USBC Ridiculous & Unfair.

       For argument sake, I have a customer who is right handed and wants a ball drilled for maximum hook potential. When I layout the ball the first thing I do is find the bowlers positive axis point (pap). Next I position the pin 3 3/8” from the pap and the mass bias halfway between the initial ball track and the perpendicular axis line (usually 5” to 6” from the pap, 1” right of the thumb).

   Now I want to drill this $200 ball within the proposed USBC specifications, (center of gravity (cg) within 1” of the center of grip and no weight hole) so my customer will be able to use it in 2008 and not have to throw it away if the USBC equipment changes go through.

        Ok, if my customer has a low track (pap less than 4 3/8”), no problem.

        If my customer has a medium track (pap 4 3/8” to 5 ¼”), I have to search the inventory for a ball with the cg kicked out to the left, a 2” to 3” pin and low to mid top wt..  Depending on stock sometimes it’s possible and sometimes I just can’t keep the mass bias on the right side of the thumb.

        Now if my customer has a high track (pap 5 ¼” to 6 ¼”), forget about it.
It is almost impossible to keep the mass bias on the right side of the
Bowlers track.

        In a nut shell the higher your track (the further your pap from the cg), the more restrictive the USBC proposals are for your mass bias placement.

        FACT: High track bowlers need weight holes in order for them to have the same options to line up the core of a bowling ball in relation to their pap as a low track has, due to static weight requirements (1oz. Side).

   I really don’t know what the USBC is trying to accomplish with these proposed equipment changes. Are they trying to make it harder for high track bowlers to compete fairly? Do they want them to quit, when they have to throw away most of their equipment
in the middle of 2007-2008 Fall bowling season? Do they realize what a large percentage of members with 25+ years ABC league experience are high trackers?

If you really want to bring scoring down change the lane conditions.
Also to keep new technology from hurting the game any further set some type of friction standards on new bowling balls.

I can go on and on about how Ridiculous the proposed USBC specifications are but I believe most of the other reasons have been covered in other posts on ballreviews forum.


 Bmarble.


 

 



   

Hi Bob, first a 4 3/8” pap is low of the medium track range and I don't think you will have much of a problem with it. Next you are correct cg position does have minimal impact on a symmetrical ball and Asymmetrical balls with the pin and mass bias in the same place.
But here is where people get confused mass bias location on a Asymmetrical ball does make a difference and by restricting the cg placement you severely limit the possible positions for the mass bias to be placed. They are usually in somewhat of a line.




  Bmarble

USBC is doing what they can to control the scoring.  Lane conditions can't be monitored, that's been a proven fact.  If they could, under the current standards, I'm betting that 90% of the houses in the country are putting down illegal patterns.  

I'm drilling up an X-Factor Ace tonight.  I have a VERY high track.  Luckily it's a pin-in, so I can drill it almost label and the RAD will still be to the right of my thumb.  My PAP is 5 1/4th inches over and a quarter inch up.  That being said, I prefer stacked leverage or cg out drillings.  3.5x3.5 and 5x3 are two of my favorites.  This one's gonna be 5.5x4.5 though.
--------------------
Hey, I am NOT Michael Jackson.  I like little GIRLS, not little boys . .

Rock on kitty.