BallReviews
General Category => PBA => Topic started by: Walking E on June 25, 2014, 12:43:46 AM
-
OK, first off - no, I am not on tour. Shut up.
1. Why can't everyone figure out by now that the right lane's approach has a sticky spot when shooting crosslane at 10 pins? How many times in these telecasts have we seen somebody stick on the right lane when shooting at a 10-pin? Don't they practice sliding in that area before the show? It baffled me each and every time I saw somebody stick at the line and whiff the 10-pin, then look down at the approach as if to say "Well, I wasn't expecting that." Seriously?
2. The blue oil is still stupid and useless, no matter how many times Randy tries to pump it up as a great innovation.
3. Those Bear pattern lanes were TOUGH! Question: When it gets to the point where if you miss a hair left it runs away Brooklyn, but you miss a hair right and you leave 2-8-10 or super washout - then why are these guys still aiming for the 1-3 pocket? Wouldn't it be better to, say, launch urethanes (or something similarly non-aggressive) straight at the 1-2 pocket and go for Brooklyn strikes? As somebody with a "grinder" background, I can assure you that this tactic works pretty good on a reverse block condition (which is what those lanes turned into after a game or two). Is it just a pride thing? Do they really think that they will suddenly find some stable hold if they keep moving left?
Anyway, those are just my thoughts after watching the telecast.
-
Question: When it gets to the point where if you miss a hair left it runs away Brooklyn, but you miss a hair right and you leave 2-8-10 or super washout - then why are these guys still aiming for the 1-3 pocket? Wouldn't it be better to, say, launch urethanes (or something similarly non-aggressive) straight at the 1-2 pocket and go for Brooklyn strikes?
I think, and this is for a LOT of the national touring pro's, they DON'T miss a hair to the left or right and they repeatedly "pure" the shot. If they do......it's not often.
JMO
-
Chucking a urethane ball at the 1-2 is not grinding.
-
Chucking a urethane ball at the 1-2 is not grinding.
Its "I give up, Im a house bowler" strategy.
-
Chucking a urethane ball at the 1-2 is not grinding.
Its "I give up, I'm a house bowler" strategy.
+1
-
They had issues with the "TV lanes" for all of the shows. It was stupid they built those 2 lanes in a conference room instead of just taping in the actual bowling alley.
-
Actually, the strategy of firing straight with a urethane would not have been a give up strategy. From a distance I was thinking it would have made sense. I think the reason nobody did it was that they were throwing just enough strikes to stay sucked in to the strategy they started with. Also note that Tacket and Lochester both started with strikes. I have been in that situation a few times, and your own confidence and experience works against you, in a single game format where the remaining frames decrease quickly.
What makes the Bear pattern so tough is the length. 40 feet just long enough that trying to play from outside is not attractive, but it is short enough that the hold area doesn't set up in the middle quickly enough either. Note that the Wolf is also a very flat pattern, but you can use urethane and play out with good results
-
Im curious as to how someone like Duke would have done on the pattern. I think having someone who played the lanes straight(er) would have been interesting to have in the final.
-
Im curious as to how someone like Duke would have done on the pattern. I think having someone who played the lanes straight(er) would have been interesting to have in the final.
It's possible that Duke with playing outside and using the soft speed could have done well. The reason I think this is because it is a very flat pattern, similar to what we would see with the US Open. At the same time, Duke could move in and hook the lane as needed.
Watching the show last night, it was clear that the pattern gave everyone hell, especially on the right lane.
-
Chucking a urethane ball at the 1-2 is not grinding.
I disagree. Looking at the scores of the guys lofting the gutter, my thought was, someone like Duke, Voss or a number of the traditional female players could have balled down, play the twig or up five, and shoot 200 or better. I was not impressed with the guys lofting the gutter cap. Even Belmo could not get a consistent ball reaction, and he missed his mark and through it out about as much as he made good shots.
