Graeme Rose
New Member
Hello All,
We have three major problems to deal with, Balls, Friction and Gravity.
(The other problems are kickbacks, flat gutters, pindecks and pins.) These would require a separate discussion on their own!
Modern ball construction methods have created more 'hook' through the
use of 'particle' cover stock and high differential cores. These balls tend to greatly magnify any action imparted by the player at the time of release.This becomes a big problem when
players are faced with conditions other than 'THS'. Lower ratio patterns have less margin for error and require a very consistent release. Most bowlers never achieve this because the equipment and 'THS' compensate for their errors and have removed the need to practice to achieve scores of 200 or more.
We cannot 'fix' the ball problem...... the horse has bolted, so to speak. The USBC sets the rules regarding cover stock, Rg etc. and because of the size of the US market we are stuck
with the USBC regulations. There is some merit in the suggestions made in some other threads, 'one ball' tournaments etc. But the value of these ideas can only be realized by fixing the other two main problems.
Friction is, simply, dictated by the application of lane conditioner. Once upon a time, condtioner was applied to a lane to protect the lane surface. Through the combination of high ratio patterns, modern balls and synthetic lanes this is now only partially true. I have seen lanes where the 'top hat' has been burnt into the surface through the application of a high ratio pattern and the use of 'particle' balls. The abrasive surface of the balls has polished the lane surface outside of the heavy application of conditioner in the centre of the lane.
The prevalence of 'THS' has come about because of two things. The biggest reason is the proprietor of the centre wanting to attract or retain bowlers by making the lanes 'easy'. The second reason is that high ratio patterns can partially compensate for some topography issue.(The second usually comes about by accident rather than design.) The reverse is also true, I have seen first hand the problems created when you apply a WTBA pattern to bad topography.
Lower ratio patterns will result in lower scores. But how much lower?
A centre that I have worked closely with for the last year has a house shot with a ratio of about 6:1. Bowlers at this centre have bowled 5 or more 300's this year and at a recent event I watched a local bowler averaged 240+ over 10 games. High ratio patterns can also discourage newer bowlers as shooting for spares on these patterns becomes more difficult and their ball reacts in ways that defy common sense. (We are talking about 'plastic' balls here).
Which bring us to out third problem.... Gravity. On a fairly flat lane surface
gravity has very little effect on a rolling ball. Today's lanes are far from flat
and because synthetic lanes have been sold to proprietors as a '30 year product' the amount of maintenance being done to keep lanes flat has been decreasing. I said before that 'THS' can partially compensate for bad topography, but only partially. Research has shown that gravity has the biggest influence on a rolling ball when the surface that it is rolling on is not flat.
The fact that two out of these three are invisible to the player makes the problems even worse. On some combinations of pattern & topography the ball will react in ways that don't seem to make sense.
Please read some of the articles written by Ted Thompson at http://www.kegel.net/library/foarticles.asp?ikodyazar=10
He explains all this far better than I can.
How do we deal with all this? Bad topography needs to be fixed, but how?
If we just tell the proprietors to fix it and bring in some really tight regulations
to police it the costs to proprietors would be prohibitive. What we need to do first is determine the extent of the problem in each centre. This can be done for a modest cost per centre. Then we have a chance to implement new regulations and checking procedures that will allow things to be fixed without breaking the bank.
Once we are on this path we can sensibly look at 'grading' lane patterns as we will now be able to compare lane patterns and not topography. Information on topography and oil patterns should be openly available to everyone. This will help to make these factors more 'visible' to the player.
How do we ensure that the displayed patterns are what is actually applied to a lane? The best method is inspection. Any surface, equipment or apparatus used for competitive sport is subject to random inspection. The amount and depth of inspection depends on the level of competition. How often lanes are inspected and by who (and who pays for the inspection) would be a topic in itself. I have read the posts regarding sanction fees and I could make some educated guesses to what a national topography and pattern inspection schedule would add to those fees (and the reaction) if the costs were covered solely by the TBA.
Sorry for the length of the post, but this is a complex issue and I have only brushed the surface.
