BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Aloarjr810 on July 09, 2012, 09:59:25 PM
-
What I learned on another forum.
"That the way you locate the PAP is wrong"
"The X and Y values simply don't translate into anything useful other than identifying a location." (of the PAP)
"Measure from the PAP to the center of the fingers gives you a longitude, latitude value, longitude being 0 degrees."
"And A dual angle layout doesn't produce the same dynamic parameters for each bowler."
"Each bowler (worth making a layout for) has a PAP." (I guess if your not worth a layout you don't have PAP)
"At the point of release the ball will rotate around the PAP.
(technically it's the line from the PAP to NAP)"
"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."
http://www.bowlingboards.com/threads/9967-PAP-Identification-Method-(-amp-Terminology) (http://www.bowlingboards.com/threads/9967-PAP-Identification-Method-(-amp-Terminology))
-
Holy s**t people it's just bowling....those people have WAYYYYY too much time on their hands. Do people really think some of that stuff matters THAT much?
"WOW...I shot 574 in league with my pin facing down at release ball...if I had thrown the pin facing up at release I would have shot AT LEAST 854"
FACE + PALM
-
The issue at hand was MW being 20yrs behind layout knowledge and why it's done that way.. I don't know how much easier it could be done or complicated it needs to be let's say than what's already done now... MW needs to understand that ALL balls rotate around the PAP regardless of how it comes off the hand.. Pin up/Pin down (i'm guessing in layout) is irrelevant as to how it comes off your hand because it's still rotating around the PAP..
-
not to burst any bubbles but dual layouts only work for bowlers who can consistently repeat shots
-
Tburky, then it doesn't matter the layout is or what method is used :)
-
What I've learned from the internet is that everyone is an expert. Also thanks to todays technolgy it is hard to screw up a bowling ball. Case and point, demo bowling balls.
-
+1 kid.
There's so much info...... my brain..... is ....... about to........... BLOW!!!
-
It's great that you learned some tech info about this type of drilling for bowling balls but most players would benefit more from having their equipment outfitted with simple, stable drilling patterns and putting more emphasis on matching the surface of the ball with the lane conditions they'll likely see. That, and more practice.
-
I am a big fan of the Dual Angle layouts, but sometimes you just have to throw the damn ball! :)
-
I've read through all 7 pages and realized i was stupid for doing so.
-
I am a big fan of the Dual Angle layouts, but sometimes you just have to throw the damn ball! :)
+1
-
Like I have said many times, Dual Angle is just another way to draw the lines on a ball. Using Pin to Pap with pin buffer will produce the same results.
But I do agree, that too much emphasis is being placed on layout and not enough on throwing the same shot twice.
Why worry about a layout, if you can't repeat shots ? I also feel that more emphasis should be placed on the ball characteristics and surface. As many have said, you can't make a snow tire into a racing slick or a racing slick into a snow tire. Same goes for bowling balls. If a ball is designed for dry lanes, meaning core and surface is a dry lane match, then regardless how you drill it, it will not work very well on very oily lanes.
So +1 for Don and Pat
-
Like I have said many times, Dual Angle is just another way to draw the lines on a ball. Using Pin to Pap with pin buffer will produce the same results.
This is a true statement. The advantage the dual angle system has is not in drawing the lines on a ball, it's in selecting the layout to fit the customer's game. The method is explained very well in Mo's Dual Angle Layout Procedure (see link below), and it works. I've never seen anything equivalent for any of the other layout systems. -- JohnP
http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/images/c/cd/DualAngle.pdf
Note: The majority of this article is about how to lay the ball out. If you're not planning to lay balls out skip to the section on P. 11 titled "The effective use of dual angle layouts".
-
Tburky, then it doesn't matter the layout is or what method is used :)
for the average bowler it doesn't matter what the layout is or what method is used. It matters for above and up
-
A demo ball works great for many bowlers but isn't the same for all. Knowing a bowlers positive axis point and laying out a pattern by any method gives the driller a better chance of getting the desired reaction for the bowler. It must be done with the proper ball as well. It won't make plastic hook the whole lane.
Where the dual angle method also shines is that you have a chart that tells you what effect using certain angles will do along with certain pin to pap distances will do. Then you combine them with the ball your using to get a desired reaction for the specific bowler your drilling for.
I can understand through 7 pages of painful reading what the guys is trying to do because he says he doesn't understand everything about layout reactions but does understand spheres.
"If it weren't for my horse" is all I can think.
http://comedians.jokes.com/lewis-black/videos/lewis-black---college-horse/
-
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.
-
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
-
I think it just dawned on me what he's might be talking about with the "Drawing a line from the center of the fingers to the PAP" & "It makes a big difference if the PIN is facing down, or up at that moment."(I could be wrong and I'm afraid to ask). and we already do those things.