-
Question: When it gets to the point where if you miss a hair left it runs away Brooklyn, but you miss a hair right and you leave 2-8-10 or super washout - then why are these guys still aiming for the 1-3 pocket? Wouldn't it be better to, say, launch urethanes (or something similarly non-aggressive) straight at the 1-2 pocket and go for Brooklyn strikes?
I think, and this is for a LOT of the national touring pro's, they DON'T miss a hair to the left or right and they repeatedly "pure" the shot. If they do......it's not often.
JMO
I watched the show. What I saw was not "puring" every shot.
-
I wish I had cable. I can't even argue with you guys!
-
Well, for Duke, Voss or one of the women to shoot 200 on that they would need to make the show.
These are some of the best bowlers in the world and they have a coach standing behind them. If there was someplace on the lane that they felt gave them a better chance to strike they would be playing there.
If you think chucking the ball at the 1-2 is grinding then you are not a bowler, you are someone that bowls.
-
I must say, CBS produced a far better product than espn. Plus "60 Ft. to success" brought his A game.
I wish I had cable. I can't even argue with you guys!
-
Well, for Duke, Voss or one of the women to shoot 200 on that they would need to make the show.
These are some of the best bowlers in the world and they have a coach standing behind them. If there was someplace on the lane that they felt gave them a better chance to strike they would be playing there.
If you think chucking the ball at the 1-2 is grinding then you are not a bowler, you are someone that bowls.
So I take it you were impressed with the lane strategy. We all know who was bowling and we know how good they are. We know that the shot was horrifically tough. That does not translate into they necessarily played the lanes the most effectively, or that a different approach would not have worked better.
I did not see anyone ball down, take their hand out of it and play straighter. There are many that say that straighter is greater.
-
Chucking a urethane ball at the 1-2 is not grinding.
I disagree. Looking at the scores of the guys lofting the gutter, my thought was, someone like Duke, Voss or a number of the traditional female players could have balled down, play the twig or up five, and shoot 200 or better. I was not impressed with the guys lofting the gutter cap. Even Belmo could not get a consistent ball reaction, and he missed his mark and through it out about as much as he made good shots.
Yup, lets play up the gutter on 50 feet, you should seriously consider applying for a ball rep position on tour. Im sure Del Ballard, Jim Callahan, Chuck Gardner and anyone else I'm missing didn't stop to think of this.
Your idea of playing up the gutter and throwing missiles at the "1-2 pocket" (which I'm sure is accompanied by the obnoxious pointing to left if you are right hander while performing this buffoonery) would have been an excellent idea. Im shocked no one has thought of this ground breaking, hard hitting, innovative strategy yet.
-
I know not thing, straighter ain't greater on a 40' flat pattern. And straighter ain't greater on the PBA Tour right now. The only straighty in the top 25 in points and earnings is Haugen.
You can play anywhere on the lane you want if you can repeat perfectly and split a gnat's ass. If you think there is more miss room moving right on a 40' flat pattern than there is chasing the hold in, you obviously haven't done much high level bowling.
-
I know not thing, straighter ain't greater on a 40' flat pattern. And straighter ain't greater on the PBA Tour right now. The only straighty in the top 25 in points and earnings is Haugen.
You can play anywhere on the lane you want if you can repeat perfectly and split a gnat's ass. If you think there is more miss room moving right on a 40' flat pattern than there is chasing the hold in, you obviously haven't done much high level bowling.
He hasn't, according to his profile, he's a 197 avg player on house, which is fine, but don't think your 197 skill set and line of thinking applies to the best players in the world.
"Straighter is greater", get out of here, Randy said it in the show, "You create hold with angle". But the average house bowler is so use to hugging to massive oil line on his home shot, he now thinks he "throws" it Norm Duke or WRW, when in actuality you don't, you just pull the ball up the oil line which is usually second arrow. Then you see these guys on TV playing second arrow, and think "Hey, I throw it Norm Duke" no, you don't.
