BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: jensm on September 27, 2013, 12:40:26 AM
-
Since the shorter oil patterns (33-36 ft) were introduced in international championships, there seems to have been a rising demand among bowlers on the best national teams for urethane balls manufactured in the late 1980s and early 1990s. One of these bowlers told me that this is due to modern urethane balls being 'tamer' than older ones. Why is that? Lower RG? Better COR? Or what?
-
Older urethane balls had more urethane in them than do "modern" urethanes, which are really blends of urethane and resin, in order to get more length.
Older urethanes tend to hook fairly early requiring more ball speed to enable them to conserve some energy. Modern ones get more length, more like resins, to allow you to use them better. Bowlers who never used older urethanes also prefer the better length and feel comfortable, mentally and physically, using them. I think older players feels more comfortable using the earlier rolling, older urethanes.
-
Thanks Charlest! Could it simply be that the modern urethane/resin blends create too much friction and slow down too much on the shorter short patterns (33-34 ft) to be really effective? I guess that could be it.
-
Charlest is our resident technical expert on covers and all things bowling balls!
However, from a layman's point of view.......when you are able to "lock-in" on a release and breakpoint using the older urethanes.......regardless of how the pattern breaks down.....these balls remain remarkably consistent in motion, arc shape and carry! That's just my 2 cents.
I have a Blue, Black, and Burgundy urethane Hammer(s) from the 80's.
-
So, the cover/core combo in several older urethane balls is better than the modern ones?
I think the specifications for manufacturing bowling balls in the late 1980s and the early 1990s allowed for lower RG than now. I read somewhere that these ball specifications were altered in 1994. No details about these altered specs, though.
-
No most core numbers then are used now. The karma urethane is a very early urethane ball. It is also dull. Many of today's urethane are polished, pearls, or have a box finish near 4000 grit. Many older urethanes were much duller at box finish. Not all, but many. Adjust surface of today's urethane and see a difference.
-
Many urethane balls of the 80's were 400-600 finish out of the box. Cores were not as strong though. First really low rg cores didn't come out till after resin in 93. You had to continually keep sanding the shells on the old urethanes to get any kind of performance. Also, even those balls soaked up oil, which made simply sanding not very effective in returning balls to factory.
Guys on tour were making a living with high rev rollout shots ( Ballard ) So many things have changed with oils that it is difficult to compare urethanes from the 80's to todays balls. Low viscosity oils, buffed to 24 feet made it a different world. Also, todays bowlers are generally much higher rev players with lots more ball speed than the top players of the 80's.
-
So, the cover/core combo in several older urethane balls is better than the modern ones?
I think the specifications for manufacturing bowling balls in the late 1980s and the early 1990s allowed for lower RG than now. I read somewhere that these ball specifications were altered in 1994. No details about these altered specs, though.
Not better, in general, just different. I think that whether you think the older or the newer ones are better depends on your games, what oil conditions you face and your bowling reaction references.
Many of the newer ones are quite eary reacting, just like the old ones; The include the Columbia U2, Brunswick Karma urethane, AMF Hype Urethane (had one; VERY, VERY early rolling), RG Grenade, Storm Natural, a few others.
Please don't tell me yours, if included in the above list, doesn't roll early if you have 20 mph ball speed and 250 rpms.)
The urethane/resin blends of today tend to go longer than the dull, sanded solid urethanes of the 1980s. The resin part allows the ball to get more length, save more energy and have ore backend than many of the older urethanes.
Most/many of the older ones had simple pancakes core and even the Hammer cores, while being more dynamic than a pancake core, still flared very little compared to the newer ones.
The RG minimum was recently (last 5 years or so) changed from a low of 2.44 to a low of 2.46 or 2.47. I don't recall as the change was of so little importance that it was no change at all. In any case, as someone already said, most of the older ones never had RGs that low. Their hooking ability came almost strictly from the cover, not the core.
