What the plastic ball championship has shown us
- Thread starter GeorgeF
- Start date
jason_doust
The Bowling Geek
Mostly back on topic fellas...
George, I like the idea of tightening lane oiling ratios. Always have, so we're on the same page there. If golf courses were like house shots, fairways would be concrete and shaped like a gutter that drains into the hole, which would be made bigger to simulate the splash hits modern balls get for no athletic effort!
Restricting free hook in the balls is also an obvious possible solution to bowling's current problems. If today's bowling balls were golf balls, you could hit them 5 miles! Has Golf suffered as a result of restricting technology to protect the integrity of the game? Not really.
While you'll probably continue to argue against restricting the amount of free hook in the bowling balls, consider this. Bowling ball technology is nowhere near the end of the line. There have been prototype balls made that can't be kept on the lane by anyone with a hook release. Nobody's released this kind of technology because there's so many more balls to be made and sold between where we are now and these balls. What's particularly interesting is that these prototype balls meet today's specifications.
You have to ask why increases on current restrictions to free hook were shot down and who shot it down? I suspect that there were a vanguard of ball company reps and engineers leading the charge as they have far and away the greatest vested interest. At some point the USBC will realise that it, in conjunction with the WTBA can call the shots. They just need to take careful aim, then hold the line.
Yes, your argument regarding friction makes sense, especially in the reductio ad absurdum method you have delivered it. I'm not disputing that the patterns are a big, big problem. I'm adding that balls are an even bigger one. Put down a flattish pattern and pretty soon, the balls remove the oil and you have a reverse block. Especially on the right, where times the traffic and surface topography are bigger issues and playing the edge is rarely an option. Players get better reaction where the surface has been worn down by reactive balls and that means the track area around and just outside 10 board. Once the balls pump the oil off it, then you get an OB.
So, to explore your argument, What if I gave you a plastic ball on the great wall of China on LH 22 board and I get reactive ball (not heavily sanded as you suggest - I haven't needed one of those, ever) on a blend outside RH10 with a small OB outside RH2 that gives me about 8 boards of tube? Advantage me. It's just as meaningless an argument, but it meets your criteria and I think you'd have a lousy time with a plastic ball inside 20 board, unless you ignored the pattern and hurled it up 5 board, which negates the pattern argument. The premises of the argument are too variable, denying it the ability to be cogent.
So, taking the extreme ends of the argument away, we seem to agree on lanes needing a tighter ratio. More oil outside would help, but not remediate damage done to them by reactive balls, especially those with high surface profile, either by sanding or inherent RA value. (RA is a measure of surface topography, folks.) These balls are abrading the bowling lanes. Take longer on synthetics, but the longer they're walled up, the shorter their lifespan is. Campbelltown uses very little oil outside 10 board and their lane surface was quite damaged before they replaced them last year from reports I heard. (Which are hopefully factually correct.) Walling up the house is an expensive business, long term.
What's so wrong with restricting balls that are specifically designed to reward bad technique before they get even more stupid? When do we wake from the dream?
What the Plastic Ball event has definitely shown us both times so far, is that plastic doesn't chew the pattern up. Players on both sides are represented more proportionally with the general population in this format, probably because players can make moves at a similar rate on both sides of the lane. Scores are high because players stay lined up longer and the pattern is of such a reduced volume that the equipment carries.
It also showed us that the 16lb ball, requiring greater strength and possibly athleticism has an advantage in this type of event, which is no longer the case with reactives.
(Sorry this post is so long. There's a lot to cover.)
George, I like the idea of tightening lane oiling ratios. Always have, so we're on the same page there. If golf courses were like house shots, fairways would be concrete and shaped like a gutter that drains into the hole, which would be made bigger to simulate the splash hits modern balls get for no athletic effort!
Restricting free hook in the balls is also an obvious possible solution to bowling's current problems. If today's bowling balls were golf balls, you could hit them 5 miles! Has Golf suffered as a result of restricting technology to protect the integrity of the game? Not really.
While you'll probably continue to argue against restricting the amount of free hook in the bowling balls, consider this. Bowling ball technology is nowhere near the end of the line. There have been prototype balls made that can't be kept on the lane by anyone with a hook release. Nobody's released this kind of technology because there's so many more balls to be made and sold between where we are now and these balls. What's particularly interesting is that these prototype balls meet today's specifications.
