Next Arsenal Dilemmas: Part III

[Aslan]

I'm about halfway through my arsenal. I think I have about 480 games on this arsenal...I wanted it to last me 1000 games...but after giving the Jab away to a needy bowler...and the early retirement of the Asylum due to the fact that ball was essentially worthless....I'm down to 3 balls....and I rarely use the Dark Encounter...also somewhat useless...I figure maybe I should switch out the arsenal at about 600 games...because most of my games are now on the Lethal and Loaded Revolvers.

So, my next arsenal has been a bit of a quandary:

Option A (2015):
I was thinking of using some of my undrilled balls from the "Closet of Destiny"...putting together an arsenal that looked like this:
- Rotogrip Defiant Edge, Ebonite Warning Sign, Ebonite Innovate, Track 300A.

The problem with this arsenal...is I have NO faith whatsoever in those two Ebonite balls. I've had terrible luck with Columbia...and an arsenal 3/4 Ebonite and Track kinda scares me.

Not to mention..that would be 3 balls with identical 2.49 RGs....which seems like a stupid strategy...not to mention...I seem to suck terribly throwing low RG equipment.

Option B (2015/2016):
Scrap the Ebonite balls...use the Defiant Edge and Track300a...but un-retire the 900Global Bullet Train. This gives me a spread of 2.49. 2.55, and 2.57 RGs...kinda like what Rob preaches in terms of using the RGs to develop an arsenal.

Downsides...again...the only ball to get excited about...the DE...has a 2.49 RG. I have a feeling...that might be the failed Encounter experiment all over again...or worse...the Asylum. Not to mention, the Asylum kinda ruined me on RotoGrip. And the 300A is a glorified spare ball....that I likely won't be able to use except for practice, extremely dry conditions, or no-tap tournaments.

Upside...? I really liked the Melee Jab. It was erratic...but I liked it. It was a Pearl....the Defiant Edge is a Pearl. Maybe the Defiant Edge with it's pearl, polished cover...will go a little longer before losing energy...maybe the stronger core actually gives me some angle downlane....maybe.

Option C?:
I dunno.

I looked at my list of balls I've thrown thus far...ranked them...and here's the list with RG and 0-5 *s:

1) Brunswick Melee Jab (2.487 RG)****
2) Brunswick Loaded Revolver (2.504 RG)****
3) Brunswick Lethal Revolver (2.520 RG)****
4) Hammer Rhythm (2.50 RG)***
5) 900 Global Bullet Train (2.55 RG)***
6) Storm Frantic (2.53 RG)***
7) Brunswick Slingshot (2.586 RG)***
8) Columbia300 Dark Encounter (2.50 RG)**
9) Rotogrip Asylum (2.50 RG)*
10) Columbia300 Encounter (2.51 RG)*

Looking at this list...I seem to throw better (Rhythm aside) bowling balls with a 2.54 RG or higher. And, Dark Encounter aside, a differential of 0.050 or higher. The lower I get in RG...it just seems like the ball wants to hook and roll SOONER than I want it to hook and roll. I can find the pocket...but by the time it hits...it's weak, weak, weak...

Now...yes....drilling options blah blah blah...I could buy stock in Abralon pads....play with the surfaces to make them go longer, etc... I could increase my speed...maybe start playing more inside lines....yes, yes, yes...there are other options at play...but lets, for the sake of confusion, just put all those things aside for a moment.

Lets just assume...for whatever reason...my lack of skills and the lane conditions I play on...that I just do better with a > 2.546 RG... > 0.049 diff. I seem to roll better with Brunswick...I seem unable to score well with Columbia300. Those are the metrics...based on that...what options do I have in the "Closet of Destiny"? Balls in italics are 15#, non-italics are 16#...so that further complicates arsenal selection...because I don't want to mix weights. I can throw 14,15, or 16...but not 14 AND 15 AND 16.

Options:
- 900Global "The Nuts" (2.543 RG, 0.050 differential)
- Brunswick Fortera Exile (2.512 RG, 0.050 differential)

Other Possibilities:
- Brunswick Vintage Rhino Pro (2.520 RG, 0.048 diff)
- Track 300A (2.58 RG, 0.023 diff)
- DV8 Ruckus (2.540 RG, 0.052 diff)
- Track 706A (2.53 RG, 0.047 diff)
- 900Global Bullet Train <unretire> (2.55 RG, 0.040 diff)

Longshots:
- Rotogrip Defiant Edge, Radical Reaxx Pearl, Brunswick Aura Mystic (these balls have significant differentials...which means I think they can hit hard enough...but their RGs are 2.481 to 2.492...NOT my forte).

Probably Worthless:
- Ebonite Warning Sign and Ebonite Innovate
2.49 RGs and 0.041 differentials. I see these as all the problems I had with the Asylum...with even less powerful covers...essentially the Encounter situation all over again.

So...for the ball nerds out there...based on the above information...what are your suggestions and why?

Realize, a few rules/guidelines:
1) I'm more likely to accept "spec-based" theory than "I like that ball, I rolled a 244 once with it, and I like that it's green, and I'm a Storm fan." All very interesting points...but generally worthless as far as arsenal advice goes.
2) While I'm not opposed to suggestions of other (non closet of destiny) balls, I would like to use at LEAST one of these balls in my next arsenal. I'd actually like to start using these balls rather than display them undrilled on my homemade bowling ball rack...while they slowly shrink or crack or some other issue.

I mean, is there ANY way I can throw the Defiant Edge with a 2.49 RG? I'd really like to give Rotogrip another chance....and bowlers generally liked the Defiant series...but I just don't know if I can throw low-RG equipment on the lanes I play on where the pattern is so dry outside. Every time I try...the ball reads about 1/2 way down the lane....then limps into the pocket like a wet noodle.

Maybe go with what works and replace the Revolvers with the Nuts and the Exile. But then what? Do I use the Rhino Pro as a dry condition ball to round out the arsenal? Do I try to find a 2.52-2.53 RG ball with a 0.052-0.054 diff...something to start off with or use on heavier oil conditions? But everyone I've talked to that has used the Fortera series or the The Nuts...lets just say NOT ringing reviews!

Maybe I drill the Track 300A. Scrap the Defiant Edge for now...fill in the arsenal with the Ruckus and 706A. Maybe unretire the Bullet Train...maybe not. Maybe use the Ruckus out of the gate...hybrid cover, stronger diff....use the 706A as a ball down option...for Game 2 or 3 depending on how things are going? Maybe unretire the Bullet Train and wedge it in between the Ruckus and 706A? Or maybe I don't need the Bullet Train? But this makes me worry...the Bullet Train is a STRONG ball...I'd have to really surface the poo out of it to use it. Does that mean the Ruckus is a lost cause and I'll likely never use it at my current house (too strong)? I dunno.

Ultimately, I'll get my coach's advice...but both my coaches are sponsored by different ball companies. Now, one of them is a little more open to helping select balls from other manufacturers...but neither of them actually THROW other brands. So, even if they're "open" to the idea of recommending a competitor's product...they might not have a great deal of knowledge about other manufacturer's products.

[RobLV1]

Before replying with suggestions, you need to go back to the Brunswick website and re-evaluate the RG's of your bowling balls. For some reason, known only to Brunswick, they list the RG Max and the RG Min separately. This translates to the High RG and the Low RG. You have listed the RG Max for your bowling balls, when the actual Low RG is the RG Min. For example, the low RG of the Melee Jab is 2.487. The 2.562 number is the high RG which is totally useless (to find the high RG, all you have to do is to add the Low RG and the Diff.).

[ChuckR]

I would suggest the Melee Hook as a replacement for the Melee Jab. The numbers are the same. The difference is in the coverstock which gives the HOOK more finish at the pins and good versatility in surface preparation. I won it here and the ball works great on medium to medium heavy conditions.

[RobLV1]

I would suggest the Melee Hook as a replacement for the Melee Jab. The numbers are the same. The difference is in the coverstock which gives the HOOK more finish at the pins and good versatility in surface preparation. I won it here and the ball works great on medium to medium heavy conditions.

Having seen both of you bowl, NOT a good idea for Aslan!

[Aslan]

Having seen both of you bowl, NOT a good idea for Aslan!

Thats either insulting me, insulting Chuck, insulting both of us, or complimenting both of us.


Before replying with suggestions, you need to go back to the Brunswick website and re-evaluate the RG's of your bowling balls. For some reason, known only to Brunswick, they list the RG Max and the RG Min separately. This translates to the High RG and the Low RG. You have listed the RG Max for your bowling balls, when the actual Low RG is the RG Min. For example, the low RG of the Melee Jab is 2.487. The 2.562 number is the high RG which is totally useless (to find the high RG, all you have to do is to add the Low RG and the Diff.).
I re-entered the low-RG number from the manufacturer websites for Brunswick, DV8, and Radical.

I'm not sure how I entered the information into my spreadsheet. I "believe" to try make it consistent manufacturer to manufacturer and source to source (yes, I actually found some balls where specs were different depending on the source), I would use the average of the high RG and low RG. Probably should have just used min RG across the board...but it's not a big deal as long as I use the same system for all manufacturers. Most of the Brunswick ones I fixed were like 0.020 lower or something like that. Brunswick is actually a good site because they have almost all the specs right there for every ball. Some of the sites won't even give you specs on older balls or it's harder to get to.

Okay, so numbers fixed...feel free to evaluate. I'd be interested especially in you and Chuck's opinions simply because I think you guys are the only ones I know that primarily throw Brunswick...but also have thrown other brands...especially Rob having reviewed balls for the website.

It's just weird, because Brunswick et al are known throughout the industry as balls that tend to hook early. Radical, Brunswick, then 1-3 spots later DV8...all regarded as hooking early. EBI balls, tend to have the opposite opinion throughout the industry, that these tend to hook later. Yet, when you look at RG...it's the opposite. I seem to perform better with a late-hooking RG and an early hooking coverstock. If it's just a matter of canceling each other out, why do I do SO poorly with EBI and less responsive/early hooking covers but with a low RG to hook earlier?

This was so much easier when I thought the balls were solid balls of rubber with holes drilled in them for fingers. Learning is hard.

[Aslan]

Great. That messed up the whole spreadsheet...my whole premise is now off.

Excuse me while I do some analysis and re-ask this question.

[Aslan]

Well...now there's no correlation! It turns out I'm equally horrible despite RG value.

However, this did cause me to issue the 3rd version of my arsenal selection system and I answered my own question.

But, still interested in comments!!!

[JJKinGA]

Track 706A goes really long. Much longer than I expected for something in the 700 series. I love how it looks, but I really have no place for it. I much prefer my cyclone over it for drier lanes.

[Amyers]

I think from what I see in your reviews of your past balls is you prefer mid to higher rg and if you are going to use a lower rg ball it had better be a pearl with a higher a differential and a polished finish. I am also taking into account your lower speed delivery that you have been using.

I try to set my arsenals up in this method which works well for me:

Medium-heavy: A medium to lower rg with some surface so if I run into a heavy pattern I have something that will work. This ball may not get used a lot.

Benchmark 1a: A medium oil ball in the 3 to 4k surface range that offers a classic movement.

Benchmark 1b: A medium oil ball with a polished surface that has more of a skid flip action for when I need to play more left to right

Lighter oil: a lower oil ball that will handle the breakdown and useful for open bowling when there is less oil.

So for you here is what I would do with what you have available:

Medium Heavy: DV8 Rukus might change the surface to 2000 or the Ebonite Warning Sign (neither of these are pefect for this slot but both offer more traction than your other balls and should still get enough length to be useful. I'm not an ebonite fan either. Unretire the Bullet train could be an option here too. If I did make either of these balls Benchmark 1a. If I could I would happily trade both of them for a Brunswick Mastermind (any of the somewhat surfaced ones) or a Hammer Arson High Flare Solid but you got what you got.

Benchmark 1a: Radical Reaxx Pearl- Again not a perfect choice but most of your balls fit the class 1b better from everything I've seen the Reaxx is the erliest rolling most benchmark reaction of your choices here. You could put the DV8 Rukus in this spot without a surface change in this spot also

Benchmark 1b: Rotogrip Defiant Edge- The edge is the most aggressive and offers the most backend reaction of all the balls you have. Honestly most of the balls in your arsenal would fit in this spot and is where they belong.

Low oil: Track 300a or the Fortera Exile. I know that's a strange place for the Exile but honestly from what I've seen and I bowl with quite a few guys who own one it's where it belongs and wqould be where it's at in their arsenals. There was a reason why this ball was on clearance for $69.

Seriously myself I would pitch the Ebonite or track stuff maybe a proshop will give you 5 for 1 deal (I included the Exile in the trash pile) on something that you could use. I wouldn't worry about the Defiant Edge I haven't seen it in person but I've seen lot's of Defiant's and Defiant's souls and they've been really good. Your Asylum was a drilling mistake the took a bench mark ball and drilled the differential out of it trying to make the ball work as a #3 ball in your arsenal.

[Amyers]

Thats either insulting me, insulting Chuck, insulting both of us, or complimenting both of us.


I re-entered the low-RG number from the manufacturer websites for Brunswick, DV8, and Radical.

I'm not sure how I entered the information into my spreadsheet. I "believe" to try make it consistent manufacturer to manufacturer and source to source (yes, I actually found some balls where specs were different depending on the source), I would use the average of the high RG and low RG. Probably should have just used min RG across the board...but it's not a big deal as long as I use the same system for all manufacturers. Most of the Brunswick ones I fixed were like 0.020 lower or something like that. Brunswick is actually a good site because they have almost all the specs right there for every ball. Some of the sites won't even give you specs on older balls or it's harder to get to.