-
I still have to wonder why so many of the best male bowlers at the WTBA World Championships in Las Vegas this August included one or more old urethane balls in the six balls they were were allowed to register. Choi Bok Eum of South Korea checked in three Sumos, I believe. Why were the older urethane balls so right for the 33 ft WTBA Sydney pattern?
-
The old Hammers started turning as soon as they hit the lane. I got rid of all of mine in the mid 1990's when I accepted the fact that I couldn't hit the head pin with them. They hooked so early and so much that they hit really soft due to the expended energy. I have a hard time believing they would work on the standard house shot today. I know I couldn't throw one because I need my ball to skid.
-
I still have to wonder why so many of the best male bowlers at the WTBA World Championships in Las Vegas this August included one or more old urethane balls in the six balls they were were allowed to register. Choi Bok Eum of South Korea checked in three Sumos, I believe. Why were the older urethane balls so right for the 33 ft WTBA Sydney pattern?
Chris Barnes love to use a Columbia Stingray when he faces short/dry challenging conditions
-
I am very good friends who works with one of the big companies out there. I have had this talk with him. Charlest kind of had it right when saying the older ones had more urethane in them. Not even talking about cores the main difference is the chemicals used to make the urethane have changed. The chemicals used back then are either not available now or are at such a high price that they are not feasible to purchase and use for bowling balls. I am a chemist and doing my job over the past 15 years (having nothing to do with bowling) have seen chemical prices change and even not be available as easily as they once were. So changes have to be made to produce the next best option
-
I still have to wonder why so many of the best male bowlers at the WTBA World Championships in Las Vegas this August included one or more old urethane balls in the six balls they were were allowed to register. Choi Bok Eum of South Korea checked in three Sumos, I believe. Why were the older urethane balls so right for the 33 ft WTBA Sydney pattern?
Don't assume without asking the ones who used them and investigating their release/delivery.
-
Likely because there has been so little urethane available that many bought up or found what they wanted at bowling alley racks, pawn shops, garage sales, ect.
As far as cores, like mentioned most were pancake at first before going to light bulb shaped cores ect. The JPF Axe and Brunswick Phantoms had the most advanced of cores for that time.
The original blue hammer core
http://www.bowlingballvault.com/companies/12-hammer/1052-blue-hammer
http://www.bowlingballvault.com/companies/12-hammer/1054-burgandy-hammer
the new release blue hammer
http://www.bowlingballvault.com/companies/12-hammer/1529-blue-hammer-remake
Similar cores specs, one is 800 grit one is 4000 grit. Big difference on the lanes.
The more advanced urethane cores, the Phantom
http://www.bowlingballvault.com/companies/3-brunswick/580-phantom
But, you don't see many people using them. You want early, any of todays bowling balls at 800 grit will give you early. Many on most conditions will give you hook stop reaction urethane like from years ago.
-
As far as release/delivery is concerned all the bowlers on the Korean team have excellent fundamentals and elite releases/deliveries. They seemed to be able to vary their releases/deliveries as well as the bowlers on Team USA.
In the Masters final Cho Young-Seon beat Chris Barnes using a urethane ball sanded to 180. That ball crossed Barnes line twice each throw. Barnes lost his shot while the Korean kept hitting the pocket.
I guess that the properties of several older urethane balls fit some of the best bowlers in the world elite better than the urethane stuff produced today.
-
I am sure the urethane formulas have changed somewhat. However the oils and surfaces have changed dramatically too. Haven't seen these international guys bowl, but anyone throwing a ball at 180 grit is either getting major rollout or is way up over 20 mph on a short pattern. Maybe these short patterns are very high volume, and the guys are using the really dull stuff to blow a hole in the pattern without looping the ball too much.
I use urethane quite a bit myself, but I keep it buffed to 2000 or higher. Key to urethane of any era is that it burns off too much energy turning a wide corner. I use urethane to play more direct to the pocket than I can with resin.
