Smart.
Blitz social media attacking the testing process and blaming the needle being contaminated with polish. Create disdain with usbc in the court of public opinion.

Then make a video for doing away with your most popular ball finish.

Id love to see Alex next do a durometer video testing the 6 along with the Specter for transparency.

Or in a response to Storm a video from usbc showing them testing the 6 plus the Spectre. That would be funny

Id love to see Alex next do a durometer video testing the 6 along with the Specter for transparency.

Or in a response to Storm a video from usbc showing them testing the 6 plus the Spectre. That would be funny

I'd pay for both of these to happen

I would like to see how much friction is actually increased by a couple of points reduction in hardness.  Even more so I would like to see where any increased friction is of any benefit in the current environment.

Quote from: ignitebowling on April 22, 2022, 03:52:53 PM

Smart.
Blitz social media attacking the testing process and blaming the needle being contaminated with polish. Create disdain with usbc in the court of public opinion.

Then make a video for doing away with your most popular ball finish.

Id love to see Alex next do a durometer video testing the 6 along with the Specter for transparency.

Or in a response to Storm a video from usbc showing them testing the 6 plus the Spectre. That would be funny

Therein lies the elephant in the room! The biggest problem that exists is lack of transparency when they did the damn testing!

No way in hell I can back the USBC when they are doing testing behind a black curtain with neither a Storm rep nor the owner of the balls being tested, available and accounted for to view said testing.

I think you are confusing testing done at the usbc master vs the overall testing involving Storm. It's two different incidents.

Definitely two different things.  I am decidedly in favor of holding Storm accountable for manufacturing errors resulting in illegal balls.  I also think that it's perfectly OK to criticize the USBC's process.  However, testing on multiple balls by multiple people at multiple locations have proven that the balls in question consistently test at approximately 1.5D to 2D lower than every other USBC-approved ball in the marketplace.  This is a big problem and I'm glad the USBC flagged it, even if their methods and decision-making were often flawed.  Arguing over the details and severity of how poorly the USBC handled the situation does not change the essential and evident fact that Storm was making illegal balls.

The Belmo situation is very different.  There were multiple transparency issues that appear to be needless and troublesome, and the USBC was clearly in the wrong.  Belmo was absolutely within his rights to call the USBC out for those problems and I support his actions without reservation.

The problem with others testing at other locations and getting different results is that it should be expected to happen. Based on the words from the company that manufactures the device being used to do said testing.

It’s not some made up information. It’s coming from the manufacturer of the durometers that there is will probably be variance even between two properly calibrated devices. Even if used in the same location, on the same ball, at the same temperature.

Storm should be provided with the data sets and records that the USBC has generated to ban the Spectre and exclude the other 6.

Another blatant issue they created AGAIN…

They conducted voluntary spot testing at the Masters.

What did they do to any ball they tested and found to be out of spec?

Was it allowed to be used or did the bowler have to remove said ball?

The answer tells you all that is wrong with entire situation.

https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo

This is very interesting and educational.  It does appear that USBC testing is a joke and masks an underlying motive to throw sand in our eyes due to the lack of USBC transparency on faulty hardness testing.

Posting a link directly from the manufacturer who can easily be claimed as biased (because they are a direct party in the matter) does not make what the USBC has done a joke. Again, a 3rd party needs to conduct tests using both the manufacturer’s equipment as well as the USBC’s equipment, then their own and compare the metrics.

Outside of that, of course the manufacturer is going to paint their equipment in holy light; and by saying that the USBC’s testing is a joke, your own bias is being shown.

BL.

Quote from: timw on April 24, 2022, 08:40:19 AM

https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo

This is very interesting and educational.  It does appear that USBC testing is a joke and masks an underlying motive to throw sand in our eyes due to the lack of USBC transparency on faulty hardness testing.

Posting a link directly from the manufacturer who can easily be claimed as biased (because they are a direct party in the matter) does not make what the USBC has done a joke. Again, a 3rd party needs to conduct tests using both the manufacturer’s equipment as well as the USBC’s equipment, then their own and compare the metrics.

Outside of that, of course the manufacturer is going to paint their equipment in holy light; and by saying that the USBC’s testing is a joke, your own bias is being shown.

BL.

I don't have a problem with what you suggest, but the USBC won't even publicly tell its own members how it did the tests. Do you think they're going to let a third party go to Arlington and use the USBC's own equipment to do stand-alone tests?

Something about beach property for sale in Wyoming may apply here.

Among the various issues we have going here is people aren't focusing on what you and I, as card-carrying USBC members, are entitled to as far as information is concerned. I've been the executive director of a 501(c)(3) before and am pretty familiar with what the general public is allowed to know, to say nothing of the members.

On another note, specific to the USBC, there has been a longstanding attitude that prevails among a lot of the bowlers that just because a bowler is high-level, it entitles them to certain information or standing that other members don't have, and that's not how this is supposed to work. A discussion of performance-based merit is applicable when discussing things like Hall of Fame credentials, or membership in an ability-based subgroup like the PWBA. But when it comes to the financials and questions of how the organization is run, the 85-year-old granny who averages 115 on Friday mornings is on dead par with Pete Weber and Jason Belmonte. The USBC has never really acted that way.

When I was at the helm of the organization I referenced about, I had a board of 17 members and several government entities that were treated as constituents, and I was expected to respond to all of their requests so long as they were legal and ethical. This situation is being treated as a vanity play for and by some at the top of the USBC heap.