With new bowling balls being announced, anyone interested in any of them?

[Blomer]

With new bowling balls being announced from Bowl Expo, are there any catching your eye?
I like the Code Red by Storm so far. Also No Rules Exist.

[JaxBowlingGuy]

We have a new line that was announced at BowlExpo and quite a interesting core design in the Swagger

http://i.imgur.com/Assbbhp.png

[Stormed1]

Already ordered a Honey Badger and a Forza SS. Also going to pick p a Code Red.

[Aslan]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oY48KduIPPU/TOaKvAMkpzI/AAAAAAAAAvM/qr3dq351W_Y/s1600/demotivational-apathy1.jpg

Couldn't care less.

[foreverincamo]

I liked the BTU Pearl. It just looked cool. I have the original BTU.

[LyalC52]

I have a Honey Badger and Covert Ops on pre-order right now

I've been having my best summer so far just throwing a Special Ops and Desert Ops, so looking to add more 900 Global balls to the bag for the winter leagues.

[Tony]

I am in a free ball league right now and have a Marvel Pearl on the list when it comes out next week, although I can still change it to anything else in the same
price range. The Code Red and No Rules Exist look pretty interesting, but I will probably stick with the Marvel

[Blomer]

Just got my Code Red and wow! I like it a lot! Very smooth strong ball. Hits hard and if I miss my target, not. A Problem!

[imagonman]

I dunno......is there anything really 'new' coming out? What is the groundbreaking gotta have that isn't a repackage of something already out there? Or is it just more marketing hype for $$$$$?

[Aslan]

I dunno......is there anything really 'new' coming out? What is the groundbreaking gotta have that isn't a repackage of something already out there? Or is it just more marketing hype for $$$$$?

http://lawumk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/hype_wallpaper.jpg

[chip82901]

I will honestly say, I can't wait for the Hot Cell from Rotogrip! My favorite Rotogrip core (Nucleus, found in all of the cell series), wrapped in urethane! Yes please! Only thing I'm not excited about is it being in the HP4 line, and coming with the HP4 price!

[ALazySavage]

I dunno......is there anything really 'new' coming out? What is the groundbreaking gotta have that isn't a repackage of something already out there? Or is it just more marketing hype for $$$$$?

Will have to agree, I'm not really seeing anything that I feel is a must have. I'm not one to go out and get a lot of new equipment as it is, but there isn't anything here I'm very interested in. From what I have read and heard here are the general things I am taking from this:


1. The bowling technology differences across companies are closing, it is becoming more of a preference rather than a necessity to follow specific brands.
2. New equipment is serving more as replacements for old equipment (not creating something new except on the highest end of the bag) rather than a new look.
3. The shift to urethane, while somewhat misunderstood, has momentum.
4. Almost everything I read has a reviewer saying, this is moving more than I initially expected. Almost as though the focus is more on create as much hook possible at each of these points down lane rather than blending the arsenal.

[Aslan]

Until the ball manufacturers get honest with the bowling public and explain exactly what the specs do, what they are trying to do with a line, how the new releases differ from the previous releases, etc...; you might as well just look at every release as a "new color".

The ball manufacturers have designed themselves into a corner. They've maximized the reaction in their offerings to the point that higher level pros are now asking for weaker, old, urethane balls that they can control with the easier patterns and higher rev rates. Ball manufacturers NOW have to figure out a way to market to a public....that they've spent decades marketing "more power" as worth $250...now they have to find a way to market that older urethane balls are now worth $250.

The Motiv Jackal scandal, in some ways, sent a shot over the bow at the ball manufacturers; reminding them that 0.060 is a HARD ceiling limit. No more 0.057, 0.058, 0.059. 0.060 differnetials...which is limiting what the ball manufacturers can do in terms of cores. All they can do now...is play with the coverstock chemistry and keep trying to re-market older balls with different covers, names, and colors.