-
I don't know a lot about these balls as I bowled in the Rubber, Plastic and now Reactive and Particle days, missing the Urethane era, and I think many of them are very weak on today's oils.
However of the new ones the Hammer Blue Remake seems to be right for todays oils seeming to have a small touch of resin in the formulation, based on its increased ability to hook over balls like the Natural and the Grenade. All based just on watching these balls, on the lanes and on video.
Hammer in it's description seems to hint at the same and the Pure Hammer from several years ago seemed to have a very similar idea.
Regards,
Luckylefty
-
The old Hammers started turning as soon as they hit the lane. I got rid of all of mine in the mid 1990's when I accepted the fact that I couldn't hit the head pin with them. They hooked so early and so much that they hit really soft due to the expended energy. I have a hard time believing they would work on the standard house shot today. I know I couldn't throw one because I need my ball to skid.
I use the old Hammers on THS all the time. I can rarely use reactive stuff, way too violent reactions. Actually just picked up a couple Purple Hammers this week. Can't wait to throw them. My Burgundy is usually too strong so it's been the Red Hammer most. Both of those hit great.
I also have a Rotogrip Grenade, and the new Blue remake. The Blue I've not had alot of use, it really creates alot of carry down, the others don't. The Grenade is a pretty nice ball, it flares alot. But it doesnt hit quite as hard as the Hammers.
-
I use urethane quite a bit myself, but I keep it buffed to 2000 or higher. Key to urethane of any era is that it burns off too much energy turning a wide corner. I use urethane to play more direct to the pocket than I can with resin.
My Burgundy is 4000 polished, Red is a bit more dull, Blue remake is 2000, not sure on the Grenade it might be 1000 or 1500.
I get mine into a roll as soon as possible with an up the back release. They hit best for me that way.
-
So, to summarize differences between modern and older urethane balls:
- Most modern urethane balls are manufactured with less or none of the materials that went into the urethane balls of the 1980s and early 1990s.
- Many older urethane balls have lower differential RG values than is common in most modern urethane balls.
- Older urethane balls are used mainly by bowlers who can play more of a direct hand-behind-the-ball line. Modern urethane balls are made to feel comfortable for bowlers who use more axis rotation.
- The lane oils and lane surfaces of today also have something to do with how modern urethane balls are made.
-
- Older urethane balls are used mainly by bowlers who can play more of a direct hand-behind-the-ball line. Modern urethane balls are made to feel comfortable for bowlers who use more axis rotation.
I still have to use an up the back with the modern urethane stuff I have. Coming around it they hit like a pillow. Could just be me.
-
I have been a huge proponent of the older urethanes for quite some time. Why are they better? They are not necessarily better for EVERYONE but they do the same for a gicen class of bowler that the resin era did for a different class.
What reactive resin allowed was for the straighter players to increase their entry angle so as to be able to increase their strike window to where the power players were.
The opposite is true for the use of urethanes in todays game. The power players are using urethanes to help control the wet/dry walled up lane conditions we see in leagues today. They also allow the power player to take advantage of the "track area" where the ham and eggers make their 200+ averages while stile gaining a margin of error they don't have with any of the newer resin balls.
Now, why are the older urethane balls better? Simple.....the cores and covers are not nearly as strong as today. The old Hammer core or the Turbo core are not weak but they are symmetrical, they lack flip blocks or multi-densities to help them flare and hook more. Many of the older urethane balls have the same hook potential as the current polyester balls. Control, predictaility and face it, they hit!....the cornerstones of the entire Faball line back in the late 80's....
Why do tournament bowlers like them? The same reason....control, predictability and carry....no fillers in the old balls make them transfer energy much more efficiently than some of the newer stuff. Newer higher flaring cores are heavier and require filler to get the ball to make weight. Filler is lower density and does not transfer energy as well. The older balls with the less complicated cores require little to no filler. Add these facts together and you get better carry from the older urethanes.
higher flaring cores burn energy faster and the filler does not transfer energy as efficiently so therefore you get less energy at the pins.