Okay, so numbers fixed...feel free to evaluate. I'd be interested especially in you and Chuck's opinions simply because I think you guys are the only ones I know that primarily throw Brunswick...but also have thrown other brands...especially Rob having reviewed balls for the website.

It's just weird, because Brunswick et al are known throughout the industry as balls that tend to hook early. Radical, Brunswick, then 1-3 spots later DV8...all regarded as hooking early. EBI balls, tend to have the opposite opinion throughout the industry, that these tend to hook later. Yet, when you look at RG...it's the opposite. I seem to perform better with a late-hooking RG and an early hooking coverstock. If it's just a matter of canceling each other out, why do I do SO poorly with EBI and less responsive/early hooking covers but with a low RG to hook earlier?

This was so much easier when I thought the balls were solid balls of rubber with holes drilled in them for fingers. Learning is hard.

I'm not sure that you can really say this much anymore. True Brunswick doesn't make a super angular stand right throw left ball but the MM Scholar and Braniac and the Absolute Nirvana offer more than enough backend now for most bowlers. Try to find a good benchmark ball in Storm's lineup now. The Lock is too aggressive for that, the IQ Tour is old really old and too low a diff, and the Match is a low oil ball. Hammer is pretty complete but you've got to choose from 50 balls to make it that way, I like some of the newer Track stuff but I don't trust them and you couldn't get me to throw Ebonite or Columbia if you offered me a staff contract. Rotogrip seems ok but there lineup is full of holes at the moment too. Honestly between Brunswick, Radical, and DV8 (I prefer Brunswick and Radical) you've got the best choices in my opinion.

[RobLV1]

Aslan: You cannot take the high RG and the Low RG and average them because the difference between them is the Differential and that can realistically vary from 0.020 to 0.060. The low RG matters, and the Differential matters. The high RG, or RG Max as Brunswick calls it, is meaningless.

As for my comment about you and ChuckR, it is neither a compliment nor a slight. It's just that the two of you bowl totally differently in terms of speed, axis tilt, and axis rotation.

[Mike White]

Aslan: You cannot take the high RG and the Low RG and average them because the difference between them is the Differential and that can realistically vary from 0.020 to 0.060. The low RG matters, and the Differential matters. The high RG, or RG Max as Brunswick calls it, is meaningless.

As for my comment about you and ChuckR, it is neither a compliment nor a slight. It's just that the two of you bowl totally differently in terms of speed, axis tilt, and axis rotation.



If you drill the ball with the Pin approximately 3 3/8" from the PAP, averaging the high and low RG values gives a reasonable estimate of the predrilled RG value of the PAP on a symmetrical ball.

I have no idea how you can claim the low RG and differential matters, yet the high RG is meaningless.

Differential is simply the difference between the high RG, and the low RG.

Maybe its time for you to re-examine what you think you know about the modern bowling ball.


It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. - Mark Twain

[RobLV1]

If you drill the ball with the Pin approximately 3 3/8" from the PAP, averaging the high and low RG values gives a reasonable estimate of the predrilled RG value of the PAP on a symmetrical ball.

I have no idea how you can claim the low RG and differential matters, yet the high RG is meaningless.

Differential is simply the difference between the high RG, and the low RG.

Maybe its time for you to re-examine what you think you know about the modern bowling ball.


It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. - Mark Twain

I'm just trying to make things as simple as possible. By just looking at the low RG and the Differential numbers, bowlers really don't have to understand what they are. By not averaging them as Aslan suggests, the numbers then work for both symmetricals and asymmetricals even when the pin to PAP distance is something other than 3 3/8" for those bowlers who have no idea what a PAP is.

[Mike White]

I'm just trying to make things as simple as possible. By just looking at the low RG and the Differential numbers, bowlers really don't have to understand what they are. By not averaging them as Aslan suggests, the numbers then work for both symmetricals and asymmetricals even when the pin to PAP distance is something other than 3 3/8" for those bowlers who have no idea what a PAP is.

Aslan: If you want "as simple as possible".. select the ball based in it's color.

If you want the ball to be as effective as possible, Rob's not a good source of information.

[RobLV1]

Aslan: If you want "as simple as possible".. select the ball based in it's color.

If you want the ball to be as effective as possible, Rob's not a good source of information.

Thank you for your kind words, Mike. They're appreciated as always.

[JaxBowlingGuy]

Lets try to stay on topic here. No need to get personal with anything. Opinions are like... well you know.. everyone has one.

[JJKinGA]

Mo Pinel has said the Rg of the PAP (which is what matters) can be well approximated for most bowlers by LowRg + 0.7*differential. That requires some simple math, but then you have one number to worry about in the comparisons.

[Mike White]

Mo Pinel has said the Rg of the PAP (which is what matters) can be well approximated for most bowlers by LowRg + 0.7*differential. That requires some simple math, but then you have one number to worry about in the comparisons.

Anytime you try to simply the process more than is actually required, you lose information.

Mo's approximation would only be good if most bowlers also use a Pin to Pap distance of approximately 4 3/4", and use symmetrical balls.

Mo also says the ball physically can't have more tilt than axis rotation.

[Aslan]

Uh oh. Mommy and Daddy are fighting again!!


I try to set my arsenals up in this method which works well for me:

Your method was sorta like my previous method. Just try to go "solid-hybrid-pearl" or most surface to less surface. And the sound reasoning behind that is that it's largely agreed upon that the "most" impact on a ball's path is surface/cover.

The problem with this method in my opinion is it's very true if everything else is constant. But everything else isn't constant. I would characterize it with this analogy:

It's very easy to test tires and determine relatively easily...which tire grabs more and which tire skids more. It's a simple test and is very, very accurate. But....how much a car skids....is the result of a multitude of factors including speed, and power, and transmission, and technology, and the weight of the vehicle, the surface the tire is on, etc...

And thats when I started giving PerfectScale and Rob's RG-focused arsenal selection method a look. Like Rob talks about, the RG is like the "engine"...the core is like the "engine" of the ball. Surface is still most relevant...as anyone who has ever lost control of a muscle car could tell you....but one the ball is transitioning from skid to hook...something has to push it in that physical direction....and just as important...something has to try and extend that hooking motion to delay the roll phase. I'm not explaining it well...you can look at Rob's article on ModernBowling (I think) for his explanation on RG use in arsenal selection.

As we've argued about before, the one weak point of using surface as the primary selection tool....is that while the coverstock remains a constant chemistry during usage; the surface changes are constantly happening and create more rapid changes to the ball movement than anything else. How long a person can throw a 2000 surface ball before the surface goes to 1000...???? You'll read all kinds of numbers. Some pro level bowlers will claim it's 5 games...5 weeks...5 rounds....and then others will claim it's 500 games, 5 years, 5 seasons. But from a pure physics standpoint, it is a physical certainty that said object will be constantly going from a state of order to disorder and everything from temperature to humidity to oxygen content to the force the ball must absorb each time it is thrown....all affect the surface...constantly.


So for you here is what I would do with what you have available:

...DV8 Rukus/Ebonite Warning Sign/Bullet train then Radical Reaxx Pearl/DV8 Rukus then Rotogrip Defiant Edge then Track 300a/Fortera Exile.

Looking at it in 3 parts:

First Ball:
I could agree on the Ruckus. I can't see the Ruckus being of much use in my current house at my current speed. But I think it could be a strong enough ball to start out with on wider or longer patterns. I'd just have to make sure when I get it drilled that the ball driller knows I want to use it for that purpose (i.e. Asylum issue). I don't agree on the other 2 (per se). Maybe the Bullet Train because the cover is so strong...but I would see the Bullet Train as more of a fresh pattern ball that won't react too early. And the Warning Sign...other than the low RG, it doesn't have the numbers at all to be a #1 ball...if anything it's a weak #2 ball.

My decision: I'm going to choose the Reaxx Pearl as my #1 ball. I think it's strong enough to overpower the Pearl cover...yet the Pearl cover at the OOB polish level will keep it from reacting too soon. The Ruckus was my 2nd choice, but I think I'll save that for the next arsenal.

Second Ball:
The Ruckus...given it's cover and RG...I could see it as a 2nd ball...1st ball on my house shot (which is a bit narrower). But the Reaxx Pearl...the only thing that would tell one that it's anything other than a #1 ball...is that it's a Pearl.

Decision:
I wanted to use the Defiant Edge if possible. And I think #2 is the best place to put it. I actually don't like many of these balls as a #2 ball...none of them really fit well there. But I think the Defiant Edge has a low enough RG to balance out the Pearl cover and is strong enough overall to make a good move downlane.

Third Ball:
As attached as I was to the idea of using the Track300A as the #3 ball....practice, drier lanes...Game #2 or #3 of a series...despite the weakness of the 300A...I thought it would be a good ball down option most nights. And the Exile, while I disagree a bit, is a skid/flip ball and if I was going to use it...I'd actually put it at #4 and use it the way I did the Melee Jab.

Decision:
I decided to go a little outside the box with #3. The Ebonite Innovate. Everything about this ball screams #3 ball with the exception of the RG. But I'll talk more about RG below.


the Exile but honestly from what I've seen and I bowl with quite a few guys who own one it's where it belongs and wqould be where it's at in their arsenals. There was a reason why this ball was on clearance for $69.
Thats definitely a risk. While I'm not 'that' concerned about it...but it's fair to say overall reviews have been lacking.


Your Asylum was a drilling mistake the took a bench mark ball and drilled the differential out of it trying to make the ball work as a #3 ball in your arsenal. Perhaps.

Before I start, 2 things;
1) This is the 3rd or 4th possible combination I've come up with...and I have at least 120 more games on my current arsenal...so this CAN change.
2) I've spent enough time with my 2 coaches, that at LEAST out of courtesy....I will get their input as well...so if this is a truly BAD idea...it'll get relatively vetoed.

But, I think this proposed next arsenal will also be a good test of cover stocks and RG. All three balls will be pearls and will have almost identical low RGs. If there is going to be a fair amount of separation....I have to rely on:

1) The manufacturer difference to come into play. Radical to Roto Grip to Ebonite should go from hooking soonest to hooking latest.
2) The differential to be a greater influence than on the actual RG value. ).054, 0.052, then 0.041.
3) Set up with PerfectScale in mind. 224.8, 216.47, 189.9.
4) Symmetry doesn't matter. All 3 are assymetrical cores.

By keeping symmetry, coverstock, and RG constant...and surface relatively constant....I can better compare manufacturers, differential, and PerfectScale.

The risk is that all 3 with the same RG and surface and cover stock and symmetry will perform nearly identical. I'll pay to drill 3 balls...then have to either buy a couple or drill a couple other ones shortly after realizing my experiment was a failure.

[RobLV1]

Aslan:

A few issues. First, at the risk of raising the ire of many bowlers on these boards, I think that the actual differences between solids, pearls, and hybrids are greatly over-stated. Have you ever taken a solid and a pearl version of the same cover material with the same core and put the same surface on them. I have. I took a Melee Cross and a Melee Jab and put the Cross surface on both and threw them side by side. The difference in the reactions was indistinguishable. I then put the Jab surface on both and threw them side by side with the same result. Also, if you look at the BTM Reviews for the Storm Rocket and Sky Rocket, a hybrid and a pearl, both with the same OOB finish, you'll see that the reviews are virtually identical. Now, I'm not saying that there is no difference at all. I'm just saying that if I was in charge of marketing at a bowling ball company and could get customers to buy three nearly identical balls based mainly on the easily alterable surface on each, I would do it in a heartbeat!

Second issue: When a ball has a 2000 surface on it and is used over a period of however many games, it does not develop more surface (going down to 1000 as you suggest), it loses surface going up to 2500, 3000, 4000, etc. This "lane shine" results in a loss of friction and consequently, loss of reaction. This is one of the reasons that I have long suggested putting a particular surface on a ball as soon as it is purchase, and bringing the surface back regularly after a maximum of 6 games, with a total resurface every 30-50 games.

Third issue: It seems that you are viewing your arsenal as a static thing that remains unchanged until you totally replace it. A arsenal should be fluid and may change from week to week, depending on the center where you are bowling, the time of day that you are bowling, and even the weather outside. Let me give you an example. My own arsenal as it sits in my bowling bag right now consists of a Storm Snap Lock, a Radical Ridiculous (symmetrical), a Storm Fight, and a Brunswick LT 48. I also occasionally use a Melee Jab, a Radical Ridiculous (assymetrical), a Soul Mate, and a Mastermind Scholar.

The only ball that has remained in my bag over a long period of time is the LT 48, that I am probably going to replace with a new one pretty soon as it is the one ball that goes with me everywhere.

Once you learn to change your surfaces at will, I think that you will start seeing your arsenal as a fluid thing; not something that is set in stone.

[Aslan]

Aslan:

I think that the actual differences between solids, pearls, and hybrids are greatly over-stated. Have you ever taken a solid and a pearl version of the same cover material with the same core and put the same surface on them. I have.
Yes. I actually saw that analysis you did. Thats kind've what gave me the idea to maybe ignore the cover material. I still would prefer a solid-hybrid-pearl line-up...but it's not a "necessity" after seeing your and I think one other conversation I had on the coverstock material.


Second issue: When a ball has a 2000 surface on it and is used over a period of however many games, it does not develop more surface (going down to 1000 as you suggest), it loses surface going up to 2500, 3000, 4000, etc...
I was going to diversify my answer to state that while surface can get deteriorated...this equipment (bowling equipment) can also pick up oil and/or absorb oil. So a ball can get slightly more beat up and lose 15 in abralon over 2 games (hypothetical numbers)...but the picking up of "lane shine" could add 20 + another 40 on soaked in oil (3000-15+20+40 = 3050). As you stated, the abralon number tends to go up.


