Author Topic: Track Response to New USBC Proposals (Read 1488 times)

icetink · « **on:** May 26, 2005, 12:00:48 PM »

Can be found at the following link:

http://trackbowling.com/forum/topics.cfm?forum=1&topic=824

A lot of companies feel that the USBC's proposals will not benefit anyone. Hopefully their proposals do not go through so that we may continue to enjoy the sport we love!
--------------------
Dino
Evolutionary. Revolutionary.
Track

Edited on 5/26/2005 7:52 PM

TheDude · « **Reply #1 on:** May 26, 2005, 08:20:12 PM »

hey dino did You sit through the track seminar at planet bowl ?

i woke up too late for it. lol i stopped In And talked with del A bit to See what Was up.
--------------------
Timothy @Juniors Pro-Shop
Staff Writer 7-10 Split Magazine,EGO Communications
Montreal, Quebec.

Vote No for USBC logos, and the effective ban of the X-hole. Vote in Orlando, June 05. Save Our X-Holes!

antonybozulic · « **Reply #2 on:** May 26, 2005, 08:53:04 PM »

heyyy i don't think i know either of you guys but i was at the seminar on sunday at planet. it was at like 3:00 i think. they did a more proshop-based one later (monday i think), did either of you go to that one?

icetink · « **Reply #3 on:** May 26, 2005, 08:55:02 PM »

Hey Gumbo!

Ya, I sat through his entire seminar on Sunday, and I went to the pro-shop seminar that he held on Monday. He talked a lot about six steps that will greatly improve one's game, bowling ball coverstocks, bowling ball cores (symmetric vs. assymetric), lane surfaces, ball care, and about Track products.

At the pro-shop seminar, he went through a lot regarding pin placements (for flare potential), mass bias placements and their effect on the spin time, and pin height above midline. He also talked about the irrelevance of CG and static weights, rather, the significance of balance holes as they change the shape of the core. He also talked about ball care, and he went through Track products and showed videos of the Arsenal Angular and Arsenal Aggressive. The other guy (forgot his name...I think it was Rob) talked about Columbia's new releases, CPR, and the new bags.

I asked Del about his take on the USBC's proposal at the pro-shop seminar and he said it would greatly limit proshops and their drillers, as well as give an advantage to players with stronger releases.

They were really great seminars with lots of info...too much to absorb in a 2-day span, but I did learn a lot!

How did you do at Team Trials? What place were you in after the second day? I'll also likely be going to the Super School that will be held at Studio Buffa on August 8 and 9 after the Expo thing.
--------------------
Dino
Evolutionary. Revolutionary.
Track

kayoung08 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 27, 2005, 07:28:25 AM »

I dont think del's shirt had any logo on it. c300 added it. if you zoom in you can see a couple folds in the shirt and the logo doesnt bend.
--------------------
hey (r)andy, id like to know, how do i taste?

you you know (r)andy i tried to be the bigger man, oh wait, from what she tells me i am the bigger man.

www.gotti13.com

http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=gottiandyvid
may not be totally safe for work. audio only.

RandyO · « **Reply #5 on:** May 27, 2005, 11:04:26 AM »

"I asked Del about his take on the USBC's proposal at the pro-shop seminar and he said it would greatly limit proshops and their drillers, as well as give an advantage to players with stronger releases."

That's the way it should be. A "stronger" release should provide an advantage in carry. On the other hand - a "stronger" release is usually more difficult to keep in the pocket consistently. There USED TO BE a tradeoff, and mastering the balance was the key to success. Starting with the short oil era of the 80's (and urethane balls) the game became skewed out of whack. The Power Players became "favored" as the lane conditions lessened the need for accuracy. Power became a premium, and the need for accuracy was minimized by the lane conditions. As balls have become progressively stronger, the balance shifts back and forth depending on lane surface, oils, and pattern. The USBC is heading in the right direction. The balls do need to be "tightened" up a bit, but ll the lane conditions must be evened out as well.
I like the idea of limiting the range that a "marked" CG can be shifted, but a "small" balance hole must still be allowed to enable the driller to bring a ball back into balance.

Tweener92 · « **Reply #6 on:** May 27, 2005, 11:26:46 AM »

quote:
"I asked Del about his take on the USBC's proposal at the pro-shop seminar and he said it would greatly limit proshops and their drillers, as well as give an advantage to players with stronger releases."

That's the way it should be. A "stronger" release should provide an advantage in carry. On the other hand - a "stronger" release is usually more difficult to keep in the pocket consistently. There USED TO BE a tradeoff, and mastering the balance was the key to success. Starting with the short oil era of the 80's (and urethane balls) the game became skewed out of whack. The Power Players became "favored" as the lane conditions lessened the need for accuracy. Power became a premium, and the need for accuracy was minimized by the lane conditions. As balls have become progressively stronger, the balance shifts back and forth depending on lane surface, oils, and pattern. The USBC is heading in the right direction. The balls do need to be "tightened" up a bit, but ll the lane conditions must be evened out as well.
I like the idea of limiting the range that a "marked" CG can be shifted, but a "small" balance hole must still be allowed to enable the driller to bring a ball back into balance.