You have to ask why increases on current restrictions to free hook were shot down and who shot it down? I suspect that there were a vanguard of ball company reps and engineers leading the charge as they have far and away the greatest vested interest. At some point the USBC will realise that it, in conjunction with the WTBA can call the shots. They just need to take careful aim, then hold the line.
Yes, your argument regarding friction makes sense, especially in the reductio ad absurdum method you have delivered it. I'm not disputing that the patterns are a big, big problem. I'm adding that balls are an even bigger one. Put down a flattish pattern and pretty soon, the balls remove the oil and you have a reverse block. Especially on the right, where times the traffic and surface topography are bigger issues and playing the edge is rarely an option. Players get better reaction where the surface has been worn down by reactive balls and that means the track area around and just outside 10 board. Once the balls pump the oil off it, then you get an OB.
So, to explore your argument, What if I gave you a plastic ball on the great wall of China on LH 22 board and I get reactive ball (not heavily sanded as you suggest - I haven't needed one of those, ever) on a blend outside RH10 with a small OB outside RH2 that gives me about 8 boards of tube? Advantage me. It's just as meaningless an argument, but it meets your criteria and I think you'd have a lousy time with a plastic ball inside 20 board, unless you ignored the pattern and hurled it up 5 board, which negates the pattern argument. The premises of the argument are too variable, denying it the ability to be cogent.
So, taking the extreme ends of the argument away, we seem to agree on lanes needing a tighter ratio. More oil outside would help, but not remediate damage done to them by reactive balls, especially those with high surface profile, either by sanding or inherent RA value. (RA is a measure of surface topography, folks.) These balls are abrading the bowling lanes. Take longer on synthetics, but the longer they're walled up, the shorter their lifespan is. Campbelltown uses very little oil outside 10 board and their lane surface was quite damaged before they replaced them last year from reports I heard. (Which are hopefully factually correct.) Walling up the house is an expensive business, long term.
What's so wrong with restricting balls that are specifically designed to reward bad technique before they get even more stupid? When do we wake from the dream?
What the Plastic Ball event has definitely shown us both times so far, is that plastic doesn't chew the pattern up. Players on both sides are represented more proportionally with the general population in this format, probably because players can make moves at a similar rate on both sides of the lane. Scores are high because players stay lined up longer and the pattern is of such a reduced volume that the equipment carries.
It also showed us that the 16lb ball, requiring greater strength and possibly athleticism has an advantage in this type of event, which is no longer the case with reactives.
(Sorry this post is so long. There's a lot to cover.)
jimcross
Active Member
I'm seriously out of my depth even entering this conversation with George and Jason, because of my miniscule understanding of modern reactives, or the capabilities of to-days oiling machines. Even having that disadvantage, I find that some basic things seem to be ageless. At this point Jason, my apologies for cutting selected bits out of your quoted post, but I hope you see why as I go on.
As I was reading through all the posts on this thread earlier, it occurred to me that when I was bowling in Leagues, Comps and Tournaments, and even on TV, way back in the early '60s, and there were conversations about someones particularly good series or game or winning performance in a Tournament, NOBODY would have wondered, let alone asked, what ball was used.
Everybody KNEW what sort of ball it was!. It was round, it had three holes in it, it was most probably black, and it weighed 16 pounds!
Why would anyone need to ask? It wasn't relevant to a bowlers performance.
That's getting close to the point Jason was making in his end remarks above.
50 Years on!
I suggest that if you took our best bowlers in the 60s, and entered them in the recent Plastic Ball Championship they would have blended into that field perfectly. If you took a selection of those who recently competed in that Championship and inserted them into an Australian top Tourny in the 60s, you'd get a similar result.
Looking at the rest of Jason's remarks, surely must make some people ask, just where is the true advantage in allowing virtually unrestricted ball technology?
Who does it advantage? Lets make a list.
1. The Ball Companies. Why? Where one ball could be expected to have a life of 5 to 10 years, or until it got damaged in a machine, to-day a reasonably active bowler with a few tournament appearances added to his home centre bowling would buy how many balls over a 5 to 10 year period? You tell me! So, definately the ball companies.