If the ball manufacturers were smart...which they are NOT...at least in terms of their marketing...one of them would re-invent the way they launch their new ball releases...and maybe go back to a version of what Track used to do...try to release balls as a "set" and give the bowler who buys that "set" directions on how to use those 2-6 balls to play various conditions. There is also a chance that if the USBC ever mandates patterns...the ball manufacturers could start releasing balls specifically designed to play certain patterns rather than the overly vague and ineffective "perfect for medium to heavy oil". But, that would rely on the USBC to take serious steps to reign in the BPAA...which is about as likely as Naomi Watts agreeing to go on a date with me (highly unlikely).

[JaxBowlingGuy]

We actually have a decent bit of .057 and higher cores. A few balls using .059 cores

[bowl1820]

and give the bowler who buys that "set" directions on how to use those 2-6 balls to play various conditions. There is also a chance that if the USBC ever mandates patterns...the ball manufacturers could start releasing balls specifically designed to play certain patterns rather than the overly vague and ineffective "perfect for medium to heavy oil".

That will never happen, because it wouldn't work.

Because all bowlers don't bowl exactly the same way, Even when using the same pattern, All lanes won't play exactly the same (day to day, one end of the house to the other, near the coast vs inland etc.) etc.

So the instructions that work for some bowlers won't work for the rest. Which could ultimately hurt sales.

Plus no matter how the companies present or explain the ball spec's, your not going to be able to make a ball progression chart just based on specs, that's going to consistently work (at least not the way you want it to.).

[Aslan]

We actually have a decent bit of .057 and higher cores. A few balls using .059 cores

Well, if they are new releases...the comapny (no pun intended) is being "balsy". All it takes is a box of balls sent to the USBC...what's the % of balls that have to fail the test? Like, 0.1%? I doubt the big companies will bother with smaller brands like Lane Masters, Lane #1, or Pyramid...but if a ball with a 0.059 differential starts selling like wildfire and competing with their sales...the USBC might just find another box of balls on their porch...and I doubt the smaller companies could survive a recall.

@Bowl1820
I agree it's not a perfect scenario/solution...but if the maufacturers can't explain what is different from one release to another...then why should customers consider new releases anything other than just a horse of a different color? The manufacturers can't have it both ways...they can't say, "This is new and awesome and you should invest $250 in it because it is SO great!" and then in the same breath say, "...but, we can't really explain what makes this better than the last 5 releases."

Another thing they could do...to encourage ball purchases is to have the USBC keep a database of ball sales and which balls are thrown when titles (at various levels) or honor scores are rolled. It would require the bowling companies to release more data...and they'd have to fund the process because the USBC would need additional staffing.

The data could then be made public and people could see which balls are actually getting the best results. I think most customers would be more likely to buy bowling balls with a proven track record...balls that are "winning". And, it would encourage manufacturers to TRULY make better balls....that would win more often....and thus increase sales. And, the sales data would be necessary to ensure the data was "fair". For example, if Pyramid sold 1000 Ball Xs and Storm sold 30,000 ball Ys....and the Pyramid ball had 200 honor scores...and Ball Y from Storm had 700 honor scores:

Ball X has 1 honor score for every 5 balls sold.
Ball Y has 1 honor score for every 42 balls sold.

Without the sales data...it would be too easy for the largest companies to claim their balls are better...just because the company is bigger. The sales data would create a level playing field. It would also encourage ball manufacturers to refrain from selling high performance equipment to beginners...instead encouraging beginners to buy entry-level equipment.

Obviously....I could come up with 2000 ideas...and Bowl1820 could find fault with each one...but the fact of the matter is...new releases mean nothing if the ball manufacturers use specs to convince us to buy them...yet the specs aren't explained to the customers and the specs are essentially meaningless (as Bowl1820 pointed out).

[bowl1820]

yet the specs aren't explained to the customers and the specs are essentially meaningless (as Bowl1820 pointed out).

I never said that balls spec's were meaningless.

