win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Roto's reply to the USBC  (Read 1861 times)

Ragnar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14084
Roto's reply to the USBC
« on: May 16, 2005, 01:13:46 AM »
Got this in an email from Roto/Hank.  Also included is a reply from a proprietor.  Seems like I'm not alone in thinking that these proposed changes could lose us a lot of bowlers.
 
quote:
First of all the proposed changes seem to be a thumb in the dyke of inflated averages and Honor scores. The manufacturers and bowlers should not be punished or prejudiced against by the USBC. We have been abiding by the rules and developing equipment based on the specifications given. We have already been subject to recent rule changes in the past year and we have abided by all of them. We feel that the new proposed changes have pushed past the line of fairness to both the bowlers and the manufacturers. We have polled several of our staff members and Star Pro Shops across the country to see how they feel. We are still getting feedback everyday, and we have decided to post some feedback based on their responses as well as our feelings on the matter. Let me say that no matter what is decided by the USBC we will abide by the rules.

1. Elimination of Weight Holes: Eliminating weight holes and the use of bowling balls with weight holes will cost the consumers thousands of dollars. It may cost a large percentage of our current league bowlers because the cost of replacing the equipment they have with weight holes may be too big of a burden to bear. As a manufacturer we do not want to gain sales of equipment because of a rule change. We would rather see them buy the equipment based on performance, and to replace them as needed.

Weight holes can be used to adjust the ball's performance after it has been drilled. These changes although minor are very valuable to the player and with the elimination of these weight holes, you take the adjustment out of play. It would be like eliminating the use of lead tape to the back of a golf club or the newly designed drivers with the adjustable weights on the back of the head by the USGA. These weight holes help to level the playing field for some players of a lesser ability. They don't make a great player even better, but they help a player of less ability to compete with some of these players. Much the same as the adjustable golf clubs used on the market today. So the elimination of weight holes will not help to better the sport, but only drive the player's with less ability away.

2. CG With-in 1 Inch of the Center of Grip Once again this rule seems to handicap the players who can adjust the distance of the CG away from the center of grip to enhance ball reaction. It also handcuffs the pro shops options to drill the ball. We as manufacturers try to keep pin distances from the CG within a certain range. This will force us to manufacture balls with greater variance. This will require a complete change in research and development of our products and also in the manufacturing. It in turn will force the pro shop and also the distributor to carry a wider variety of pin distances and top weight. This may carry too large a burden of cost on both parties; therefore, forcing some out of business because of the large amount of capitol required to inventory that much product and not be certain of the sale and the ability to use a ball with a certain pin distance and adjust it with the movement of the CG and the placement of a weight hole.

3. The Placement of the USBC Logo on every ball To place the USBC logo on every ball would cost the manufacturers a large amount of money and time. It would require an extra step in the engraving process of the ball and therefore slowing down the production of the bowling ball and increasing the cost of labor which in turn would increase the price of the ball to the consumer. This seems to be another rule that will hurt the consumer/player which in turn may cause him to quit the sport.

All in all these rule changes if in fact they do go into effect will only cost the USBC more loss of membership of an already declining organization.

Hank Boomershine
President
Roto Grip, Inc.

If you would like to share your comments on these proposed changes please email info@rotogrip.com, and in the subject line put USBC CHANGES. We want to know how you, the members feel about this. That way when we go to the “industry forum the USBC has planned, we can best represent you the bowlers.

I have included below the comments by a well respected Bowling Proprietor that is involved in 5+ Centers:

I would like to comment on the proposed USBC equipment specifications from a Proprietors perspective.

Like many businesses, we face daily challenges to keep the lanes running as much as we can. The days of opening the doors, handing out shoes and ringing up the register are long behind us. Even marketing savvy proprietors that have plenty of tricks, gimmicks and programs to increase frequency struggle with implementation and execution in an effort to maintain their business model. It’s more difficult today to entice someone to not go to the movies, Skate Park, Mall, pizza buffet, casino, and choose you than ever before. Families have too little time and when they do there are far too many options for their now limited disposable income. Now, take into account the Internet and just staying home and you have even more hurdles to overcome just to get people to decide to do something, then attracting them to your center.

Given the competitive marketplace that bowling proprietors face today, it’s incomprehensible that our membership organization would choose to impose a massive restriction on our ability to make money, pay our taxes, cover the mortgage, send our kids to college and enjoy a lifestyle built on exhaustive work. If today I told my bowlers that they could no longer use their bowling shoes and they had to upgrade to the newest style, or told them that they all must wheel their bowling bags into the center and retrofit or purchase new bags, they’ll find another place to bowl, or quit altogether. AND they wouldn’t tell us they were leaving. Having the ability to do business with someone is as simple as making them feel good, solving their problems and breaking down the walls that make people say “no”.