Rant Over.
-
I know not thing, straighter ain't greater on a 40' flat pattern. And straighter ain't greater on the PBA Tour right now. The only straighty in the top 25 in points and earnings is Haugen.
You can play anywhere on the lane you want if you can repeat perfectly and split a gnat's ass. If you think there is more miss room moving right on a 40' flat pattern than there is chasing the hold in, you obviously haven't done much high level bowling.
He hasn't, according to his profile, he's a 197 avg player on house, which is fine, but don't think your 197 skill set and line of thinking applies to the best players in the world.
"Straighter is greater", get out of here, Randy said it in the show, "You create hold with angle". But the average house bowler is so use to hugging to massive oil line on his home shot, he now thinks he "throws" it Norm Duke or WRW, when in actuality you don't, you just pull the ball up the oil line which is usually second arrow. Then you see these guys on TV playing second arrow, and think "Hey, I throw it Norm Duke" no, you don't.
Rant Over.
Beautiful! Those that typically bowl on THS haven't a clue as to what hard patterns are like to bowl on, and to compete against some of the best at the same time. Heck, league/house bowlers won't bowl in SCRATCH tournaments locally because they know they don't stand a chance, and their little ego won't let them be humbled by better bowlers; instead, they watch a TV show (without watching the GRIND that takes place during the week; they don't see how differently the lanes play ALL WEEK LONG when compared to the TV pair, though it may be the "same" pattern) and they think "man, those guys are lost..... all they have to do is XYZ and BOOM! they will win"........
It drives me nuts! The general public doesn't have a clue as to how good these guys really are on tour, let alone the massive talent pool which makes up Regional players, and those bowlers that don't even bowl PBA events. Bowlers at that level have a skill AND talent that most of us will never know; however, WE know it-- and most of us will still go out and compete against the best IN OUR AREA. And guess what? Most of the time, (we) I still get my butt kicked :-)
"Gee-- move right and strike"-- said the uninformed "house" bowler
Reality? The ball won't make it past the arrows without checking up (especially considering the power/rev/tilt of professional bowlers) and making the pattern even more difficult. I love watching house bowlers bowl on anything other than China--- its a beautiful thing to watch them leave the lanes, tail tucked between their legs, 9 balls (plus a plastic) in tote, with their ever "supportive" long time girl friend trailing behind, afraid to ask if they can go to Texas Roadhouse after spending all day at the lanes....... LOVE IT!
-
Are you guys sniffing glue or something?
Do you really believe that a person has to have a high average to understand lane play?
Do you truly equate asking whether the pros could have scored better by attacking the lanes differently, with asserting that one could have done better than the pros did under the circumstances?
-
Are you guys sniffing glue or something?
Do you really believe that a person has to have a high average to understand lane play?
Do you truly equate asking whether the pros could have scored better by attacking the lanes differently, with asserting that one could have done better than the pros did under the circumstances?
Im not saying that, but its evident you dont understand lane play. Am I going to doubt Jason Belmonte, Bill O'Neill, and EJ Tackett and their laneplay strategies or believe the local on Ballreviews.com?
Think about that for a minute.
-
Northface,
Noone has asked you to believe anything. I guess reading really is a skill. The question was posed as to whether the pros could have scored higher if they attacked had attacked the lanes differently. How is that asking you to believe anything. Rather than giving your holier than thou non response, think about responding to the question.
If you say no, tell us why. If you have no opinion, keep quiet and save your lopsided reasoning for another day.
Even the best make bad judgments, and sometime at inopportune times. Keep believing and never asking questions. You never have to worry about learning anything new.
Now, Oniel won a couple of weeks ago, deciding not to follow the crowd out to the gutter cap.
I seem to remember Ciminelli playing outside with urethane when everyone else moved inside and were trying to hook the lanes.
I have seen Duke stay right or move right, play straight and win on longer patterns when everyone else had moved deep and were hooking the lanes.
