Author Topic: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs (Read 3805 times)

riggs · « **on:** February 18, 2010, 08:33:51 AM »

As I predicted, USBC just announced it. And it's not a bad thing -- studies have shown static weights are virtually meaningless in ball motion.

http://host.madison.com/sports/recreation/bowling/article_a3ca0b1e-1ce3-11df-8116-001cc4c03286.html

The Stroke · « **Reply #16 on:** February 19, 2010, 11:14:33 AM »

quote:
quote:
I'm confused, Steven. How does your link not support exactly what riggs is saying?

Crusty: Since you didn't watch the video linked in the pdf document, I understand your confusion. Click where is says "click here to download...".

To the rest of you trolling for points against Steven, nice try. Again, reading comprehension comes into play. I clearly said for the USBC Open Championships, ultimate success is not going to be determined by differences in static weights and consequent differences in ball movement. If you don't have the prerequisite skills, you're not going to bowl well in this tournament -- period.

Shut up, loser.
--------------------
Toodles

Uncle Crusty · « **Reply #17 on:** February 19, 2010, 11:45:35 AM »

quote:
Crusty: Since you didn't watch the video linked in the pdf document, I understand your confusion. Click where is says "click here to download...".

Of course I watched the video, so nice try. The little synopsis neatly summarized the video, and the conclusions were appropriate, so I just decided to quote that. You get on the trolls for not having reading comprehension, but at the same time, you completely ignore the written conclusions given by the Brunswick R&D people (who, whether you care to admit it or not, are far more knowledgable on this subject than you ever will be). Talk about hypocritical.

The only thing I can even think you're trying to use from the video to prove your case is the difference between shots 6, 7, and 8. Shots 6 and 7 (positive weight) go through the face. Shot 8 (negative weight) lays off enough to trip the 4, so you'll probably go on and on about how it hooked less because it had negative weight.

Except you conveniently forget to mention A). there was essentially (key word being essentially, don't want you to spin my words after reading my next two points) no difference from shots 1-5 in terms of reaction, B). there are things called "breakdown" and "carrydown" that make it almost impossible for equipment to react the exact same way shot after shot (as evidenced by the fact that Harry the robot has never shot 300, so to expect every ball to react the same way is asinine), and C). even shots 6 and 7 weren't perfectly identical even though it was the same ball on the same line. You cherry-picking data from a test that conclusively proves that static weights are irrlevant is quintessential Steven idiot logic.
--------------------
"Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein."

-Broadcasting Extraordinaire and Mensa Member Joe Theismann

The Stroke · « **Reply #18 on:** February 19, 2010, 11:47:47 AM »

+1, he wins. go home steven.
--------------------
Toodles

OddBalls · « **Reply #19 on:** February 19, 2010, 12:03:22 PM »

So, to be clear, cgnomaddamuch..

--------------------
Yes. it's I, the Inverted One..

Steven · « **Reply #20 on:** February 19, 2010, 12:14:13 PM »

quote:
The only thing I can even think you''re trying to use from the video to prove your case is the difference between shots 6, 7, and 8. Shots 6 and 7 (positive weight) go through the face. Shot 8 (negative weight) lays off enough to trip the 4, so you''ll probably go on and on about how it hooked less because it had negative weight.

Crusty: Very good. I didn''t expect the trolls to get this piece of the analysis, but I thought you would. The visual analysis is hard to dispute. Your analysis (which is accurate) speaks for itself.

quote:
Except you conveniently forget to mention A). there was essentially (key word being essentially, don''t want you to spin my words after reading my next two points) no difference from shots 1-5 in terms of reaction,

Since I didn''t say anything to begin with (I wanted to see if anyone would expend a little effort and provide analysis), I didn''t ''conveniently'' leave anything out. But your point about shots 1-5 is well taken. For 1-5, the lane was in pristine condition. It''s the same behavior we see in real life. On fresh THS lanes, you can throw almost anything and get the same reaction. Ball variables start coming into play when oil shifts a little bit. We saw that exposed in the second 5 shots. As Billy Yinger said when he watched the video, "If only Brunswick had continued the sequence...."

Actually, the behavior in the video is visual validation of USBC study conclusions:

http://www.bowlingdigital.com/bowl/node/2814

The pertinent passage is the following:

quote:
Some key statistics from this test are that the positive center of gravity ball is two boards stronger on the back end in the oil than the negative center of gravity ball and the positive CG ball is a foot and a quarter sooner than the negative CG ball.

