't think tennis or golf will go back in time. The game has evolved with the equipment. So bowling must do the same.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.tamerbowling.com">www.TamerBowling.com
Everything Bowling, coaching tips, ball reviews, General bowling discussions
USBC Certified Level I

Edited by trash heap on 4/23/2012 at 10:29 AM

Sunshine n Lollipops · « **Reply #10 on:** April 23, 2012, 01:46:36 PM »

Absolute cop out that you're coming from a youth perspective. How about teaching the kid correctly so he doesn't think he needs 5-6 balls to be competitive. This garbage about needing five to six balls to bowl is what is leading to the so-called degradation of bowling skills. Just pull out a stronger or weaker shell to combat lane conditions. Forget about adjustments on approach, speed, targets, hand positions, etc.

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

spmcgivern · « **Reply #11 on:** April 23, 2012, 01:58:06 PM »

I agree with Sunshine here. Kids should be learning about the game from a physical adjustment standpoint. Teach them the difference between releases, ball speed, lofting and the such to control ball reaction. Teach them about transitions and how to anticipate and adjust. They do not need to bring in 6-ball rollers for junior leagues.

On a side note, I have seen many a kid with a larger arsenal than myself. In my area, people donate bowling equipment to kids all the time. Now with a simple bake and resurface, most balls are as good as new.

And if you are worried about the competitive aspect of youth bowling, then perhaps multiple balls are in order. Then again, you don't have to be the Junior Gold Champion to bowl collegiately or even get a little extra scholarship money.

Now, back to the 70s discussion.

Sunshine n Lollipops wrote on 4/23/2012 11:46 AM:Absolute cop out that you're coming from a youth perspective. How about teaching the kid correctly so he doesn't think he needs 5-6 balls to be competitive. This garbage about needing five to six balls to bowl is what is leading to the so-called degradation of bowling skills. Just pull out a stronger or weaker shell to combat lane conditions. Forget about adjustments on approach, speed, targets, hand positions, etc.

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

I am not a pro-bowler, but I do play one on BallReviews.com

ward845 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 23, 2012, 02:43:48 PM »

I agree youth shoud be taught the right way to bowl,but i bowled a scratch tournament this weekend and i was paying close attention to the bowlers next to me which are top bowlers former super honkie winner and high roller sweeper winners and i noticed in 6 games they both rolled 5 different balls in the 6 games! That's almost a different ball each game WTF

trash heap · « **Reply #13 on:** April 23, 2012, 03:17:56 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.

Sunshine n Lollipops · « **Reply #14 on:** April 23, 2012, 03:31:36 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.

Author Topic: Take the core out of the bowling ball....would that be enough? (Read 5872 times)

trash heap

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

charlest

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

Urethane Game

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?

BrianCRX90

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

trackfiend

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

TamerBowling

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

Juggernaut

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?

trash heap

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?

spmcgivern

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

ward845

Re: 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?

Sunshine n Lollipops

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