Third issue: It seems that you are viewing your arsenal as a static thing that remains unchanged until you totally replace it. A arsenal should be fluid and may change from week to week, depending on the center where you are bowling, the time of day that you are bowling, and even the weather outside.

Well, I see your point, but you have a bit of a more unique situation than most bowlers. You;
- bowl at 3-7 centers.
- have bowling balls all over the place drilled and ready to go either from ball testing gigs or other reasons.

So, I agree...the more balls you have, the more likely you'll be to match up a ball to a speed/pattern/center/season. But given a person (hypothetical)...that bowls 1 speed, on one pattern, at 1-2 centers...1 season (winter-spring)...1 league...thats 1 x 1 x 1.5 x 3 (seasons) = 4.5 Compare that to a hypothetical person in your situation which has 2 speeds, 3 patterns, 3 centers, full year; (2 x 3 x 3 x 4 = 72). Or even additive it's 6.5 versus 12. So how many balls should a bowler closer to 6.5 have versus closer to 12? We field the "How many balls should I bring with me to league night" question quite often. Very few people suggested the bowler have a minimum of 13 drilled balls.

[Amyers]

Uh oh. Mommy and Daddy are fighting again!!



Your method was sorta like my previous method. Just try to go "solid-hybrid-pearl" or most surface to less surface. And the sound reasoning behind that is that it's largely agreed upon that the "most" impact on a ball's path is surface/cover.

i tend to think in terms of surface, Rg, degree of asymmetry, differential, and manufactures intent for the ball when slotting balls. If I have a personal experience with seeing the balls that plays a role too. If you start with 4 balls with basically the same Rg +- a few points your going to end up with an Arsenal mostly based on surface.

The problem with this method in my opinion is it's very true if everything else is constant. But everything else isn't constant. I would characterize it with this analogy:

It's very easy to test tires and determine relatively easily...which tire grabs more and which tire skids more. It's a simple test and is very, very accurate. But....how much a car skids....is the result of a multitude of factors including speed, and power, and transmission, and technology, and the weight of the vehicle, the surface the tire is on, etc...

And thats when I started giving PerfectScale and Rob's RG-focused arsenal selection method a look. Like Rob talks about, the RG is like the "engine"...the core is like the "engine" of the ball. Surface is still most relevant...as anyone who has ever lost control of a muscle car could tell you....but one the ball is transitioning from skid to hook...something has to push it in that physical direction....and just as important...something has to try and extend that hooking motion to delay the roll phase. I'm not explaining it well...you can look at Rob's article on ModernBowling (I think) for his explanation on RG use in arsenal selection.

As we've argued about before, the one weak point of using surface as the primary selection tool....is that while the coverstock remains a constant chemistry during usage; the surface changes are constantly happening and create more rapid changes to the ball movement than anything else. How long a person can throw a 2000 surface ball before the surface goes to 1000...???? You'll read all kinds of numbers. Some pro level bowlers will claim it's 5 games...5 weeks...5 rounds....and then others will claim it's 500 games, 5 years, 5 seasons. But from a pure physics standpoint, it is a physical certainty that said object will be constantly going from a state of order to disorder and everything from temperature to humidity to oxygen content to the force the ball must absorb each time it is thrown....all affect the surface...constantly.

We've discussed surface before it actually is something you can control. If you don't keep up with the surfaces on your ball you eventually end up with an Arsenal at 4500-5000 surface. I think this effects Pearl balls slower but when they lose their teeth they actually die more.

Looking at it in 3 parts:

First Ball:
I could agree on the Ruckus. I can't see the Ruckus being of much use in my current house at my current speed. But I think it could be a strong enough ball to start out with on wider or longer patterns. I'd just have to make sure when I get it drilled that the ball driller knows I want to use it for that purpose (i.e. Asylum issue). I don't agree on the other 2 (per se). Maybe the Bullet Train because the cover is so strong...but I would see the Bullet Train as more of a fresh pattern ball that won't react too early. And the Warning Sign...other than the low RG, it doesn't have the numbers at all to be a #1 ball...if anything it's a weak #2 ball.

My decision: I'm going to choose the Reaxx Pearl as my #1 ball. I think it's strong enough to overpower the Pearl cover...yet the Pearl cover at the OOB polish level will keep it from reacting too soon. The Ruckus was my 2nd choice, but I think I'll save that for the next arsenal.

As I mentioned my first ball is not the first ball out of my bag and may not even get used much I actually chose the Reax as one of the two benchmark balls if your thinking as first ball out of the bag this isn't a bad choice of your pearls this is easiest the earliest rolling most controllable

Second Ball:
The Ruckus...given it's cover and RG...I could see it as a 2nd ball...1st ball on my house shot (which is a bit narrower). But the Reaxx Pearl...the only thing that would tell one that it's anything other than a #1 ball...is that it's a Pearl.

Decision:
I wanted to use the Defiant Edge if possible. And I think #2 is the best place to put it. I actually don't like many of these balls as a #2 ball...none of them really fit well there. But I think the Defiant Edge has a low enough RG to balance out the Pearl cover and is strong enough overall to make a good move downlane.

If you think this is your second strongest ball your probably wrong this ball will offer more backend and probably cover more boards than anything else you've got. I do think this is a good choice if your wanting something to step down too and move farther left with

Third Ball:
As attached as I was to the idea of using the Track300A as the #3 ball....practice, drier lanes...Game #2 or #3 of a series...despite the weakness of the 300A...I thought it would be a good ball down option most nights. And the Exile, while I disagree a bit, is a skid/flip ball and if I was going to use it...I'd actually put it at #4 and use it the way I did the Melee Jab.

Decision:
I decided to go a little outside the box with #3. The Ebonite Innovate. Everything about this ball screams #3 ball with the exception of the RG. But I'll talk more about RG below.

I really can't say why you would put this ball here. It's a relatively agressive ball somewhat less agressive than the other two but not enough to be a light oil piece and it's going to be a ball that honestly you would move right with instead of left which is a bad idea in my book

Thats definitely a risk. While I'm not 'that' concerned about it...but it's fair to say overall reviews have been lacking.

Perhaps.

Before I start, 2 things;
1) This is the 3rd or 4th possible combination I've come up with...and I have at least 120 more games on my current arsenal...so this CAN change.
2) I've spent enough time with my 2 coaches, that at LEAST out of courtesy....I will get their input as well...so if this is a truly BAD idea...it'll get relatively vetoed.

But, I think this proposed next arsenal will also be a good test of cover stocks and RG. All three balls will be pearls and will have almost identical low RGs. If there is going to be a fair amount of separation....I have to rely on:

1) The manufacturer difference to come into play. Radical to Roto Grip to Ebonite should go from hooking soonest to hooking latest.

That is a crazy notion bowling balls start hooking by the surface, and Rg not who makes them
2) The differential to be a greater influence than on the actual RG value. ).054, 0.052, then 0.041.

Another truly bad idea Rg value is way more important than differential especially among less talented bowlers. I see no detectable difference between .054 and .052 and very little difference between the others and .041
3) Set up with PerfectScale in mind. 224.8, 216.47, 189.9.

Perfect scale is a joke

4) Symmetry doesn't matter. All 3 are assymetrical cores.
wow just wow

By keeping symmetry, coverstock, and RG constant...and surface relatively constant....I can better compare manufacturers, differential, and PerfectScale.

You are not comparing manufactures. Or keeping coverstock or symmetry constant here each of these balls have different amounts of asymmetry so it's not "constant" they don't have the same cover so that's not constant

The risk is that all 3 with the same RG and surface and cover stock and symmetry will perform nearly identical. I'll pay to drill 3 balls...then have to either buy a couple or drill a couple other ones shortly after realizing my experiment was a failure.

Your still thinking of balls as strong vs weak instead of balls to fit situations you are likely to face and using weird unknowable criteria (ball manufacturer as a sign of how soon the ball rolls). Thinking things are constant that aren't is dangerous you think because each of these balls are asymmetrical that's constant but each of these balls have different degrees of asymmetry the surfaces on each of these balls will be different not a constant.

I actually like the Reax as your first ball out of your bag. It's the most benchmark of the bunch. The defiant edge is a good #2 as long as you accept the fact it's going to be longer and most likely force you left from the Reax regardless of what the perfect scale says. The biggest problem here is you've got nothing for heavier flatter patterns here throwing a pearl on those conditions is not optimum and you don't really have a light oil ball in the mix.

Retread what I posted about how I put my Arsenal together it's not about what order I take the balls out of the bag but the ability to have the right ball in the right situation. It's about the amount of oil and the shot shape that I'm looking for not surface or strength.

[bowl1820]

Mo Pinel has said the Rg of the PAP (which is what matters) can be well approximated for most bowlers by LowRg + 0.7*differential. That requires some simple math, but then you have one number to worry about in the comparisons.

Here's the other part that goes with that.

MO's Suggestions for using the undrilled ball #s to help anticipate ball reaction. (remember these are just estimates)

1) Take the min. RG # and add 70% of the total diff to it. That will give you the approximate RG of the PAP for about 80% of the layouts.

(Note: If you want to estimate the RG of the PAP closer, try M4R10's RG of the PAP estimator it factors in the layout used. Just input layout and the mfg. Low RG/Total Diff./Int. Diff. specs)

It's a excel spreadsheet, You can get it here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~litefrozen/downloads/M4R10 PAPs_RG.zip

2) Divide the int. diff. of the undrilled ball by the total diff. of the undrilled ball. That will give you the diff. ratio. That tells you the potential of the ball to respond to friction.

Diff. ratios:
>.45 is strong reaction
.25 to .45 is medium reaction
<.25 is smooth reaction

[Aslan]

i tend to think in terms of surface, Rg, degree of asymmetry, differential, and manufactures intent for the ball when slotting balls. If I have a personal experience with seeing the balls that plays a role too. If you start with 4 balls with basically the same Rg +- a few points your going to end up with an Arsenal mostly based on surface.
Well, in this case the RG, cover checmisty, and surface will be kept relatively constant. So, by your theory, all three of these balls will react identically. And thats possible. Thats why it's a theory and you test it.


We've discussed surface before it actually is something you can control. If you don't keep up with the surfaces on your ball you eventually end up with an Arsenal at 4500-5000 surface. I think this effects Pearl balls slower but when they lose their teeth they actually die more.
True, but as we've argued about before...how successful surface changes are depend on two rather important questions.
1) How long does a X Abralon surface last? How does the surface change each time the ball is thrown?
2) How effective are hand applied surface changes?

If surface changes are your strategy, you need to know roughly how the use of the ball changes the surface. If you know that a 3000 Abralon ends up being a 3130 Abralon after 1 series...then you can make adjustments to surface accordingly. And, just as important, you have to be able to change surface by hand. If not, you need a personal ball spinner. Most inexpensive models are poor quality. The more professional units are very costly. And paying a pro shop $25 per ball every 3 games...thats essentially $75-$100 per week of surfacing cost. For a pro that gets this service for free by their rep out in the truck...not a big deal. For the 99.4% of the rest of the bowlers...it's an absurd expense.


That is a crazy notion bowling balls start hooking by the surface, and Rg not who makes them
I don't understand this comment. You seem to be saying RG is irrelevant and manufacturer differences are myths. I can tell you that PBA professionals...more than 1...have stated there is a BIG difference between one company and another. Radical is believed to hook the soonest...followed by Brunswick. Ebonite/Track/Columbia tend to hook the latest. The rest of the brands fit in between.


Another truly bad idea Rg value is way more important than differential especially among less talented bowlers. I see no detectable difference between .054 and .052 and very little difference between the others and .041
Are you sure? How did Motiv cheat? Answer = Differential. Why would a company choose differential as the way to cheat if differential didn't really matter much?


Perfect scale is a joke
Poor PerfectScale...nobody likes it. : ( The bottom line is you need a quantitative way to compare balls from numerous manufacturers. There is no method that is currently available that is more likely to be worth a darn. It's not "Perfect"...but nobody else has a better system...so until they do, we have PerfectScale.

Not to mention, I've seen a decent correlation between PerfectScale and overall ball reaction. Lets look at an example:
Arsenal #1.
When I put Arsenal #1 together, a couple years back, I thought the progression would be:

Hammer Rhythm, 900Global Bullet Train, Columbia300 Encounter, Brunswick Slingshot. That is putting together an arsenal based on cover material. Solid, Hybrid, Pearl, Pearl. But when I went to put this together, the ball driller that was going to drill the Bullet Train said the Bullet Train cover (S79) would be too strong to be used as a ball down option and he would suggest the Bullet Train be the 1st ball in the progression for medium-heavy oil.

So the new progression was Bullet Train, Rhythm, Encounter, Slingshot.

Had I used RG, the progression would have been Rhythm (2.50), Encounter (2.51), Bullet Train (2.55), Slingshot (2.586).
Had I used manufacturer strength, it would have been Slingshot, Bullet Train, Rhythm, Encounter.
Had I used PerfectScale, it would have been Bullet Train (222.8), Rhythm (211), Encounter (203.8), Slingshot (157.6). <----Ding Ding Ding!!

In other words, PerfectScale predicted the exact arsenal and progression that the ball driller eventually suggested. Why? How? Luck? Randomness?