2. The Ball Drillers and Pro Shops ( sorry Jason) Why? See reasons above.
3 ? 3 ? There must be someone else, musn't there? Oh yes, there we are - I forgot the bowlers. Silly me! So,
3. The Bowler. Now, the advantages to the bowler are: Gets higher scores with less effort. Problem is, so does everyone else.........Not if you outspend them...... Funny though, some are always still in front of me. I bowl a 220 average: trouble is they're bowling 240.
Funny that, my grandad told me he bowled a 170 average way back then: trouble was, a few others were bowling a 190 average. Funny that.
bluey
Member
Hi Jason, given that ball technology isn't going to go backwards any time soon, and most conditions as you pointed out wall up eventually, could something be done with the pins? I'm certainly no expert on the matter, in fact the amount that l know about bowling would barely fill a tea cup, actually l don't think l could even fill the saucer that a tea cup comes on. I was speaking to someone that does have a clue and their suggestion was to either remove the void from the pin or make them heavier. Maybe make the pins bottom heavy instead of top heavy. John Gant (The Buzzsaw) apparently left the game due to the problem of having pins not heavy enough? Now there's a lefty that could rip the rack! As l said, l'm no expert and l'm sure that l will be corrected if l have made any false statements by others that seem to know everything.
John Gant left the game because apparently his wife could make double at her job than what he could from the Tour.
Plus, according from some pretty reliable sources, he was hosed from winning more events, because he wasn't the stereotypical lefty they wanted on TV... It was all about Earl, and Mike Aulby. There's a topic somewhere on the PBA forum about it, unless it's been deleted. All about bouncing a basketball up the left side.... seriously.
I'm wondering if Wayne Chester knows any more about this... As he would have been there at the time.
Plus, according from some pretty reliable sources, he was hosed from winning more events, because he wasn't the stereotypical lefty they wanted on TV... It was all about Earl, and Mike Aulby. There's a topic somewhere on the PBA forum about it, unless it's been deleted. All about bouncing a basketball up the left side.... seriously.
I'm wondering if Wayne Chester knows any more about this... As he would have been there at the time.
tonx
New Member
Pins being heavier hurts the scoring pace of old ladies, bumper bowling and those without the strength to create their own energy. It is therefore not an option from the business point of view of this game. It does seem the most logical option in todays game, however unless bowlers can convince centres to have 2 sets of pins for social and competitive play, this simply isnt an option.
Reactive balls help everyone score, however give a significantly greater advantage to the following:
Low rev players - it helps them create skid, hook, roll.
Players on a ball contract - no financial outlay to keep up with the latest and greatest.
Left Handers - Less traffic, better topography, not having to fight obscene overreaction by game 3 in a tournament (which those that read my blog on house shots, will understand furthur on this)
Those that have at least some knowlege of ball reaction - layouts, surface prep are more important today than actually hitting a mark.
Speed dominant players - rolling the ball yourself is not an option on 99% of conditions.
Those that are uncomfortable playing inside 10 board - without free friction players have to be balanced at the line inside to carry.
Those financially better off than others - not everyone is fortunate enough to be on contract, but if 2-3k is part of your disposable income, you can still keep up.
Those with access to elite level ball drillers - You are better off with plastic that fits over a reactive ball that doesn't fit. A terrible layout is also going to leave you behind the rest of the field.
Oh and for the record, the majority of the plastic balls in the tour event were drilled by the leading ball tech's in the world. It is pretty amazing what a well positioned large balance hole can do to help axis migration and downlane ball reaction, even more significantly on a ball without any guts to begin with. Placing a large hole on the High RG axis will increase RG-Differential on a pancake weight block (usually around the 0.008-0.015 range) to around 0.030 (which is just below most midranged reactive balls on the market today) It will also create extra asymmetry, which in turn creates a higher RG around the PAP meaning more energy retention, recovery and continuation with lower surface grits.
Top that with a nice and opened up ball surface and players with any sort of release, balance and speed control, and even on most centres house shots the scores will still be high.
Reactive balls help everyone score, however give a significantly greater advantage to the following:
Low rev players - it helps them create skid, hook, roll.
Players on a ball contract - no financial outlay to keep up with the latest and greatest.
