Bowling in 1980?

[RobLV1]

A few days ago I was watching a couple of seniors practicing. One of the bowlers is a current league bowler who averages about 220. The other is a former Tour Player from the 1970's. As I observed their ball reactions and listened to their conversation, it occurred to me that their bowling beliefs were formed around 1980, and never changed. Are you bowling in 2018, or in 1980? You are bowling in 1980 if you still believe that:

• The two lanes that make up a "pair" should play the same.
• The oil is responsible if they don't play the same.
• You can always play the 2nd arrow on a house shot.
• You only need to watch your own ball reaction to adjust.
• Adjustments are always 2 and 1.
• You can "make" a ball hook.
• One bowling ball hooks more than another.
• You can ignore the core, because surface is 75% of ball reaction.
• Pin up balls go longer.
• Carry down has a negative effect on reactive resin balls.

How many of these do you still believe to be true?

[boatman37]

I must be bowling in 2000 cause I believe 1/2 of those...lol. No. I do bowl more old school (my first year in leagues was about 1979 (I was about 10 then)). But I would say I believe #4 because I'm a lefty and play the 1st arrow almost every time but I'm usually the only one out there so watching another bowler doesn't really help me. I will say that my teammate got a new ball a few weeks ago and it is about 3 boards stronger than his other ball and he has been struggling with it. The lanes were drying up on him with his old ball so I told him to try the new one. He resisted for awhile because his argument was that it hooked even more. I finally convinced him to try it as he had nothing to lose at this point. He grabbed the new ball and threw 4 or 5 strikes in a row. My theory was that oil had carried down the lane by then which helped the new ball? Only explanation I had.

[bowl1820]

Carry down has a negative effect on reactive resin balls.

Carrydown can have a negative effect on any ball, If there is enough present.

[RobLV1]

I must be bowling in 2000 cause I believe 1/2 of those...lol. No. I do bowl more old school (my first year in leagues was about 1979 (I was about 10 then)). But I would say I believe #4 because I'm a lefty and play the 1st arrow almost every time but I'm usually the only one out there so watching another bowler doesn't really help me. I will say that my teammate got a new ball a few weeks ago and it is about 3 boards stronger than his other ball and he has been struggling with it. The lanes were drying up on him with his old ball so I told him to try the new one. He resisted for awhile because his argument was that it hooked even more. I finally convinced him to try it as he had nothing to lose at this point. He grabbed the new ball and threw 4 or 5 strikes in a row. My theory was that oil had carried down the lane by then which helped the new ball? Only explanation I had.

His new ball was three boards "stronger" than his old one because it hooked earlier, not because it hooked more. When he changed to his new ball, the earlier hook allowed the ball to exit the pattern where there was still oil, after he, or others, had effectively shortened the pattern at the break point.

[RobLV1]

Carrydown can have a negative effect on any ball, If there is enough present.

I've been throwing nothing but plastic for the past year. Plastic creates more carry down than any other kind of ball. It is also more affected by carry down because of it's lack of friction. I am very accurate, therefore I create more consistent carry down than random bowlers. During the last year, I have only seen carry down affect my own shot three or four times. During those times, my average increased by twenty to thirty pins because the shim that was created made my miss room as big as a reactive ball's. I never saw a negative effect, even on a plastic ball.

[ALazySavage]

My answers to the survey:

• The two lanes that make up a "pair" should play the same. Never believed this, but since moving to Colorado and bowling at my home house I don't see how anyone here could possibly believe it.
• The oil is responsible if they don't play the same. This is the one I have held onto the longest - but with topography information coming out the past few years I no longer believe it is as strong of a player.
• You can always play the 2nd arrow on a house shot. Nope
• You only need to watch your own ball reaction to adjust. You can adjust off of your own shot, but ten is better than one.
• Adjustments are always 2 and 1. Nope
• You can "make" a ball hook. You can make the ball hook differently by changing hand positions and speed (in the sense of how early it reads)
• One bowling ball hooks more than another. Location, location, location
• You can ignore the core, because surface is 75% of ball reaction. Surface is the strongest determinant - core is more of the fine tuning and perfecting of reaction
• Pin up balls go longer. This is why I have a pro-shop operator that I really like, so he can help me with the drill patterns (so much so that I live in Lakewood, CO and go back to Tempe, AZ for my equipment)
• Carry down has a negative effect on reactive resin balls. It can still be a player depending on the severity of the situation. I think people listen to Randy Peterson and blow this out of proportion. The typical pro has more revs than anything I'm going to see and they keep their covers fresh to destroy the fronts - typically house bowler doesn't do either (and if you have seen the BTM article about surfaces you would know that they change drastically). While I'm not on the boat that carrydown doesn't exist I feel that when people see their ball labor on the backs it is because they have stayed in the same part of the lane and are seeing more of the ball losing energy in the front rather than the claim of carrydown. Personally, if I'm bowling against a team that has this feeling I intentionally throw my Black Widow Urethane throughout practice and often game 1 (by the way, the ball flairs so much that it wouldn't create much anyway) and then watch them mentally beat themselves.