It's actually quite simple. PerfectScale takes into account all of the above specs, data, and how balls behave when tested...to give a number that has a lot of information that goes into it's make-up. I'm not trying to convince anyone to use PerfectScale. I promise, I get no royalties...I don't work for bowlingball.com...if I did, Bowl1820 would probably resign and we'd lose about 1/3 of our community. :cool: But so far...I have seen no actual data nor testing that shows PerfectScale to be any less reliable a system for arsenal and progression development...than any other spec. The great thing about the arsenal and progression tool I'm working on is it takes into account ALL of these items. PerfectScale is just 1 of 7 variables. Currently all values are weighted equally...but that would probably change once I get the testing complete.


4) Symmetry doesn't matter. All 3 are assymetrical cores.
wow just wow
I meant by having all the cores assymetrical, that variable is held constant. I didn't mean symmetry didn't mean anything.


You are not comparing manufactures. Or keeping coverstock or symmetry constant here each of these balls have different amounts of asymmetry so it's not "constant" they don't have the same cover so that's not constant
Again...not saying you can ever isolate just one variable...when comparing balls from numerous time periods and manufacturers. But you also will have a difficult time trying to understand the effects of specs on a progression or arsenal...if you have a large number of variables. Every time you reach a conclusion...someone can just point to one of the many variables and say your conclusion is wrong.

The trick is, with 7 variables...potentially 8 or more...to truly isolate a variable...would require a much larger pool of equipment to test. I am interested...but not that interested...nor that wealthy. But if a manufacturer wants to furnish me the equipment, I'd gladly accept the challenge.


Thinking things are constant that aren't is dangerous you think because each of these balls are asymmetrical that's constant but each of these balls have different degrees of asymmetry the surfaces on each of these balls will be different not a constant.
Like I argue with Rob. At the end of the day you need a system you can use to build an arsenal and are likely going to be building an arsenal of a lot of different manufacturers. That means you need a way to slot balls in your arsenal. Of course there are nearly 10 variables to consider...and thats the trick. Which of these variables MEAN something? Which of them MATTER? If they all matter, then we'll never have a true system to create an arsenal. Just might as well buy 3 random balls and use constant surfacing to try an manipulate ball movement.

[JaxBowlingGuy]

If surface changes are your strategy, you need to know roughly how the use of the ball changes the surface. If you know that a 3000 Abralon ends up being a 3130 Abralon after 1 series...then you can make adjustments to surface accordingly. And, just as important, you have to be able to change surface by hand. If not, you need a personal ball spinner. Most inexpensive models are poor quality. The more professional units are very costly. And paying a pro shop $25 per ball every 3 games...thats essentially $75-$100 per week of surfacing cost. For a pro that gets this service for free by their rep out in the truck...not a big deal. For the 99.4% of the rest of the bowlers...it's an absurd expense.
.


If you are playing $25 for a surface change, you need to find a new pro shop lol local shops are $3-5 for sanding, polishing, or cleaning. Now a complete resurface is around $25 but that's not needed to simply adjust surface.

[RobLV1]

If you are playing $25 for a surface change, you need to find a new pro shop lol local shops are $3-5 for sanding, polishing, or cleaning. Now a complete resurface is around $25 but that's not needed to simply adjust surface.

Second that! Average cost for simple sanding, polishing, or cleaning is $5 at most any proshop I've ever used.

[Aslan]

Second that! Average cost for simple sanding, polishing, or cleaning is $5 at most any proshop I've ever used.


If you are playing $25 for a surface change, you need to find a new pro shop lol local shops are $3-5 for sanding, polishing, or cleaning. Now a complete resurface is around $25 but that's not needed to simply adjust surface.

I've seen prices range from $3 to $25.

Usually $3 is just a ball cleaning (which you should already do regularly) and then polishing.

Some places will do $5 for cleaning and then either a polish or sanding with an abralon pad. Other places charge $10-$15 for cleaning, sanding, and polishing.

Some places will recommend de-oiling and then a full re-surface which can run $25-$50.

The point is, it's an expense. And while surfacing by hand periodically to tweak a reaction for sweeps or a tournament pattern is certainly a vital option...spending $15 a week to have a pro shop do it...or $25...or $9....or $75....is a significant expense over the course of a season. Not to mention, with that extensive amount of surfacing, I would be concerned that the ball would soon become illegal as it would no longer have a circumference of at least 26.7". Most people don't care...but the circumference and diameter specifications of bowling ball are very small ranges. 26.7 to 27.002 inches (circumference). 8.5 to 8.595 inches (diameter) Sand a ball every week...I gotta think you'd wear off 0.3 inches quickly.

[billf]

Sand a ball every week...I gotta think you'd wear off 0.3 inches quickly.


No. Go grab a 5/16 wrench. This is just under .3". Sanding only goes down to ten thousandths of an inch not tenths of even hundredths.

[bowl1820]

I've seen prices range from $3 to $25.
Not to mention, with that extensive amount of surfacing, I would be concerned that the ball would soon become illegal as it would no longer have a circumference of at least 26.7". Most people don't care...but the circumference and diameter specifications of bowling ball are very small ranges. 26.7 to 27.002 inches (circumference). 8.5 to 8.595 inches (diameter) Sand a ball every week...I gotta think you'd wear off 0.3 inches quickly.

The specifications for diameter (circumference) and roundness are manufacturing specifications only, they are not for the end user or the drilled ball. For a long time there was a size and roundness requirement on the drilled bowling balls at tournaments, but those specifications have since been removed.

Regardless it would take a long time to take that much off a ball using normal surfacing methods.

[billf]

I wouldn't make this joke if I didn't think Aslan could take it so.....


Anybody else wonder how long it takes him to decide what to eat? Pick out clothes to wear each day? You sir, give this much more thought than even the top 1%. That's not necessarily a bad thing but you can out think yourself, out think a particular ball and even out think a bad ball reaction so beware.

[Amyers]

Well, in this case the RG, cover checmisty, and surface will be kept relatively constant. So, by your theory, all three of these balls will react identically. And thats possible. Thats why it's a theory and you test it.

Why on earth do you think the cover chemistry is a constant between three different balls made by three different manufacturers? other than the fact the covers are all resin and you don't have a urethane or plastic in there the covers are not a constant. The surfaces are all different for each of those balls also not a constant in the arsenal. I never said the balls will react the same I expect the Reax to be earlier and the Defiant to be later with more backend I have no idea what that innovate will be like. That's the issue here is your making assumptions. You assume that because you have three pearls the coverstocks are the same they are not. You have three polished balls so the surface is the same they are not.

True, but as we've argued about before...how successful surface changes are depend on two rather important questions.
1) How long does a X Abralon surface last? Depends on the surface low grits ie 500 starts changing within a game higher grit surface last much longer on average 500-1500 should be refreshed by hand after every series. 2000-4000 refresh by hand every other series. Polished surfaces are a little more difficult but I redo them when the ball reaction changes usually about every 40 games or so.

How does the surface change each time the ball is thrown? Surface grit always changes towards matching the lane surface around 4500 to 5000 grit. There have been numerous studies done on this I'm not just making it up


2) How effective are hand applied surface changes? Very effective for unpolished surfaces not so much with polished surfaces

If surface changes are your strategy, you need to know roughly how the use of the ball changes the surface. If you know that a 3000 Abralon ends up being a 3130 Abralon after 1 series...then you can make adjustments to surface accordingly. And, just as important, you have to be able to change surface by hand. If not, you need a personal ball spinner. Most inexpensive models are poor quality. The more professional units are very costly. And paying a pro shop $25 per ball every 3 games...thats essentially $75-$100 per week of surfacing cost. For a pro that gets this service for free by their rep out in the truck...not a big deal. For the 99.4% of the rest of the bowlers...it's an absurd expense.

No one suggest you have your ball completely resurfaced every 3 games maintain lower grit surface by hand and redo polished surfaces every 40 games or so. I know even in Cali you can find a proshop to resurface for $15 mine lets me use there machine for free as long as I buy my pads and polishes from him. $15/40=$.37 per game think you can afford it.


I don't understand this comment. You seem to be saying RG is irrelevant and manufacturer differences are myths. I can tell you that PBA professionals...more than 1...have stated there is a BIG difference between one company and another. Radical is believed to hook the soonest...followed by Brunswick. Ebonite/Track/Columbia tend to hook the latest. The rest of the brands fit in between.

I am in no way stating RG is irrelevant not sure where you got that from but brand is completely irrelevant when a ball starts to hook is determined by Surface, Cover Stock, R.G, and maybe somewhat the differential although that's really more how not when. Notice brand is nowhere included in that list. Anybody who thinks all Radical balls are early have never thrown the Ridiculous or the Reax Gusto. Storm is well known for balls that are late and have big backend take a look at the Alpha Crux that ball isn't late. The ball manufactures try to make a complete line anymore, thinking that particular manufactures are only making one type of ball motion is just a fallacy.


Are you sure? How did Motiv cheat? Answer = Differential. Why would a company choose differential as the way to cheat if differential didn't really matter much?

One of the reasons why you and I argued about how serious the Motiv Carnage thing really was. On the Pro Tour I doubt to many of them are troubled by the difference of whether a ball has a differential of .61 or .59. For bowlers at our skill level I don't think we would notice if the ball was .61 or .41. Differential primarily effects flare potential most of us don't have releases powerful enough to cause 7+ inches of flare anyway and even if we did it really doesn't matter as long as the ball is flaring enough to expose fresh ball surface it doesn't matter if the gaps between the flare rings are .25 or .75 the effect is the same.


Poor PerfectScale...nobody likes it. : ( The bottom line is you need a quantitative way to compare balls from numerous manufacturers. There is no method that is currently available that is more likely to be worth a darn. It's not "Perfect"...but nobody else has a better system...so until they do, we have PerfectScale.

Not to mention, I've seen a decent correlation between PerfectScale and overall ball reaction. Lets look at an example:
Arsenal #1.
When I put Arsenal #1 together, a couple years back, I thought the progression would be:

Hammer Rhythm, 900Global Bullet Train, Columbia300 Encounter, Brunswick Slingshot. That is putting together an arsenal based on cover material. Solid, Hybrid, Pearl, Pearl. But when I went to put this together, the ball driller that was going to drill the Bullet Train said the Bullet Train cover (S79) would be too strong to be used as a ball down option and he would suggest the Bullet Train be the 1st ball in the progression for medium-heavy oil.

So the new progression was Bullet Train, Rhythm, Encounter, Slingshot.

Had I used RG, the progression would have been Rhythm (2.50), Encounter (2.51), Bullet Train (2.55), Slingshot (2.586).
Had I used manufacturer strength, it would have been Slingshot, Bullet Train, Rhythm, Encounter.
Had I used PerfectScale, it would have been Bullet Train (222.8), Rhythm (211), Encounter (203.8), Slingshot (157.6). <----Ding Ding Ding!!

In other words, PerfectScale predicted the exact arsenal and progression that the ball driller eventually suggested. Why? How? Luck? Randomness?

It's actually quite simple. PerfectScale takes into account all of the above specs, data, and how balls behave when tested...to give a number that has a lot of information that goes into it's make-up. I'm not trying to convince anyone to use PerfectScale. I promise, I get no royalties...I don't work for bowlingball.com...if I did, Bowl1820 would probably resign and we'd lose about 1/3 of our community. :cool: But so far...I have seen no actual data nor testing that shows PerfectScale to be any less reliable a system for arsenal and progression development...than any other spec. The great thing about the arsenal and progression tool I'm working on is it takes into account ALL of these items. PerfectScale is just 1 of 7 variables. Currently all values are weighted equally...but that would probably change once I get the testing complete.

I think you just proved my point about the importance of who the manufacturer of the ball is

I meant by having all the cores assymetrical, that variable is held constant. I didn't mean symmetry didn't mean anything.

I know what you meant and it's still wrong.

Radical Reax RG Int. .013
RG Defiant Edge RG Int. .017
Ebonite Innovate RG Int. .008 (actually should be considered symmetrical)

Neck not even close to a constant



Again...not saying you can ever isolate just one variable...when comparing balls from numerous time periods and manufacturers. But you also will have a difficult time trying to understand the effects of specs on a progression or arsenal...if you have a large number of variables. Every time you reach a conclusion...someone can just point to one of the many variables and say your conclusion is wrong.

The trick is, with 7 variables...potentially 8 or more...to truly isolate a variable...would require a much larger pool of equipment to test. I am interested...but not that interested...nor that wealthy. But if a manufacturer wants to furnish me the equipment, I'd gladly accept the challenge.

Consider the surface, rg., cover strength, manufacturer intent, and especially what you need the ball to do and make your decision. It doesn't require 7 or 8 data points to build an arsenal. If you want to make it easier decide on a brand preference and it makes it even simpler.

Like I argue with Rob. At the end of the day you need a system you can use to build an arsenal and are likely going to be building an arsenal of a lot of different manufacturers. That means you need a way to slot balls in your arsenal. Of course there are nearly 10 variables to consider...and thats the trick. Which of these variables MEAN something? Which of them MATTER? If they all matter, then we'll never have a true system to create an arsenal. Just might as well buy 3 random balls and use constant surfacing to try an manipulate ball movement.

It makes more sense than using brand as a basis in putting your balls in a progression


Above comments in red

[bowl1820]

Are you sure? How did Motiv cheat? Answer = Differential. Why would a company choose differential as the way to cheat if differential didn't really matter much?


From most all of the discussions that's been had on Jackalgate throughout the forums and info from the company. I believe it's been concluded that Motiv wasn't deliberately cheating, it's was just a issue of poor quality control.

The core molds were reused to the point were they began to wear and deform, which altered the core spec's.

Quality control wasn't monitoring properly considering that the Jackal cores were right at the upper limit of the differential spec's to begin with. So ball's started to be produced that were out of spec. and thus illegal.