Just that the only ball "specifications" that would ultimately really mean anything, are the ones that are actual measurements of the balls physical properties. Such as RG, Differential, Intermediate Differential, Coefficient of Friction, Coefficient of Restriction etc.

and that you can't use the ratings like Hook, Backend, Length, the Perfect Scale provided by companies to accurately compare balls, between companies. Because the companies don't use a standardized set of criteria to determine them.

[Aslan]

Sooo....they "mean" something...but you can't really "use" them.

I dunno...I guess just choose the ball that smells most like a grape or has a unique name.

[fordman1]

We need someone we can trust to start a rating service. Bowl 1820 sounds like a candidate. He could get some young guns, a couple of old timers a couple of sexy grannies etc. No one understands all that technical stuff. No one from any company allowed. Just honest opinions.

[classygranny]

We need someone we can trust to start a rating service. Bowl 1820 sounds like a candidate. He could get some young guns, a couple of old timers a couple of sexy grannies etc. No one understands all that technical stuff. No one from any company allowed. Just honest opinions.

Great idea....I would volunteer but not sure if I could qualify for the sexy granny - although the other day, I did tell my coach/PSO that if he had boobs like mine he might find it harder not to lean so far forward during the realease.

[Amyers]

Tamer bowling does some of the better reviews out there and they aren't sponsored by anyone.

[JaxBowlingGuy]

In order to make that work you need to get popular enough where the companies actually send you the balls to review or you'll be shelling out a ton of money for balls. The forum owner actually does reviews on the new releases using employees.

[drlawsoniii]

In order to make that work you need to get popular enough where the companies actually send you the balls to review or you'll be shelling out a ton of money for balls. The forum owner actually does reviews on the new releases using employees.

I havent seen any actual reviews, i have however seen their reaction videos. It would be nice if they would discuss the balls while the video is playing, instead of forcing us to listen to that awful music.

[fordman1]

I just had an idea. Why not require them to send all new balls ready for release to USBC and they could test them on their robot. Use sport shots of 32', 36', 40' 42' 44' 46' 48' something like that, then a house shot and dry open bowling shots. Have them do an unbiased review. Then put in a 1 year ban on all their balls if they get caught cheating.
Come on USBC show us your BALLS.

[ALazySavage]

I just had an idea. Why not require them to send all new balls ready for release to USBC and they could test them on their robot. Use sport shots of 32', 36', 40' 42' 44' 46' 48' something like that, then a house shot and dry open bowling shots. Have them do an unbiased review. Then put in a 1 year ban on all their balls if they get caught cheating.
Come on USBC show us your BALLS.

The amount of data that table would show would be insane. Think of all the combinations that robot would have to come up with (Rev Rate, Speed, PAP) to cover the reviews for people. If you don't do this and you simply have a set criteria that is used each time, bowling companies would simply make all their equipment for those ranges. Take the following rev rates 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450; the following speeds (in mph) 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; and then 5 PAP set-ups you would have 150 different combinations - to show that in a table not only takes a long time, but would also create a table of insane data. This also assumes only one shot per combination (which all of those are not playing the same line so you have to factor in multiple tries across the 150 combinations) and then after all of this we want the USBC to create an unbiased review...just isn't reasonable.

[fordman1]

OK lets go strictly with the house shot with 42'. All balls tested and rated using this as a base line. Try it with different releases on arrow 1-2-3-4. Give it a rating. Have to be better than what we have now. All drilled the most popular way.

[Aslan]

I havent seen any actual reviews, i have however seen their reaction videos. It would be nice if they would discuss the balls while the video is playing, instead of forcing us to listen to that awful music.

JaxBowling is right...and fordman has a good idea about having the USBC do the testing/rating...BUT...

...regarding the reviews by bowlingball.com (forum owner)...I think they'd run into the same problem as other ball review sites (like Lane Side Reviews up in Canada..eh). Ball companies send you free balls to test so you'll say really nice things about them and people will want to buy them. I've seen virtually ZERO bad reviews of any bowling ball to date.