Again, advantage old school.....
-
Very few of todays urethane bowling balls have low rg or high diffs. There cores are on par with many of those from the 80s and early 90s. Cover and surface is the biggest difference.
-
So does the absence of light-weight filler material in older urethane balls make the Coefficient of Restitution (energy transfer) values in these balls fall outside the USBC ball approval requirements (minimum 0.739 and maximum 0.750)?
Thanks all you guys for sharing your knowledge and opinions!
-
Is there a reason it would? What were the min and max at the time of release during that era?
-
I don't know what the ball appoval requirements were in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Perhaps there was no Coefficient of Restitution rules back then. Have the economics of present-day-ball-manufacturing (light-weight fillers) resulted in less effective urethane balls than back in the day?
-
Two different results occur from differences in COR. Higher COR means more pin velocity and more ball deflection. Lower COR means less pin velocity, but less ball deflection. Which one would you like.
With high revs and high balls speed effects of COR are going to be non-existant.
With a ball like the Sumo you have a very large light bulb core, followed by filler then coverstock. A lot like most of todays urethane bowling balls. Simple cores, with the biggest difference being box finish. The Sumo shows to be a box finish of 320 grit, the original Blue Hammer was 800 grit. The new Blue Hammer was 4000 sanded.
If as stated the guy had the ball sanded at 180 then any of these other balls would likely be identical on the lanes. Even many reactive balls at the surface will hook stop quickly.
-
The match between Barnes and Cho Yeung Sun is about 1h18min into this video:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/38008115
I don't know for sure that the grit on the Korean's urethane ball was 180. Could have been 360, I guess.
-
Likely because there has been so little urethane available that many bought up or found what they wanted at bowling alley racks, pawn shops, garage sales, ect.
As far as cores, like mentioned most were pancake at first before going to light bulb shaped cores ect. The JPF Axe and Brunswick Phantoms had the most advanced of cores for that time.
The original blue hammer core
http://www.bowlingballvault.com/companies/12-hammer/1052-blue-hammer
http://www.bowlingballvault.com/companies/12-hammer/1054-burgandy-hammer
the new release blue hammer
http://www.bowlingballvault.com/companies/12-hammer/1529-blue-hammer-remake
Similar cores specs, one is 800 grit one is 4000 grit. Big difference on the lanes.
The more advanced urethane cores, the Phantom
http://www.bowlingballvault.com/companies/3-brunswick/580-phantom
But, you don't see many people using them. You want early, any of todays bowling balls at 800 grit will give you early. Many on most conditions will give you hook stop reaction urethane like from years ago.
Wow.. you really have me thinking about this here.
I was going to post about comparing a Fab Blue Hammer to a Fab Burgundy Hammer, in seeing which would be better (I know that's relative). I have a Blue and Blue Pearl I keep in my bag to this day because of how they just last. I punched up a new Blue Hammer, but as you mentioned, there's a big difference in how the cover was laid out and the core.
I was thinking about trying to find another Fab Blue so I can retire my original one (it's a 300 ball, and I've had the worst luck with serious ball damage to my 300 balls), but now you have me wondering if it would be better to add some serious surface to the New Blue.
Reason for this being that the alley I'm at has been putting down some really short patterns lately, to where anything new in my bag (new, meaning newer than 2000) has me swinging to 20 at the arrows out. While I can do that, that leaves me with not much room left to move, and balling down has me rolling out at the pins. So I'm thinking of urethane here.
This gives me a LOT to think about. Thanks for posting this.
BL.
-
Doug explained it very accurately. There is not even that much difference between the shells of todays urethanes and those from the 80's. People forget that even us straighter guys could score big time with those urethane balls on short patterns when you could play way out. Power players got the advantage in longer formats as the shot moved in, and they were able to create stronger recovery from inside with high rev rates. As a low rev guy I can play straighter than a lot of the young guys can with urethane, giving me more places to use it.