Isn''t it amazing how USBC written conclusions and visuals from the Brunswick video coincide?

There''s no question that CG does matter to some degree. Anyone who says that a break length difference of 1.25 feet and a backend difference of 2 boards "doesn''t matter" is either completely dishonest or clueless.

My point in responding here, again, was to indicate that for the most part, understanding and using CG placement for you own needs isn''t going to make or break your performance at the USBC tournament, so dispense with the ball weight-in. I still believe that.

Edited on 2/19/2010 1:36 PM

ToiletLogCore · « **Reply #21 on:** February 19, 2010, 12:15:10 PM »

quote:
So, to be clear, cgnomaddamuch..

--------------------
Yes. it's I, the Inverted One..

To be clear CG matters less than the temp outside, the speed of the fans, how hard the AC is blowing, the rate at which the toilet flushes and now the steam coming from Stevens head because no one will follow in his mythical point.
--------------------
You've just been handed a little TLC

Steven · « **Reply #22 on:** February 19, 2010, 12:27:55 PM »

quote:
To be clear CG matters less than the temp outside, the speed of the fans, how hard the AC is blowing, the rate at which the toilet flushes and now the steam coming from Stevens head because no one will follow in his mythical point.

ToiletMan: Actually, read the following USBC study:

http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/08ballmotionstudy.pdf

In there you'll see that side weight matters more than room humidity, room temperature and lane temperature.

Anyway, I love how the argument conveniently shifts from 'cgnomaddah' to 'cgnomaddamuch'.

sport300 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 19, 2010, 12:47:24 PM »

to be brief, cg is non factor in ball motion as brunswick stated. it's when you
start placing weight holes that changes the equation.(my .02 cents)

Uncle Crusty · « **Reply #24 on:** February 19, 2010, 12:56:03 PM »

quote:
http://www.bowlingdigital.com/bowl/node/2814

The pertinent passage is the following:

quote:
Some key statistics from this test are that the positive center of gravity ball is two boards stronger on the back end in the oil than the negative center of gravity ball and the positive CG ball is a foot and a quarter sooner than the negative CG ball.

Isn't it amazing how USBC written conclusions and visuals from the Brunswick video coincide?

There's no question that CG does matter to some degree. Anyone who says that a break length difference of 1.25 feet and a backend difference of 2 boards "doesn't matter" is either completely dishonest or clueless.

It's true, the study does say that. But there's a glaring problem with the study that you conveniently forget (or didn't think) to mention. Looking at the picture, both balls have the same pin position, the only difference being the CGs are swung out in opposite directions.

But that means the two core angles (core angle being the line through the pin and CG in relation to the line through the pin and axis) are completely different, especially since the axis isn't going to change because of Harry's knack for repeating shots. Since it's known that different core angles on equipment with identical ending statics makes a difference, two variables have been changed in this test, which automatically invalidates the results. What fraction of that 10% difference the test claims statics makes is actually due to different core dynamics? No one knows, but I bet it's significant.

If you wanted to faithfully test the difference statics makes, you'd need to find a way to drill the test balls in the same exact way while simultaneously altering the statics (and ONLY the statics). You can't ignore core angles to change statics, because that's not isolating one variable.

quote:
My point in responding here, again, was to indicate that for the most part, understanding and using CG placement for you own needs isn't going to make or break your performance at the USBC tournament, do dispense with the ball weight-in. I still believe that.

Your point is well-taken here. I will also grant you the fact that statics definitely make a difference in ball reaction.

Say you have a perfectly-balanced merry-go-round. Then you take a very small mass and place it at the edge and spin it. Will the merry-go-round still be perfectly balanced? No, of course not. It will wobble, and you can therefore claim the mass has most definitely made a difference in the motion of the merry-go-round. But will anyone be able to notice the wobble (especially given the mass is but a small fraction of the total system mass, just like a fraction of an ounce of sideweight in a 15 pound bowling ball)? No, of course not.

I'm not debating statics don't matter at all. Technically, they do. However, the effect is so negligible that it's not worth controlling so finely. There are so many more significant factors under our control (surface, core orientation, etc.), and even more significant factors not under our control (humidity, temperature, etc.), that it's not worth putting so many eggs in the statics basket. It just isn't.
--------------------
"Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein."