[Aslan]

Above comments in red
Great. Now I can't quote you and respond because you put your answer in the quote of my post...which I can't see without going back and looking at your response and then copying and pasting and re-quoting it manually.

So, summary response:
1) The fact that all 3 are pearls is constant. That cannot change. You CAN surface the balls. And honestly, as I think Rob would agree, you can surface a Pearl to hook sooner than a solid...absolutely...surface trumps everything concerning ball movement. But..."Pearl" is held constant. So, yes, I am evaluating the null hypothesis that Pearls are Pearls and there are no differences due to manufacturer. That is the fancy statistical way of saying, I think there will be a difference between these "Pearls" due to manufacturer differences.

2) As I said before...the effect of a ball picking up oil...and dulling the surface of the ball (from 3000-5000 over time for example) FAR outweighs the physical effect of the ball striking various surfaces. But anyone that has ever bowled with their own equipment...will attest that over time....there are chips and such on the ball. That is the result of a ball being thrown through the air, hitting a hard surface, striking pins, falling in the return, going through the return, and then repeating that process thousands of times. It is physically impossible...even if the bowling ball was made of diamond...that external forces (air, temperature, physical forces, etc..) will not have some impact on the ball. Granted, this "damage" and "roughing up" of the bowling ball is outweighed by the oil...causing the NET result to be the ball losing surface over time, not gaining surface.

But as I said before. Managing your arsenal through surface prep, in my opinion, is a bad idea and a costly proposition. Even at $15 per week (the low end of the numbers thrown around), you've paying $325 (roughly) per season to maintain a given surface. Would you rather spend $325/season surfacing your old bowling balls? Or use that money to buy two new bowling balls at the end of the season? Which is why, for anyone stuck on surface manipulation as the way to create their arsenal...I would strongly recommend getting a professional ball spinner for $200-$400...because it'll pay for itself in a year. You can try for the $89 cheapie carp online or even create your own...but in this area, I think you get what you pay for.

3) I have no problem using one brand that I am confident about and building my arsenal the way they build it. The problem with this is the ball manufacturers aren't honest. They tell you that every 6 months their technology changes, then they re-release old cores in new covers. They tell you that you need a solid a hybrid and a pearl...yet testing seems to point to the fact that there may be no difference at all between a solid a hybrid and a pearl.

But presently, I have no confidence in any one ball manufacturer that would lead me down a path to be brad loyal to one brand. And the vast majority of bowlers are not loyal to one brand. So, I think there is a need for a scientific-based approach to arsenal creation and progression creation that takes into account all of the manufacturers.


From most all of the discussions that's been had on Jackalgate throughout the forums and info from the company. I believe it's been concluded that Motiv wasn't deliberately cheating, it's was just a issue of poor quality control.

The core molds were reused to the point were they began to wear and deform, which altered the core spec's.

Quality control wasn't monitoring properly considering that the Jackal cores were right at the upper limit of the differential spec's to begin with. So ball's started to be produced that were out of spec. and thus illegal.

There are multiple reasons I would disagree with that conclusion.
1) Motiv did not immediately come out and say it was an error and they were looking into it. Public Relations 101. If you honestly made a mistake or think that the manufacture of these items was a mistake....it would be the FIRST thing you say...rather than their initial response which was, "Okay. We'll stop selling those and reimburse everyone and pay the fine."

2) I've discussed this with multiple bowlers...some PBA level...and the consensus opinion in their "circles" is that Motiv knew, their staff knew, their athletes knew, and the athletes of other manufacturers knew. That is why I asked the PBA to conduct their own independent review...which I'm sure they looked at, tried to read, didn't understand, then threw it off the side of their yacht into the ocean.

3) EVEN IF...we assume this new explanation from liars...about lying...is accurate. From a quality control standpoint...how in the WORLD do you create a spec at the extreme upper limit of the specifications...then "not check"? If I was a loyal Motiv guy...I'd be VERY worried that apparently Motiv's QC protocol is non-existent. Every ball manufacturer....EVERY one...should have a QC protocol for their bowling balls. Before that batch leaves the factory...checks, double-checks, sign offs. I'm not saying bad balls can't slip through the cracks...but the excuse that "Quality control wasn't monitoring properly considering that the Jackal cores were right at the upper limit of the differential spec's to begin with" is the same as saying, "Motiv knew that a ball with a 0.060 differential would never realistically pass QC testing on a regular basis...so they just said "screw it" and sold them anyways."

So, the only facts that remain are;
1) Motiv made hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars selling illegal equipment.
2) They can only claim they didn't know it was illegal because they intentionally didn't test it for fear it was illegal.
3) The only part of the USBC's action against them that they actually disagreed with...was they felt like the USBC was wrong for enforcing the rules. (i.e., they never disagreed with the tests or findings)
4) Two relatively unknown bowlers won significant PBA and USBC titles throwing equipment that their manufacturer, manufacturer reps, and pro athletes knew (or kinda knew) was illegal.
5) The PBA is SO worthless...that the competition circumvented them and sent balls into the USBC directly. Granted...nobody is raising their hand admitting they sent them in...because they know the PBA would treat the whistleblower far worse than the company that actually cheated. The PBA doesn't have ball specification rules. But they have a lengthy few sections on "PBA code of conduct". Having read those sections, I wouldn't put it past the PBA to fine DV8 or Storm for "making a fuss and causing image issues that detract from the PBA's image". The entire code of conduct is written to make the PBA "image" the most important thing.

And before anyone gets all crazy about this...REMEMBER:
Motiv has yet to release a statement that they did not know these balls were out of spec. Even murderers, the first thing out of their mouth is, "I'm innocent". So either Motiv's PR department is staffed with toddlers throwing poo at each other like monkeys in a zoo....or they are "intentionally" not making that statement. Why? If you are pro-Motiv and believe I'm in the wrong....WHY...why would they purposely not proclaim innocence? Do the math.

I sent 4 letters out initially, to DV8 (by way of Brunswick), the USBC, the PBA, and Motiv. The USBC was the only one to respond and simply re-stated what they had already released. I sent 5 letters to newspapers I thought might take interest in this story. To my knowledge, they all felt an illegal bowling ball specification story...might not be that exciting a story...so as far as I know they didn't pursue it.

I mention the above, because Motiv and the PBA had a chance to keep my business and my respect. They chose not to. Therefore, I'll never purchase a Motiv product. And I did not renew my XtraFrame membership. I also refuse to watch the National PBA Tour nor will I be loyal to their sponsors. Does that scare them? Of course not. They don't care. But, one person takes a stand...then another...then another...and maybe eventually the cheaters, liars, and inept governance of the sport will get addressed. Probably not in my lifetime...but oh well. I AM a bit torn about the XtraFrame membership...because I like to watch the WPBA and PBA50...and the pro bowlers (almost every one I've met) are great people and nice people and none of this is their fault...so maybe I break down and get a 3-day subscription or something when I have a free weekend to just veg and get caught up on the PBA50 and WPBA seasons...but...it's a tough choice.

[Amyers]

Great. Now I can't quote you and respond because you put your answer in the quote of my post...which I can't see without going back and looking at your response and then copying and pasting and re-quoting it manually.

Sorry I'll try to do it differently see if this works




So, summary response:
1) The fact that all 3 are pearls is constant. That cannot change. You CAN surface the balls. And honestly, as I think Rob would agree, you can surface a Pearl to hook sooner than a solid...absolutely...surface trumps everything concerning ball movement. But..."Pearl" is held constant. So, yes, I am evaluating the null hypothesis that Pearls are Pearls and there are no differences due to manufacturer. That is the fancy statistical way of saying, I think there will be a difference between these "Pearls" due to manufacturer differences.




All three balls may be pearls but they all have different cover stocks and whatever differences you see after throwing the balls won't be manufacturer differences but will be the differences between those particular covers and the different surfaces that are applied to the different balls. If you see the Reax Pearl hook earlier as I expect it to it won't be because Radical balls hook earlier it will be because that particular surface/cover stock/core/drilling combination caused that ball to hook earlier the fact that the ball was Radical branded has nothing what so ever to do with it. As I pointed out earlier all three cores are vastly different too.




2) As I said before...the effect of a ball picking up oil...and dulling the surface of the ball (from 3000-5000 over time for example) FAR outweighs the physical effect of the ball striking various surfaces. But anyone that has ever bowled with their own equipment...will attest that over time....there are chips and such on the ball. That is the result of a ball being thrown through the air, hitting a hard surface, striking pins, falling in the return, going through the return, and then repeating that process thousands of times. It is physically impossible...even if the bowling ball was made of diamond...that external forces (air, temperature, physical forces, etc..) will not have some impact on the ball. Granted, this "damage" and "roughing up" of the bowling ball is outweighed by the oil...causing the NET result to be the ball losing surface over time, not gaining surface.


The chips, scratches, and gouges that a ball pics up over time have very little to do with ball motion 1/64,000 of the ball is out of contact with the lane once ever 3rd of a second it's not going to particularly effect your ball motion or the overall surface of the bowling ball. If you look at the surface of a ball under magnification you will see that the ball has microscopic teeth. These teeth wear down over time even on a ball with a polished surface. Restoration of those teeth is what you are seeking with a resurface I never meant to claim that balls surface would increase although that is possible say one of Motiv's 5500 grit surfaces thrown on worn wood lanes probably would scan with a lower surface number after a number of games. A bowling ball will always revert to the mean of the surface that it is being thrown on.





But as I said before. Managing your arsenal through surface prep, in my opinion, is a bad idea and a costly proposition. Even at $15 per week (the low end of the numbers thrown around), you've paying $325 (roughly) per season to maintain a given surface. Would you rather spend $325/season surfacing your old bowling balls? Or use that money to buy two new bowling balls at the end of the season? Which is why, for anyone stuck on surface manipulation as the way to create their arsenal...I would strongly recommend getting a professional ball spinner for $200-$400...because it'll pay for itself in a year. You can try for the $89 cheapie carp online or even create your own...but in this area, I think you get what you pay for.



It wasn't $15 week unless your bowling 40 games a week which me and you may hit sometimes but I doubt every week. It's not really a question of if I want to buy 2 new balls at the end of the year. I'm going to do that anyway and maybe one during the season if I feel like it. It's a question of do I want my arsenal performing the way it was designed to 1/3 of the way into the season, 1/2 way into the season, and so on. Your managing surface prep no matter what decision you make here it's really just a question of do you want degraded performance from the $200 you invested in the ball because you refuse to Spend the $15 to maintain it. It's kind of like saying your not going to change the oil in your car because it costs to much and your going to buy another one next year.




3) I have no problem using one brand that I am confident about and building my arsenal the way they build it. The problem with this is the ball manufacturers aren't honest. They tell you that every 6 months their technology changes, then they re-release old cores in new covers. They tell you that you need a solid a hybrid and a pearl...yet testing seems to point to the fact that there may be no difference at all between a solid a hybrid and a pearl.

But presently, I have no confidence in any one ball manufacturer that would lead me down a path to be brad loyal to one brand. And the vast majority of bowlers are not loyal to one brand. So, I think there is a need for a scientific-based approach to arsenal creation and progression creation that takes into account all of the manufacturers.



I don't believe you have to be brand loyal I tend to throw more Brunswick simply because I have excellent contacts there that I can get a lot of info from. Before that I threw a hodge podge of anything but really liked Roto. The only reason I suggest that is it does make putting an arsenal together easier. This has been fun I think you've actually got a decent two balls there in your first and second spots with the Reaxx and the Defiant. I just believe you have a big hole at the top and the bottom with your current third ball. I really do think it would be easier for you to select and build an arsenal if you though more of what I want this ball to do in each slot than trying to build an arsenal based on how weak or strong the ball is and trying to fit them in a procession.

[Aslan]

Sorry I'll try to do it differently see if this works
MUCH better!!!


All three balls may be pearls but they all have different cover stocks and whatever differences you see after throwing the balls won't be manufacturer differences but will be the differences between those particular covers and the different surfaces that are applied to the different balls.
Are you going to force me to make a poll to ask if there are differences between manufacturers?

Think of it in terms of manufacturing. Companies buy resins. They buy additives. They have formulas. They have manufacturing techniques. They have varying levels of quality control (or in Motiv's case, no quality control). You're telling me...that if Ebonite and Radical made the EXACT SAME BALL...same RG, same Diff., same Pearl/Hybrid/Solid cover, same surface prep with abralon pads, same polish applied for the same amount of time...you're telling me those balls would behave exactly the same? I don't want to post a poll...but I can tell you with 99% certainty...based on conversations with pros...that there is definitely a "general trend" that some companies roll sooner than others or hook sooner than others. Even ROB....who is hiding from MWhite right now....has specifically told me that some ball manufacturers make better skid/flip balls than other manufacturers.

Again, you are trying to say (and I'm paraphrasing here):
"Use a progression from Brunswick or Rotogrip. Then sand one to 500, sand one to 2000, and sand one to 4000 and polish...and there's your ideal arsenal. All other specs are useless to consider...and you can't truly test different balls because the specs won't be exactly the same and even if they are you can just have the balls surfaced to whatever you want...so specs are generally meaningless."

And the problem is...I can't 100% disagree with you. I agree, that balls probably can be surface manipulated to do whatever you want them to do. But then you get into an entire different argument. And at the end of the day...why would ball manufacturers even invest so much time and effort into specs (or cheat like Motiv)....if all that matters is how much sandpaper you have in your bowling ball bag?