These are just a few examples. I would place great value on Duke's response to the question posed. Your response is utterly useless.
-
Do you really believe that a person has to have a high average to understand lane play?
I wouldn't say they "have" to..........but I would say that a high number of those that DO average 230+ DO understand lane play, in general, more. The higher numbers and higher rate of consistency are evidence of more than simply a dominant physical game.
The question then becomes, "what do 'lower average' bowlers average lower 'for'"?
I concede that the physical game is PART of that.
I'll go on record as saying that I believe higher average bowlers (225+) have a higher bowling IQ than the 180-190 guys.
-
GTGT,
I have no issue with your last post. I would just point out that age, physical condition, time to practice, the difficulty of the shot where a particular average is posted, and a number of other factors come into play.
But, back on topic, I set out several examples of players moving or statying out and playing straighter on longer patterns, rather than following the crowd towards the gutter cap. I did this only to illustrate the thought process involved in putting forth the initial question, which, in my opinion, deserves an intelligent, none insulting response or two.
-
You can't compare O'Neill moving right on that show to this last show. The difference being the badger show and the examples you are talking about with Duke where on lane conditions that had some crosswise taper to them. Even a 1.5 or 2:1 ratio is a huge difference than flat.
-
What do you mean by huge difference. Presumably, the player's rationale for moving to the gutter cap was the same.
Someone posted that the lanes were hooking at the arrows on the right side. Is this conjecture or based on observation? It's hard to believe as true considering this was a flat pattern, although volume will affect how early the ball goes from skid to hook.
-
They were throwing it over the gutter on badger cause the fat kid torched them in practice cause he thought that would be to his advantage.
-
Northface,
Noone has asked you to believe anything. I guess reading really is a skill. The question was posed as to whether the pros could have scored higher if they attacked had attacked the lanes differently. How is that asking you to believe anything. Rather than giving your holier than thou non response, think about responding to the question.
If you say no, tell us why. If you have no opinion, keep quiet and save your lopsided reasoning for another day.
Even the best make bad judgments, and sometime at inopportune times. Keep believing and never asking questions. You never have to worry about learning anything new.
Now, Oniel won a couple of weeks ago, deciding not to follow the crowd out to the gutter cap.
I seem to remember Ciminelli playing outside with urethane when everyone else moved inside and were trying to hook the lanes.
I have seen Duke stay right or move right, play straight and win on longer patterns when everyone else had moved deep and were hooking the lanes.
These are just a few examples. I would place great value on Duke's response to the question posed. Your response is utterly useless.
Reading is a skill? Not really, comprehension is a skill, I can read what you post, I just can't comprehend it as it makes no sense to me. Lopsided reasoning? Yeah, ok. Clearly, you are either incapable or unwilling to read between the lines.
"Keep believing and never asking questions, you'll never learn anything new", this has to be my favorite line in your misguided drivel of a post. If I averaged 194, never sniffed a 800, or shot 300 I wouldn't be coming on a message board saying someone wouldn't learn anything new. When you clearly can't handle the most rudimentary tasks to average 200, whether its missing spares or missing the headpin. If you spent more time practicing instead of second-guessing, oops, I'm sorry, "asking questions and learning", you'd have a solid understanding of lane play and why the best do what they do. I guess in your haste to Monday Morning Quarterback you didn't see the part where I mentioned you use angle to create hold on a flat pattern? Can you grasp this concept? Should I explain further?
Cute stories supporting your hard on for throwing the ball straight, moving on, how about a few weeks ago when Fagan and Larsen played out with urethane and beat their heads against the wall? How about the time your hero Norm Duke won the US Open playing in? Shocking, I know. Straighter isn't greater, nor is hooking it, one is not superior than the other, you take whats there. I have more examples to support what I am saying just like all the stories you have in which to support yours. The point?
