win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls  (Read 7738 times)

Coolerman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« on: July 06, 2011, 11:53:04 AM »
Logged

 

JustRico

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2652
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2011, 08:04:12 PM »
What I love about this whole story is that the USBC wasted monies for 6 months study the overall effect of static weights in ball motion.

The USBC has a working budget of approx $50 million a year and this is what it is going to...the best part of this whole study is in another few years, the way bowling is going....this will be totally irrelevant due to there will be NO bowlers left.

Why doesn't the USBC maybe try to figure out ways to spend these exuberant salaries in bringing bowlers back to the sport instead of worrying about these so-called issues....talk about a waste of monies. Individuals trying to justify their existance in the universe....


The views and opinions expressed by myself are solely those of mine and NO one else, nor are they affiliated with anyone else.
Logged
Co-author of BowlTec's END GAMES ~ A Bowler's COMPLETE Guide to Bowling; Head Games ~ the MENTAL approach to bowling (and sports) & (r)eVolve
...where knowledge creates striking results...
BowlTEc on facebook...www.iBowlTec.com

Russell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5121
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2011, 08:06:54 PM »
Well said Ric.....

 

Two things

 

1 - At least my dodo scale isn't worthless for another year or two....

 

2 - USBC is run by morons...


Little known fact:  In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"
Logged

kidlost2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5789
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2011, 08:29:14 PM »
Well from no more weight holes, to this, to whatever is next. I'm glad the USBC hasn't run its self out of business yet.
 
They still have time and the eager ability to do this though. I can't wait for them to elect Chris Barnes the new president and continue their awesome job of waste.
 


Be good, or be good at it.
Logged
…… you can't  add a physics term to a bowling term and expect it to mean something.

DON DRAPER

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5576
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2011, 03:59:12 AM »
What a waste of money. Statics weights are almost useless in a MODERN bowling ball. The major factor in a bowling balls motion is the coverstock and it's surface preparation. The placement of the pin would rate higher in importance as well. The position of the mass bias and the location and/or size of weight holes also is more important. Static weights would have the LEAST amount of effect on a MODERN bowling ball.

Logged

SKIDSNAP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2011, 05:07:43 AM »
Unless you want the ball to make it back up the ball return.  The study showed that a ball with maxed out statics hopped off of the ball track on the way back up the ball return.  Just another wrinkle that seemed to have gotten overlooked.
 



LBHS1979 wrote on 7/7/2011 3:59 AM:What a waste of money. Statics weights are almost useless in a MODERN bowling ball. The major factor in a bowling balls motion is the coverstock and it's surface preparation. The placement of the pin would rate higher in importance as well. The position of the mass bias and the location and/or size of weight holes also is more important. Static weights would have the LEAST amount of effect on a MODERN bowling ball.

Logged

SKIDSNAP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2011, 05:11:11 AM »
Okay,  I see your complaints.

 

What are your solutions?  I mean real solutions.  Since you have taken it upon yourself to identify all of the waste within the USBC how about identifying some fixes.
 



JustRico wrote on 7/6/2011 8:04 PM:
What I love about this whole story is that the USBC wasted monies for 6 months study the overall effect of static weights in ball motion.


The USBC has a working budget of approx $50 million a year and this is what it is going to...the best part of this whole study is in another few years, the way bowling is going....this will be totally irrelevant due to there will be NO bowlers left.


Why doesn't the USBC maybe try to figure out ways to spend these exuberant salaries in bringing bowlers back to the sport instead of worrying about these so-called issues....talk about a waste of monies. Individuals trying to justify their existance in the universe....


The views and opinions expressed by myself are solely those of mine and NO one else, nor are they affiliated with anyone else.
Logged

Pinbuster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4585
  • Former proshop worker
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2011, 06:15:42 AM »
You have to have static weight rules.

 

Sure the difference between 1oz and 1.5 oz maybe insignificant but how about 3 oz, 6 oz, 16 oz?

 

 


Logged

RyanRPS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 862
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2011, 06:33:43 AM »
Oil conditions inflate scores, not ball design or drilling.  I've said it for years, give me a polyester ball on a walled up THS and the other guy a top of the range ball on a gutter to gutter flat flood and i'll beat him every game.
 