Why on Earth would the USBC then decide in an era where membership is declining at an accelerating rate to now put up a hurdle that allows people to say "no", much easier than before? Does the USBC really understand the alienation that they are creating with this proposal? I don’t think they do. Why else would you justify exploiting the very people that pay your salary and allow the USBC exist. Why would they spend endless marketing dollars searching for the “next big thing” in bowling while at the same time telling people “stay away, it’s too expensive just to get started.”

Isn’t it bad enough that today we risk losing over 40% of our main customer base with radical no-smoking legislation, that those who are left must be driven away as well?

Anonymous

 

--------------------
"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace."  (Tacitus)
"If one tells the truth, one is sure sooner or later to be found out. " (Wilde)
Wyrd bið ful aræd!
(Thought to be a member of something called the PMS club by some.)

 

tekneek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5657
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2005, 12:41:44 PM »
I got the same info sheet from Roger at R/G this morning, as well as a letter from Brunswick and Morich with their thoughts. I have yet to hear anyone from the Mfg's agree with the USBC's attitude.
Steve
Leading Edge Pro Shop
Radical Bowling Technologies Advisory Staff
brinkley2223@yahoo.com
512-755-2947

Jeffrevs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11890
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2005, 12:48:47 PM »
this is also on the Roto board from Friday I think.............
--------------------
JEFF
"Chance to squint at a sky so blue that it hurts your eyes just to look at it."

mrteach3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2005, 01:03:33 PM »
Liked what I read from Roto, but why include an anonymous addition from a proprietor???  Anything anonymous always sheds a negative and suggestive light.  If that proprietor felt that strongly, then they should have used their name.  

Besides, sounds just like the other companies reactions.  Hope nothing comes of these "changes."

--------------------
Who needs a 300 or 800, when I have a 294 and a 295!?!?!

SrKegler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3020
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2005, 02:31:02 PM »
First time I've saw it in print.  Bowling should be about talent, not technology.

"These weight holes help to level the playing field for some players of a lesser ability. They don't make a great player even better, but they help a player of less ability to compete with some of these players."

As far as the USBC logo, why not simply integrate it into the process when they engrave the serial number.  The manufacturers are already putting the date in the serial number, just everyone does it slightly different and uses different codes.

Heres the serial number off of one of my DT balls.

03Dthk10B014  

It covers about a 2" section of the ball.  USBC's logo is about 1"

Simply change it to a julian date (05001) indicates the ball was made on Jan 1 (001) 2005 (05)

That still leaves them 7 numbers to indicate the line the ball was made on, the particular number of the ball, etc.