If you see the Reax Pearl hook earlier as I expect it to it won't be because Radical balls hook earlier it will be because that particular surface/cover stock/core/drilling combination caused that ball to hook earlier the fact that the ball was Radical branded has nothing what so ever to do with it. As I pointed out earlier all three cores are vastly different too.
What I'm saying is, all things equal...Radical hooks sooner than other brands. Your response is, "all things aren't equal". I know that. That's why I'm trying to develop a "system" to create an arsenal based on multiple and sometimes conflicting specs....and yes, with full knowledge that someone can manipulate reactions with surface at any time.


It wasn't $15 week unless your bowling 40 games a week which me and you may hit sometimes but I doubt every week.
Yes, if you believe the resurface needs to happen at 40 games. Many believe the ball surface changes much faster than that.


It's not really a question of if I want to buy 2 new balls at the end of the year. I'm going to do that anyway and maybe one during the season if I feel like it.
Well, pardon me Scrooge McDuck....I was assuming most bowlers don't have a room full of gold coins.


It's a question of do I want my arsenal performing the way it was designed to 1/3 of the way into the season, 1/2 way into the season, and so on. Your managing surface prep no matter what decision you make here it's really just a question of do you want degraded performance from the $200 you invested in the ball because you refuse to Spend the $15 to maintain it.
Realize, you're talking to the one person that brings his homemade ball dehydrator with him to Vegas...despite the smirks and weird looks I get in the elevator of the hotel. I hand surface, de-oil, hand surface again, and polish my bowling balls every 10 games or so. I don't wait 40 games. And it costs me relatively nothing except for the Abralon pads and resin polish. So, yes, I maintain the ball surfaces probably even better than anyone else does. But, I don't use a ball spinner and I don't pay to have it done at the Pro Shop.


It's kind of like saying your not going to change the oil in your car because it costs to much and your going to buy another one next year. Good analogy....but how well does it work if the oil change costs $32,500 over the course of a year and a new car is $20,000? I sometimes will buy a new printer rather than new ink cartridges because the printer is on sale for $89 and the ink cartridges add up to $85. So, yeah...if I can buy a new car every year for $20,000 versus paying $32,500/year in oil changes to drive my old car around...absolutely I'm getting a new car each year.


This has been fun I think you've actually got a decent two balls there in your first and second spots with the Reaxx and the Defiant. I just believe you have a big hole at the top and the bottom with your current third ball.
As we've discussed before...the problem in arsenal and progression selection is that specs contradict each other. I'm very nervous about using 3 balls that all have identical RG values and pearl coverstocks. On the one hand, the differences in the 3 balls should give them enough separation...on the other hand...it's not ideal.

And because of my style and speed and improved release...many of the "big hook" "premium" "pro level" balls...I can't really use. Mark Baker suggested I get myself a 900Global Cardinal Boost because I don't have any "weak" equipment for drier house shots or for practice on drier lanes. And I may have to re-think this arsenal if the Ebonite Innovate is too strong in the #3 position. I'm banking on the experiences I've had thus far...that most of the Ebonite International stuff (excluding Hammer) has been far weaker and hooked late enough...that it won't be a problem.

I also am constantly changing my arsenal selection strategy because my game is constantly changing and my centers are changing. As Rob preaches, at the end of the day your equipment and decisions have to be based MOSTLY on how your equipment is reacting to the lanes you are bowling on that given night. I used to have the Melee Jab as my #3 ball after the Lethal Revolver and Dark Encounter and in front of the Asylum and Loaded Revolver. After working with one of my coaches, it was clear to them that:

1) The Asylum wasn't working. It was hooking so early that by the time it got to the pocket is hit like a baby pillow.
2) The Melee Jab would work best AFTER the Loaded Revolver...when the lanes had transitioned...but maybe there was some carry-down at the breakpoint.

So, the point of the above example is that arsenal selection isn't going to guarantee you a perfect progression. Sometimes balls don't work well...like the Asylum. Sometimes balls are stronger (Jab) or weaker (Dark Encounter) than you would expect based on the specs. I'm now essentially down to the Le. Revolver and Lo. Revolver because I retired the Asylum, gave away the Jab, and the Dark Encounter hooks too early on the narrow house pattern that I play on. I personally believe...it's the low RG of the Dark Encounter and Asylum...which hurt me even more as my release got better and my speed got slower. I predict this proposed arsenal will also need "tweaks" along the way. Sometimes it's a surface tweek. Sometimes you need to change the order. Sometimes you need to change your approach a little. And sometimes you just run into a ball you can't really use.

I had a bad experience with the Asylum...but a kid through a 900 series with it...so I can't condemn RotoGrip...it just wasn't a good ball for me. Maybe I had it drilled wrong...maybe not. I agree with you that I think I'll have better luck with the Defiant Edge.

Also bowling styles come into play...as Rob mentioned earlier. MWhite throws very weak equipment...Storm Mix, etc... Is rev rate is so high...that I can't imagine what it would look like if he tried to play something like the Radical Guru up the track. The ball would probably hit the left gutter so hard that it'd jump into the next lane. Rob has a much different style (from what I've seen). Slower...inside to outside...he's good around 15-20 (versus me at least...I suck inside of 15). So, while the Jab worked well for me...it didn't work as well for him.

And that's why, sometime in the next 120 games...I'm also going to get input from my coaches. Tell them what 3 I'm looking at....maybe why if they ask....and get their input. I don't like to just ask them, "What balls should I buy for my next arsenal"....because they're under contract to at "push" or "favor" their lines. But if I give them a "here's what I have, what do you suggest?"...they can help me with the progression and drilling...and I'm not asking them to promote a competitor's products. And, if one or more of the coaches thinks a ball is a disaster for me...I'd consider changing the arsenal, maybe using something else I have undrilled, or even buying a ball to fill a hole.

[Aslan]

Huh. There's an 11000 word limit. Who knew?

(continued)


I really do think it would be easier for you to select and build an arsenal if you though more of what I want this ball to do in each slot than trying to build an arsenal based on how weak or strong the ball is and trying to fit them in a procession.
I know what I want them to do.

Ball #1: Able to play the track on heavier/medium oil...wider patterns or longer sport patterns. A good Ball #1 if I'm on a tougher, fresh shot.
The Reaxx should be good here. It has a low RG, a strong core, a strong cover. I can always add a little surface if the pearl cover goes too long on a given pattern. But maybe the pearl cover allows me to use it on my narrow THS. Carry shouldn't be a problem...it's a newer ball...it's a strong ball...but at the end of the day it could be too strong for me at my current speed and rev rate.

P.S. Many people reading this may ask, "why not just increase your speed?" That's a really long answer...but the short version is, altering speeds and maintaining your timing....pros can do it...most of us non-pros...it's difficult.

Ball #2: First ball out of the bag on my fresh THS. Hopefully can perform well for 1-2 games...until the pattern really breaks down.
A little concerned that the Defiant Edge may be too week on a fresh THS...but it's a narrow THS and I've been doing well with pearls and polished equipment...so I'm optimistic.

Ball #3: A ball that can be used in Games 2 and 3 of my THS...maybe useful in practice on non-freshly oiled lanes...but strong enough to carry.
I agree with you that this is the least ideal of the 3...but it's difficult finding a ball weak enough to play in the dry that still has the power to carry the corner pins...and Ebonite tends to hook the latest...just really skeptical that a ball with a 2.49 RG will be much use when the lanes transition....but, the Melee Jab was perfect as a #4 ball...and it had a low RG...so, we'll see!

[RobLV1]

In what book of fairy tales did you read that Ebonite hooks the latest? If you want something that is still strong but hooks hard on the back end, try the Storm Fight, but before you ever throw it, take the surface down to 1000 and polish the cr*p out of it!

[Amyers]

1. I like the idea of adding the Cardinal Boost would be a good fit.

2.If your willing to add some surface on the Reax if you need to that even makes it a better fit. I really don't know how effective trying to do polished finishes is without a spinner I would think consistently replicating the finish would be problematic but I've never tied it so it may be easier than I think.


Think of it in terms of manufacturing. Companies buy resins. They buy additives. They have formulas. They have manufacturing techniques. They have varying levels of quality control (or in Motiv's case, no quality control). You're telling me...that if Ebonite and Radical made the EXACT SAME BALL...same RG, same Diff., same Pearl/Hybrid/Solid cover, same surface prep with abralon pads, same polish applied for the same amount of time...you're telling me those balls would behave exactly the same? I don't want to post a poll...but I can tell you with 99% certainty...based on conversations with pros...that there is definitely a "general trend" that some companies roll sooner than others or hook sooner than others. Even ROB....who is hiding from MWhite right now....has specifically told me that some ball manufacturers make better skid/flip balls than other manufacturers.


3. You will never get different ball manufacturers to make the same ball with the same core and same cover stock so we will never answer that question. The cover stocks that each manufacturer uses are unique to that manufacturer they also each use multiple different cover stocks themselves. In the past I do believe that your belief about certain manufacturers specialized in certain types of shapes on the lanes I really don't believe this is true anymore. Anybody that believes Brunswick cant do backend hasn't thrown the Mastermind Braniac or Radical Ridiculous. Storm/Roto known for backend makes the Alpha Crux and Hyper Cell.

I will admit if I was looking for a top of the line polished pearl I might be sorely tempted to look 900/Storm/RG before Brunswick but I wouldn't be lining balls up in my arsenal that way.

But if you did find that ball where the RG, cover, surface, differential are the same they would roll the same but like I stated above that will never happen.


Again, you are trying to say (and I'm paraphrasing here):
"Use a progression from Brunswick or Rotogrip. Then sand one to 500, sand one to 2000, and sand one to 4000 and polish...and there's your ideal arsenal. All other specs are useless to consider...and you can't truly test different balls because the specs won't be exactly the same and even if they are you can just have the balls surfaced to whatever you want...so specs are generally meaningless."

And the problem is...I can't 100% disagree with you. I agree, that balls probably can be surface manipulated to do whatever you want them to do. But then you get into an entire different argument. And at the end of the day...why would ball manufacturers even invest so much time and effort into specs (or cheat like Motiv)....if all that matters is how much sandpaper you have in your bowling ball bag?


Honestly I don't care who makes the ball. The manufacturer is basically meaningless beyond the fact that I trust them to have a cover stock appropriate to the reaction I'm looking for. I know everything else about a ball then I purchase it besides the cover. If I purchase a ball with a high to medium rg and polished surface I knw as long as the cover is sufficiently strong I will have a ball that goes long and to some extent flips that's going to be better for medium to light oil who makes it doesn't matter other than do I trust that company to manufacture that cover.

If I buy ball 2 that has a lower rg and more surface I know that ball will roll more evenly hook earlier and probably have more a bench mark type shape. The only real question here is do I trust this company to design a core that will sufficiently spin the ball up in heavy oil and can they make strong enough cover to give it the strength that it needs.

The only way manufacturer plays a roll is do I trust them to build what I need/want?


What I'm saying is, all things equal...Radical hooks sooner than other brands. Your response is, "all things aren't equal". I know that. That's why I'm trying to develop a "system" to create an arsenal based on multiple and sometimes conflicting specs....and yes, with full knowledge that someone can manipulate reactions with surface at any time.


See this statement is exactly the problem. Not only are all things not equal they never will be. This is a dangerous preconception that Radical balls hooks sooner. Go out and buy a Rave On, Ridiculous, or Jack Pot or even find a Reax Gusto in a bargain bin and tell me about how early Radical balls are.


Yes, if you believe the resurface needs to happen at 40 games. Many believe the ball surface changes much faster than that.

In a perfect world I guess we would resurface after every set I simply don't have the time 40 games is about the time frame that my pearls really seem to lose reaction


Well, pardon me Scrooge McDuck....I was assuming most bowlers don't have a room full of gold coins.


Seems like to me your drilling a new arsenal up about once season here. I don't drill my balls all at the same time buy I do tend to buy about three per year. With the amount we bowl your pretty much going to run through that amount. Compared to most of the other hobbies I've had bowling is cheap and I refuse to cry over a few dimes.


As we've discussed before...the problem in arsenal and progression selection is that specs contradict each other. I'm very nervous about using 3 balls that all have identical RG values and pearl coverstocks. On the one hand, the differences in the 3 balls should give them enough separation...on the other hand...it's not ideal.

It wouldn't be my way of building an arsenal that's for certain. I'm more concerned with the Rg's being that similar than anything being willing to adjust the surface will help create separation if you need it. I think the reax and defiant are fine. Balls from Ebonite scare me, balls I've never heard of scare me, balls I've never seen roll scare me, and balls from Ebonite that I've never heard of or seen roll = terrifying

[Amyers]

In what book of fairy tales did you read that Ebonite hooks the latest? If you want something that is still strong but hooks hard on the back end, try the Storm Fight, but before you ever throw it, take the surface down to 1000 and polish the cr*p out of it!

The entire concept of guessing when a ball will hook by the name stamped on it is a combination of old fairy tales and Aslan's imagination

[JaxBowlingGuy]

MWhite throws very weak equipment...Storm Mix, etc... Is rev rate is so high...that I can't imagine what it would look like if he tried to play something like the Radical Guru up the track. The ball would probably hit the left gutter so hard that it'd jump into the next lane.

What do you consider a high rev rate? Just curious

[Mike White]

What do you consider a high rev rate? Just curious

My rev rate in the time period I bowled with Aslan, was measured via video and resulted in approximately 550 rpm.

At that time, the bowling center didn't have any indicator of ball speed.

Recently the software has changed, and now indicates the ball entering the pins at 14-15 mph.

As for hooking onto the next lane with a reactive resin ball, after league one night I pulled out the DV8 Hell Raiser Revenge that I won online here.