Again, I ask, what makes you think these guys didn't think to play right? Best shot makers in the world and they wouldn't think or attempt to play right either on their own or under the tutelage of some of the best minds/coaches/ball reps in the industry?
Ill wait patiently for your feeble response.
-
More dribble. Write clear and you will not have two hope the reader reads between the lines into your imagination.
I have made no statement about what the bowlers considered. You did. The question posed is whether a different choice would have yielded a better result.
Continue in your belief that the pros are infallible.
-
More dribble. Write clear and you will not have two hope the reader reads between the lines into your imagination.
I have made no statement about what the bowlers considered. You did. The question posed is whether a different choice would have yielded a better result.
Continue in your belief that the pros are infallible.
More "dribble"? Did you mean drivel? "You will not have two hope" did you mean not have TO hope? In addition to expert analysis on what professionals should do, you also know the difference between TWO and TO when preparing a written response. Nice.
-
I guess in your haste to Monday Morning Quarterback you didn't see the part where I mentioned you use angle to create hold on a flat pattern? Can you grasp this concept? Should I explain further?
All of the rest of this aside, I would like an explanation. I heard Randy mention this on the telecast and it confused me. I know the power players get way inside to find remaining head oil, but since the balls constantly suck up the oil I don't know how this create hold.
-
Despite what Randy said you are not rally creating hold by playing so deep on the Bear. You are trying to find some decent head oil to get the ball to project and retain some rotational energy when you do come off the end of the oil.
What really kills good players on very flat patterns are the transitions. Look at the guys who came out of the gate striking, but couldn't stay lined in as they got a bit of carrydown and burn in the heads. Personally I think a 40 foot flat patterns is the toughest. Shorter, and you can get lined up on the back end. Longer, and you can play the fronts.
-
Despite what Randy said you are not rally creating hold by playing so deep on the Bear. You are trying to find some decent head oil to get the ball to project and retain some rotational energy when you do come off the end of the oil.
What really kills good players on very flat patterns are the transitions. Look at the guys who came out of the gate striking, but couldn't stay lined in as they got a bit of carrydown and burn in the heads. Personally I think a 40 foot flat patterns is the toughest. Shorter, and you can get lined up on the back end. Longer, and you can play the fronts.
So, was the oil in the heads gone from the 2 board to the 20 board, or was there some other reason for playing far left?
-
More dribble. Write clear and you will not have two hope the reader reads between the lines into your imagination.
I have made no statement about what the bowlers considered. You did. The question posed is whether a different choice would have yielded a better result.
Continue in your belief that the pros are infallible.
More "dribble"? Did you mean drivel? "You will not have two hope" did you mean not have TO hope? In addition to expert analysis on what professionals should do, you also know the difference between TWO and TO when preparing a written response. Nice.
Northface, you are smarter than me. You know more about bowing than me.
Now, I hope that helps you to make it through the day and to cope with the stressors that life is undoubtedly throwing at you.
It would be nice if you would use a small portion of your immense knowledge and genius, to respond to the questions posed.
-
You argue that the lanes are not being played properly then you ask why they are playing the lanes the way they are. Maybe you should ask why before you show your ignorance and somebody might answer your question.
-
You argue that the lanes are not being played properly then you ask why they are playing the lanes the way they are. Maybe you should ask why before you show your ignorance and somebody might answer your question.
Where did I make that argument?
-
first page
-
first page
Nope. I disagreed with the overbroad statement that throwing urethane up 1 or 2 is not grinding it out. Could be, depends on who is doing it and why.
I suggested the possibility of playing the lanes differently and whether that could have led to better results.
I don't know the answer, so I would not attempt to say one way or the other. I did say that I watched the show and based on what I saw, the pros were not "puring every shot." I stick by that. Some of the guys looked totally uncomfortable attempting to loft the gutter cap. The week prior, the guy that played Oniel did what was necessary to win and get to the finals, but I would not say that he was anywhere close to "puring every shot."