It has to go thru that process anyhow, whats so difficult about adding the logo other than having something to complain about.
--------------------
~~~SrK - Have balls, will travel

Spending the kids inheritance one tournament at a time.
Have Balls - Will Travel


RIP Thongprincess/Sawbones

Reality Check

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2005, 07:20:42 PM »
I think limiting coverstocks is definitely a positive step forward, and i say that as someone whose game will probably suffer from such a change. Drillings should be left the same, and core changes and cgs left as per current allowance, but limiting aggressiveness of covers and a certain grit level would seem to address some of the balance in terms of reducing hook in a box and honor scores
--------------------
Reality Is.......Working out how to carry the 10, only to start leaving the 7.
Reality Is.......Working out how to carry the 10, only to start leaving the 7.

pin-chaser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2005, 07:41:20 PM »
As I read the proposed changes from USBC I am taken with the fact that they are not attempting to reduce scoring or increase integrity. What they state, is that they are attempting to control the future increases in scoring by restricting the next generation of bowling balls. With this said, I believe USBC understands they are not going to make a significant impact in the scoring pace today.

I believe the most significant change is to the way they will be measuring the hardness. This test may significantly change the allowable friction created by bowling balls which could make a huge difference to the scoring pace.

I will admit that I am not the most knowledgable about layouts but I welcome all changes that could stablized the scoring pacing. I am against the ability to utilize technology to offset skills. If these changes really will reduce fine tuning of the technology requiring more skill of bowlers I am 100% for it.

In all, there claims that the "born on date" will be a significant cost... that cant add more than 1 to the automation of ball manufacturing.
--------------------

Bowling Tips and Articles at: www.bowlingknowledge.com
IRC: Internet Relay Chat on Dalnet #striketalk. 24x7x365
Sponsored by: http://bowlerx.com



Chasing pins for 45 years.

tburky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2005, 07:44:13 PM »
Here is a copy of the email I sent USBC:

To whom it may concern:

I do not understand why would you address layout/weight hole to bring back the integrity of the game. A point that I need to make is that layout/weight hole is approximately 25% of ball reaction. If you want to do something really constructive, address the coverstock and weight blocks of the equipment. Those 2 items account for the explosion in scores. The coefficient of friction of today's coverstocks reacting to the lane has made the biggest change in the game. This has given people of "lesser talent" a huge advantage versus bowlers that have the ability to manipulate ball reaction with their release. These balls of today force the proprietors to lay heavy oil in the middle of the lane. I am talking about huge volumes of oil, than what was used in the past. Take away the friction in the equipment, scale back the weight block and guess what happens? Proprietors will use less oil in the middle because bowlers will not have a "hook in the box" and this should help reduce the outrageous honor scores and averages. As for no weight holes, I use weight holes a lot to reduce the flare of the ball. I guess no one ever looked at this.

Thank you for your time.

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2005, 09:20:35 PM »
quote:

If bowling is ever to be a true sport ideas like this need to die.  Equipment should never be able to help a player of lesser ability compete with a great player.  The whole point of competition is to have a level playing field where the individuals talents determine the outcome.  ...
Best wishes,

Bill


Bill,

Maybe you don't remember the grand fiasco of short oil as determined by, I think, the System of Bowling, 24 feet of very light oil in the 1980s???
That served the fluffers who could see their ball hook just past the arrows and those who threw the ball at 25 mph and had some revs.

I, among many others, have neither 3 revs nor can I throw the ball at 20 mph or greater. Many of us suffered a long time with short oil. Until we learned some of the "tricks of the trade", we had a very hard time. I didn't hit a 200 avg until 1987/8.
--------------------
Just like hand grenades and horse shoes, in bowling you only have to get close ...
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

MichiganBowling

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2005, 11:00:27 PM »
People still don't realize that nothing has been passed.  They made a proposal, in my opinion, to get people talking.  I think they achieved that.
--------------------
Brian
MichiganBowling.com
http://www.MichiganBowling.com

Famous Last Words of a Pot Bowler--"Ok, but this is my last game!"
Brian
MichiganBowling.com
http://www.MichiganBowling.com

Famous Last Words of a Pot Bowler--"Ok, but this is my last game!"

TWOHAND834

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4367
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2005, 11:57:26 PM »
I think the reason for the proposal is to help control the direction of scores altogether.  It is not the weight holes that allow lesser talented bowlers to compete better with the more advanced level bowlers.  Just technology itself in todays equipment is enough for that.  I agree with AlaskaBill in that bowling should be determined by the bowlers themselves, not the technology.  Weight holes do not level the playing field.  If you want a level playing field, show me a bowling center that when they oil the lanes, they keep ALL open play off until AFTER the league is finished.  There is nothing I hate more than watching a bowling center putting open players on lanes before a league is to start after they oiled the lanes for that night.  ALSO......it is the HANDICAP in the leagues that level off the playing field.  My take on the proposal was that USBC is trying to control scoring in general which will lower the amount of honor scores shot as well as lower averages overall.
--------------------
Steven Vance
Atlanta (Buford), GA
Pro Shop Operator
Advanced Bowling Solutions

If anyone out there is worried about the scores being too high, try duckpin!!
Steven Vance
Former Pro Shop Operator
Former Classic Products Assistant Manager

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2005, 12:16:30 AM »
Until the USBC publishes a strategy, a direction, a purpose and let's us know where they are trying to take bowling, we dont know squat. We can make all the assumptions we want.
--------------------
Just like hand grenades and horse shoes, in bowling you only have to get close ...
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Ishmael

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2005, 08:17:44 AM »
quote:
Until the USBC publishes a strategy, a direction, a purpose and let's us know where they are trying to take bowling, we dont know squat.


Exactly!  If they are trying to reduce scoring with these changes, they are barking up the wrong tree.  If they have something else in mind, I would certainly like to know what it is.

NACDale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 374
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2005, 08:27:34 AM »
I personally think that this USBC rule will help seperate the better bowlers from the less talented bowlers.

I think that the lane oiling is more of a problem than the equipment. But the USBC has an easier time controlling the balls.

Alot of the reaction is similar to the ongoing debate on Sport bowling vs China bowling.  Most dont want to see the china leave because alot of people wont keep bowling when they find out that they are not really that good.

The differnce is the incurred costs that will get passed down to the bowler from the mandated changes.

This is why I have my signature..

Dale
--------------------
B.I.G. Don't pretend that it's not.

No Fear

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: Roto's reply to the USBC
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2005, 02:04:12 PM »
I agree Bob....Ball technology has leveled the playing field...the Straight bowler can compete with the Power guys because of Ball Technology....USBC needs to concentrate on bringing new bowlers into the Sport...Bowling has been evolving for thousands of years...Let it Be...Just let the Bowler choose on what difficulty level they want....Then match the award with the difficulty level....Easy level( Patches)...Harder levels(Rings,etc.)