...concerning the USBC rating the balls..."rating" wouldn't be a problem...but "opinions" would be. The USBC can't be biased towards any one manufacturer...so they'd have to only give raw data or a raw rating...which might be about as helpful as "specs".

Thats why I like the idea of a database based on performance, titles, and honor scores. It's strictly data...so the USBC isn't involved in bias in any way...and it doesn't tell you anything about a ball other than how many times it has won a title, bowled a perfect game, bowled an 800/900 series, etc... It pressures the ball companies to make better balls and sponsor the best bowlers. And, it levels the playing field (somewhat) for large/small manufacturers using sales data as part of the computation. The only 'disadvantage' for smaller manufacturers is they can't compete for PBA titles. But, they could still get credit for International, Collegiate, and USBC titles as well as honor scores.

The overall POINT...is the consumer needs "something" to justify buying these new releases...and there's really nothing new (technologically speaking) coming to market. The cores are at the limit of the USBC specification...and the coverstocks are at the limit of what they can acheive. So, now you just have balls coming out with new combinations of cores and coverstocks...renamed, redesigned...but no real engineering breakthroughs. The complimentary problem...is that the THS lane conditions don't require the high-performance balls...and the high performance players with high revs are starting to look for more tame options...like urethane.

[mc_runner]

I don't mind the idea of a database of honor scores per se (Storm, Pyramid and a few others do something like that on their sites... an honor roll of scores thrown with the product) - but what happens if you change balls in the middle of an 800 set? Or are using 2 different balls on your lanes for a 300? Hard to get around variables like that.

[bowl1820]

Rating balls by the number of honor scores shot with them would be problematic & skewed, so really wouldn't be helpful. mc_runner points out a couple right there.

It would also turn into a big catch-22, Because the balls with the fewest honor scores (let's call them ball "B"), would always be passed over in preference to those with the most honor scores (Ball "A").

Thus being passed over, ball "B" would always have the fewest honor scores, not having a chance to increase and ball "A" would always be higher. Not because ball "A" was better, It just shows more honor scores because more people are using it.

Plus older balls will have higher numbers do to being out longer. New balls would always be struggling to show increased numbers.

Also it tells you nothing about the ball, conditions etc, just that someone shot a high score with it.

As for the USBC they should already have a database, from the ball approval process. Which would contain the actual tested ball spec's, such as Low RG, High RG, Differential, Intermediate Diff., Coefficient of Restriction and probably most importantly the Coefficient of Friction.

With the Coefficient of Friction you would then be better able to rank coverstocks.

That would be a more useful database than one just based on honor scores.

[fordman1]

If all balls are tested by USBC they should compare the perfect scale rating to what they find. If it says it is a 232 and hooks 3 boards ask them to rerate it. I have had one ball rated at 230 and another at 176 both drilled the same both with a matted cover. Hardly any difference. Also had a ball I bowled 300 with and it was a one time great ball never could do anything with it again. What ball do you use and average the best. is a better gage.

I like the ball videos where every shot thrown is a strike. Now that is a great ball, right?

[bowl1820]

If all balls are tested by USBC they should compare the perfect scale rating to what they find. If it says it is a 232 and hooks 3 boards ask them to rerate it.

Since the usbc doesn't do those one ball compared to another type of tests/comparison ratings (ie: hook,length,backend) on balls. They wouldn't have anything to do a comparison to the Perfect scale.



I have had one ball rated at 230 and another at 176 both drilled the same both with a matted cover. Hardly any difference.

Thus why many say the perfect scale isn't perfect.

[Aslan]

I don't mind the idea of a database of honor scores per se (Storm, Pyramid and a few others do something like that on their sites... an honor roll of scores thrown with the product) - but what happens if you change balls in the middle of an 800 set? Or are using 2 different balls on your lanes for a 300? Hard to get around variables like that.

