No thumb rule change.
- Thread starter RobbieB
- Start date
.
it would be from the bridge if the hole can not be used.
i guess the next argument would be in the demonstration of the use of the thumb hole, my guessing they need to throw one shot using the hole. let's make it three games using the thumb hole. that would prove if it is balance hole or thumb hole.
i guess the next argument would be in the demonstration of the use of the thumb hole, my guessing they need to throw one shot using the hole. let's make it three games using the thumb hole. that would prove if it is balance hole or thumb hole.
Greg Robertson
Member
Jackson 93
If you don't put your thumb in the hole then it is a weight hole and not a thumb hole
regardless of weather you cover it or not. If its a weight hole then it can be your 1 and only on that ball
assuming that TBA adopts the rule change of course
If you don't put your thumb in the hole then it is a weight hole and not a thumb hole
regardless of weather you cover it or not. If its a weight hole then it can be your 1 and only on that ball
assuming that TBA adopts the rule change of course
nev25
-
(b) Not more than one (1) ounce difference between the sides to the right and left of the finger holes or between the sides in front and back of the finger holes
Not sure when that changed
Greg Robertson
Member
Maybe then if you are using 2 hands we call the centre of grip the centre of the ball. then you would be stuck with drilling your GRIPING holes into the CG
to make it statically legal
to make it statically legal
nev25
-
I'm confused why do you need to know centre,of the grip
RobbieB
Rodentus scientificus
Despite the retarded wording of the balance rule on both the TBA and WTBA websites, finger/thumb weight is measured referencing from the centre of the grip, not from above/below the fingers. It should be rewritten as "between the finger and thumbhole sides of the ball" imo. A diagram in the rulebook showing the different sides of the ball for both the standard grip and a no thumb grip would probably be a good idea.
Greg Robertson
Member
Agreed Robbie
jason_doust
The Bowling Geek
Good points John (and others). This is why we build buildings from drawings, not Word documents. A couple of neat diagrams would clear this up quickly.
Two things drive me mad about this rather targeted rule change and they both are based in it's lack of parity. First off, a bunch of young fellas are going to have to pony up to plug and redrill gear through no fault of their own. Considering that many of them get nearly all their gear second hand and just change the grips over, that's quite an unfair impost when they'd be using that money to practice otherwise. (Remember practice..?)
Second, bowling will bend over backwards to make things easier for the release-challenged. Wrist guards, sandpaper, super hook in a box balls with mega friction covers and crap-release improving cores that tilt the ball off the thumb hole they'd thump over all the way to another flat ten pin otherwise.
And now USBC decides that extra high leverage drillings like motion hole and double thumb are available only if you put your thumb in.
I have a higher rev rate than most two handers and can still use an extra hole without fear of sanction if I choose. You won't find me using the big "I still can't hook it" layouts though. They just turn and die if you have heavy ball roll off your hand, therefore they tend to make no significant positive difference to high rev players. Again supporting the case for the meaninglessness of this rule change.
But I know some good young blokes who are being discriminated against, economically and technically. And it makes me cross.
Especially when those who haven't been bothered to improve their game in all the decades they've been bowling get every free hook advantage under the sun with a wink and a nod from those supposedly charged with protecting the game's integrity.
You can strap on a wrist, but bring your own and they'll come after you.
It's a sad indictment on our game and not a fair co-op for these young players who are actually doing something interesting. I guess we really can't have that!
Jason
jimcross
Active Member
The game of tenpin bowling was designed to use a sphere effectively in balance, within quite close tolerances. Trouble is, or was, that the method of balancing was static balance, as weighed by a do-do scale. Static balance and dynamic balance are two very different things, as anyone with experience driving just about any car made up to around the 1960s would remember. Could be in perfect static balance and nearly pull your hands off the wheel with out of balance vibrations, at say, 80 to 100 K.
As the governing body didn't have the guts to change the rules to require dynamic balance replace static, when the first 'cheater' was made, the horse bolted and produced offspring like coverstock, core design, magic oiling machines, et-al.
Sure Jason - it's expensive - Time was when 1 ball was all you needed, and it lasted for decades. And you could take it on a 'plane with you without needing your bank manager's permission, like the 3 or 4 or 6 you need to pay for to-day. Needed to keep recruiting more players then to enhance ball sales. Not now, but surely that wasn't the reason ? It was for the good of the sport, surely, not the ball companies?
However, like I said - horse bolted - no way back. That being the case, why not just remove ALL ball rules, with the exception of probably maximum weight and size, roundness and material? Gees, even I can visualise one 300 per lane per day !!
As the governing body didn't have the guts to change the rules to require dynamic balance replace static, when the first 'cheater' was made, the horse bolted and produced offspring like coverstock, core design, magic oiling machines, et-al.
Sure Jason - it's expensive - Time was when 1 ball was all you needed, and it lasted for decades. And you could take it on a 'plane with you without needing your bank manager's permission, like the 3 or 4 or 6 you need to pay for to-day. Needed to keep recruiting more players then to enhance ball sales. Not now, but surely that wasn't the reason ? It was for the good of the sport, surely, not the ball companies?
However, like I said - horse bolted - no way back. That being the case, why not just remove ALL ball rules, with the exception of probably maximum weight and size, roundness and material? Gees, even I can visualise one 300 per lane per day !!
Aren't ball weight measurements taken from the centre of the grip? I don't care if they classify my thumb holes as balance holes since I don't have any other balance holes anyway. I just don't want to have to have it all redrilled if the weights are now not legal if the centre of the grip is now between the fingers.
Brenton_Davy
900Global bowler
They are taken from the centre of the (and here is the key word) GRIP. If you are only gripping with the fingers, then the centre of the GRIP is the centre line between the 2 outside edges of the gripping holes where it intersects the midpoint between the further most upper and lower points of the gripping holesn - ie, put more simply, the middle of the bridge
Greg Robertson
Member
Brenton I had the thought the other day (dangerous I know) that if your using 2 hands your centre of grip is actually between your 2
hands (centre of the ball). I think they need to expand on the definition of GRIP. As Jason Doust said a Picture speaks a 1000 words
and will be open to less interpretation. I agree that as it stand now your centre of grip is defined as the mid point of your gripping holes.
hands (centre of the ball). I think they need to expand on the definition of GRIP. As Jason Doust said a Picture speaks a 1000 words
and will be open to less interpretation. I agree that as it stand now your centre of grip is defined as the mid point of your gripping holes.