-Broadcasting Extraordinaire and Mensa Member Joe Theismann

J_w73 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 19, 2010, 01:26:03 PM »

quote:
It's true, the study does say that. But there's a glaring problem with the study that you conveniently forget (or didn't think) to mention. Looking at the picture, both balls have the same pin position, the only difference being the CGs are swung out in opposite directions.

But that means the two core angles (core angle being the line through the pin and CG in relation to the line through the pin and axis) are completely different, especially since the axis isn't going to change because of Harry's knack for repeating shots. Since it's known that different core angles on equipment with identical ending statics makes a difference, two variables have been changed in this test, which automatically invalidates the results. What fraction of that 10% difference the test claims statics makes is actually due to different core dynamics? No one knows, but I bet it's significant.

If you wanted to faithfully test the difference statics makes, you'd need to find a way to drill the test balls in the same exact way while simultaneously altering the statics (and ONLY the statics). You can't ignore core angles to change statics, because that's not isolating one variable.

This was my point that I wish it was more scientific. You need to hold as many variables as constant as possible. The video says although the core is in a different orientation that it doesn't matter cause it is only XX.XX of an inch difference in location... You can't just make that assumption that it won't effect the outcome.

You are correct about the proper way the test should be done.
--------------------
18 mph,350 rpm,PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8up, 15 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
HighGame 300 x 4, High Series 808
Book Average 205,PBA Xperience 185

Steven · « **Reply #26 on:** February 19, 2010, 01:27:54 PM »

quote:
If you wanted to faithfully test the difference statics makes, you'd need to find a way to drill the test balls in the same exact way while simultaneously altering the statics (and ONLY the statics). You can't ignore core angles to change statics, because that's not isolating one variable.

Crusty: Good analysis and point well made. I'm guessing that the USBC was focusing narrowly on CG placement while keeping the other variables constant. If you're going to explore the "cg-placement-nomaddah" question, which the USBC was doing, their methodology made sense.

quote:
I'm not debating statics don't matter at all. Technically, they do. However, the effect is so negligible that it's not worth controlling so finely. There are so many more significant factors under our control (surface, core orientation, etc.),

I think we're in agreement more than not. There are many factors more important. I spend much more time working equipment on the spinner than I do thinking about CG placement. But it is a factor I consider in setting up a ball, even if it only means a few boards difference in reaction. When I set a ball up for drilling, I want to get desired hook shape as close to the objective as possible.

I just get annoyed with this constant parroting of 'cgnomaddah' where most who say it don't have a clue as to what it means.

OddBalls · « **Reply #27 on:** February 19, 2010, 01:31:06 PM »

quote:
Anyway, I love how the argument conveniently shifts from 'cgnomaddah' to 'cgnomaddamuch'.

I thought you might like that!

--------------------
Yes. it's I, the Inverted One..

Steven · « **Reply #28 on:** February 19, 2010, 01:55:50 PM »

quote:
steven, crawl back into ritchies ars and dont come back out to play with the big boys...you are still and idiot and have no clue..uncle crusty has owned you but you can continue to dodge the points he makes but it clearly makes you look more like a re'tard than you already do...

cgssuk: You're still limited with the comprehension threshold of an Amoeba. One thing guaranteed by these discussions is that it draws out every half-witt, dim-witt, and no-witt from the shadows. And you're guaranteed to be head of the line.

You clearly didn't read or comprehend the discussion I had with Crusty. He didn't dispute the findings, but instead questioned the USBC test methodology. Anyone who has that issue is free to take it up with the USBC Equipment Specifications and Certification department.

BTW, the only one 'owned' is you -- by being a prisoner of your own laughable ignorance.

riggs · « **Reply #29 on:** February 19, 2010, 03:43:42 PM »

Steven, thanks for the link -- I updated my blog to include it!

Author Topic: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs (Read 3805 times)

riggs

Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

The Stroke

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

Uncle Crusty

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

The Stroke

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

OddBalls

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

Steven

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

ToiletLogCore

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

Steven

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

sport300

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

Uncle Crusty

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

J_w73

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

Steven

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

OddBalls

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

Steven

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs

riggs

Re: Ball weighing to be cut at USBCs