Thats why I said (maybe in another thread) that one additional necessary variable would be sales data. Honor scores and titles are available...sales data is not. In order to use honor scores and titles...you'd need sales data. Without it, like Bowl1820 sort of mentioned...it's just a matter of numbers and the company that sells the most balls will always have the most honor scores. You'd have to peg honor scores/titles to sales data and create a number that would be something like "titles/honor scores per ball sold". That would solve many of the problems listed.

Yes, newer balls won't automatically have honor scores...but they'd have similar cores and covers to other balls....manufacturers aren't really developing anything new...just shuffling pieces around...so that could help in their marketing. If Hammer releases a new ball with a Scandal core and a Taboo cover...they could claim that they are; "combining our Taboo cover (a ball that has a 0.31 TiHS/ball sold) with our Scandal core (a ball that has a 0.62 TiHS/ball sold)..."

To factor in using multiple balls for an honor score or title...you'd have to either know when the ball change occurred (unlikely) or simply as how many balls were thrown and give each ball an equal portion. So, if I throw an 800 series to surpass Iceman's accomplishment...and I use all 3 balls in my arsenal...it doesn't really matter when I made the change...the breakdown would be something like this:

Game 1: 300 (DV8 Thug Life)
Game 2: 290 (DV8 Thug Life changed to Ebonite Warning Sign)
Game 3: 300 (Scandal Pearl)

The Thug life would be credited with the 300 game as would the Scandal Pearl. Each of the THREE balls would be credited with 0.33 800-series.

It's true that older balls would have higher numbers...but other than the Hy-Road...I don't know of any mid-level (or above) ball that has remained out for very long without being discontinued. And yes, balls with lower numbers would be passed over...but those balls SHOULD be passed over...because they aren't showing any value to the bowler. And...if a ball has a lower score...the company can simply keep it out a long time (like lets say an Ebonite Cyclone) and the score will slowly increase.

The "downside" to this system is that too many "new' bowlers will try to buy high-performance balls...but, to play devil's advocate, they kinda do that already.

[fordman1]

Since the usbc doesn't do those one ball compared to another type of tests/comparison ratings (ie: hook,length,backend) on balls. They wouldn't have anything to do a comparison to the Perfect scale.




Thus why many say the perfect scale isn't perfect.

Do they put the new balls through any test rather than lab test or do they actually put them in the robot and see what the will do? All that high tech lab stuff isn't a true test. Urethane was bad enough now it is insane.

[bowl1820]

Do they put the new balls through any test rather than lab test or do they actually put them in the robot and see what the will do? All that high tech lab stuff isn't a true test. Urethane was bad enough now it is insane.

If you mean do they drill up all the balls they get and roll them down the lane to see how they hook etc. rate them as far as I know they don't.

Except for when they are doing some type of study like the ball motion study or pin carry study.

They test to see if the balls meet the USBC rules as far as the ball specifications go. (RG, Diff., COF, COR etc.)

You can see some of the ball approval process in the video in this thread:
http://www.bowlingboards.com/threads/15161-Ball-Approval-Process-video?

[imagonman]

From the Radical minds:

The Tremendous is the newest Reliable line release from Radical Bowling Technologies. This ball uses the Guru Asymmetric core design from the original Guru, paired with the Guru’s coverstock, finished with the same process as the Guru, in the same color as the Guru, and with Guru-colored labels.

So its a Guru w/ a new name. WHY?

[Aslan]

From the Radical minds:

The Tremendous is the newest Reliable line release from Radical Bowling Technologies. This ball uses the Guru Asymmetric core design from the original Guru, paired with the Guru’s coverstock, finished with the same process as the Guru, in the same color as the Guru, and with Guru-colored labels.

So its a Guru w/ a new name. WHY?

Well said...and my a bowlingboards rookie no less!!

You see this quite often...especially as of late.

In some releases, you don't even get that much information. There are Pyramid and 900 Global balls that I believe have similar, if not identical cores due to outsourcing of some of the production. Same thing with smaller brands like AMF.

Other Examples:

Look at Storm's "RAD-X" core. Isn't it quite similar to the Chaotic Core?