"Drawing a line from the center of the fingers to the PAP" That's basically how you find the pin safe zone.
"There is something called "the safe zone" which is located above an imaginary line from the PAP to the middle finger."
"It makes a big difference if the PIN is facing down, or up at that moment.".
That's High or Low pin position (above or below the fingers)
A pin located towards the midline (horizontal line midway between thumb and fingerholes - use to locate PAP), or even lower, will make the ball change direction earlier.
The higher the pin is placed, the longer the ball will go down the lane before it changes direction.
-
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.
-
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.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL :o :o :o :o :o :o
I wonder if he'll answer the questions you asked, I know he's been on there since you posted. But hasn't answered yet.
-
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:
(https://www.ballreviews.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw89%2Faloarjr810%2Fmisc%2520files%2Fflaw_01_cr.jpg&hash=667fe42f64a90f222cd7a492927dd574e4024ec8)
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 hate to say this, but I think we need the opinion of our "expert" color analyst of the board... He goes by several names, mostly initials... But I think his commentary would be most appropriate. ;) 8)
-
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.
-
Too Funny!!!
The guy who hasn't figured out the dual angle method reminds me of a qoute.
Everybody has the right to be stupid, some people just abuse their privileges!
-
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 did the free trial of blue print and really enjoyed it. Not a fan of the EBI brands for me but the software was an awesome worth while tool.
-
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
-
The problem is the guy knows some math. But, I'm not sure he understands PAP and how the pin relates to the core. The other problem is you don't know what type of person you are really dealing with. He says he's been out of the game for 20 years. He used to drill balls for himself. He discovered this obvious flaw in 2 minutes. I'm starting to envision someone in their living room with a hand drill and a 6 pack of PBR trying to drill balls. That sounds funny and I know that's not the case here, but I've seen it more than once.
I'm all for learning new methods. I like to help people and learn in the process. But, arguing with someone who has never used the method or studied it..........I think I'm done with him.
-
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?
-
I had bad images of college days after reading....
Thinking of a happy place, happy place... :o
-
I think your pretty close Juggernaut.
The way I took is
That if you had two identical bowlers, with the exact same PAP and layout on the ball. Only their spans are different. The balls won't react the same.
Because if they both release the ball with their fingers say at 3 oclock, the one bowler with the longer span. His ball would be turned slight ahead of the other ball.
say you took a picture right then and overlayed one ball on top of the other (which he di in one pictur). the pin and MB of the balls wouldn't match up. Only the PAP and finger holes would.
And he say's because of that the balls would not react the same. It's like a different layout now. as he put it "doesn't produce the same dynamic parameters for each bowler".
So by changing how the pap is located, it will fix that. So people with the same layout, their balls will react the sameway.
Or something like that.
We also learned that the throbot's are flawed because they can't throw a 300 game.
That is a insane thread, that should have never got started.
-
Wow.....so many misconceptions there and misinformation that the entire thread should be deleted.
-
I think your pretty close Juggernaut.
The way I took is
That if you had two identical bowlers, with the exact same PAP and layout on the ball. Only their spans are different. The balls won't react the same.
Because if they both release the ball with their fingers say at 3 oclock, the one bowler with the longer span. His ball would be turned slight ahead of the other ball.
say you took a picture right then and overlayed one ball on top of the other (which he di in one pictur). the pin and MB of the balls wouldn't match up. Only the PAP and finger holes would.
And he say's because of that the balls would not react the same. It's like a different layout now. as he put it "doesn't produce the same dynamic parameters for each bowler".
So by changing how the pap is located, it will fix that. So people with the same layout, their balls will react the sameway.
Or something like that.
We also learned that the throbot's are flawed because they can't throw a 300 game.
That is a insane thread, that should have never got started.
Well, to be honest, there are FAR too many variables involved to make the conclusion that slight span length diferences would make a difference of a magnitude that any bowler, much less an amatuer league bowler, could tell the difference.
Technically, ANY system that repeats is capable of producing good results, as long as the PROCESS is repeatable. That doesn't mean that one is better than another, just different in some basic principle.
I understand the system he is coming up with, and I do think it would be a repeatable system with predictable results, but I also think the dual angle technique and the pin buffer technique can be used with equal repeatability and predictability.
The balls reaction, to me at least, is irrellevant to the location of the gripping holes, except that the gripping holes predicate the center of grip, which would be an individual spec, just like the span length is.
If the system is repeatable and predictable, and the point of reference used is constant to the system, then the results will be repeatable and equitable from ball to ball.
As I have said before, and I will say again, it is regrettable that you now have to have a PHD to understand, design, and drill bowling balls these days.