Ryan Press - Seismic Staff Member
 
Logged

Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 667
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2011, 08:08:16 AM »
These folks did a thorough study and this was the results.  Believe it or not, static weights do have some influence on ball motion.  The last list I saw of "what affected ball motion", had static weights very low but it was on the list.  But that study was with static weights within the current USBC spec.  I would assume, if you added, like someone already said, 10oz or more to one side, then the impact would be greater.  Also remember, that you are also moving the weight block much further off center which would have even a more effect.
 

By leaving the Static Weight spec, you are limiting how far you can offset the weight block from the center of the grip.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I feel that is why a static weight spec is necessary.


Logged

kidlost2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5789
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2011, 08:21:54 AM »
So USBC doubted its self so much that it had to do a study to make sure what it had set in place was correct? I could understand a study before setting the parameters of static weight would make more sense. I don't think any one here needs a high end machine and lots of money to know that if you overload one side of something with too much weight it will become very lopsided and roll like an egg vs a sphere.
 
For what ever reason they did the study doesn't matter, I guess it is the fact that they seem so wasteful is the problem. It looks like a place to house industry and pba /pwba people who are not making money else where to go for a job. If your like USBC great, if you don't great. 


Be good, or be good at it.
Logged
…… you can't  add a physics term to a bowling term and expect it to mean something.

Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 667
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2011, 08:36:11 AM »
Kid, I agree, money was spent.  But, over the past few years, there were many people, along with some manufacturers stating that the static weight rule should be eliminated. So, a lot of pressure was put on USBC to defend its position in order to satisfy the masses.  Not sure if this study did that but I feel that USBC hopes so.

 

As I stated, my opinion is that I feel there should be some type of static weight rule for the reasons I stated in my last post.  Unfortunetly, USBC has allowed bowling ball technology to surpass its ability to protect the intergrity of out sport.  Thats the real problem.


Logged

kidlost2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5789
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2011, 09:33:10 AM »
Since Brunswick/Mo have access to their own throw bot I would have let them do the research and see what they came up with first. I think the rules are fine how they are. I think the other factors have far surpassed what they are looking into now at this point. 
 
 


Be good, or be good at it.
Logged
…… you can't  add a physics term to a bowling term and expect it to mean something.

SKIDSNAP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2011, 09:43:18 AM »
Brunswick did do their own test.  That test was part of what started the whole discussion.
Logged

JustRico

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2652
Re: USBC retains static weight specification for bowling balls
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2011, 01:24:49 PM »
Stan you have no clue what you are talking about....you do not move the core what so ever...to create a 1" pin out or 1oz of top weight, the core is shifted a 1/32" off the true center of the bowling ball....one thirty second of an inch. You really think that influences ball motion?

And you really want to defend that they needed to go back and waste monies on another ALL important 6 month test? SERIOUSLY?

 

The USBC needs to start using ALL the frickin league bowlers that they have employed in Texas to actually go out and get people to start bowling again. Ball motion studies and ball dynamic regulations are NOT...I reitterate... NOT GOING TO BRING BOWLERS BACK TO THE GAME....these limitations & studies honestly probably impact 5% of all sanctioned bowlers.

Try and follow golf's lead on having free lesson days at bowling centers for juniors & parents. Go to a golf course during the summer and see how many kids are playing...many for free if they walk.

Try and do something with all the so-called talent they have hired to start promoting the game to EVERYONE and try to do whatever possible to get them in bowling centers. Help eductate owners and managers on how to keep the bowlers once they get them back in the centers.

They need to start using some of the $50 million a year working budget for something NO? Their model is as they lose bowlers, rais the dues to compensate.

Read the article Bill Vint wrote on what has transpired inside the USBC in the past 10 yrs or so and see where your dollars are going....too many wanna-be chiefs and NO indians doing the job to get bowlers back.


The views and opinions expressed by myself are solely those of mine and NO one else, nor are they affiliated with anyone else.
Logged
Co-author of BowlTec's END GAMES ~ A Bowler's COMPLETE Guide to Bowling; Head Games ~ the MENTAL approach to bowling (and sports) & (r)eVolve
...where knowledge creates striking results...
BowlTEc on facebook...www.iBowlTec.com
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »