New Article... Feedback?

[RobLV1]

I have added a new article to my website entitled "Modern Bowling Balls: An Alternate Approach." I decided to publish this article myself on my own website as it does contain some controversial notions about bowling balls. I would appreciate any feedback that you have to give. Here's the line: http://modern-bowling.com/Bowling-Coach-Bowling-Balls-Las-Vegas-NV.html

[djp1080]

I enjoyed reading your article Rob. I bowled quite a bit back in the 60's and 70's. Left the game around 1981 or so and came back to it a few years ago. Everything has changed like your article states. I didn't know much about urethane or resin balls and ended up researching on the internet about them. By hook or by crook I met an excellent PSO and I've stuck with him ever since.
Having worked with automated machines I've had the experience of dealing with linear and rotational motions of mechanics; therefore, inertia has a lot of meaning to someone like myself (i.e., RG, friction, etc.). Even though I have an understanding of most of that kind of stuff I'd be the worst PSO as my mechanical skills are lacking.
After having watched lots of bowling ball videos using the automated machines to throw the balls and watching videos showing ball reaction to bowling ball pin location, it was somewhat clear that friction of the ball plays a pretty big roll in how a ball may react on the lane. What really makes a difference in my opinion, is how far down the lane does that ball begin to make is move from right to left for a right-handed bowler. I've concluded that your ideas about RG come into play in a big way in that regard.
Over the last few years I have tried a number of balls and basically conducted my own tests to learn about balls before I ever came across you or BTM. Wish I had found you earlier! Perhaps your articles would have at least helped me become more knowledgeable a little quicker.
Most recently I bought two similar balls: Storm's IQ Nano and IQ Tour 30. For my tastes I took the "30" and got out a Abralon pad and took off the polish. Probably the surface is more like 3000 grit. There's not that much difference in the reaction I get between the two balls, but there might be a bit more snap when I get into the dry boards at the end of the pattern on the house shot I typically bowl on. With the reduced differential neither ball snaps all that much, but they're good performers for me and I hope I can keep them performing for a long time. I've played with other Storm products with higher differentials and different RGs. Played with a few different coverstocks with pearl, solid and hybrid. I like their Hy-Road original very much. I've noted though that some of the balls soak up more oil than others. My Hy-Road, Optimus and Vivid balls soak up oil fast. They're all different covers. The Sky Rocket soaks up oil, too, quickly; however the IQ Tour 30 with the same cover has not. The Lights Out has the same cover as the Hy-Road and the Lights Out does not soak up oil much at all. This makes no sense, but it's what I've noticed so far. I've been keeping my gear cleaned up after every session on the lanes and often I'm wiping the ball clean during games. Live and learn I guess. Keep up the good work and hope this helps...

[fokai73]

First, good read!!

all this ball crap companies throw at us is just hype to sucker every bowler to buy a bowling ball. "HYBRID" cover, marketing lingo for example. Every new release out hooks the other ball that was just released few months prior. Yet the conditions don't change much or at all. Many companies recycle their cores, change the color, and change the name of the ball.

If many bowler own a spinner and learn the art of surfacing, they too can make a solid into a pearl. OR, make a pearl act like a solid.

It's good the bowling market is producing balls for bowlers and having jobs for many people, so there's a positive side to it too. But when you see a V2 sanded still knocking pins like the new $170 storm ball, makes you wonder.....

[scottymoney]

Good article. I would say that as a player if you can find a core you match up well with it can also be advantageous to have it in different surfaces. I agree with most of what you said, and wish people put more emphasis on core and cover than they do layout. I always thought layout was something that could make or break the ball as far as reaction but when it comes down to it, I don't see all that much difference give or take a few board of difference between them. For myself 4 out of the 7 bowling balls I have drilled, have roughly the same layout, 3 have similar low RG numbers and the major differences is surface preparation. 1 is 1500, 1 is 3000, 1 is 1500 polished and 1 is 4000 polished. Coincidentally I score the best with those and make easy ball changes with them.

[jab5325]

Very thought provoking article, Rob. I hope MWhite doesn't see it ;)

Jokes aside, I'm similar to you in that when I get "in" to something like bowling, I try to soak up all of the oil...err, knowledge I can to help me improve my game. My average has gone from 174 to 187 this year, and though I still have a lot of issues picking up easy spares, that's still a 13-pin improvement thanks in large part to articles like this and people like you on this board. H/T to you, bowl1820 and many others.

Before, when I had a string of 7s or stone 9s, I'd think nothing of it and keep throwing. Now when I throw, I take notice of the overall ball reaction, break point, and entry angle--not many leaves are true mysteries anymore. Because I have a better understanding of ball motion, I know which piece to switch to based on those factors--and conversely, I know where the holes in my arsenal are.

As fokai73 said, so much of what we read about equipment from every manufacturer is pure, unadulterated BS. So many league bowlers end up with 3 versions of a bowling ball with the exact same stats, and wonder why they can't hit when the lanes are too dry or too oily.

[ChuckR]

Excellent article. Now to find an article that CLEARLY explains the impact of the RG and differential numbers.

[Amyers]

I have added a new article to my website entitled "Modern Bowling Balls: An Alternate Approach." I decided to publish this article myself on my own website as it does contain some controversial notions about bowling balls. I would appreciate any feedback that you have to give. Here's the line: http://modern-bowling.com/Bowling-Coach-Bowling-Balls-Las-Vegas-NV.html

Rob if your going to steal my talking points the very least you could do is credit me somewhere in the article. LOL. Especially on the pearl/hybrid/solid stuff.

I somewhat agree on the drilling/layout points you made. In a perfect world we would buy all of our balls from the same manufacturer use the same layout and use the ball as out progression. This is actually how modern balls are designed. I've been lucky enough to listen in on some of Brunswick's conference calls where they are discussing the adjustments from ball to ball in the line up and this is exactly what they are trying to achieve. Unfortunately most bowlers don't purchase balls in this manner. Me included when trying to incorporate balls from different manufactures and vintages it gets more complicated quickly even for people who spend way to much time watching this stuff. Then you take into account your average ball purchaser who just wants whatever the new hot thing is or thinks that one is pretty it becomes necessary for the PSO to be able to fit a square peg into a round hole and a good PSO (they are hard to find) can use different layouts to help fit that ball in. In a perfect world the PSO should be able to say no you need this instead and the bowler would listen unfortunately we know that's not often the case.

I also agree with you on the cores but it only matters if you can understand the how the core will react along with the surface and cover stock that are applied to the core. It's a little like music each instrument plays it's roll all working together it can produce a beautiful harmony but if any piece is out of tune the result can be disaster. You can't become too obsessed with any one factor in what makes up the bowling ball or you will end up with something that is different than you expect.

[RobLV1]

Excellent article. Now to find an article that CLEARLY explains the impact of the RG and differential numbers.

Let me give it a shot, Chuck. There three basic numbers that are provided for the core of each bowling ball on the market: the low RG (also called RG min), the high RG (also call RG max), and the Differential. The low RG is an actual measurement in inches of the Radius of Gyration of the X axis of the core (height). The high RG is an actual measurement in inches of the Radius of Gyration of the Y axis of the core (width). The differential is the mathematical difference when you subtract the low RG from the high RG. The high RG is a useless number for bowlers as it is easily calculated by adding the low RG and the Differential. I don't know why manufacturers include it as it does nothing other than confuse bowlers.

Think of the low RG as an indication of how center-heavy (low, low RG) the ball is, or how cover-heavy (high, low RG) the ball is. The low RG is indicative of how much resistance the core has to "revving up." The lower the low RG is, the less resistance there is to the ball revving up, and the sooner the ball will roll. The higher the low RG is, the more resistance the ball will have to revving up, and the further it will get down the lane before rolling. The idea is to find the ideal low RG for your particular roll that will allow you to get the ball to the point where is enters the pins just at the point where it is at its most powerful roll. A ball that rolls too early enters the pins after having lost some of its energy will not carry the corner pins. A ball that enters the pins before it attains full power will often leave nine pins or four-nine splits.

Each bowlers style in combination with the lane conditions will determine the useful low RG range for him. As you have seen me bowl, I will tell you that for the most part, I use balls with a low RG between 2.50 and 2.56. Bowlers with more ball speed and higher rev rates will have more success with balls in the low to medium low RG range (2.47-2.52), while bowlers with less ball speed and lower rev rates will have more success with balls in the medium to high low RG range (2.52-2.62).

The differential is almost as misunderstood as the low RG. Back in the pre-modern era, the best bowlers rolled the ball over a track that was about as thick as a pencil. When the crankers such as Mark Roth came along, bowlers noticed that there was a little bit of space between the oil rings on his ball: about 1/2" to 1". This is how the notion that more space between the oil rings exposes more fresh ball surface to the lane surface leads to increased hook was born. With today's balls, this is total nonsense! There is no more fresh surface exposed to the lane when the flare rings are 1/2" apart than when they are 2" apart. The total amount of flare on the ball is indicative of how fast the transition between the hook phase and the roll phase is accomplished. More flare = faster transition. The higher the differential is on a ball, the more flare "potential" is present. The key word here is potential. A bowler's release is the key to how much of that flare potential is actually utilized. For the most part, the Differential is very important to high rev players, and to the lower rev players, not so much!

[ChuckR]

Let me give it a shot, Chuck. There three basic numbers that are provided for the core of each bowling ball on the market: the low RG (also called RG min), the high RG (also call RG max), and the Differential. The low RG is an actual measurement in inches of the Radius of Gyration of the X axis of the core (height). The high RG is an actual measurement in inches of the Radius of Gyration of the Y axis of the core (width). The differential is the mathematical difference when you subtract the low RG from the high RG. The high RG is a useless number for bowlers as it is easily calculated by adding the low RG and the Differential. I don't know why manufacturers include it as it does nothing other than confuse bowlers.

Think of the low RG as an indication of how center-heavy (low, low RG) the ball is, or how cover-heavy (high, low RG) the ball is. The low RG is indicative of how much resistance the core has to "revving up." The lower the low RG is, the less resistance there is to the ball revving up, and the sooner the ball will roll. The higher the low RG is, the more resistance the ball will have to revving up, and the further it will get down the lane before rolling. The idea is to find the ideal low RG for your particular roll that will allow you to get the ball to the point where is enters the pins just at the point where it is at its most powerful roll. A ball that rolls too early enters the pins after having lost some of its energy will not carry the corner pins. A ball that enters the pins before it attains full power will often leave nine pins or four-nine splits.

Each bowlers style in combination with the lane conditions will determine the useful low RG range for him. As you have seen me bowl, I will tell you that for the most part, I use balls with a low RG between 2.50 and 2.56. Bowlers with more ball speed and higher rev rates will have more success with balls in the low to medium low RG range (2.47-2.52), while bowlers with less ball speed and lower rev rates will have more success with balls in the medium to high low RG range (2.52-2.62).

The differential is almost as misunderstood as the low RG. Back in the pre-modern era, the best bowlers rolled the ball over a track that was about as thick as a pencil. When the crankers such as Mark Roth came along, bowlers noticed that there was a little bit of space between the oil rings on his ball: about 1/2" to 1". This is how the notion that more space between the oil rings exposes more fresh ball surface to the lane surface leads to increased hook was born. With today's balls, this is total nonsense! There is no more fresh surface exposed to the lane when the flare rings are 1/2" apart than when they are 2" apart. The total amount of flare on the ball is indicative of how fast the transition between the hook phase and the roll phase is accomplished. More flare = faster transition. The higher the differential is on a ball, the more flare "potential" is present. The key word here is potential. A bowler's release is the key to how much of that flare potential is actually utilized. For the most part, the Differential is very important to high rev players, and to the lower rev players, not so much!

Good Information as always. Now for a reality check.
Storm gives: Alpha Crux
Lbs. RG Diff. Interm. Diff. Weight Block
16 2.50 0.051 0.016 Click to View Larger
15 2.50 0.052 0.017 Click to View Larger

DV8 gives: Grudge
Asymmetrical Diff.
0.014 @ 15 lbs.
RG Max
0.000 @ 15 lbs.
RG Min
2.490 @ 15 lbs.
RG Differential
0.056 @ 15 lbs.
Hook Potential
Low (10) 265 High (225)
Length
Early (25) 105 Long (235)

I stopped with these 2 as most others are just as confusing.

[Amyers]

Good Information as always. Now for a reality check.
Storm gives: Alpha Crux
Lbs. RG Diff. Interm. Diff. Weight Block
16 2.50 0.051 0.016 Click to View Larger
15 2.50 0.052 0.017 Click to View Larger

DV8 gives: Grudge
Asymmetrical Diff.
0.014 @ 15 lbs.
RG Max
0.000 @ 15 lbs.
RG Min
2.490 @ 15 lbs.
RG Differential
0.056 @ 15 lbs.
Hook Potential
Low (10) 265 High (225)
Length
Early (25) 105 Long (235)

I stopped with these 2 as most others are just as confusing.

Storm Gave you what you need RG, Diff, Int. Diff. The interm. Diff is a measure of how asymmetrical the ball is.

DV8 Just added a bunch of junk. Max Rg is useless, Hook potential and length are skimpily their measurements of the ball performance but are also useless.

[ChuckR]

The following is the information on the Melee Hook I was lucky enough to win.
RG Max 2.537
RG Min 2.487
RG Differential .050
RG Average
Center Heavy (1) 3.6 Cover Heavy (10)
Hook Potential Low (10) 235 High (250)
Length Early (25) 70 Long (235)
Breakpoint Shape Smooth Arc (10) 70 Angular (150)

From what I can figure out. The ball should Rev late with a lot of hook with a smooth arc.
The other data is ?????????????

Laneside Reviews layed it out 70x5x20 with a motion hole.

[Jessiewoodard57]

Makes a lot of sense to me since I took a haywire that would not stay right of center and hit like a marshmallow, sanded it to 3000 and polished it and it rolls a lot like my Sinister now. Makes me think instead of a new ball anytime soon I need to buy a spinner instead.

[RobLV1]

Good Information as always. Now for a reality check.
Storm gives: Alpha Crux
Lbs. RG Diff. Interm. Diff. Weight Block
16 2.50 0.051 0.016 Click to View Larger
15 2.50 0.052 0.017 Click to View Larger

DV8 gives: Grudge
Asymmetrical Diff.
0.014 @ 15 lbs.
RG Max
0.000 @ 15 lbs.
RG Min
2.490 @ 15 lbs.
RG Differential
0.056 @ 15 lbs.
Hook Potential
Low (10) 265 High (225)
Length
Early (25) 105 Long (235)

I stopped with these 2 as most others are just as confusing.

Okay, balls of different weights are listed separately because the core numbers vary from weight to weight. If you look at the low RG and the differential, you will get what you need provided that you use the same layouts for all of your balls. All of the other stuff: hook potential, hook shape, length, etc. is all BS marketing rhetoric designed to get you to buy a particular bowling ball (telling you what their research says that you want to hear). If you use the same layout, realize that you can do anything you want to change the surface, and just look at the core numbers, you will realize that you have all the information you need without wading through all the BS that the ball companies try to sell you.

[billf]

Rob, this reminds me of a conversation we had many years ago so of course I like the article.

I do wish you had mentioned that "pearl" is an ingredient to the cover composition and is not what causes the shine. The Motiv Jackal is a good example of a dull pearl. The polish added does that. Easy cover manipulation to emulate what I'm looking for is why I've always been drawn to solids. However when the pearl version is cheaper I have no problem buying that and changing the surface to what I need.

[RobLV1]

Rob, this reminds me of a conversation we had many years ago so of course I like the article.

I do wish you had mentioned that "pearl" is an ingredient to the cover composition and is not what causes the shine. The Motiv Jackal is a good example of a dull pearl. The polish added does that. Easy cover manipulation to emulate what I'm looking for is why I've always been drawn to solids. However when the pearl version is cheaper I have no problem buying that and changing the surface to what I need.

Good point, Bill. I have a bad habit of overlooking things that are obvious to me but may not be to others.

[Amyers]

Rob, this reminds me of a conversation we had many years ago so of course I like the article.

I do wish you had mentioned that "pearl" is an ingredient to the cover composition and is not what causes the shine. The Motiv Jackal is a good example of a dull pearl. The polish added does that. Easy cover manipulation to emulate what I'm looking for is why I've always been drawn to solids. However when the pearl version is cheaper I have no problem buying that and changing the surface to what I need.

It always amazes me how many people don't know that

[Aslan]

Interesting article as always!

Just to add some credence to it...I was recently told something very similar by a ball rep (i.e. solids, hybrids, pearls don't matter....surface matters).

Does that mean I agree with Amyers (see past arguments)?

Sort of...

Yes, I've always agreed that surface is the most powerful effect on how soon a ball hooks. That has proven over and over again. But much like my debates with RobM over ball progression/arsenals....the difference in opinion is in the practicality:

IF...we decide to have an arsenal based on surface....then we must constantly maintain that surface. That requires a ball spinner, a LOT of abralon pads, and a lot of dedication to surfacing your bowling balls after each league night. Anything less than that commitment...and you're fooling yourself...because the finish on your bowling ball will not last more than one night...if that.

Just like my ball progression debate....IF we assume that a "progression" is a bad systems approach to attacking the lanes...then we need an alternate system...and that alternate system cannot be "Spin the Wheel of Destiny" or "Get information/hints by watching granny (not 'classy' per se...) throw her Columbia Yellow Dot straight up the middle of the lane at 6mph....and use that to make some determination."

What I WILL say...is that I have been 'learning' (believe it or not) some things that originally I was skeptical about...and I think RobM initially got me thinking about these things....

1) Manufacturer differences are more significant than I thought.
2) RG may be a better progression basis than cover material.

Now...the jury is still out on this one...
3) The technology difference is noticeable as time progresses.

1) I've noticed that Brunswick balls hook sooner than other manufacturers I've thrown. I've thrown Columbia, Hammer, 900Global, Storm, RotoGrip, and Brunswick....and have had very little luck with Columbia and Rotogrip. I just can't seem to make them move. The Hammer ball moved...but I had a LOT of surface on that ball. The Rotogrip ball seemed to garb early and just die...not sure why. The Storm ball had some movement...a little later. Now, everyone has their own experiences...and mine need much more sample size to be truly relevant...but going into this discussion I'd have guessed ZERO difference between manufacturers...and I'm seeing that was a false premise...at least preliminarily speaking.

2) PerfectScale and RG have been better indicators of when and how much a ball will hook than cover material. My 900Global was a hybrid...and it had WAY more movement than most of my last arsenal. My Asylum was a hybrid...it had very little movement and hit like a wet noodle. Looking at RGs...I can see how they would have been better at showing me how soon balls would hook...than just assuming solids hook first, pearls hook last. And while people hate my bringing up PerfectScale because it's not a true ball spec....if you really want to know how MUCH a ball will hook...in addition to when...it's been rather accurate at predicting that. I can't think of one example...where a ball with a lower PerfectScale number hooked like a monster or vice versa.

3) The test I did with the Melee Jab was inconclusive. It's newer technology...should have made it more aggressive than the older technology (but similar specs) Loaded Revolver. In some ways, it wasn't. In some ways...it was. The Jab didn't to bite as early as the Lo. Revolver....which I thought it would. However...it bit HARDER when it finally did. It would go a little longer...which I didn't expect based on it's technology and specs...but it reacted very strongly to friction...far more so than the Lo. Revolver. And THAT might be the technology difference I was looking for in the test.

The confusing thing about the Jab...is the RG. At 2.5012....I'd expect an earlier phase shift...yet that ball...very late (as long as it was in the oil)...almost what I'd term a "skid/flip". Which...is also weird because it's a symmetric core...yet had a rather angular motion at the end...also not what I would have expected.

So...still "learning"...but I'm getting more in the camp of Rob on cover materials and their insignificance. Which means....I might need to invest in a ball spinner...which I don't want to do...because I already get laughed at for my homemade de-oiler.

[Amyers]

Interesting article as always!

Just to add some credence to it...I was recently told something very similar by a ball rep (i.e. solids, hybrids, pearls don't matter....surface matters).

Does that mean I agree with Amyers (see past arguments)?

Sort of...

Yes, I've always agreed that surface is the most powerful effect on how soon a ball hooks. That has proven over and over again. But much like my debates with RobM over ball progression/arsenals....the difference in opinion is in the practicality:

IF...we decide to have an arsenal based on surface....then we must constantly maintain that surface. That requires a ball spinner, a LOT of abralon pads, and a lot of dedication to surfacing your bowling balls after each league night. Anything less than that commitment...and you're fooling yourself...because the finish on your bowling ball will not last more than one night...if that.

Just like my ball progression debate....IF we assume that a "progression" is a bad systems approach to attacking the lanes...then we need an alternate system...and that alternate system cannot be "Spin the Wheel of Destiny" or "Get information/hints by watching granny (not 'classy' per se...) throw her Columbia Yellow Dot straight up the middle of the lane at 6mph....and use that to make some determination."

What I WILL say...is that I have been 'learning' (believe it or not) some things that originally I was skeptical about...and I think RobM initially got me thinking about these things....

1) Manufacturer differences are more significant than I thought.
2) RG may be a better progression basis than cover material.

Now...the jury is still out on this one...
3) The technology difference is noticeable as time progresses.

1) I've noticed that Brunswick balls hook sooner than other manufacturers I've thrown. I've thrown Columbia, Hammer, 900Global, Storm, RotoGrip, and Brunswick....and have had very little luck with Columbia and Rotogrip. I just can't seem to make them move. The Hammer ball moved...but I had a LOT of surface on that ball. The Rotogrip ball seemed to garb early and just die...not sure why. The Storm ball had some movement...a little later. Now, everyone has their own experiences...and mine need much more sample size to be truly relevant...but going into this discussion I'd have guessed ZERO difference between manufacturers...and I'm seeing that was a false premise...at least preliminarily speaking.

2) PerfectScale and RG have been better indicators of when and how much a ball will hook than cover material. My 900Global was a hybrid...and it had WAY more movement than most of my last arsenal. My Asylum was a hybrid...it had very little movement and hit like a wet noodle. Looking at RGs...I can see how they would have been better at showing me how soon balls would hook...than just assuming solids hook first, pearls hook last. And while people hate my bringing up PerfectScale because it's not a true ball spec....if you really want to know how MUCH a ball will hook...in addition to when...it's been rather accurate at predicting that. I can't think of one example...where a ball with a lower PerfectScale number hooked like a monster or vice versa.

3) The test I did with the Melee Jab was inconclusive. It's newer technology...should have made it more aggressive than the older technology (but similar specs) Loaded Revolver. In some ways, it wasn't. In some ways...it was. The Jab didn't to bite as early as the Lo. Revolver....which I thought it would. However...it bit HARDER when it finally did. It would go a little longer...which I didn't expect based on it's technology and specs...but it reacted very strongly to friction...far more so than the Lo. Revolver. And THAT might be the technology difference I was looking for in the test.

The confusing thing about the Jab...is the RG. At 2.5012....I'd expect an earlier phase shift...yet that ball...very late (as long as it was in the oil)...almost what I'd term a "skid/flip". Which...is also weird because it's a symmetric core...yet had a rather angular motion at the end...also not what I would have expected.

So...still "learning"...but I'm getting more in the camp of Rob on cover materials and their insignificance. Which means....I might need to invest in a ball spinner...which I don't want to do...because I already get laughed at for my homemade de-oiler.

Lol I don't really think the reason people are laughing at you is the home made ball oven so I think your safe to buy the ball spinner.

Why you think balls have to be asymmetrical to be skid flip I will never know. Storm Hyroad Pearl, DV8 Diva (any of the polished ones), Hammer Viral, and the Radical Rave On are all balls that have symmetrical cores that flip pretty hard on the back. Anytime you have a polished surface, higher rg, and moderate differential your going to get a pretty angular reaction no matter the cores shape.

[Aslan]

Why you think balls have to be asymmetrical to be skid flip I will never know. Storm Hyroad Pearl, DV8 Diva (any of the polished ones), Hammer Viral, and the Radical Rave On are all balls that have symmetrical cores that flip pretty hard on the back. Anytime you have a polished surface, higher rg, and moderate differential your going to get a pretty angular reaction no matter the cores shape.

Well...lets just say I got weird looks in the elevator at the casino in Vegas...and two people asked me "What is that?" Having to explain a bowling ball de-oiler to drunk people in an elevator...is nearly impossible.

As to the "assymetric" comment....it's simple. If I ask you what the difference is between assymetric cores and symmetric cores...what are you going to tell me? Probably...that symmetric cores are more smooth arc shape and assymetric more angular.

So...if I ask you to describe to me "skid/flip"....you're going to say it's where the ball skids longer...then "flips".

So when you ask these questions...and the definition of "skid/flip" and "assymetric cores" are similar...it begs the question...how does a symmetric core 'help' a ball be "skid/flip"? Just like...why would you want a "dull" "skid/flip" ball? Isn't the point...that the ball skids? Doesn't adding surface reduce said "skidding"?

These type of questions are where the bowling ball industry has kinda fallen flat on their face a bit...they have so many variables in their specs....that some seem to contradict each other. It lends even more to Rob's article discussion...because when a company adds "pearl, hybrid, solid"...and those things don't really mean anything...then what else doesn't really mean anything? Differential? Core (symmetric/assymetric)?

Ball motion/specs are based in physics. Physics doesn't change. There has to be constant truths when it comes to Physics. It can't be "well, some companies the motion as it relates to the core is different..." Nope. Can't do that. You're violating the rules of Physics. If an assymetric core gives X reaction...and you want Y reaction...then the X reaction is not preferable towards obtaining the Y reaction. If it's meaningless...then it's meaningless. Like cover materials. Either they are or are not...chemically different. And said chemical difference either does or does not affect the ball motion. The chemistry can't be "variable"...you can't pick up the ball and sometimes it chemically is one way and other times chemically a different way.

The industry needs to be honest about what matters and what doesn't....what makes a ball go longer versus shorter...what makes a ball react in an angular way versus a smoother arc way...and those have to ALWAYS be true...not various versions of 'true' depending on the company, ball, star allignement, moon phases, and el nino effects.

[NewToBowling]

Keep in mind all symmetrical balls are asymmetrical once they are drilled. I don't think there is a world of difference between asymmetrical vs symmetrical balls as the mfg would lend you to believe.

Same with pearls/solids/hybrids. Honestly not much difference between Haywire and Hywire. Polish up a Haywire and voila = Hywire

[RobLV1]

FYI: IMHO... cover materials = little difference, if any. Symmetrical vs. Asymmetrical cores = the difference is HUGE! "NewtoBowling": please don't take a statement like "All balls are asymmetrical once they're drilled" literally. Throw the Radical Ridiculous next to the Radical Ridiculous Asym and see if your quote really applies!

[fortheloveofbowling]

As to the "assymetric" comment....it's simple. If I ask you what the difference is between assymetric cores and symmetric cores...what are you going to tell me? Probably...that symmetric cores are more smooth arc shape and assymetric more angular.

Asymmetric generally give you more options to obtain a stronger reaction whether it is a super rolly or super angular reaction via more drilling options. That is not to say symmetrical balls can't be both but when looking for extremes asymmetric are usually the choice. Many top players tend to stay away from asymmetric because of their extreme reactions though.

So...if I ask you to describe to me "skid/flip"....you're going to say it's where the ball skids longer...then "flips".

Yes.

So when you ask these questions...and the definition of "skid/flip" and "assymetric cores" are similar...it begs the question...how does a symmetric core 'help' a ball be "skid/flip"? Just like...why would you want a "dull" "skid/flip" ball? Isn't the point...that the ball skids? Doesn't adding surface reduce said "skidding"?

[B]On any ball pin placement is huge and on a symmetric ball it is the real key. For instance, for me i will always go pin up with a symmetric if i want more down lane reaction. It all depends on your pap, axis tilit, axis rotation. What you are looking for anytime with any degree of dull or shiny surface is where is this ball going to SLOW DOWN and what will it do when it does. If i have a dull surface and pearl surface ball with the same weight block and drilled the same and i can REPEAT 2 SHOTS IN A ROW you will see the dull ball slow down sooner played in a oil line. Entry Angle Entry Angle Entry Angle via controlling where a ball slows down and starts to make its way to the pocket.

These type of questions are where the bowling ball industry has kinda fallen flat on their face a bit...they have so many variables in their specs....that some seem to contradict each other. It lends even more to Rob's article discussion...because when a company adds "pearl, hybrid, solid"...and those things don't really mean anything...then what else doesn't really mean anything? Differential? Core (symmetric/assymetric)?

I guarantee for instance with the same drilling a Optimus Pearl and Optimus Solid with the same weight block and cover except for 1 being dull and the shiny you will see them slow down in different spots. But you have to repeat shots in order to see differences some times. What we have to remember is ball companies make these high performance balls with higher level players in mind in order to create slight variances for fine tuning. They make lower price balls for beginners that don't need to think about these differences. All ball specs and covers mean something. There is no conspiracy in the ball industry just the knowledge that people like all of us constantly are looking for a edge or a ball combination that fits our game. That is why companies are constantly trying to come up with different ideas and innovations, so they can make the game easier for us.

Ball motion/specs are based in physics. Physics doesn't change. There has to be constant truths when it comes to Physics. It can't be "well, some companies the motion as it relates to the core is different..." Nope. Can't do that. You're violating the rules of Physics. If an assymetric core gives X reaction...and you want Y reaction...then the X reaction is not preferable towards obtaining the Y reaction. If it's meaningless...then it's meaningless. Like cover materials. Either they are or are not...chemically different. And said chemical difference either does or does not affect the ball motion. The chemistry can't be "variable"...you can't pick up the ball and sometimes it chemically is one way and other times chemically a different way.

Ball motion physics would only apply if everyone threw the ball the same way the same speed on the same exact condition always. The physics of a ball are there to be manipulated via drilling, release and lane play. It is a bowlers job to learn how to do these things.

Roto Grip traditionally for the most part make more rolling types of balls and storm traditionally for the most part make more skid flip type. There is you difference within the same ownership even.

Covers do change after oil absorption, you know that.

The industry needs to be honest about what matters and what doesn't....what makes a ball go longer versus shorter...what makes a ball react in an angular way versus a smoother arc way...and those have to ALWAYS be true...not various versions of 'true' depending on the company, ball, star allignement, moon phases, and el nino effects.[/QUOTE]

It all matters we just have to be smart in our purchases and drilling and surface options in relation to what conditions you bowl on. But ultimately you have to be able to throw consistent shots and pay attention to learn differences. There are no absolute truths in bowling ball technology and reaction between different bowlers. We are all different and you have to learn what combinations of drilling, surfaces, releases, lane play works in a given situation. Again, throw the ball, watch the ball, learn learn learn.

[bowl1820]

FYI: IMHO... cover materials = little difference, if any. Symmetrical vs. Asymmetrical cores = the difference is HUGE! "NewtoBowling": please don't take a statement like "All balls are asymmetrical once they're drilled" literally. Throw the Radical Ridiculous next to the Radical Ridiculous Asym and see if your quote really applies!

I think I would rephrase that.

More like "All balls are Asymmetrical once they are drilled, But the difference in the level asymmetry between a drilled Symmetrical and a drilled Asymmetrical ball can be huge."

[RobLV1]

I think I would rephrase that.

More like "All balls are Asymmetrical once they are drilled, But the difference in the level asymmetry between a drilled Symmetrical and a drilled Asymmetrical ball can be huge."

You always have been more PC than I am! LOL

[bowl1820]

You always have been more PC than I am! LOL

It's not a matter of being "PC", the statement that "All balls are Asymmetrical once they are drilled" is true. To say it can't be taken literally would be wrong.

But while the statement is true, it leaves out a vital piece of information. Regarding the difference in the level of Asymmetry a drilled Symmetrical ball will have as compared to a ball with built in Asymmetry.

[NewToBowling]

I think I would rephrase that.

More like "All balls are Asymmetrical once they are drilled, But the difference in the level asymmetry between a drilled Symmetrical and a drilled Asymmetrical ball can be huge."

That was what I was getting at...you just worded it better.

[Blacksox1]

Well...lets just say I got weird looks in the elevator at the casino in Vegas...and two people asked me "What is that?" Having to explain a bowling ball (http://skimlinks.pgpartner.com/mrdr.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fskimlinks.pgpartner.com% 2Fsearch.php%2Fform_keyword%3Dbowling%2Bball) de-oiler to drunk people in an elevator...is nearly impossible.

The above quote is one reason Aslan is so good for bowling. :D

[Amyers]

Well...lets just say I got weird looks in the elevator at the casino in Vegas...and two people asked me "What is that?" Having to explain a bowling ball de-oiler to drunk people in an elevator...is nearly impossible.

As to the "assymetric" comment....it's simple. If I ask you what the difference is between assymetric cores and symmetric cores...what are you going to tell me? Probably...that symmetric cores are more smooth arc shape and assymetric more angular.

So...if I ask you to describe to me "skid/flip"....you're going to say it's where the ball skids longer...then "flips".

So when you ask these questions...and the definition of "skid/flip" and "assymetric cores" are similar...it begs the question...how does a symmetric core 'help' a ball be "skid/flip"? Just like...why would you want a "dull" "skid/flip" ball? Isn't the point...that the ball skids? Doesn't adding surface reduce said "skidding"?

These type of questions are where the bowling ball industry has kinda fallen flat on their face a bit...they have so many variables in their specs....that some seem to contradict each other. It lends even more to Rob's article discussion...because when a company adds "pearl, hybrid, solid"...and those things don't really mean anything...then what else doesn't really mean anything? Differential? Core (symmetric/assymetric)?

Ball motion/specs are based in physics. Physics doesn't change. There has to be constant truths when it comes to Physics. It can't be "well, some companies the motion as it relates to the core is different..." Nope. Can't do that. You're violating the rules of Physics. If an assymetric core gives X reaction...and you want Y reaction...then the X reaction is not preferable towards obtaining the Y reaction. If it's meaningless...then it's meaningless. Like cover materials. Either they are or are not...chemically different. And said chemical difference either does or does not affect the ball motion. The chemistry can't be "variable"...you can't pick up the ball and sometimes it chemically is one way and other times chemically a different way.

The industry needs to be honest about what matters and what doesn't....what makes a ball go longer versus shorter...what makes a ball react in an angular way versus a smoother arc way...and those have to ALWAYS be true...not various versions of 'true' depending on the company, ball, star allignement, moon phases, and el nino effects.

Wow you do realize there are more asymmetrical even rolling solid balls on the market than there are shiny skid flip asymmetrical balls?

Asymmetrical has nothing to do with the arc of a bowling balls hook. It has to do with how well the ball retains it tilt allowing the ball to have a more pronounced motions. They are typically used in balls that are ment for heavy oil or when a longer hook phase is needed.

Asymmetry by itself doesn't create a specific motion and is nearly to enhance the motion and characteristics provided by the surface, cover stock, RG, and differential.

You can find skid flip balls that are symmetrical or arcing motion asymmetrical balls. The Brunswick Nirvana isn't skid flip neither is the Rotogrip Hyper Cell both asymmetrical.

Ball motion is created by the surface, cover stock, RG, and differential not by the core shape. Core shape can only enhance or detract from certain characteristics not create them.

[Aslan]

Wow you do realize there are more asymmetrical even rolling solid balls on the market than there are shiny skid flip asymmetrical balls?

Asymmetrical has nothing to do with the arc of a bowling balls hook. It has to do with how well the ball retains it tilt allowing the ball to have a more pronounced motions. They are typically used in balls that are ment for heavy oil or when a longer hook phase is needed.

Asymmetry by itself doesn't create a specific motion and is nearly to enhance the motion and characteristics provided by the surface, cover stock, RG, and differential.

You can find skid flip balls that are symmetrical or arcing motion asymmetrical balls. The Brunswick Nirvana isn't skid flip neither is the Rotogrip Hyper Cell both asymmetrical.

Ball motion is created by the surface, cover stock, RG, and differential not by the core shape. Core shape can only enhance or detract from certain characteristics not create them.

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i46/5/12/20/fbz_4e64b1eab5e56a0ee0cd125d70727ea5.jpg

I have no idea what you're talking about...but it sounds really, really smart. I think I'm just not grasping the concept just yet.

To me...symmetric core balls...make a very arc-like motion. Like a backwards "C". Assymetric balls, it's more like a "Y", but with the right part of the 'y' taken off....like a backwards hockey stick.

It seems...that if a person wants a ball to go long and "snap"...they would want a combination of the following:
1) A polished surface...a 'shiny' ball...so it will go a LONG way and retain as much energy as possible (or not slow down too soon as FTLOB would term it).
2) Maybe a pearl...versus a solid...although...we're starting to agree that may be a minor factor.
3) An assymetric ("Y", backwards hockey stick type shape) core that will really change direction once it stops skidding and transitions to the hook phase.

If the above...IF...the above is a true...generally agreeable...mostly true description of how to make a ball go "long and snap"....then it MUST be true...it MUST be true...that the opposite of those things works AGAINST a "going long and snapping" ball motion. It CANNOT....by the rules of logic...be that those 3 things are true....yet the opposite is also true. If you throw a symmetric (ignore drilling...I think that's more 'mumbo jumbo') ball that is sanded to 350 abralon with a solid cover....it CANNOT be as skid/flip or long/snap...as a pearl, polished, assymetric core ball. It CANNOT. If it is...then those 3 factors are meaningless in terms of ball motion. You can't have two different truths...with conflicting premises...be true. You would either defy logic...or defy physics...or both.

[RobLV1]

This thread has taken a great turn to illustrate the point of this article.

I commented on the quote, "All balls are asymmetrical once they are drilled," to which Bowl1820 clarified that balls with asymmetrical cores are MORE asymmetrical once they are drilled. The quoted statement joins many others that I will list in a moment in stopping our understanding of bowling balls. Consider: if you have memorized the statement that "All balls are asymmetrical once they are drilled," you don't need to look any further. If, however, you WATCH the differences between balls with symmetrical cores and those with asymmetrical cores in the hands of actual bowlers, it becomes very apparent that balls with asymmetrical cores magnify inconsistencies in bowler's releases much more than balls with symmetrical cores do. This is the value of a discussion of symmetrical vs. asymmetrical cores in bowling balls.

Other statements that are equally as limiting include:

Surface determines 85% of ball reaction.
When balls start straightening out as a session progresses it's because of carry down.
Pin up balls go longer than pin down balls.
Pearl balls go longer than solid balls.
Green balls hook more than other colors.
The "best" balls are the ones that cost the most.
The OOB finish is the one that works the best for a particular ball.
and finally... my personal favorite...
One ball hooks more than another ball.

[Amyers]

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i46/5/12/20/fbz_4e64b1eab5e56a0ee0cd125d70727ea5.jpg

I have no idea what you're talking about...but it sounds really, really smart. I think I'm just not grasping the concept just yet.

To me...symmetric core balls...make a very arc-like motion. Like a backwards "C". Assymetric balls, it's more like a "Y", but with the right part of the 'y' taken off....like a backwards hockey stick.

It seems...that if a person wants a ball to go long and "snap"...they would want a combination of the following:
1) A polished surface...a 'shiny' ball...so it will go a LONG way and retain as much energy as possible (or not slow down too soon as FTLOB would term it).
2) Maybe a pearl...versus a solid...although...we're starting to agree that may be a minor factor.
3) An assymetric ("Y", backwards hockey stick type shape) core that will really change direction once it stops skidding and transitions to the hook phase.

If the above...IF...the above is a true...generally agreeable...mostly true description of how to make a ball go "long and snap"....then it MUST be true...it MUST be true...that the opposite of those things works AGAINST a "going long and snapping" ball motion. It CANNOT....by the rules of logic...be that those 3 things are true....yet the opposite is also true. If you throw a symmetric (ignore drilling...I think that's more 'mumbo jumbo') ball that is sanded to 350 abralon with a solid cover....it CANNOT be as skid/flip or long/snap...as a pearl, polished, assymetric core ball. It CANNOT. If it is...then those 3 factors are meaningless in terms of ball motion. You can't have two different truths...with conflicting premises...be true. You would either defy logic...or defy physics...or both.

Being asymmetrical or symmetrical doesn't determine what type of motion the ball has.

I guess if you had two balls whith the same cover and surface one with a symmetric core and one with a asymmetrical core. The asymmetrical one would retain its hook phase longer and most likely cover more boards but both will have the same motion. I have never seen this done though so I can't prove it.

most of the asymmetrical balls on the market really aren't super asymmetrical anyways. My guesstimate would be a double thumb or motion hole layout in a symmetrical ball makes it about as asymmetrical as most asymmetricals. Those balls with asymmetry greater than .17 are far and few between.

As I said before asymmetry only enhances the balls existing reaction. If a ball is designed to be skid/flip that it would make it more so but a ball can have any style of hook with either type of core.

[Amyers]

This thread has taken a great turn to illustrate the point of this article.

I commented on the quote, "All balls are asymmetrical once they are drilled," to which Bowl1820 clarified that balls with asymmetrical cores are MORE asymmetrical once they are drilled. The quoted statement joins many others that I will list in a moment in stopping our understanding of bowling balls. Consider: if you have memorized the statement that "All balls are asymmetrical once they are drilled," you don't need to look any further. If, however, you WATCH the differences between balls with symmetrical cores and those with asymmetrical cores in the hands of actual bowlers, it becomes very apparent that balls with asymmetrical cores magnify inconsistencies in bowler's releases much more than balls with symmetrical cores do. This is the value of a discussion of symmetrical vs. asymmetrical cores in bowling balls.

Other statements that are equally as limiting include:

Surface determines 85% of ball reaction.
When balls start straightening out as a session progresses it's because of carry down.
Pin up balls go longer than pin down balls.
Pearl balls go longer than solid balls.
Green balls hook more than other colors.
The "best" balls are the ones that cost the most.
The OOB finish is the one that works the best for a particular ball.
and finally... my personal favorite...
One ball hooks more than another ball.

Lol that's good Rob bowl1820 should add a sticky to this so we can add them on as we go. I'm not sure any sport besides maybe baseball has more unwritten rules and old wives tales than bowling.

[bowl1820]

This thread has taken a great turn to illustrate the point of this article.

I commented on the quote, "All balls are asymmetrical once they are drilled," to which Bowl1820 clarified that balls with asymmetrical cores are MORE asymmetrical once they are drilled. The quoted statement joins many others that I will list in a moment in stopping our understanding of bowling balls. Consider: if you have memorized the statement that "All balls are asymmetrical once they are drilled," you don't need to look any further. If, however, you WATCH the differences between balls with symmetrical cores and those with asymmetrical cores in the hands of actual bowlers, it becomes very apparent that balls with asymmetrical cores magnify inconsistencies in bowler's releases much more than balls with symmetrical cores do. This is the value of a discussion of symmetrical vs. asymmetrical cores in bowling balls.

Other statements that are equally as limiting include:

Surface determines 85% of ball reaction.
When balls start straightening out as a session progresses it's because of carry down.
Pin up balls go longer than pin down balls.
Pearl balls go longer than solid balls.
Green balls hook more than other colors.
The "best" balls are the ones that cost the most.
The OOB finish is the one that works the best for a particular ball.
and finally... my personal favorite...
One ball hooks more than another ball.

I don't think some of the statements in of themselves are limiting, it's just that people take them out of context and don't realize that there's more to it and that's what limits them.

Like the quote, "All balls are asymmetrical once they are drilled," while it's true. It lacks the context and the additional information that would explain the actual differences between Sym. and Asym. balls.

As for asymmetrical cores magnifying inconsistencies in bowler's releases, That's true it's been known for a long time of course a lot don't know it. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be used, it just means they need to be used by the right bowler.

Asymmetrical balls (ones that are Asym. to begin with anyway.) are like fighter planes. A good fighter plane is a little bit unstable and that allows a good pilot to do incredible things with it. But in the hands of a bad or inexperienced pilot they won't be able to control it and it could crash.

Symmetrical balls are more like training planes, they don't over react to the mistakes the pilot makes and allows them to maintain more control.


I've never really heard of Green balls hooking the most. It was Black, Dark Blue and Red which hooked the most, with Solid colors hooking more than multi color.

In all the stuff that I've read over the years that mentioned the color and hook, The idea is believed to have came from (according to old BTM or BJI article I read long ago.) the idea that supposedly some companies back in the old urethane days. Had Used color to basically color code balls to make it easier to sort them in the warehouse.

Dark colors for strong balls, lighter colors for the weaker ones, then as that idea spread and as happens the story started changing till it was how color additives affected the hook of a ball.

So in a way there may have been a grain of truth to it back in the day, just not what people thought it was.

[AlexNC]

I enjoyed the article and didn't think it was her to comprehend. I can see how combining the other info provided by ball manufactures would make things cloudier, and just considering the actual specs in combination with your own physical game would make things much simpler. Case in point, I won the Hammer Arson High Flair Solid a few weeks ago. The ball manufacturer suggests it for medium oil conditions. But, it is the lowest RG ball in my arsenal and combined with the cover at 3000 I can't quite get it to work on medium oil even when its fresh - now this is just me. It seems to read too early. If I was a higher speed player it might work great. My Storm IQ Tour solid has a slightly higher RG, and a 4000 surface (also a lower diff) and it is listed by Storm as for Medium Heavy to Heavy oil (though they try and take into consideration your own game using the matchmaker.) But it is much more usable on the fresh conditions which are definitely not on the heavy side.

[scottymoney]

My favorite one that is untrue is the ball isn't hooking because of "carry down".
I have yet to see how a small spot of oil killed all of the hook out of the ball. If it truly was carry down then you should see the ball try t hook again after hitting the so called "carry down". Let's call it what it really is "loss of energy due to dry conditions".

[NewToBowling]

My favorite one that is untrue is the ball isn't hooking because of "carry down".
I have yet to see how a small spot of oil killed all of the hook out of the ball. If it truly was carry down then you should see the ball try t hook again after hitting the so called "carry down". Let's call it what it really is "loss of energy due to dry conditions".

Yes, I have problems with recognizing this also. It looks like carry down but probably due to ball losing energy. It just doesn't want to "bite" at the end looking like a wet oil spot there but your latter observation is probably truer.

[NewToBowling]

BowliingBall.com's Perfect Scale is also adding to the confusion.

[fortheloveofbowling]

The key is observing closely and being able to tell the difference between carry down and energy loss do to dry fronts. In addition, you must learn to adjust to diminish the negative effect or to utilize it.

[scottymoney]

from the Gold Coach Slowinski..... For some it may be a bit technical but is worth the read
http://bowlingknowledge.info/images/stories/slowinski_oct_for_slowinski.pdf

[fortheloveofbowling]

from the Gold Coach Slowinski..... For some it may be a bit technical but is worth the read
http://bowlingknowledge.info/images/stories/slowinski_oct_for_slowinski.pdf

So with THE MYTH OF CARRYDOWN is he saying it never exists? Depending on the volume of oil, placement of oil, lane surface, and lane play it can vary greatly. I'm just perplexed how i can hear great players talk about carrydown and yet it does not exist ever, it is in fact a MYTH. I will say it does not show up anywhere near as often as the alternative.

[bowl1820]

The thing about carrydown vs depletion is it depends on who your bowling and any pre-existing conditions etc.

Slowinski's article is based on what happened at Junior Gold and higher level bowlers all bowling similar lines.

League bowlers on the other hand can run into varying conditions.

Like players using plastic and urethane balls which can produce some carrydown. Now it will be said that any carrydown that may be produced in that way is meaningless to today's balls, that's true but depends on what type of ball your using.

If your using say urethane it can factor in and more urethane is being used today so is possible.

Also a lot league bowlers will be playing multiple lines, they won't necessarily be playing the same lines.

And if your on a league that follows another league and they only redress your lanes and don't clean them or don't clean them well. Then you can have dirty backends.


It's not that carry down doesn't exist, you got to recognize the difference between carrydown & depletion.

[jab5325]

from the Gold Coach Slowinski..... For some it may be a bit technical but is worth the read
http://bowlingknowledge.info/images/stories/slowinski_oct_for_slowinski.pdf

Great article and helps explain why I often have to go from "weaker" balls (Rocket/Urethane) to "stronger" ones (BI).

[vdubtx]

No, he doesn't say Carrydown never exists. Just that in a competitive setting, carrydown is not the reason for ball reaction woes. It is oil depletion that causes more issues for bowlers.

[J Anderson]

So with THE MYTH OF CARRYDOWN is he saying it never exists? Depending on the volume of oil, placement of oil, lane surface, and lane play it can vary greatly. I'm just perplexed how i can hear great players talk about carrydown and yet it does not exist ever, it is in fact a MYTH. I will say it does not show up anywhere near as often as the alternative.

In his second paragraph he implies that it can occur after hours of open play where people are using house balls. I think it may also occur durring some leagues that are geared more toward socializing than serious competition.

[RobLV1]

So with THE MYTH OF CARRYDOWN is he saying it never exists? Depending on the volume of oil, placement of oil, lane surface, and lane play it can vary greatly. I'm just perplexed how i can hear great players talk about carrydown and yet it does not exist ever, it is in fact a MYTH. I will say it does not show up anywhere near as often as the alternative.

I'm glad you brought up hearing great players talking about the myths as if they are realities. The #1 offender in my opinion, is Randy Pedersen on the PBA telecasts. He spouts one memorized myth after another and actually believes them all!

[fortheloveofbowling]

I'm glad you brought up hearing great players talking about the myths as if they are realities. The #1 offender in my opinion, is Randy Pedersen on the PBA telecasts. He spouts one memorized myth after another and actually believes them all!

Yes, that is one of the players i'm talking about. Are you actually trying to tell me that a hall of fame player that at least up until last year still competes at the highest level somehow can't read a lane?

[Amyers]

No, he doesn't say Carrydown never exists. Just that in a competitive setting, carrydown is not the reason for ball reaction woes. It is oil depletion that causes more issues for bowlers.

It depends on the situation. On my high end travel league I've never seen carry down everyone is using newer higher end balls and the lanes are freshly prepped. On my youth adult league that I bowl with my youngest daughter where half or more of the bowlers are throwing plastic or urethane balls on lanes that may or may not have been prepped since open bowling I've seen it a lot. On most leagues on freshly prepped lanes you are much more likely to be dealing with depletion than carry down.

[Amyers]

Yes, that is one of the players i'm talking about. Are you actually trying to tell me that a hall of fame player that at least up until last year still competes at the highest level somehow can't read a lane?

High level bowlers are just as likely to believe in myths as newer bowlers maybe more so because they've been around when some of these used to be true.

[fortheloveofbowling]

A lot of it is the shear volume of oil. Most of the time we are dealing with house shots with a relatively light amount applied. It is rare that you see a house shot with a higher volume, believe me i hear guys cry the blues about my house being so slick. When you hear pedersen and others talk about it we have to remember they are dealing with those higher volumes. Again, those cases in our everyday bowling circumstances are rare compared to the other scenario but you will run into it.

[fortheloveofbowling]

High level bowlers are just as likely to believe in myths as newer bowlers maybe more so because they've been around when some of these used to be true.

The point is the man can still read a lane and if he told me there was carry down and i was on his pair then i think i would listen.

[Amyers]

The point is the man can still read a lane and if he told me there was carry down and i was on his pair then i think i would listen.

I can't really speak about the higher volume PBA patterns maybe that changes things. I'm not going to start a pissing contest with Randy either. I can only speak for what I see and experience in my leagues and the testing data that I've looked at. I will say that I have experienced high level bowlers spouting out dated information about bowling that just isn't true anymore but not from the PBA level.

[fortheloveofbowling]

I can't really speak about the higher volume PBA patterns maybe that changes things. I'm not going to start a pissing contest with Randy either. I can only speak for what I see and experience in my leagues and the testing data that I've looked at. I will say that I have experienced high level bowlers spouting out dated information about bowling that just isn't true anymore but not from the PBA level.

I just like to keep a open mind in bowling, i'm already starting to be old and set in my ways otherwise.

[Aslan]

Being asymmetrical or symmetrical doesn't determine what type of motion the ball has.
Symmetrical drilled balls yield small differential ratios. Small differential ratios will produce a smooth, controllable motion when compared to an asymmetrical ball.

Asymmetrical drilled balls show a defined, angular motion. These balls can create more area at the break point and will respond to friction faster at the break point than symmetrical balls. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxuOphd1a8Q)

Symmetric cores tend to be smoother or more predictable on a variety of lane conditions, while asymmetrical core can be stronger or more angular on the backend they can also give varied results depending on conditions and changes in thew release. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmk4scu2EDI)

According to bowlingball.com's experts; you are wrong.

So is Amyers right or wrong? Does the core affect the ball motion/path or doesn't it? Or is this yet another example of where we have a measurable item (insert any spec) that is essentially meaningless?

See...this is my pet peeve...for Rob, he terms it "common myths". For me...it's when specs are introduced...yet they ultimately don't mean anything. We've seen that with drill layouts. People are rabidly convinced that drill layouts have an impact. Cover stocks...again, many people (including myself) will base their arsenals on cover material. And now we're talking cores.

Either these things are MEANINGFUL....or they just add confusion. Maybe for pros...some of this stuff means something...because it tweaks something ever so slightly...but if it's THAT SLIGHT....it's nothing but a distraction to 99.999998% of bowlers.

And the excuses I often hear are illogical excuses:
"Well, for some people..." WRONG. We're talking about physics....it's yes or no. Not sometimes or maybe or it might.

"It depends on the manufacturer" WRONG. Materials...yes. How a core or RG affects a ball motion...NO. That's physics...Motiv can't bend the laws of the Universe any more than Ebonite can.


most of the asymmetrical balls on the market really aren't super asymmetrical anyways. My guesstimate would be a double thumb or motion hole layout in a symmetrical ball makes it about as asymmetrical as most asymmetricals. Those balls with asymmetry greater than .17 are far and few between.

THEN...WHY IS IT A THING? If cover doesn't matter...because it can be easily manipulated...then why is it a THING? It only makes people jaded towards the ball industry....assuming they are just trying to sell more balls by making stuff up. Either it MATTERS...or it DOESN'T.


As I said before asymmetry only enhances the balls existing reaction. If a ball is designed to be skid/flip that it would make it more so but a ball can have any style of hook with either type of core.

I must not be making myself clear...

What does "skid/flip" mean? If you (amyers or whomever)...wants to make the PERFECT SKID FLIP ball....what QUALITIES would you want it to have to maximize "skid/flip"?

Would you want it to, for example, "skid"? I would. Be kinda dumb to have a non-skidding skid/flip ball.

So how do we enhance making a ball "skid"? If your answer is "polish it"...then a dull skid/flip ball....would be COUNTER to what you want. So a solid/sanded skid/flip ball....would actually be working against itself. It would be like buying a faster car but having a limiting switch on it so it's actually slower than your last car. Why buy it in the first place?

Now...when we solve the "skid" part....what enhances a ball's "flip"? And if you say "assymetric core"....then by DEFINITION....a symmetric core would work AGAINST "flip". So a solid, symmetric skid/flip ball...is NOT a skid/flip ball.

We have all these terms and specs....we have experts climbing over top one another to try and sell us on what is important and what isn't...and at the end of the day...there's literally no consensus on pretty much anything. The only consensus seems to be that sanding makes a ball hook sooner and polish makes it hook later...which then makes us scratch our head about RGs...why have a polished ball with a 2.48 RG? So the surface will try to make the ball go longer and the core will be fighting to make it enter the hook phase sooner? It's like buying faster running shoes and then putting a cinder block in your backpack.

Sometimes I think the "right" ball...is just whatever works for you in a given house. And since the consistency between houses is non-existent....it's just a matter of "getting lucky" that your new arsenal has a ball that works versus the guy who is struggling because his arsenal would work better at a different house/condition.

[Amyers]

Symmetrical drilled balls yield small differential ratios. Small differential ratios will produce a smooth, controllable motion when compared to an asymmetrical ball.

Asymmetrical drilled balls show a defined, angular motion. These balls can create more area at the break point and will respond to friction faster at the break point than symmetrical balls.


This is nonsense at it's best. First off you can find equal differentials between symmetric and asymmetric balls, so that's just malarkey. You do need some differential in a skid/flip reaction but too much can cause the ball to over react too so that's just junk too.


Symmetric cores tend to be smoother or more predictable on a variety of lane conditions, while asymmetrical core can be stronger or more angular on the backend they can also give varied results depending on conditions and changes in thew release.

Personally myself I can't see any difference in how my symmetrical balls react to a poor release than my asymmetrical balls if I throw either like crap they both roll like crap. I did see a piece from Jeff Richgels one time that he preferred symmetrical balls because they responded more to hand position changes which I would agree with.




Quote Originally Posted by Amyers View Post

most of the asymmetrical balls on the market really aren't super asymmetrical anyways. My guesstimate would be a double thumb or motion hole layout in a symmetrical ball makes it about as asymmetrical as most asymmetricals. Those balls with asymmetry greater than .17 are far and few between.
THEN...WHY IS IT A THING? If cover doesn't matter...because it can be easily manipulated...then why is it a THING? It only makes people jaded towards the ball industry....assuming they are just trying to sell more balls by making stuff up. Either it MATTERS...or it DOESN'T.


It still maters just not in the way you think. Did I say they all roll the same no. It does matter just it doesn't automatically make the ball skid flip.


I must not be making myself clear...

What does "skid/flip" mean? If you (amyers or whomever)...wants to make the PERFECT SKID FLIP ball....what QUALITIES would you want it to have to maximize "skid/flip"?
Would you want it to, for example, "skid"? I would. Be kinda dumb to have a non-skidding skid/flip ball.


Skid/flip is the more reverse hockey stick shaped movement you mentioned. polished or less surface 4k can still be pretty flippy, Higher Rg above 2.5 usually but the less surface you have the lower the RG can be, mid/high differential .4 to .5 works best. most balls with these characteristics will be in the shot shape we are talking about. Can you add an asymmetric core here of course and the ball will have a stronger motion does that mean you have too? No. Bigger isn't always better.



Now...when we solve the "skid" part....what enhances a ball's "flip"? And if you say "assymetric core"....then by DEFINITION....a symmetric core would work AGAINST "flip". So a solid, symmetric skid/flip ball...is NOT a skid/flip ball.


This is where you go off path. Does an asymmetrical core offer enhanced motion yes but the symmetric core doesn't work against motion it simply doesn't magnify it. Again you don't always want more often you need less. If I was trying to build the biggest backendest hooking ball it would have an asymmetrical core. Does that make it the only skid/flip ball? Of course not. Just because we have the same heavy oil ball at 1000 grit and you sand yours to 500 doesn't mean that my ball isn't a heavy oil ball anymore.


So how do we enhance making a ball "skid"? If your answer is "polish it"...then a dull skid/flip ball....would be COUNTER to what you want. So a solid/sanded skid/flip ball....would actually be working against itself. It would be like buying a faster car but having a limiting switch on it so it's actually slower than your last car. Why buy it in the first place?


Most heavy oil balls feature sanded covers and asymmetrical cores again the asymmetrical core enhances the motion it allows the ball to start up sooner and harder in the heavier oil where you need it. That's why you buy it.

Come on you know that not all asymmetrical balls are skid flip. You've talked about the Hyper Cell before that's an asymmetrical ball definitely not skid flip. Take the same core change the surface and wow it goes from a heavy oil ball to a skid flip ball amazing.

[Doghouse Reilly]

What does "skid/flip" mean?

Skid/flip implies that the ball retains axis rotation better/longer.


what enhances a ball's "flip"? And if you say "assymetric core"....then by DEFINITION....a symmetric core would work AGAINST "flip". So a solid, symmetric skid/flip ball...is NOT a skid/flip ball.

A Symmetrical core doesn't work against flip, it just doesn't enhance it like a Asymmetrical core would.


So the surface will try to make the ball go longer and the core will be fighting to make it enter the hook phase sooner? It's like buying faster running shoes and then putting a cinder block in your backpack.

No, it's not a cinder block in the backpack.

Sanding & Polishing is changing the tires on the car, so it matches the road surface better and gets the grip at the proper time so the power from the engine isn't wasted.

[RobLV1]

The point is the man can still read a lane and if he told me there was carry down and i was on his pair then i think i would listen.

No one is questioning Randy's ability to read a lane and make the correct adjustment (with the help of his ball rep who recommends a ball change to compliment the adjustment), it is his reasoning that I question. The article that I wrote that was the subject of this thread lists the logic behind my beliefs. I may be right. I may be wrong. Whether right or wrong, at least I'm thinking about it, and trying to encourage you all to think about it; logically. Mindlessly quoting "truths" that you've believed for years just doesn't make it if you want to excel at modern bowling, unless, of course, you have a ball rep that accompanies you to league each week.

[Aslan]

Skid/flip implies that the ball retains axis rotation better/longer.
Great! Finally....a definition we can use!

Okay...given that definition...I'm going to assume it is correct. Statistical analysis and scientific method teach us that when trying to prove something, our null hypothesis is that the opposite is true. So for the purpose of this exercise...We are going to try and "disprove" that:

Null Hypothesis: "A skid/flip ball has characteristics that cause the ball to lose (not retain) it's axis rotation both in quality and time."

So, lets apply 3 questions:

1) What bowling ball specifications (manufacturer, symmetry, core, RG, differential, cover stock, surface prep, age, drilling layout, etc...) cause or contribute to a ball losing and/or not retaining it's axis rotation?

2) What bowling ball specifications (manufacturer, symmetry, core, RG, differential, cover stock, surface prep, age, drilling layout, etc...) works AGAINST a ball losing and/or not retaining it's axis rotation?

3) What bowling ball specifications (manufacturer, symmetry, core, RG, differential, cover stock, surface prep, age, drilling layout, etc...) have no noticeable nor measurable effect on a ball losing and/or retaining it's axis rotation?


A Symmetrical core doesn't work against flip, it just doesn't enhance it like a Asymmetrical core would.
or

This is where you go off path. Does an asymmetrical core offer enhanced motion yes but the symmetric core doesn't work against motion it simply doesn't magnify it. Again you don't always want more often you need less.

According to those statements, if true, core symmetry has no noticeable nor measurable effect and thus fit in category #3.



Sanding & Polishing is changing the tires on the car, so it matches the road surface better and gets the grip at the proper time so the power from the engine isn't wasted.
But if you put all season radials or snow chains on a formula one or Nascar race car...that would not be ideal. Therefore, one can reasonably say that tires have a noticeable effect on wasting engine power. Thus, there is a 'better' tire and a 'worse' tire. According to your and Amyer's answers....when we talk about core symmetry...it's as if tires really have no noticeable nor measureable effect...thus use whatever tire....it doesn't matter.


Come on you know that not all asymmetrical balls are skid flip. You've talked about the Hyper Cell before that's an asymmetrical ball definitely not skid flip. Take the same core change the surface and wow it goes from a heavy oil ball to a skid flip ball amazing.
Not true. I would bet the Hyper Cell Skid is very "skid/flip". First hint....it's named the Hyper Cell SKID. Second, it's advertised as having an "angular breakpoint shape". Third, here is part of the description of the ball:

...the Skid does just that: skids through the tough patches and delivers what's important at the end - higher scores and great backend reaction.

But, back to the 3 questions. Let me take a stab at these:

1) What bowling ball specifications (manufacturer, symmetry, core, RG, differential, cover stock, surface prep, age, drilling layout, etc...) cause or contribute to a ball losing and/or not retaining it's axis rotation?

- Any ball spec that causes a ball to hook sooner. Thus;
Manufacturer: Brunswick and Radical
Symmetry: n/a
Core: possibly
RG: A lower RG
Diff.: possibly
Cover Stock: Solid and to a lesser extent Hybrid
Surface Prep: Sanding
Age: n/a
Drilling Layout: possibly

2) What bowling ball specifications (manufacturer, symmetry, core, RG, differential, cover stock, surface prep, age, drilling layout, etc...) works AGAINST a ball losing and/or not retaining it's axis rotation?

- Any ball spec that causes a ball to go longer. Thus;
Manufacturer: Ebonite, 900Global, Storm??
Symmetry: n/a
Core: possibly
RG: A higher RG
Diff.: possibly
Cover Stock: Pearl and to a lesser extent Hybrid
Surface Prep: Polishing
Age: n/a
Drilling Layout: possibly

3) What bowling ball specifications (manufacturer, symmetry, core, RG, differential, cover stock, surface prep, age, drilling layout, etc...) have no noticeable nor measurable effect on a ball losing and/or retaining it's axis rotation?

- Any ball spec that causes a ball to hook sooner. Thus;
Manufacturer: Motiv?
Symmetry
Core: possibly
Diff.: possibly
Cover Stock: Hybrid
Surface Prep: mid-abralon....smooth, not sanded, but not polished
Age
Drilling Layout: possibly

So, how would we test this hypothesis on the lanes?

We would take two balls:

Ball #1: A Radical ball with the lowest RG and a solid cover that is sanded to the most course surface allowable.

Ball #2: An Ebonite ball with the highest RG, a Pearl cover, that is polished.

For this test we would compare the Radical Guru Master, sanded to 350 Abralon versus the 900Global Respect Pearl, polished.
We would throw both balls, preferably using the USBC robot for consistency, and if the sanded Guru Master retained it's energy better and went longer than the 900Global Respect Pearl...our null hypothesis would be proven correct and thus our true hypothesis would be false.

So what is a better "skid/flip" ball? A sanded Guru Master? Or a 900Global Respect Pearl?

Now remember...we're working off a great many assumptions that other factors have no effect on a ball's "skid/flip"...only manufacturer, cover, surface prep, and RG. If we feel those are incorrect assumptions...then we would have to alter our lists accordingly, and probably choose different balls. I actually predict that some of those other specs ARE significant....otherwise...my Track300A is a perfect skid/flip ball as are most very low-end reactive pearls...like Scouts and Blurs. They have high RGs, are pearls, and can be polished.

And, that is where I predict this analysis falls short...we have defined "skid" very well...we have not taken into account (IMO) the "flip" part of the equation. I have a feeling, the core is vitally important in terms of angular motion and a "flip" reaction...and we are only using RG in our hypothesis.

This is how science approaches these questions. It's not about what you "feel' or what you "saw a guy do last week" or your personal beliefs. It's about a hypothesis, assumptions, and testing. If done properly...we could, in theory, create a "perfect" 'skid/flip' ball. And anything that detracts from that ideal...is LESS of a skid/flip ball.

Mudpuppy Cliff Notes: Officially the nerdiest and worst post ever.

[Amyers]

Not true. I would bet the Hyper Cell Skid is very "skid/flip". First hint....it's named the Hyper Cell SKID. Second, it's advertised as having an "angular breakpoint shape". Third, here is part of the description of the ball:

I was referring to the difference between the Hyper Cell and the Hyper Cell Skid. Change the surface and suddenly a heavy oil ball becomes a Skid Flip ball. They do make both.

I think we've gotten off track with this the original question was about if a symmetrical ball can have a skid flip reaction. The obvious answer is yes but probably less than it would if the same ball had an asymmetric core. I also disagree with your hypothesis that just because the backend is bigger that makes it better. Most often in life as some point more quickly becomes too much. We've actually taken a post that I think has some good topics and filled it full of crap now so I'm done.

[Aslan]

I agree Amyers...

That Melee Jab RobM gave me...I loved that ball...but trying to fit it in my progression based on it's lower RG and newer technology turned out to be a mistake. That ball actually went longer than the Loaded Revolver despite the lower RG. Now...it reacted much, much stronger than the Loaded Revolver....where I think Rob's technology argument has some 'legs'. So much so...I had to start using it AFTER the Lo. Revolver...when hopefully there was some carry-down and the lanes had broken down in a way where I was more inside.

I mention that...because it supports what I think you're trying to say...stronger does not always equal better. If I was outside or in the track...and the breakpoint was bone dry...the Jab was practically schizophrenic...one minute it stays in the oil and skids right...then it hits a board outside and goes through the head...or I get too much hand in it and it hooks Brooklyn. It was symmetric....but it wasn't as forgiving. Far stronger....if you measure strength in it's angular motion and ability to "flip"....but that wasn't always a good thing. :o

[Amyers]

I agree Amyers...

That Melee Jab RobM gave me...I loved that ball...but trying to fit it in my progression based on it's lower RG and newer technology turned out to be a mistake. That ball actually went longer than the Loaded Revolver despite the lower RG. Now...it reacted much, much stronger than the Loaded Revolver....where I think Rob's technology argument has some 'legs'. So much so...I had to start using it AFTER the Lo. Revolver...when hopefully there was some carry-down and the lanes had broken down in a way where I was more inside.

I mention that...because it supports what I think you're trying to say...stronger does not always equal better. If I was outside or in the track...and the breakpoint was bone dry...the Jab was practically schizophrenic...one minute it stays in the oil and skids right...then it hits a board outside and goes through the head...or I get too much hand in it and it hooks Brooklyn. It was symmetric....but it wasn't as forgiving. Far stronger....if you measure strength in it's angular motion and ability to "flip"....but that wasn't always a good thing. :o

If you've seen my posts about it before I haven't been a fan of the Jab. I know some people love it but for me it was crazy off the spot and wouldn't do crap in the oil. It's the one type of ball I don't feel Brunswick does well with is skid flip equipment.

[bowl1820]

Great! Finally....a definition we can use!

Okay...given that definition...I'm going to assume it is correct.

I recognize the definition, That came from Mo Pinel. So it more likely than not it's accurate.



worst post ever.

You called it there, That post was just dirt threw in the water to make mud.

[Doghouse Reilly]

Right that's from MO.


Here's some info posted by "charlest", he's known on all the other bowling forums.


Skid/Flip:
It's the relationship of:

The cover's finish.
The strength of the core.
The amount of oil and the amount of dry backend.
Together with the bowler's rev rate/ball speed ratio and their tilt and rotation.

You need to look at all these factors in relation to one another and by themselves, this will help to determine how much the ball will skid/flip.

- If you dull the ball, it will tend to hook earlier and save less for the backend; thus reducing its tendency to s/f. Adding more polish will increase the flip.

- If you use a more end-over-end release (less rotation), it will s/f less. More rotation or more tilt will increase the s/f.

- If you use it on longer oil, with a shorter dry backend, it will s/f less.

- If you drill it with a higher RG (pin further from the PAP, keeping all other relationships the same), it will s/f more.

- If you use a smaller VAL angle, it will s/f more.

A low RG Diff on the ball usually adds control; usually a higher RG diff will cause a greater tendency to s/f, all other things being equal.

If you're rev dominant (more revs than speed), more balls are likely to be skid/flip.

For someone who is speed dominant or who is rev/speed matched, lower RG would usually help a ball to rev up earlier and reduce s/f tendencies.

[Aslan]

So it sounds like Doghouse is saying I'm correct...there are certain specs that would make a ball less ideal as a "skid/flip" ball and thus certain balls can't reasonably claim to be "skid/flip" as they don't meet the definition or meet it far less than "ideal".

[Aslan]

You called it there, That post was just dirt threw in the water to make mud.

I hope it wins a ball just to spite you. :p

[rv driver]

I haven't read the whole bread, but it occurs to me that sell of thes measurements of ball reaction are treated as if they're acvomplished in a vacuum. Which, as we all know, simply is not the case. There's approach/swing/release characteristics and anomalies, as well as lane conditions that will affect how a ball reacts. It's the ball in real-world conditions that's important and hard to analyze, due to the plethora of variables present.

[rv driver]

"Thread," not "bread."

[bowl1820]

So it sounds like Doghouse is saying I'm correct...there are certain specs that would make a ball less ideal as a "skid/flip" ball and thus certain balls can't reasonably claim to be "skid/flip" as they don't meet the definition or meet it far less than "ideal".

Of course there are certain ball specifications that are better suited for and can enhance (make more pronounced) a skid/flip reaction nobody says there not.

But just because a ball doesn't have those specifications doesn't mean it can't be skid/flip to some extent, just that it won't be as skid/flippy as one that has those specifications can be.

[Aslan]

But just because a ball doesn't have those specifications doesn't mean it can't be skid/flip to some extent, just that it won't be as skid/flippy as one that has those specifications can be.

But that's the point Bowl1820!

At what point is a "truck" a "car"? At what point is a dog a wolf? What is "heavy" vs "light"?

Most people in every bowling thread on the internet seems to think specifications actually MEAN something....yet nearly all of them are in agreement that everything is just variable and it's hard to say and sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, etc... Nobody wants to actually define anything....which makes specifications useless.

For example, lets say I start a bowling ball company and claim my bowling balls go longer and snap harder than any other balls on the market. Then a bowler buys them and I get a customer complaint saying my bowling balls don't work as advertised. I simply respond that using my specific release, drilling, lanes, oil conditions, humidity, and speed...my claims are true. How does a person refute my claims....if my claims are based on nothing? How can a person argue that a core plays a certain role in a ball's motion....if we can't define what a core does and what a core does not do?

I'm working off the assumption....that bowling ball companies are not just making things up. I assume they actually believe core and RG and differential and cover stock....that these things MATTER. And most people would agree they do. But when I say, "Okay...then the IDEAL skid/flip ball would be "INSERT IDEAL SPECS"....everyone gasps and says, "Whoa...whoa....I throw a Rotogrip Poopmaster and it's way more skid/flip than the Storm Stinkvomit! Those stats don't mean anything!"

IF stats mean something...then there must be an ideal for a certain reaction. Anything, any stat, any spec....that is not that ideal....is less than ideal. It can't be both ways. I can't sand a bowling ball and claim I'm trying to make it go longer. I can't polish a bowling ball and try to make it hook sooner. Likewise, I can't say a solid, sanded ball is "skid/flip"....when sanding it or making it out of a solid cover....causes it to hook sooner....because then it's not "Skidding". If an RG makes a ball hook sooner....then a low RG ball...cannot be "skid/flip". If a symmetric core is designed to smooth out the ball motion....then that's not "flip"....that's a "skid/curve" ball.

I find it odd that most people claim "PerfectScale" is useless...yet they believe cover stocks....they believe RGs....they believe in surfaces....all of which are taken into account with the PerfectScale. Most bowlers agree that the core does something....they just can't tell you exactly what it does.

I believe a true "skid/flip" ball MUST be a polished, pearl with a high RG and an assymetric core. Anything less than those....detracts from it's ability to truly "skid/flip". I believe, this is also why many people (Rob, Amyers, etc...) have said that they feel Brunswick struggles with making a "skid/flip" ball....which makes sense because Brunswick covers are considered by most to hook sooner than other ball makers. So a Radical, Brunswick, or DV8....would not be "ideal" for a skid/flip ball. But that's just my "theory". I'm sure many of the DV8 guys will argue that they've had some very good "skid/flip" balls. Unless we have the robot help us...truly defining these things gets lost in a cloud of "well, his release is....*****....on **** lanes....as a tweener....throwing at that speed...etc..."

One thing I find frustrating is watching the ball videos. You see guys throwing these balls...and they are all going long and snapping. Even the strokers/tweeners seem to be generating 400rpms....and it looks like the breakpoint on the lanes has been sanded or something....the balls hit the breakpoint like a golf ball hitting a cinder block. Then all us "dummies"....see those videos and go, "Oooooo! That ball really turns the corner!! I need to get THAT ball!! Then even my horrid release can result in Jason Belmonte type of carry!!!" Then we buy it....the ball does nothing but make a tiny move on the backend...and we think it's "broken".