Again, I would not attemtp to say that he played the lanes correctly or incorrectly. I don't hesitate to question whether the players could have made different decisions about how they played, that may have led to more positive outcomes.
-
Chucking urethane AT the 1-2, not up 1 or 2. Read the original post.
Now you're in full retreat and it's obvious that you don't know half of what you think you know.
-
Itsa,
You are delusional if you think I am retreating. I took at 1 to 2 as interned to communicate playing up 1 or 2. Granted, throwing at the 2 board May not be the same as throwing up the two board.
I set forth what I previously stated, nothing different. Read into it what you please. I am through debating with simple minded people with reading and comprehension deficits that think they know it all.
-
The original post is about throwing straight at the 1-2 pocket. It has nothing to do with the 1 or 2 board. How can you try to debate something when you don't even know what the post said?
Itsa,
You are delusional if you think I am retreating. I took at 1 to 2 as interned to communicate playing up 1 or 2. Granted, throwing at the 2 board May not be the same as throwing up the two board.
I set forth what I previously stated, nothing different. Read into it what you please. I am through debating with simple minded people with reading and comprehension deficits that think they know it all.
-
I'm simple minded with a reading and comprehension deficit and you can't read and understand the original post.
Please stop and concede the fact that you actually know very little about bowling and absolutely nothing about bowling at the professional level.
-
I'm simple minded with a reading and comprehension deficit and you can't read and understand the original post.
Please stop and concede the fact that you actually know very little about bowling and absolutely nothing about bowling at the professional level.
That's putting it nicely.
-
I fire urethane at the 1-2 on a house shot. I suck and I know it.
-
I understand playing deep to find head oil, but I'd still like an explanation as to how it creates hold on a flat pattern.
-
I understand playing deep to find head oil, but I'd still like an explanation as to how it creates hold on a flat pattern.
Side rotation creates skid to the right and recovery, you can't play in on that pattern and be end over end, ball with either read too early and/or hit like dog dookie. This is why Pete Weber is typically in the running on the US Open pattern because he can create skid/hold with his release.
-
I realize that, but I still don't see that as creating hold. I struggle plating way in because I have very little tilt and have a lot less axis rotation than I used to. I can hit the pocket, but my carry percentage is awful. When I think of hold I imagine (a good bit) more oil inside of your target so that if you pull one slightly it might hold pocket. As long as there continues to be more head oil inside of target, of course there's a chance it might hold pocket, but I wouldn't call that creating hold.
If everyone would have played straight up 10 (for the sake of argument) there would have been plenty of head oil to the left. As they would have slowly moved left there would have been more head oil. This would have been common sense, but I can't imaging anyone saying that they were "creating hold" by moving in. Is it just two ways of saying the same thing, or a I still missing something?
-
I realize that, but I still don't see that as creating hold. I struggle plating way in because I have very little tilt and have a lot less axis rotation than I used to. I can hit the pocket, but my carry percentage is awful. When I think of hold I imagine (a good bit) more oil inside of your target so that if you pull one slightly it might hold pocket. As long as there continues to be more head oil inside of target, of course there's a chance it might hold pocket, but I wouldn't call that creating hold.
If everyone would have played straight up 10 (for the sake of argument) there would have been plenty of head oil to the left. As they would have slowly moved left there would have been more head oil. This would have been common sense, but I can't imaging anyone saying that they were "creating hold" by moving in. Is it just two ways of saying the same thing, or a I still missing something?
What you are describing is artificial house shot hold, when its flat, there is no hold. You are low tilt and low rotation which I why I think you have a hard time understanding this concept. No slam on you, as I could be explaining this improperly as well.
When you get around the ball, it "floats" to the spot, therefore creating hold that isn't there. Who's to say they didn't play up 10 in practice? We don't know, but its not easy for guys on a flat pattern, on HPLs, with rev rates north of 375 (as Marshall Kent probably had the lowest rev rate and he's about 375) to play up 10. I know you prefaced it with "for arguments sake" but this isn't the PWBA and we must stop this "play up 10" mentality.