Left Handers - Less traffic, better topography, not having to fight obscene overreaction by game 3 in a tournament (which those that read my blog on house shots, will understand furthur on this)
Those that have at least some knowlege of ball reaction - layouts, surface prep are more important today than actually hitting a mark.
Speed dominant players - rolling the ball yourself is not an option on 99% of conditions.
Those that are uncomfortable playing inside 10 board - without free friction players have to be balanced at the line inside to carry.
Those financially better off than others - not everyone is fortunate enough to be on contract, but if 2-3k is part of your disposable income, you can still keep up.
Those with access to elite level ball drillers - You are better off with plastic that fits over a reactive ball that doesn't fit. A terrible layout is also going to leave you behind the rest of the field.
Oh and for the record, the majority of the plastic balls in the tour event were drilled by the leading ball tech's in the world. It is pretty amazing what a well positioned large balance hole can do to help axis migration and downlane ball reaction, even more significantly on a ball without any guts to begin with. Placing a large hole on the High RG axis will increase RG-Differential on a pancake weight block (usually around the 0.008-0.015 range) to around 0.030 (which is just below most midranged reactive balls on the market today) It will also create extra asymmetry, which in turn creates a higher RG around the PAP meaning more energy retention, recovery and continuation with lower surface grits.
Top that with a nice and opened up ball surface and players with any sort of release, balance and speed control, and even on most centres house shots the scores will still be high.
Resurrection
Bowling Tragic
People have been making these exact same comments for the past 10+ years, I have been one of them. When it comes down to it really it doesn't matter what condition or equipment is used the cream will always rise to the top. Yes 300's are a common occurrence in today's given equipment lane surface conditions etc but you still have to put the ball in the right areas. What I would like to see is a longer tighter ratio pattern for our major tournaments then I might actually consider it value for money because at the moment 250-300 bucks for 16 games of bumper bowling is not value for money. Lets try and get centres' to make a 2/2.5-1 ratio to around 45ft-48ft available for bowlers to bowl on and then put a similar condition down for our majors. Just my 2 cents.
Matthew Lambrick
Matthew Lambrick
jason_doust
The Bowling Geek
I think there's a few of us on this line of thought. I'm with you Matthew and am looking forward to Melbourne Cup for this reason.
As for house shots, I'd like to see about 5 or 6:1, depending on the surface condition. Not like the 10-12:1, (which might as well be Infinity:1) we see now. 5-6:1 at say, 39ft circa 18-20mls will result in a multiple angle shot. For the record, Tuggeranong has something like this and I'm averaging under 200 on it. That's OK, as I feel I'm throwing it at about that pace. (No time to practice.)
jason_doust
The Bowling Geek
That post is on the money Tonx. It contains many of the issues I left out of my last one to keep it on one page!
On the plastic balls, we used to use those layouts in the 80's to create flare. I used to own a Wayne Webb Gyro I drilled like the ball Brian Ziesig used. Stuart Erwin and Eric Jang experimented heavily in this stuff with some great results for the time. On PBA Xtra Frame, Ziesig's ball rep commented that the layout came from Mo Pinel, who had used CAD solid modeling to create the maximum differential in the ball.
On pins, USBC experimented with heavier pins and it just widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots. 15lb low RG reactive balls still knocked them down, while lighter weights and slower speeds suffered badly.
As a lady I spoke to yesterday afternoon (who no longer bowls) said to me. "I stopped bowling because it just came down to how big your wallet was." An interesting comment with the ring of truth about it.
Jason,
All very good points made.
I would like to throw another issue into the mix
What about wrist gaurds
My view is they border on cheating, Cheating is a harsh word
and I don't mean that people are cheating It is a turn of phrase.
To me wrist gaurds have come so far now they do a job for the
bowler and it is something they dont have to think about
Unless you have a weak or injured wrist you should not
use them and then they should be a support gaurd and
not a bowling relaeas aid
What do you think of that one !!!
Cheers
Geoff
jimcross
Active Member
Jason, I'm trying to understand more on this. Can you indulge me and explain what I think you said re 15lb balls above? If you meant that low RG balls knocked pins down better, ( presumably than high RG ones ) can you tell me why high or low RG makes a difference once the ball has reached the pins? Or have I misunderstood what you meant?
jimcross
Active Member
Geoff, you'll notice on my 'Avatar" that I haven't got a Wrist Support !!!
