win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Shortest pattern...yet very "hooking" balls used  (Read 1003 times)

sammy the sage

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Shortest pattern...yet very "hooking" balls used
« on: January 29, 2006, 06:07:32 AM »
WHY...strike zone, epx, action, one......seems like overkill....

 

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Shortest pattern...yet very "hooking" balls used
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2006, 02:11:31 PM »
I was surprised none of them rolled out given their early-rolling nature PLUS the short oil.  Last year, we had a lot of Absolute Infernos, and Amletto was playing a much, much bigger hook than even Barnes was playing.

SH

michelle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4913
Re: Shortest pattern...yet very "hooking" balls used
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2006, 02:47:13 PM »
There are likely drill patterns used as well that are VERY different from what the average league bowler would use when they utilize the typical strategy of too much ball for a condition.  

I can't speak to the stuff used today as I have had no reason to add anything new in roughly three years, but I know that I have equipment that was drilled with a very weak pattern to use certain characteristics of otherwise strong equipment.

Jeff Carter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
Re: Shortest pattern...yet very "hooking" balls used
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2006, 03:33:06 PM »
Pro-Anvilane ( hardest lane surface )
Brunswick Oil ( very slick oil )
Brunswick Lane Machine ( oils each individual board )
High volume of oil up front
Higher ball speeds

These are some of the reasons why you saw more aggressive equipment on the shorter pattern. Plus remember that if you use weaker equipment that may be stronger down lane, the ball comes off the back of the pattern sideways and can be very uncontrollable
--------------------
Bowl up a Storm,
Jeff Carter

sdbowler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4066
Re: Shortest pattern...yet very "hooking" balls used
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2006, 03:47:07 PM »
Thanks Jeff. Good to have someone explain it that way.
--------------------
Brunswick