Look at Storm/Rotogrip's "Mad Cap Core". Looks a LOT like a similar version of the Halogen core used in numerous Storm releases including the IQ and Hyroad.

900 Global is using it's "Break" core in the Ops series...which is almost the identical core that was in the War Eagle released how many years ago? And their "Profit Core" is almost identical to their "Identity Core".

Look at the Brunswick Edge Low RG Core....looks alot like the Mastermind Core...and even MORE like the Melee core!!

DV8 "Pitbull Low Rg Core"...sure looks a LOT like the DV8 "Grudge Low RG Core".

In defense of the manufacturers...there is only so much they can do with a weight block. Like I said previously, the differential cap of 0.060 limits what they can do with their cores. Motiv tried to push that limit with 0.060 cores...and it led to the most expensive bowling ball recall in known history...and has really hurt their brand, which before the scandal was on the rise. As long as the 0.060 differntial cap is in place by the USBC...the cores can't change much.

"Coverstocks" are the only areas where engineers and chemists can "play around" with new releases...but realize, these coverstocks also have USBC specification limitiations concerning hardness and other variables. And, the coverstocks are, in many ways, rather useless...because there is serious doubt that the coverstocks do anything significant given they can be manipulated using surfacing.

The "reality" is that these new releases...over the past few years...are all round, reactive resin balls...with a weight block...and they can be drilled and surfaced to do whatever you need them to do. None of them are "better" than any others...none of them are significantly different than the others. It's also why you've see the surge in "retro lines" like the Brunswick Rhino and Hammer Black Widow. Bowling ball manufacturers now have to find a new "marketing ploy" to invigorate interest in their line. Some use "harsh language" like the DV8 Thug or Vandal....or the Hammer "Bad ***". Storm has the fragarance schtick. Ebonite and Motiv tried the "patriotism" route with Motiv being made in the US and Ebonite releasing "veteran themed" releases. Rotogrip, Brunswick, and Radical have tried the old Track model of, "fancy engineering", etc...

That's why I like the honor score/title database idea...because the public needs some motivation (besides gimicks) to choose where to spend their money. Right now, the only ball that can claim it is the "best"....is the Storm Hy Road...because it's been the longest running performance ball in the modern age of bowling.

[bowl1820]

From the Radical minds:

The Tremendous is the newest Reliable line release from Radical Bowling Technologies. This ball uses the Guru Asymmetric core design from the original Guru, paired with the Guru’s coverstock, finished with the same process as the Guru, in the same color as the Guru, and with Guru-colored labels.

So its a Guru w/ a new name. WHY?

Yes it's a Guru! They tell you that on the website, they just cloned it, rebranded it and dropped the price point.

[Aslan]

It's also fairly damning on websites like these...that the ball manufacturers send their "sponsored bowlers" to write-up their new releases and how wonderful they are...but those sponsored bowlers most often post like 1-2 times per year and never take part in any other discussions...including discussions like this.

If the ball manufacturers "honestly" had new releases that were worth anything...they'd defend those new releases with something other than some unknown staffer writing 1-2 posts a year about how absolutely awesome the ball is and how essential it is to have in your bag.

[AlexNC]

I can't blame the manufacturers for doing what they can to make money. It would seem that perhaps innovation is a little stagnate at the moment - have to stay within the rules with the current tech they have available. Perhaps that is why they are tapping into nostalgia with all the recent reboots and re-releases. I will probably pick up one of the new Hammer Vibes even the same core/cover is from previous Vibes - the specs just seem like they would match up well for what I need right now.

[Aslan]

...the specs just seem like they would match up well for what I need right now.

Thats why I've been interested (without much success) in setting up some type of selection system that utilizes the specs. If a person can put together an arsenal (and/or progression) using ball specifications, then they can simply choose from every available ball from every manufacturer. If the manufacturers simply re-release balls...it won't really change anything...because only the numbers (specifications) will matter.

But...thus far, it's been a tough project to tackle because the specifications interact with and against each other.

