The thing that gets me is he says himself his knowledge of Balls and laying them out  is from over 20 years ago.

I was laying out balls for myself 20 plus years ago I only had access to a quarter scale. All of the measurements were in inches, no angles.Give me a chance to upgrade my method to use the tools currently available. 

And then he comes out and say's about measuring a PAP that "The X and Y values simply don't translate into anything useful other than identifying a location."

Then after reading about Dual Angle layouts for all of two minutes he says.

A dual angle layout doesn't produce the same dynamic parameters for each bowler.

Exactly, and he can't really explain why or how his idea is correct and the dual angle method is wrong.

I think this is what causes aneurysms.

LOL

We all have a general understanding of what pin down and pin up placements do. He appears to be talking about something 300% different when he says:

Now lets look at the major problem. At the point of release, what is the position of the core in relation to where the force is applied. It makes a big difference if the PIN is facing down, or up at that moment. But that question can't be accurately answered if you use the current PAP identification method.   





The rest of his......stuff


"Do we agree on the following statements?
Each bowler (worth making a layout for) has a PAP.
At the point of release the ball with rotate around the PAP.
(technically it's the line from the PAP to NAP)
For a ball to rotate around PAP some torque has to be applied to it.
That torque is applied at the finger holes.

Now lets look at the major problem.
At the point of release, what is the position of the core in relation to where the force is applied.

It makes a big difference if the PIN is facing down, or up at that moment.
But that question can't be accurately answered if you use the current PAP identification method."


He says he has a different method of naming the pap, then has a problem with how the pap is located , then keeps changing back and forth on what he is saying or trying to say. It would be liked if Mo had a nervous breakdown and was a panhandler on the streets and was just rambling. Some of it would makes sense and the rest would require an altered state of mind.

OMG Well he's got his system worked out.

I wouldn't say it's the center grip line that is the problem, it's more the Over and Up method which is based on the grip center (not the same as center grip line).

Take two bowlers who are identical in every way except in spans. The Over and Up method puts the Pin in a slightly different location based on the difference in the spans.
My system ignores the span because when the torque is applied to the ball, the thumb is already out.

I think this is what he's saying:


He's got challenge"
"If someone can give me a concrete example of their spans, and PAP using the Over and Up method, I'll show why the Over and Up method is inconsistent from bowler to bowler, while the Prime method produces the same results bowler to bowler. "

I think I figured out what he is saying finally as well. He is partially right about where the finger holes would be located on a shorter span person vs a longer span person. It isn't for the reason he is thinking. It falls under the article Mo posted about drilled bowling balls vs undrilled and how once you put holes in them the effects and changes it has on the balls dynamics. Since the spans are different the holes would effect the ball slightly different for each. Not enough to matter for his new method.

The best response not posted that my brother said to me in an email sums it up best.


This thread should have ended after his first statement.  You can't say I've been out of bowling for 20 years, I'm back and it took me two minutes to see a flaw in the dual angle method which I haven't used or fully understand.  I can't tell you what the flaw is or how my system will be better but everybody is wrong.

That's just talking out your a$$, I don't care how good at math you are.

I give up!! I should have never got involved. But it was like a train wreck and you just had look at it.

Once you looked you just couldn't turn away.

I suggested he try the Blueprint with his layouts.

(After looking at the software, I think I'll download it play with it. Looks neat.)

Thanks for taking the time to comment over there, who knows you just might win this weeks ball giveaway. New guys to the forum have been winning a lot here  lately. Like that guy Mike he was only on there 4-5 days and won a ball.

I don't think there's enough aspirin or Jack that can take care of the nail in my head.

It's like someone saying 1+1=3 and you ask them why?

And they answer because 2+2=5

 After reviewing the referenced thread, I have a fundamental observation, and then a question or two.

 It seems to me that Mr. White is basing his opinion on his findings that the length of a bowlers span changes the relation of the pap to the drilling holes, and thusly, must change the dual angle drilling effect for each individual span length.

 To me, it appears that Mr. White must think that the pap location is dependent on the span length, but in actuality, span length and pap location are NOT related this way.

 Pap location is predicated off each individuals grip center location, such that the pap in relation to the drilled holes is irrelevant in each case.

 What builds the balls reaction is the pin location and mass bias location in relation to the individuals pap and track area. Span length plays absolutely no part in the equation, and is therefore irrelevant. This fact makes the difference in the relation between the pap and the drilled hole locations irrelevant as well.

 The pap coordinates are important, and will be concrete in their nature, just as the track area. The drilled holes are ambiguous to the location of the pap and track area, and will differ from bowler to bowler, and thusly cannot be considered a constant on which you could base a drilling system that would give accurate results from bowler to bowler.

 My question is: Am I correct in my observation of Mr. Whites premise, or am I missing the entire point of it?