We have three major problems to deal with, Balls, Friction and Gravity.
(The other problems are kickbacks, flat gutters, pindecks and pins.) These would require a separate discussion on their own!
Modern ball construction methods have created more 'hook' through the
use of 'particle' cover stock and high differential cores. These balls tend to greatly magnify any action imparted by the player at the time of release.This becomes a big problem when
players are faced with conditions other than 'THS'. Lower ratio patterns have less margin for error and require a very consistent release. Most bowlers never achieve this because the equipment and 'THS' compensate for their errors and have removed the need to practice to achieve scores of 200 or more.
We cannot 'fix' the ball problem...... the horse has bolted, so to speak. The USBC sets the rules regarding cover stock, Rg etc. and because of the size of the US market we are stuck
with the USBC regulations. There is some merit in the suggestions made in some other threads, 'one ball' tournaments etc. But the value of these ideas can only be realized by fixing the other two main problems.
Friction is, simply, dictated by the application of lane conditioner. Once upon a time, condtioner was applied to a lane to protect the lane surface. Through the combination of high ratio patterns, modern balls and synthetic lanes this is now only partially true. I have seen lanes where the 'top hat' has been burnt into the surface through the application of a high ratio pattern and the use of 'particle' balls. The abrasive surface of the balls has polished the lane surface outside of the heavy application of conditioner in the centre of the lane.
The prevalence of 'THS' has come about because of two things. The biggest reason is the proprietor of the centre wanting to attract or retain bowlers by making the lanes 'easy'. The second reason is that high ratio patterns can partially compensate for some topography issue.(The second usually comes about by accident rather than design.) The reverse is also true, I have seen first hand the problems created when you apply a WTBA pattern to bad topography.
Lower ratio patterns will result in lower scores. But how much lower?
A centre that I have worked closely with for the last year has a house shot with a ratio of about 6:1. Bowlers at this centre have bowled 5 or more 300's this year and at a recent event I watched a local bowler averaged 240+ over 10 games. High ratio patterns can also discourage newer bowlers as shooting for spares on these patterns becomes more difficult and their ball reacts in ways that defy common sense. (We are talking about 'plastic' balls here).
Which bring us to out third problem.... Gravity. On a fairly flat lane surface
gravity has very little effect on a rolling ball. Today's lanes are far from flat
and because synthetic lanes have been sold to proprietors as a '30 year product' the amount of maintenance being done to keep lanes flat has been decreasing. I said before that 'THS' can partially compensate for bad topography, but only partially. Research has shown that gravity has the biggest influence on a rolling ball when the surface that it is rolling on is not flat.
The fact that two out of these three are invisible to the player makes the problems even worse. On some combinations of pattern & topography the ball will react in ways that don't seem to make sense.
Please read some of the articles written by Ted Thompson at http://www.kegel.net/library/foarticles.asp?ikodyazar=10
He explains all this far better than I can.
How do we deal with all this? Bad topography needs to be fixed, but how?
If we just tell the proprietors to fix it and bring in some really tight regulations
to police it the costs to proprietors would be prohibitive. What we need to do first is determine the extent of the problem in each centre. This can be done for a modest cost per centre. Then we have a chance to implement new regulations and checking procedures that will allow things to be fixed without breaking the bank.
Once we are on this path we can sensibly look at 'grading' lane patterns as we will now be able to compare lane patterns and not topography. Information on topography and oil patterns should be openly available to everyone. This will help to make these factors more 'visible' to the player.
How do we ensure that the displayed patterns are what is actually applied to a lane? The best method is inspection. Any surface, equipment or apparatus used for competitive sport is subject to random inspection. The amount and depth of inspection depends on the level of competition. How often lanes are inspected and by who (and who pays for the inspection) would be a topic in itself. I have read the posts regarding sanction fees and I could make some educated guesses to what a national topography and pattern inspection schedule would add to those fees (and the reaction) if the costs were covered solely by the TBA.
Sorry for the length of the post, but this is a complex issue and I have only brushed the surface.