Well put. I agree with the fact that the player with a stronger release should have some advantage, after all they do make "devices" that help us weak wristed folk try to simulate the same. Granted, I don't believe in the use of devices. If you can't turn the ball then don't try to play it! But that is just my personal preference. This is why I pretty much play the lanes straight up. Anyway, I think the USBC really needs to attack the lane conditions first before considering eliminating balance holes all together.
--------------------
- never be afraid to tear your game down and start over from scratch.

icetink · « **Reply #7 on:** May 27, 2005, 11:52:55 AM »

Balance holes are usually used to allow balls to read/hook earlier thus allowing even the players with weaker releases to do well in the game. It is unfair that some people are naturally crankers and others naturally strokers. Having the balance hole helps level the playing field by allowing slower speed and lesser rev players to hook the ball a decent amount and get good carry, thus allowing for a more enjoyable sport for almost anyone.
--------------------
Dino
Evolutionary. Revolutionary.
Track

Edited on 5/27/2005 11:45 AM

StrokerCT1 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 27, 2005, 12:03:57 PM »

The USBC is completely out of touch. If these rule change proposals are adopted, a significant portion of the bowling population will be alienated and may just leave, or at the minumum, leagues will no longer sanction.

The idea of giving crankers an advantage over strokers will just cause people
to stop bowling. The USBC doesnt get it, more and more people are leaving bowling, and this crazy "proposal" will make the problem even worse.

I personally take offense to the idea that my bowling equipment may no longer be legal.

RandyO · « **Reply #9 on:** May 27, 2005, 08:07:46 PM »

If you want the ball to read the lane (hook) earlier then you take some rotation out. Hand adjustments - Speed adjustments - lane play - technique - that's what makes it a sport. Cheater balls and easy lanes remove Bowling from the category of "sport" and just make it a silly game. If someone is bigger and stronger than you and a "natural cranker" as you put it, then that would be his preferred method of bowling. Oh by the way - Chris Warren - Pete Weber - Bob Benoit - the list goes on and on - there ain't no such thing as a "natural cranker". It's a learned technique - just as learning to stroke it straight but still carry is a learned technique. Bowling would still be fun and competitive if they limited it to plastic covers and pancake cores. It would have more "credibility" as well.
You wanna compromise? You can't compromise the integrity of the sport.
IF I WAS IN CHARGE:

1. RG limits change to 2.55 to 2.75 for 14# and above equipment

2. Differential limited to 0.040

3. Surfaces at 600 grit or higher

4. No particles or light particles with a hardness rule on the particles.

5. Marked CG must be within 1" of the grip center. A SMALL balance hole (1/2" or less) allowed ONLY TO BRING A BALL INTO BALANCE. That shouldn't be too much of an issue with the 1" CG rule.

6. Lane patterns must conform to a 3 to 1 ratio.

7. 3 ball limit during sanctioned competition. Must be declared at the end of practice session for each block or league session.

TheDude · « **Reply #10 on:** May 28, 2005, 03:13:21 PM »

first, no that Is his actual shirt because he was wearing the same shirt in toronto. he now wears all three company logos.

as for icetink, i've sat through the seminars before And Usually they are more sales pitches than educational, but i will sit through them when del comes back For bowl expo in montreal. i will be there for the trade show so see you There Again.

as for how i did at trials lol i Did lousy, excuses could range from lol not being Able To practice On the patterns In advance, to bad carry and poor spare shooting on my part. But once coming Back home I have already shot 680 and 722 so far With my new equipment.

also making a last minute equipment change didn't help make me feel anymore comfortable.
--------------------
Timothy @Juniors Pro-Shop
Staff Writer 7-10 Split Magazine,EGO Communications
Montreal, Quebec.

Vote No for USBC logos, and the effective ban of the X-hole. Vote in Orlando, June 05. Save Our X-Holes!

Author Topic: Track Response to New USBC Proposals (Read 1488 times)

icetink

Track Response to New USBC Proposals

TheDude

Re: Track Response to New USBC Proposals

antonybozulic

Re: Track Response to New USBC Proposals

icetink

Re: Track Response to New USBC Proposals

kayoung08

Re: Track Response to New USBC Proposals

RandyO

Re: Track Response to New USBC Proposals

Tweener92

Re: Track Response to New USBC Proposals

icetink

Re: Track Response to New USBC Proposals

StrokerCT1

Re: Track Response to New USBC Proposals

RandyO

Re: Track Response to New USBC Proposals

TheDude

Re: Track Response to New USBC Proposals