[KYDave]

I know where you are going with this. But there are so many other variables than just what the numbers are. For example you can take a core with similar numbers but have different pin asymmetry and roll differently. Not to mention the differences in the cover stock additives. And yes mfg do shuffle around the cores and covers. Example is new release no rules exist. No rules chaotic core with the dare devil trick cover. Do you think this ball will be any different than the original no rules or the dare devil trick or all 3 basically the same?

[Aslan]

I know where you are going with this. But there are so many other variables than just what the numbers are.
Either the numbers mean something...or they don't. They can't "sort of" mean something.


For example you can take a core with similar numbers but have different pin asymmetry and roll differently.
True...but not as much as one would think. Sure...you can drill something pin up versus pin down...you can tweak a surface...you can look at minor coverstock additives...but these are all minor items that pale in comparison to the bowling ball coverstock and core....unless you're talking a serious surface change.


And yes mfg do shuffle around the cores and covers. Example is new release no rules exist. No rules chaotic core with the dare devil trick cover. Do you think this ball will be any different than the original no rules or the dare devil trick or all 3 basically the same?

But...what is the chaotic core? Isn't it just a minor variation of the hyper cell core? Which...was a minor variation on the Defiant core?

And when you talk coverstocks...it's even more questionable regarding how different the variations are...because we can't see the formula of the coverstock materials. You mentioned the DareDevil coverstock...what was the difference in that "Reckless" coverstock and it's predecessor the "80H Microbite"? Could it have been a 1% increase in particulates and a slight 1.5% reduction in slip agent? Maybe even less significant than that? Maybe a slightly different mix of solvents?

That arguement would be like Chevy releasing a new version of the Corvette...because they now come with Michelin tires instead of Firestones. Or "The New 2017 Chevy Suburban! It's actually the 2016 Chevy Suburban...but we added two cupholders to the backseat!!"

The point is...they can't really "change" anything. The cores MUST be similar...because they are at the differential limit. Any company that flirts with a 0.059 differential better have their lawyers on speed dial after what happened to Motiv. And the USBC tests on coverstocks...you virtually can't make wholesale changes in coverstocks or you'll fail the battery of tests. Thats why every ball Rotogrip releases has virtually the identical durometer value (73-75)...because making the ball covers softer will fail them out of the gate.

Lets say I agree with you about specs, which I scientifically speaking do not...but lets just say you're right. If the specs aren't important....the manufacturers have to come up with some type of marketing tool that can simply say, "Look...for 'whatever reason'...THIS ball does well for the MOST number of bowlers across a wide variety of conditions." So, how can a company SHOW that to be true? I.e....the titles/honor scores database. If Rotogrip thinks their Chaotic core and Reckless coverstock is a magical combination...and for whatever non-spec-related reason it just happens to be in the hands of bowlers winning the most titles and scoring the most honor scores...it will be a HUGE hit!! A marketing success!!

And no....the company's bogus honor score/bragging sections don't count...anyone can post anything there. But imagine logging into the USBC website and seeing a list that looks something like:

Rotogrip Hyper Cell: 89.8
Rotogrip Haywire: 85.6
Track Paradox: 85.2
Brunswick Mastermind: 84.7
Ebonite Gamebreaker2 Phenom: 83.9
Storm Snap Lock: 73.9
Radical Guru: 58.9
Hammer Scandal: 58.9
Hammer Gauntlet: 57.7
Columbia300 Eruption Pro: 57.6
Ebonite Cyclone: 57.6
900 Global Cardinal Boost: 57.4
Rotogrip No Rules: 48.9
DV8 Diva: 48.7
Brunswick LT-48: 48.7

Each "score" would be a conversion of how many titles, how many honor scores, the sales volume of each ball, and the numerical weight of each score. For example, a 300-game might be worth 1 point/# balls sold. A PBA Major Title may be worth 10,000 points/# balls sold. The raw data would then be converted into a "value" between 1-100.

I've left Motiv off the list because I'd consider their balls non-eligible for the list for 1-year as part of their recent suspension.