-
The match between Barnes and Cho Yeung Sun is about 1h18min into this video:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/38008115
I don't know for sure that the grit on the Korean's urethane ball was 180. Could have been 360, I guess.
It looks like he kept sanding the sumo in practice to create area on the gutters. He was using a different ball during the match. Barnes was using something different. For it to be a short pattern the ball wasn't super strong.
The urethane reaction looks like any other urethane ball you see from today or 20 years ago.
-
I was going to post about comparing a Fab Blue Hammer to a Fab Burgundy Hammer, in seeing which would be better (I know that's relative). I have a Blue and Blue Pearl I keep in my bag to this day because of how they just last. I punched up a new Blue Hammer, but as you mentioned, there's a big difference in how the cover was laid out and the core.
I was thinking about trying to find another Fab Blue so I can retire my original one (it's a 300 ball, and I've had the worst luck with serious ball damage to my 300 balls), but now you have me wondering if it would be better to add some serious surface to the New Blue.
What is a 300 ball?
I've got a new Blue remake, took it down to 2000 so far. Still creates too much carry down. Good to use against certain teams. May have to sand it way down to see what happens.
Been getting alot of mileage out of my Red Hammer so far this season. Also have a Burgundy, Blue Pearl and now a couple of Purples. Should get to try the Purple this week. I really enjoy using these old Hammers.
-
What is a 300 ball?
----------------------
I think he means a ball that he used to bowl a 300 game with.
-
Ha been thinking about picking up a Blue Hammer or Super Natural, but I may hold out and try and get my hands on an older urethane. Really wouldn't mind having a couple of old hammers, that was before my time.
-
Reads like it's a Blue Hammer he shot 300 with.
-
Reads like it's a Blue Hammer he shot 300 with.
I should have clarified this. Yes. it's a ball that I shot 300 with. I just have the worst luck in having balls I've shot 300 with damaged beyond repair:
Columbia Pearl Quake: a 50 cent piece chunk taken out on my track roughly 2 months after shooting 300 with it.
Ebonite Mission Domination: problems in the pit on the lane I was one burned that ball and my teammates ball. mine had part of the track burned down to where the surface was flat (read: no longer round).
Only my Fab Blue, Black 3D Offset Hammer, and Ebonite Complete NV have survived, and it's only because I replaced them as soon as I could. Since the Fab Blue was the first high performance ball I ever had, and that my mother bought it for me (hey, I was 15!), I'd rather send it and the award to her to mount it as a trophy. She helped with it, and I'd like it to be in one piece. Sentimental and all. :)
The only C300 ball I have that I've done this with is that Quake. The only thing it's good for now is to become a ladybug in a lawn or garden.
BL.
-
Reads like it's a Blue Hammer he shot 300 with.
I should have clarified this. Yes. it's a ball that I shot 300 with. I just have the worst luck in having balls I've shot 300 with damaged beyond repair:
Columbia Pearl Quake: a 50 cent piece chunk taken out on my track roughly 2 months after shooting 300 with it.
Ebonite Mission Domination: problems in the pit on the lane I was one burned that ball and my teammates ball. mine had part of the track burned down to where the surface was flat (read: no longer round).
Only my Fab Blue, Black 3D Offset Hammer, and Ebonite Complete NV have survived, and it's only because I replaced them as soon as I could. Since the Fab Blue was the first high performance ball I ever had, and that my mother bought it for me (hey, I was 15!), I'd rather send it and the award to her to mount it as a trophy. She helped with it, and I'd like it to be in one piece. Sentimental and all. :)
The only C300 ball I have that I've done this with is that Quake. The only thing it's good for now is to become a ladybug in a lawn or garden.
BL.
Ahh. I wasnt sure if it was a certain batch or ser # thing that were more prone to damage.
Wish I wouldn't have thrown away my tour offset Hammer. That was a great ball!