Jim
Good to see no Wrist Gaurd
I dont use one, I tried one for a couple
of games about 25 years ago and chucked it !!! LOL
tonx
New Member
Jim,
Extremely low rg (think centre heavy) cores act like the ice skater bringing their arms in and getting lower on the ice. They speed up their revolutions considerably. Low RG bowling balls will "rev" much faster with less effort by the bowler than High RG bowling balls.
HOWEVER...
The Low RG itself isn't an issue. With an older urethane cover that reads the lanes early, this would result in a ball that hooks very early and loses its rotational energy very quickly resulting in a flat hit. Combine a low RG core with a reactive resin cover, which is (compared to urethane) designed to skid more in oil and generate friction quicker when they reach the dry boards and you have a ball that not only revs up quickly and easily but also a ball that will retain energy downlane resulting in a much harder hit.
Hope this helps, I tried to keep it as simple as possible.
Extremely low rg (think centre heavy) cores act like the ice skater bringing their arms in and getting lower on the ice. They speed up their revolutions considerably. Low RG bowling balls will "rev" much faster with less effort by the bowler than High RG bowling balls.
HOWEVER...
The Low RG itself isn't an issue. With an older urethane cover that reads the lanes early, this would result in a ball that hooks very early and loses its rotational energy very quickly resulting in a flat hit. Combine a low RG core with a reactive resin cover, which is (compared to urethane) designed to skid more in oil and generate friction quicker when they reach the dry boards and you have a ball that not only revs up quickly and easily but also a ball that will retain energy downlane resulting in a much harder hit.
Hope this helps, I tried to keep it as simple as possible.
jimcross
Active Member
Thanks tonx - that's great. Like philby says, even I understand that.
Bear with me a bit longer - would that translate to a high RG, urethane ball hooking late, and retaining - [ a little - some - above mid-range - a lot - ] of energy? Say comparitively with the low RG reactive?
Bear with me a bit longer - would that translate to a high RG, urethane ball hooking late, and retaining - [ a little - some - above mid-range - a lot - ] of energy? Say comparitively with the low RG reactive?
jason_doust
The Bowling Geek
Hi Jim,
Yes, pro shop operators stand to benefit from less durable balls. (There's not many balls that last 5 years now. Even with regular resurfacing.)
But I care about bowling and what's happened to it more than making a few sales. Bowling ball companies make the money now and companies that install lanes are probably benefiting because they wear out faster now too. That said, because it's become a game of "how many balls can you drill up before you match up?", people are leaving, reducing the money to be made overall.
As for pins, they were lighter then. Minimum pin weight was raised by the then American Bowling Congress from 3lb 4 oz to 3lb 6 oz in the 1980's as a result of urethane balls. Maximum of 3lb 10 oz remains the same. Yes, a long time ago, pins didn't have voids and the covers weren't as durable or energy reflective and that also made them a lot harder to knock over. But the thing that made it hardest was old ball technology.
A rubber ball with a cork/rubber fill material just hits like a sponge compared to even a plastic ball with a polyester core. Increase the friction with a urethane cover and it hits harder, but still burns energy sooner than a reactive.
But look up "Radius of Gyration" (RG) on Google and look at not only how this affects the spin speed of an object, but also the impact qualities. Lower RG balls can be spun faster and will hit much harder. Remember when the black Hammer came out? It made a lot more noise in the pins than balls before it. Then the ball companies wrap that core in a fill material designed to absorb or reflect impact energy (coefficient of restitution) at the optimum level for that core, then they wrap that fill material in a material that develops an incredibly high level of friction once heated up by the dry backend (reactive resin) that just about eliminates deflection for all but the weakest of releases.
That's why reactive balls first came out, they were called "cheater balls". The balls described as this then would be lower than much of today's entry level gear in reaction. We're really cheating these days.
Even worse, balls from the last 5-10 years, suck the oil right off the lane surface by design. I've bowled 300 and a couple of 299's making 4-5 moves in the game! And this is just in league play. It gets worse in a tournament where more aggressive gear comes out.
Technology has done wonders for the bowling ball. But is it really doing us good? Some very clever people have turned bowling into chucking. The onus has been diametrically turned from creating roll to creating skid to allow the next big thing to get down the lane.
jimcross
Active Member
Similar threads