I was playing 15 thru the arrows, out to 5 at 40 feet, and back to the pocket with the Storm Mix.

I tried to play the same line with the HRR, but when it exited the side of the oil at the 10 board, the ball didn't continue out to the 5 board.

It followed the edge of the oil (10 board) until the end of the oil pattern (39 feet), and the ball hit the left gutter half way between the end of the pattern, and the pin deck, but it didn't climb over to the next lane.

[RobLV1]

The entire concept of guessing when a ball will hook by the name stamped on it is a combination of old fairy tales and Aslan's imagination

Not entirely. Cover materials are rated by the USBC using three test criteria: Coefficient of Friction (COF) in oil, COF on dry lane, and oil absorption rate. The problem is that these numbers are never made public (with the exception of some Ebonite balls that put the oil absorption rate on the ball with no explanation of the meaning of the number). Since the numbers are never made public, we can only go on experience in terms of evaluating the cover materials of different companies. My own experience over the past several years has been mainly with Brunswick and Storm, so I will limit my observations to these two brands. From what I've seen, Brunswick balls find more friction in the oil and react less to the dry parts of the lane. Storm balls, on the other hand skid more in the oil, and react more violently to the dry. My guess is that Brunswick balls have a higher COF in oil, and Storm balls have a higher COF in the dry. Is this making a value judgement? Not at all. I have both Brunswick and Storm balls in my arsenal and use them according to the lane condition and the part of the lane that I decide to play.

Until ball companies decide to share the test results on their cover materials, we have nothing to rely on but our own experience and the experiences of others. To consider that chemical differences do not exist between cover materials from different manufacturers is naive at best.

[Amyers]

Not entirely. Cover materials are rated by the USBC using three test criteria: Coefficient of Friction (COF) in oil, COF on dry lane, and oil absorption rate. The problem is that these numbers are never made public (with the exception of some Ebonite balls that put the oil absorption rate on the ball with no explanation of the meaning of the number). Since the numbers are never made public, we can only go on experience in terms of evaluating the cover materials of different companies. My own experience over the past several years has been mainly with Brunswick and Storm, so I will limit my observations to these two brands. From what I've seen, Brunswick balls find more friction in the oil and react less to the dry parts of the lane. Storm balls, on the other hand skid more in the oil, and react more violently to the dry. My guess is that Brunswick balls have a higher COF in oil, and Storm balls have a higher COF in the dry. Is this making a value judgement? Not at all. I have both Brunswick and Storm balls in my arsenal and use them according to the lane condition and the part of the lane that I decide to play.

Until ball companies decide to share the test results on their cover materials, we have nothing to rely on but our own experience and the experiences of others. To consider that chemical differences do not exist between cover materials from different manufacturers is naive at best.

I wouldn't disagree with anything you said there but if I'm looking for a ball to go longer with more backend I'm not just sticking any storm one in the bag nor would I order my lineup even if the balls has similar Rg by the manufacturer.

[JaxBowlingGuy]

My rev rate in the time period I bowled with Aslan, was measured via video and resulted in approximately 550 rpm.

At that time, the bowling center didn't have any indicator of ball speed.

Recently the software has changed, and now indicates the ball entering the pins at 14-15 mph.

As for hooking onto the next lane with a reactive resin ball, after league one night I pulled out the DV8 Hell Raiser Revenge that I won online here.

I was playing 15 thru the arrows, out to 5 at 40 feet, and back to the pocket with the Storm Mix.

I tried to play the same line with the HRR, but when it exited the side of the oil at the 10 board, the ball didn't continue out to the 5 board.

It followed the edge of the oil (10 board) until the end of the oil pattern (39 feet), and the ball hit the left gutter half way between the end of the pattern, and the pin deck, but it didn't climb over to the next lane.

This video?

http://www.bowlingvids.com/mobile/watch.php?vid=940bc2120

[billf]

This video?

http://www.bowlingvids.com/mobile/watch.php?vid=940bc2120


I only watched three frames, it was too painful. 350-375 at best there. But I did see video of Mike bowling about 3-4 years ago and it was higher, probably 425 or so.
If that is 550 in this video then Danielle McEwan is a cranker.

[JaxBowlingGuy]

I only watched three frames, it was too painful. 350-375 at best there. But I did see video of Mike bowling about 3-4 years ago and it was higher, probably 425 or so.
If that is 550 in this video then Danielle McEwan is a cranker.

You took the number right out of my head. I was watching and thinking 350 to 375 at best. I'm around 480-490 and can see my rate is higher. Or maybe I'm calculating it wrong and I'm 700? Who knows lol

[Mike White]

I only watched three frames, it was too painful. 350-375 at best there. But I did see video of Mike bowling about 3-4 years ago and it was higher, probably 425 or so.
If that is 550 in this video then Danielle McEwan is a cranker.

That event took place shortly after a bicep injury (too heavy of a ball) so I was way down in revs there.

We got to bowl on fresh oil, but it was stupid oil. Drier in the middle, and flooded from 10 and out.

It took a few frames to realize, to avoid the flood and get some reasonable reaction, I had to move way left and play the middle of the lane.

[Mike White]

This video?

http://www.bowlingvids.com/mobile/watch.php?vid=940bc2120


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EAeu7Gv6TQ

This one, Frame rate is 480 fps.

One revolution is completed in 54 frames. rev rate per minute = 60 / (54 / 480) = 533.33

[Mike White]

This video?

http://www.bowlingvids.com/mobile/watch.php?vid=940bc2120



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nerhBaefzsE

Here is full speed

[Aslan]

The entire concept of guessing when a ball will hook by the name stamped on it is a combination of old fairy tales and Aslan's imagination
I will let both PBA pros that told me that more than once...that you and Rob are skeptical.


You will never get different ball manufacturers to make the same ball with the same core and same cover stock so we will never answer that question.
Every time I try to make a statement about any one spec and it's effect on ball motion...you claim it's impossible to know because there are so many variables and you can't isolate any of them. Okay. So we're back to the "Amyers Method" of arsenal selection which involves a dart, a dart board, a piece of paper with every ball currently available, and a suitcase full of sandpaper. I am NOT a proponent of the "Amyers Method".

Like our previous debating on this matter....either specs MATTER...or they DON'T MATTER. You can't have it both ways. If RG is important, it's important. If it's meaningless...then whats the point of even knowing what it is? You're essentially saying ball manufacturers just post all these specs to confuse us and try to make us think that the balls are special. I'm not quite that cynical of ball manufacturers...except maybe Motiv.


Anybody that believes Brunswick cant do backend hasn't thrown the Mastermind Braniac or Radical Ridiculous.
Rob can answer this better than I can...but I believe the Fortera series by Brunswick was an attempt at "skid/flip" and many people believe that was a failed effort.

So...I guess I'm forced to post a poll. :mad:

[Aslan]

To consider that chemical differences do not exist between cover materials from different manufacturers is naive at best.

Nevermind...maybe I don't need to post a poll....unless that poll is, "How naïve is Amyers?" which nobody would probably vote on and Bowl1820 would frown upon. ;)

[Aslan]

I only watched three frames, it was too painful. 350-375 at best there. But I did see video of Mike bowling about 3-4 years ago and it was higher, probably 425 or so.
If that is 550 in this video then Danielle McEwan is a cranker.

THIS

We went over this extensively in another thread...and I agree with billf...at the time we broke it down and eventually came to the conclusion that his rev rate at that time was around 425. Some people saw it as 395ish...others saw it as 480ish...but the point is...it's a very high rev rate and his speed is not noticeably high nor noticeably slow...so I'd guess 16-18mph off his hand....so that's about 14-16 at the pins...so I think his center's speed 'gun' is probably accurate.

[JaxBowlingGuy]

You can calculate speed by the time the ball takes to hit the pins. Pretty easy just need a stop watch which most phones have now days. I use that when helping others with keeping consistent speed.

[Amyers]

I will let both PBA pros that told me that more than once...that you and Rob are skeptical. Ask those same pros if they would be willing to purchase their balls and slot them in their arsenal by the manufacturer. I bet you get a crazy look.




Every time I try to make a statement about any one spec and it's effect on ball motion...you claim it's impossible to know because there are so many variables and you can't isolate any of them. Okay. So we're back to the "Amyers Method" of arsenal selection which involves a dart, a dart board, a piece of paper with every ball currently available, and a suitcase full of sandpaper. I am NOT a proponent of the "Amyers Method".

Like our previous debating on this matter....either specs MATTER...or they DON'T MATTER. You can't have it both ways. If RG is important, it's important. If it's meaningless...then whats the point of even knowing what it is? You're essentially saying ball manufacturers just post all these specs to confuse us and try to make us think that the balls are special. I'm not quite that cynical of ball manufacturers...except maybe Motiv.


Where are you getting this? I think specs matter a lot. What I don't agree with is when you go off on one of these tangents focusing only on one factor and ignoring everything else and creating your own fantasy ratings in this case for manufactures that shouldn't even really be in the conversation.

1. Surface
2. Cover Strength
3. RG
4. Differential
5. Drilling

That's what you need to look at in the order that they effect ball motion anything else is dreams, out dated info, and fantasy land.


Rob can answer this better than I can...but I believe the Fortera series by Brunswick was an attempt at "skid/flip" and many people believe that was a failed effort.



I believe that I admitted that Brunswick has repeatedly failed at a high end pearl and even placed the Fortera as a possible low oil ball in your lineup lol. I also pointed out some really good skid flip balls that Brunswick makes in my post too. Really I don't know that style ball is something you really need anyway. My Vintage Zone is skid flip enough for me I really don't need anything much longer or stronger than that ball. I guess the VG Pearl fits that spot in my line up but I really don't use that ball much anymore the Zone is more controllable and consistent as the VG and rolls just as long.

[Amyers]

Nevermind...maybe I don't need to post a poll....unless that poll is, "How naïve is Amyers?" which nobody would probably vote on and Bowl1820 would frown upon. ;)

You were arguing that all the covers were constant since all three were pearls in your proposed arsenal. I'm not sure that Rob intended me as the Naïve one here. I do agree that some brands share some characteristics that doesn't mean that it makes sense to consider that fact when slotting balls in an arsenal.

[RobLV1]

Rob can answer this better than I can...but I believe the Fortera series by Brunswick was an attempt at "skid/flip" and many people believe that was a failed effort.

So...I guess I'm forced to post a poll. :mad:

I agree completely. By the time my Exile cracked (which wasn't long), I had to request a different ball to replace it because it was already discontinued!

[Aslan]

You were arguing that all the covers were constant since all three were pearls in your proposed arsenal. I'm not sure that Rob intended me as the Naïve one here. I do agree that some brands share some characteristics that doesn't mean that it makes sense to consider that fact when slotting balls in an arsenal.

You are just begging for a poll MR!!!

So it "matters"...but you shouldn't consider it??

Kinda like whether or not I am naked while typing this...it "matters"...but please don't consider it. :eek: :o

[Amyers]

So it "matters"...but you shouldn't consider it??



If I was deciding between buying two top end pearls one of them was Brunswick and one was Storm do I consider it yes and I'm probably going to buy the Storm even though I generally prefer Brunswick equipment. Honestly on THS shots I don't see the point in the high end pearls and I'm referring to balls like the Lock Pearl, 900 Global Respect Pearl, and RG Hyper Cell Skid. Maybe it's just my style I can get more than enough skid/flip out of my Danger Zone or my wife with her MM Braniac and even her Soul Mate that any bowler would want. I guess I could see it more on sport shots but I really don't understand why people want or need that.


If I have three balls I'm thinking about building an arsenal from what brand they are never enters my mind. I'm looking to fill shot shape and oil handling spots so I'm looking at Surface, Cover Strength, and RG mostly when I make my decisions.

[Aslan]

I guess when it comes to arsenal selection....from what I've seen/read/heard...and maybe Bowl1820 even has USBC videos or old posts on this subject that will give us an even wider array of "theories"...but I've seen primarily TWO methods:

1) Cover stocks (solid, hybrid, pearl)
2) RG (2.49, 2.51, 2.53, 2.55)

Now, both of these methods have positives and negatives, depending on who you talk to. For example;

CoverStock:
Pro: Most evidence shows that surface trumps cover and cover trumps the rest of the specs/variables.
Con: There is also testing that leads us to believe (as Rob mentioned) that "pearl", "hybrid", "solid" are essentially meaningless advertising/sales tools.

RG:
Pro:
If you're less concerned with building an arsenal with different ball motion "shapes"...and more concerned with building a progression where you have balls that go shorter to longer (in terms of when they change from skid phase to hook phase)...RG is a good way to put an arsenal together. Rob wrote a very good article on arsenal creation using RG as the primary factor...and since RG also encompasses (to varying degrees) core symmetry, core strength, and differential...it's a probably one of the better "spec-related" indicators of ball movement...at least in terms of when the ball starts to hook.

Con:
Well, first, a very small % of bowlers know what the RGs of their equipment is...the RG changes slightly based on weight and finding the RG for a non-15lb ball isn't always as easy, depending on the brand/website. Second, even if bowlers KNOW their RG...most would struggle to explain what it actually means. And probably the biggest "con" is that most verifiable testing leads one to believe that surface is so, so, so much more dominant than any spec....including RG....that nothing else really at the end of the day matters.

So, let me post a few examples of how my "arsenal selection" process has went and what the lessons learned were (as mudpuppy cliff noted as I can be)...

[Aslan]

Arsenal #1 (2013-2014)
900Global Bullet Train, Hammer Rhythm, Columbia300Encounter(s), Brunswick Slingshot

This arsenal didn't involve any real "planning" or "selection" process. I simply took 4-5 balls that were in my "closet of destiny" and tried to put them into a "progression".