-
Pete's release creates recovery that very few others can create.
Moving in and playing more angle through the front of the lane gives the illusion of hold as you float the ball to the track area of the lane. Then as the lanes break down you are moving left staying in the oil with the broken down area to the outside giving you a slight bit of recovery if you are lined up properly.
This isn't "hold" as you know it, it is simply some oil to get the ball down the lane.
-
Maybe it's just splitting hairs, but to me that's using already existing, not creating hold.
-
Strider,
I don't think it creates "hold" per say, but it takes the lack of hold out of the equation. The side rotation allows the ball to continue down the path it was thrown, even if the heads may have broken down. The core of the ball is rotating in such a way that it hasn't begun to turn itself into a roll yet. At least, this is my understanding.
-
It's creating hold with playing more angle through the front of the lane. If you don't play more angle through the front it isn't there.
It is the illusion of hold to your ball because the ball is going through more oil.
-
It's creating hold with playing more angle through the front of the lane. If you don't play more angle through the front it isn't there.
It is the illusion of hold to your ball because the ball is going through more oil.
Thanks - that makes sense. I'm sure it was there all along, but I just wasn't seeing it.
-
It's creating hold with playing more angle through the front of the lane. If you don't play more angle through the front it isn't there.
It is the illusion of hold to your ball because the ball is going through more oil.
Thanks - that makes sense. I'm sure it was there all along, but I just wasn't seeing it.
What he said, just explained better.
-
When a flat condition is used in a regular bowling center there is some slight "built in" friction because of the track, even on synthetics. So typically on the fresh guys will be playing somewhere around 20 or slightly left for the higher rev guys out to around 10 at the breakpoint, creating that angle through the front of the lane, but not letting the ball get too far away from the pocket. As the lanes break down the players will chase the head oil left, but the breakpoint never changes because there is no build up of condition in the middle. You can't go to a weaker ball until the lanes are completely torched because it just won't recover. Moving right doesn't work as then the friction will be to the left of where you are trying to play, bringing 3 off the left into play along with 3 off the right.
I've only seen a couple of guys play straight, and that was only on the fresh for about a game. Basically surviving until the lanes start to break down slightly. But for the guys that start straighter their move is about 25 left with their feet when they do move.
-
There is actually hold area on the long pattern all over the lane. The problem with the long patterns is that there is not enough swing area for a super high rev release if you try to play much to the right of 4th arrow. It is really a geometry solution. Start with the widest break point that you think the lanes will support. On these long patterns it is inside of 10 board, often almost to 15. Draw a lines from the break point back to various lay down points starting at 3rd arrow. At 3rd arrow you can play almost no out angle if you want to keep it inside of 10 at the break point. At 4th arrow you can play a bit more if you have the revs, and at 5th you can play even more. The pros create enough revs to over come some of the long oil, and certainly enough to blow up spots in the heads. What these guys do is find a spot to start, and make parallel moves left as the heads break down, so that the out angle increase slowly.
Contrast what Valenta did by pretty much destroying the heads for everyone on the first Badger pattern, to the way the guys attacked it the second time. Valenta felt his ability to loft and take the heads out of play was an advantage, so he blew them up in practice. It would have worked had O'Neil not been able to find a line to the right of where Valenta started, thus taking the blown heads from the practice session out of play. In the latter tourney also won by O Neil, they all worked more on developing a track, and following the head oil left, negating the need to take the heads out of play.
-
Bob,
Bear, not Badger. Bear is the 40 foot flat pattern.
-
Sorry, I shouldn't have posted this on the Bear Pattern thread. I was responding to someone talking about creating hold on the Badger. No way to create hold on the Bear. The reason the Bear is so tough is that you cant find hold, and swing area is tricky as the lanes transition.