I'm very worried about my next arsenal. I have a LOT of polished pearls with low RGs...and I want to start throwing the Defiant Edge. But the logical part of my brain is asking, "Why throw a polished pearl Rotogrip ball....with an RG that is going to try and get it to hook sooner....while the cover is trying to make it go longer?" Maybe...it'll be a pleasant surprise....maybe the cover/surface allows it to clear the heads...retaining power...and the core then overcomes my higher speed...to get the ball to make a definitive move to the pocket. Maybe. Or....I might be disappointed....because the ball will have no energy downlane...because the core wants to hook before the ball ever 'grabs' or find friction.

The opposite is true for the Bullet Train I plan to un-retire. I have a feeling that the core is going to save up energy...higher RG...but that dam S79 cover...even if I get it surfaced to 3000 and polish the heck out of it....is going to want to grab as soon as it finds any friction. That will result in two balls....neither of which can carry...so I'll be using a Track300A and constantly cussing up a storm because that ball isn't going to make ANY move...ever...so I'm going to subconsciously "try" to make it move...and then I'm back to square 1. :mad:

Mudpuppy Cliff Notes: Second worst post ever. Bowl 2-handed and the ball won't matter.

[Amyers]

But that's the point Bowl1820!

At what point is a "truck" a "car"? At what point is a dog a wolf? What is "heavy" vs "light"?

Most people in every bowling thread on the internet seems to think specifications actually MEAN something....yet nearly all of them are in agreement that everything is just variable and it's hard to say and sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, etc... Nobody wants to actually define anything....which makes specifications useless.

For example, lets say I start a bowling ball company and claim my bowling balls go longer and snap harder than any other balls on the market. Then a bowler buys them and I get a customer complaint saying my bowling balls don't work as advertised. I simply respond that using my specific release, drilling, lanes, oil conditions, humidity, and speed...my claims are true. How does a person refute my claims....if my claims are based on nothing? How can a person argue that a core plays a certain role in a ball's motion....if we can't define what a core does and what a core does not do?

I'm working off the assumption....that bowling ball companies are not just making things up. I assume they actually believe core and RG and differential and cover stock....that these things MATTER. And most people would agree they do. But when I say, "Okay...then the IDEAL skid/flip ball would be "INSERT IDEAL SPECS"....everyone gasps and says, "Whoa...whoa....I throw a Rotogrip Poopmaster and it's way more skid/flip than the Storm Stinkvomit! Those stats don't mean anything!"

IF stats mean something...then there must be an ideal for a certain reaction. Anything, any stat, any spec....that is not that ideal....is less than ideal. It can't be both ways. I can't sand a bowling ball and claim I'm trying to make it go longer. I can't polish a bowling ball and try to make it hook sooner. Likewise, I can't say a solid, sanded ball is "skid/flip"....when sanding it or making it out of a solid cover....causes it to hook sooner....because then it's not "Skidding". If an RG makes a ball hook sooner....then a low RG ball...cannot be "skid/flip". If a symmetric core is designed to smooth out the ball motion....then that's not "flip"....that's a "skid/curve" ball.

I find it odd that most people claim "PerfectScale" is useless...yet they believe cover stocks....they believe RGs....they believe in surfaces....all of which are taken into account with the PerfectScale. Most bowlers agree that the core does something....they just can't tell you exactly what it does.

I believe a true "skid/flip" ball MUST be a polished, pearl with a high RG and an assymetric core. Anything less than those....detracts from it's ability to truly "skid/flip". I believe, this is also why many people (Rob, Amyers, etc...) have said that they feel Brunswick struggles with making a "skid/flip" ball....which makes sense because Brunswick covers are considered by most to hook sooner than other ball makers. So a Radical, Brunswick, or DV8....would not be "ideal" for a skid/flip ball. But that's just my "theory". I'm sure many of the DV8 guys will argue that they've had some very good "skid/flip" balls. Unless we have the robot help us...truly defining these things gets lost in a cloud of "well, his release is....*****....on **** lanes....as a tweener....throwing at that speed...etc..."

One thing I find frustrating is watching the ball videos. You see guys throwing these balls...and they are all going long and snapping. Even the strokers/tweeners seem to be generating 400rpms....and it looks like the breakpoint on the lanes has been sanded or something....the balls hit the breakpoint like a golf ball hitting a cinder block. Then all us "dummies"....see those videos and go, "Oooooo! That ball really turns the corner!! I need to get THAT ball!! Then even my horrid release can result in Jason Belmonte type of carry!!!" Then we buy it....the ball does nothing but make a tiny move on the backend...and we think it's "broken".

I'm very worried about my next arsenal. I have a LOT of polished pearls with low RGs...and I want to start throwing the Defiant Edge. But the logical part of my brain is asking, "Why throw a polished pearl Rotogrip ball....with an RG that is going to try and get it to hook sooner....while the cover is trying to make it go longer?" Maybe...it'll be a pleasant surprise....maybe the cover/surface allows it to clear the heads...retaining power...and the core then overcomes my higher speed...to get the ball to make a definitive move to the pocket. Maybe. Or....I might be disappointed....because the ball will have no energy downlane...because the core wants to hook before the ball ever 'grabs' or find friction.

The opposite is true for the Bullet Train I plan to un-retire. I have a feeling that the core is going to save up energy...higher RG...but that dam S79 cover...even if I get it surfaced to 3000 and polish the heck out of it....is going to want to grab as soon as it finds any friction. That will result in two balls....neither of which can carry...so I'll be using a Track300A and constantly cussing up a storm because that ball isn't going to make ANY move...ever...so I'm going to subconsciously "try" to make it move...and then I'm back to square 1. :mad:

Mudpuppy Cliff Notes: Second worst post ever. Bowl 2-handed and the ball won't matter.

Well as far as impartial testing the only thing I've ever seen are the USBC studies and Mo with Radical using the throwbot and I've seen numerous people poo on even those. Honestly I think most of the development takes place by having pro's and staffers tell them what they want and them supplying test balls until they find something that fulfills that wish. At the very least I know some of that goes on because I know people who have participated in them.

Part of the issue here is your looking for absolutes on what the ball will or can do and the rest of us are talking relative motion. The other part of this is your failure to grasp the fact that everything is realitive and a tradeoff in bowling. Too high of an RG will go to long for some players that can be off set by adding surface or a stronger coverstock. Too low of an RG may hook to early for some bowlers reduce the surface. The point of a bowling ball is to provide a margin to the largest percentage of people that will buy the ball not too simply build what has the largest backend reaction.

This is why you see low rg balls with polished surfaces and high rg with lots of surface or a manufacturer that makes a polished solid or a sanded pearl. It is a design tweek to make the ball more useable or to improve it's shelf appeal.

The ball can never provide more than what you put into it. if you throw at 18 mph and have 200 revs it's going to be a dart regardless. If you have low speed and high revs odds are good your going to struggle to keep the ball from hooking too much/ too early not matter what type it is. Now the incorrect choices can make either of these situations worse but balls aren't miracle workers.

Mo himself has state that he's not a huge fan of the skid/flip motion so it's not terribly suprising you don't see huge amounts of that probably the closest thig to it is the RAVE On and Rack Attack pearls both of which are weaker balls but somewhat skid/flip and symmetrical cored lol. I don't see much DV8 around here but I think ther last big attempt was the Schnizo which didn't go well. As for Brunswick their last big one was the Exile which my coach uses as lower oil ball when he wants to play straighter lol. Brunswick does make the Diva line which has had some somewhat skippy pieces in again symmetrical cored. I actually thik the problem is the opossit that their covers are somewhat weaker and don't have the power to quickly transition them but I could be wrong about that.

[ChuckR]

A comment for Amyers on Brunswick. I mentioned in another post that I had the Melee Hook I won drilled 50x4x30 and when it finds friction it rolls into the pocket with authority. I do hope this will last as it only has 6 games on it. My Mastermind Genius has the s/f style at 40x4x30.

[Amyers]

A comment for Amyers on Brunswick. I mentioned in another post that I had the Melee Hook I won drilled 50x4x30 and when it finds friction it rolls into the pocket with authority. I do hope this will last as it only has 6 games on it. My Mastermind Genius has the s/f style at 40x4x30.

I didn't say this with anything negative in mind towards Brunswick. I have had a Master Mind Genius for quite a while and it's my most used ball and just got a Vintage Danger Zone the other day. Everyone has areas they are weaker in and high end asymmetric balls just haven't been kind to them in recent memory. My wife just got a Mastermind Braniac. I'm not sure if I would call it skid flip but it's pretty close and looks good. On this really just meant that top line big back end ball just never seems to develop for them. None of the melee series have rolled well for me just think the low rg cores aren't for me but it has looked good when I've seen other throw it. The Hook and the Genius both feature plenty of hook but I wouldn't consider either of them super angular or skid/flip though.

[bowl1820]

I agree with Amyers like where he says your looking for these absolutes and your failure to grasp the fact that you make trade offs in bowling.

The ball spec's just give you a starting point, you then adjust them to fit your needs and style. Yes certain ball spec's lend themselves to be better skid/flip balls and a company might say that. That's why you have to understand what the spec's mean and how they apply to what you want to do to get the optimum reaction.


I find it odd that most people claim "PerfectScale" is useless...yet they believe cover stocks....they believe RGs....they believe in surfaces....all of which are taken into account with the PerfectScale. Most bowlers agree that the core does something....they just can't tell you exactly what it does.

The Perfect Scale isn't perfect because a lot of the calculations are based on non standardized information from the manufactures.

Example: The Hook & Length ratings each companies gives are added into the P.S. calculations, but the criteria the companies use to determine those ratings are different from company to company.

So say if company "A" says their ball has a hook rating of 50 and company "B" says theirs has a rating of 50, perfect scale will use 50 thinking both are the same.
But if you tested Company A's ball using company B's criteria it might only be a 45. And that's what skews the results in the perfect scale.

While the logarithm they use tries to take some of this into account, it's not perfect and conflicts come up.



One thing I find frustrating is watching the ball videos.

Well that's what sells balls, it's marketing. People like seeing the Hollywood shot, balls that make a big move left to right and yes they think that ball will let them do that.


Suggestion:
You might consider getting away from using all this overlong composition in your posts. Which cause people to start skimming the post not reading it. By condensing it and making it more concise, It would make it easier for readers to parse out the important parts and give better answers.

Also using words like Poopmaster, Stinkvomit divert attention away from what your trying say.

[Aslan]

You might consider getting away from using all this overlong composition in your posts. Which cause people to start skimming the post not reading it. By condensing it and making it more concise, It would make it easier for readers to parse out the important parts and give better answers.
That assumes I have "important parts".

Way to wait until I post 5,000 times to make me more readable. :)


Also using words like Poopmaster, Stinkvomit divert attention away from what your trying say.
Well, just wait until 2018 when those balls are released...and I better get a free one given I came up with the names! I'll waive the copyright if I get a free ball...I'm very affordable that way. :p