This method involved essentially 5 slots....where I would start with the #3 ball as my "benchmark". The thought process was...if I use the "medium" ball...I have two balls I can "ball up" with and two balls I can "ball down" with...depending on what the pattern/lanes indicate. I bolded that part...because I know Rob gets annoyed when I talk about a "progression"...and I want him and others to understand...the "progression system" is just as dependent on lane conditions as any other method...it's just a different way to organize what you start with.

Pros:
1) It was logical to start in the middle and give myself as many options (balling up or down) as possible.
2) I got to use my older balls first...thus lessening the chance that some of these balls would crack or shrink over time due to sitting around unused.
3) Ultimately, slotting (#1-#5) was based on actual practice data...not specs.

Negatives:
1) When basing your arsenal or progression on actual practice data...you need a consistent release. Since none of us are EARL the robot...this is actually not a good way to slot the balls.
2) The positioning changed from week to week....one minute a ball would seem to hook more (this is important, see below)...then the next week another ball would seem to hook "more". Was this the ball? Or the inconsistent technique? Or the varying lane conditions?
3) As we progress in bowling, we learn what Bowl1820 means in his signature...it isn't about how many boards are covered when a ball hooks...it's more important WHERE does it hook....and where does it stop hooking (roll phase). Without understanding that concept...you may see a ball "not hook"...NOT because the ball is too 'weak'...it's just that it hooked too soon. So you see it as "not aggressive enough" when actually it's the most aggressive ball in your bag.
4) This method ignores pretty much all of the physics of bowling ball technology.

LESSONS LEARNED:
1) A better "progression" method is starting with the soonest hooking ball...and if you bowl in the same place often enough...sometimes you learn to start with the #3 or #2 or #4...so it's still a "progression"...but that doesn't mean you robotically always start with ball #1.
2) Basing your arsenal on ONLY practice data...when you are <190 average...you're probably not nearly consistent enough. You can't ignore specs completely.
3) Trying to surface the heck out of balls to make them "hook more"...not a good idea. It turns out...you can only make them hook sooner...not "more"...and if they hook "sooner"...they may cover more boards or may not (depends on when they enter the roll phase)...but you'll likely have severe carry issues with a ball that hooks way too and has no energy left for the backend.

And...most importantly...it led to approach Arsenal #2 a little differently. Rather than buy 5 random balls of the same weight...then try to force square pegs into round holes...I would develop a method of selecting which balls I want to include in the next arsenal based on a combination of:
Core Symmetry (assy./sym.), RG, differential (flare), cover material (Pearl, Hybrid, Solid), PerfectScale (http://www.bowlingball.com/info/perfect_scale.html) rating, and surface prep (OOB).... < to be continued in next post >

[Amyers]

I guess when it comes to arsenal selection....from what I've seen/read/heard...and maybe Bowl1820 even has USBC videos or old posts on this subject that will give us an even wider array of "theories"...but I've seen primarily TWO methods:

1) Cover stocks (solid, hybrid, pearl)
2) RG (2.49, 2.51, 2.53, 2.55)

Now, both of these methods have positives and negatives, depending on who you talk to. For example;

CoverStock:
Pro: Most evidence shows that surface trumps cover and cover trumps the rest of the specs/variables.
Con: There is also testing that leads us to believe (as Rob mentioned) that "pearl", "hybrid", "solid" are essentially meaningless advertising/sales tools.

RG:
Pro:
If you're less concerned with building an arsenal with different ball motion "shapes"...and more concerned with building a progression where you have balls that go shorter to longer (in terms of when they change from skid phase to hook phase)...RG is a good way to put an arsenal together. Rob wrote a very good article on arsenal creation using RG as the primary factor...and since RG also encompasses (to varying degrees) core symmetry, core strength, and differential...it's a probably one of the better "spec-related" indicators of ball movement...at least in terms of when the ball starts to hook.

Con:
Well, first, a very small % of bowlers know what the RGs of their equipment is...the RG changes slightly based on weight and finding the RG for a non-15lb ball isn't always as easy, depending on the brand/website. Second, even if bowlers KNOW their RG...most would struggle to explain what it actually means. And probably the biggest "con" is that most verifiable testing leads one to believe that surface is so, so, so much more dominant than any spec....including RG....that nothing else really at the end of the day matters.

So, let me post a few examples of how my "arsenal selection" process has went and what the lessons learned were (as mudpuppy cliff noted as I can be)...

Isn't a combination of these methods exactly what I've been advocating? I agree with Rob about the pearl, hybrid, solid crap. Actually I think I was on that bandwagon before he was.

Step 1. Determine what you need the ball to do
Step 2. Determine what surface/cover combo is likely to fit that condition (cover I'm referring to is strength not type and yes this is guesswork to some extent)
Step 3. Determine what RG is likely to fit that cover/surface combo and give you the desired shot shape.
Step 4. Purchase ball that closely resembles those characteristics.

It's not rocket science.

[Aslan]

Arsenal #2 (2015-2016)
Brunswick Lethal Revolver, Columbia300 Dark Encounter, Rotogrip Asylum, Brunswick Melee Jab*, Brunswick Loaded Revolver

This arsenal was created based on specs...but the progression was chosen by my coach. While the actual decision of which balls to put in the Arsenal was greatly influenced by what was in the "closet of destiny"...it also included some newer balls like the Asylum that I won in a weekly giveaway.

* The Melee Jab was given to me by Rob...so it wasn't part of the original arsenal selection process.

The driving factor in creating this arsenal was the belief that cover trumps all other specs. Ball manufacturer differences...RG...all that stuff is irrelevant compared to the cover on the ball. This decision was not only echoed by my coach...but I saw it first had when my hybrid, high RG Bullet Train hooked noticeably sooner than my solid, lower RG Rhythm from Arsenal #1. So I figured...if I lined it up Solid, Solid, Hybrid, Pearl, Pearl....and then tweaked it a little based on manufacturer tendencies (which both my coaches agreed on) and surface prep....I should be "good to go".

Pros:
1) If surface trumps specs, then cover should trump specs.
2) Takes into account manufacturer differences inherent to one manufacturer versus another.
3) Given that PerfectScale was the best indicator in the last arsenal, this arsenal/progression was also based on PerfectScale rating.
4) By selecting the arsenal and drilling all of the balls at once...it allowed me two things:
- First, I could change weights without mixing weights. That allowed me to go from 16lbs to 15lbs.
- Second, it allowed my coach to select drilling layouts based on where in the progression I intended to use each ball.

Negatives:
1) It really underestimated the effect of RG and the other specs. While it took specs into account...it was still a "hodge podge" collection of balls.
2) Since all of the balls were essentially OOB finish...it relied on there being a noticeable difference between coverstocks (solid, hybrid, pearl)...and that never really developed the way I had planned and leads me to sort of agree with what Rob discovered in his testing of coverstocks.
3) By drilling the balls to fit in a pre-determined progression...there's a risk (i.e. Asylum) that you could cause an otherwise effective ball to be ineffective.
4) The Melee Jab caused all kinds of "issues". It was newer technology...it was visibly the strongest ball in my bag, it had a lower RG, it was a sooner hooking Brunswick....YET....it didn't work well in the #4 slot...and worked better in the #5 slot. I'm still not sure why...but the 'theory' I gathered from my coach...is that when the breakpoint is drier and clean...the Jab was reacting unpredictably...because my release wasn't super-consistent. The Jab needed oil so not to over-react. And, by Game #3...when ball #5 usually came out on an easier THS...there was enough carry-down (to the breakpoint) that the Jab didn't over-react.

LESSONS LEARNED:
1) I think I need to consider all elements of the specs...not just coverstock and PerfectScale. Throwing high RG equipment ahead of low RG equipment just because it's a solid vs a hybrid is not ideal.
2) Try to use RG more and coverstock less. You can always tweek surface later.
3) There is a 'place' for a stronger, skid/flip ball...at the END of the progression. In other words...it's not as simple as "strong, medium, weak, weakest". You still need a ball that goes long in the dry...but still has enough power left to carry. So...rather than use a Track300A or a Strike King or a Columbia Freeze as Ball #4 (4-ball progression)...it might be better to use a Fortera Exile or something like that...a polished pearl that can give you length....but still have the power to make a turn in the carry-down (oil) and carry corner-pins.

So, that's where I am now. I don't have a 4-ball progression right now...I'm gonna try and make a 3-ball progression and then if my coach thinks I need to slot in another ball somewhere...I can do that...either from the 'closet of destiny' or through purchasing one. The new arsenal/progression is still dependent on PerfectScale and coverstocks...but I tweaked the RG and differential numbers to weight them more than I did before. And I use manufacturer tendencies less...really just as a tiebreaker.

I don't have the spreadsheet in front of me, but it essentially creates 4 slots by color (red, purple, green, dark grey).
- Red ideally would be a low RG solid...Brunswick/Radical...> 0.052 diff (high flare), dull or sanded surface, PerfectScale > 220. It's purpose is to be the first ball out of the bag on fresh oil...probably not THS...but harder patterns, wider patterns, longer patterns, sport patterns, tournament play.
- Purple would be a ball that isn't as strong as #1...maybe a first ball out of the bag on a THS...0.050-0.054 differential, > 210 PerfectScale, maybe a Storm/Rotogrip or Hammer, RG > 2.49...but more in the 2.50-2.51 kind of area, a hybrid cover, maybe a 1000-2000 OOB surface.
- Green is your ball-down option when your THS starts to transition. It's also you "go to ball" on shorter, drier, more narrow patterns...especially if you have slower speed and 300 or higher rev rate. Generally it's going to be a Pearl, polished, 2000-4000 abralon OOB, a > 2.51 RG, 0.020-0.049 differential, PerfectScale < 210, and generally you're looking at a 900Global or Ebonite International (non-Hammer) ball.
- Grey is the slot where you have two options. A strong skid/flip ball like a Pro level Pearl Rotogrip/Storm ball OR...you can use this slot for a dry lane/practice very weak ball like a entry level ball such as a Boost or a Strike King or a Freeze or a really polished Tropical Breeze...maybe even a urethane ball. The ideal specs here are different depending on which of those options you choose. It NEEDS to be a Pearl and it NEEDS to be polished to go in this spot. But if it's skid/flip...the RG is less important and you want a high differential and high PerfectScale value. But if it's just a long, dry lane, practice ball...then you want a lower PerfectScale number, RG > 2.51, differential <0.048, etc...

BUT...and this is important before you start tearing this idea to pieces...it is almost NEVER...the case that a ball is "all Red" or "all Green". Usually there is going to be some spec that doesn't quite fit. That's when you have to sort of "average". Like, lets say you have 6 variables...3 Red and 3 Green. That ball would get slotted as a Purple #2 ball. IDEALLY, you'd select a ball that is "all purple" for the #2 slot....but I presently 'closet of destiny' restrictions...so I have to slot balls that aren't 'perfect'.

[bowl1820]

You might check out this video called advancing your bowling performance


The part called Ball matrix (at about the 17:44 min. mark)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNOCzKcYBqQ

[Aslan]

You might check out this video called advancing your bowling performance


The part called Ball matrix (at about the 17:44 min. mark)

Interesting. I think they echoed alot of what we've all been talking about.

1) They sort of recommended my old "benchmark" system...even though I kind've abandoned that.
2) They did a good job of showing "dull" vs. "shiny" and how sometimes dull doesn't hook as much as shiny because it loses energy too early.

They talked alot about what Amyers and I were arguing about. They seem to be in the "Amyers camp" that it's just so hard and there are so many factors that there's no way to really develop a matrix. I still disagree. I don't like the excuse, "it's too difficult". It "can" be done...it just isn't "simple". Thats why after 3 years of trying...I'm nowhere near finished with it. There are a LOT of variables to consider...and isolating those variables to TRULY test them...is very difficult unless you work for a ball company and have an endless supply of balls to play with.

[RobLV1]

I keep going back to the concept that you've adopted that an arsenal is a fixed thing... arsenal 1, arsenal 2, etc. Have you ever considered that every ball you have is part of your arsenal, and whichever balls you decided to take with you to a certain event or center is just your temporary arsenal for the day?

[Aslan]

I keep going back to the concept that you've adopted that an arsenal is a fixed thing... arsenal 1, arsenal 2, etc. Have you ever considered that every ball you have is part of your arsenal, and whichever balls you decided to take with you to a certain event or center is just your temporary arsenal for the day?

Yes and No.

Technically I have about 4-5 drilled balls from prior arsenals...but the only way I could mix and match is if I mix weights. One of the reasons I've switched out arsenals all at once is because Arsenal #1 was 16lbs and Arsenal 2 was 15lbs. Arsenal #3 is likely to go back to 16lbs.

[Jaescrub]

Yes and No.

Technically I have about 4-5 drilled balls from prior arsenals...but the only way I could mix and match is if I mix weights. One of the reasons I've switched out arsenals all at once is because Arsenal #1 was 16lbs and Arsenal 2 was 15lbs. Arsenal #3 is likely to go back to 16lbs.

What's your reason for the mix of 16 and 15 # equipment?

[Aslan]

What's your reason for the mix of 16 and 15 # equipment?

I started with 15 and thought I'd try 16. Then I thought I'd try 15 again. By being able to throw either weight with success...it gives me a bit more options. 16lb balls will often go on clearance and sell for very little, despite being popular models...because fewer people are throwing 16lbs now. I figure eventually...I'll settle on a weight I like best...probably 15lbs...but until I figure it out...I keep my options open.