A bowler could USE this list...they could be thinking about getting a Gauntlet...and see the list and thing, "Hmm...maybe I'll give that Radical Guru a look." And it would help manufacturers as well in MANY WAYS:

1) Maybe Track decides not to discontinue the Paradox...because it's high up on the list and in demand.
2) Maybe Rotogrip makes a new release with the Hyper Cell core and Haywire coverstock...and could use the list to really help in their advertising. The combination of the top two balls on the board!
3) Lets say the Gauntlet and Scandal are only up so high...because one PBA bowler is on fire on the tour. Maybe Brunswick approaches that bowler and makes him/her a heck of a deal to switch teams.
4) This type of table could be part of every PBA telecast...giving the manufacturers publicity and maybe even creating rivalries as two opposing bowlers are throwing balls that are battling for position.
5) It helps for new bowlers...they see the list and think, "Hmmm...maybe I should get a Cyclone or a Diva or a Cardinal Boost. They aren't too expensive...but they have a high score.
6) Maybe a company like Columbia sees the success of the Eruption Pro and says, "Thats are next re-release! We're re-releasing the Eruption Pro....call it the Eruption Pro Titanium!"...same ball, different color...maybe a couple 'tweaks'...but due to it's position on the list...the new version will sell easily.
7) What happens if some ball by Seismic or Lane #1 or Pyramid starts showing up on the list? Small companies are at a disadvantage due to non-PBA participation...but using sales volume in the denominator of the equation...evens the playing field. All it takes is one ball...showing up in the Top 15-25...and a small manufacturer could see a 300% increase in sales.

Just thoughts....

[KYDave]

Pin asymmetry I'm talking about the core not the drilling. Specifically where the mass is located.

I wasn't implying the specs were not important. I was just saying there is more going on that that. But yes typically I often shop based on core specs first. As far as the covers I guess I will just agree to disagree with you on that.

I think your idea is good. But you also have to consider that often "big balls" aren't used on tour near as much as mid level balls so not sure how that would skew the numbers.

[JJKinGA]

The rating based on success in competition is neat, but way useless. Let's figure that there are 4 significant tournaments a week that the USBC would track. To get good differentiation between close samples you would need at least 30 results. And that is for variables that aren't just binary (won or didn't win). So you wouldn't even have meaningful data for 7 weeks probably 3 months. I don't think the majority are waiting to see the results to make a purchase. It really would be more of a reason for ball companies to keep a ball in the market longer rather than a way to sell the new model.

[Aslan]

The rating based on success in competition is neat, but way useless. Let's figure that there are 4 significant tournaments a week that the USBC would track. To get good differentiation between close samples you would need at least 30 results. And that is for variables that aren't just binary (won or didn't win). So you wouldn't even have meaningful data for 7 weeks probably 3 months. I don't think the majority are waiting to see the results to make a purchase. It really would be more of a reason for ball companies to keep a ball in the market longer rather than a way to sell the new model.

Yeah...the data on new releases just isn't going to all of the sudden show up. It would take time. But, the companies could use the data to make more sense of why they choose to use a certain core or a certain coverstock or a certain re-release. Now it's just a random mix and match of various cores they have laying around...minor changes to cover stock chemistry (if any change...we don't know for sure if they even change the chemistry)...and re-releases of balls that were popular 15 years ago because they had a cool name.

The point is to try and give the bowling ball consumer something tangible to consider when looking at new ball releases...rather than crazy fake ball review videos, random sponsored bowlers spamming every bowling forum on the web claiming "Ball X" has the technology equal to NASA, and specifications that the majority consensus is = meaningless. At the end of the day...all that matters is whether a given ball will help you score better. The better a ball scores...with a large population of bowlers...the more likely it is that said ball is "better" than the competition. Doesn't mean it WILL be. A kid threw a 900-series with a Rotogrip Asylum and I hated that ball with a passion when I was trying to throw it...but with a large enough sample size....the better quality and better performing balls should rise to the top.