[mx1alex]

I wasn't born yet! That said a lot of those statements can be argued semantically. I mean of course I can make a ball hook.

[RobLV1]

I wasn't born yet! That said a lot of those statements can be argued semantically. I mean of course I can make a ball hook.

The idea is that with modern balls, the more you try to "make" the ball hook, the less it hooks. If you are trying to argue the statements semantically, perhaps they are lost on you anyway.

[mx1alex]

The idea is that with modern balls, the more you try to "make" the ball hook, the less it hooks. If you are trying to argue the statements semantically, perhaps they are lost on you anyway.

Well I joined this place to learn and when you have noobs like me read statements like that it's easy to see where confusion would set in. Last night I bowled a quick game to try out my new ball. Just messing around I could "make" the ball roll almost straight down the lane or "make" the ball hook depending on how I released the ball.

[Amyers]

I think the point Rob was arguing is if you are doing things out of the ordinary to make a ball appear to hook more your not throwing your best shot and often times when you attempt it in real life you actually end up removing the rotation from the ball. Often when this appears to be done you'll actually notice the "greater" hooking ball was thrown with less speed. You are correct that it is possible to throw a backup ball or similar and have less hook on the ball than I would traditionally

[fordman1]

Boy am I confused. You mean if my fingers are at 6:30 or 7 o'clock it will hook the same as when they are at 4:00? So if I come straight up the back it will hook the same as when I come around the side?

[bowl1820]

"The idea is that with modern balls, the more you try to "make" the ball hook, the less it hooks."

Hmmm, I'm not exactly sure on how I want to word this, I might be rambling whatever but...

To me this should read: The idea is that with modern balls,The more you try to make the ball hook, the more erratic you make it's reaction to the conditions.

Yes, you can ""make"" balls hook, That was the whole idea behind the old "putting lift on a ball" or "Hitting up" on it. To (by how you released it) "make" those old balls with no high tech cores to assist them have a "hook" or more of one to gain more entry angle downlane.

The thing with modern bowling balls is you don't have to give them that extra help anymore, aka "make them" hook, the cores, coverstocks etc. are doing that for you. You just have to get the process started.

If you do try and "make" modern balls hook, what happens is usually you make it over react to the conditions, which causes control problems for you.

Now there are some who "try and make the ball hook" and it hooks less.

But that's because the way their trying to do it, doesn't put anything on the ball to begin with. Example would be the player you see that makes a odd looking looping swing around their body and it looks like their trying to curve or steer the ball down the lane. With the result being their ball basically does nothing going down the lane.

[fordman1]

The idea is that with modern balls, the more you try to "make" the ball hook, the less it hooks. If you are trying to argue the statements semantically, perhaps they are lost on you anyway.

This was the post I was being sarcastic about......

[fortheloveofbowling]

The idea is that with modern balls, the more you try to "make" the ball hook, the less it hooks. If you are trying to argue the statements semantically, perhaps they are lost on you anyway.

Obviously with your high degree of bowling intellect much of your imparted knowledge is lost on us simpletons. Condescending much?

[fordman1]

A few days ago I was watching a couple of seniors practicing. One of the bowlers is a current league bowler who averages about 220. The other is a former Tour Player from the 1970's. As I observed their ball reactions and listened to their conversation, it occurred to me that their bowling beliefs were formed around 1980, and never changed. Are you bowling in 2018, or in 1980? You are bowling in 1980 if you still believe that:

• The two lanes that make up a "pair" should play the same.
• The oil is responsible if they don't play the same.
• You can always play the 2nd arrow on a house shot.
• You only need to watch your own ball reaction to adjust.
• Adjustments are always 2 and 1.
• You can "make" a ball hook.
• One bowling ball hooks more than another.
• You can ignore the core, because surface is 75% of ball reaction.
• Pin up balls go longer.
• Carry down has a negative effect on reactive resin balls.

How many of these do you still believe to be true?

Looks like he is much smarter than 220+ league bowlers and ex touring pros. The more you try the less it hooks.

[vdubtx]

Obviously with your high degree of bowling intellect much of your imparted knowledge is lost on us simpletons. Condescending much?

Not the first time and certainly won't be the last.

[fortheloveofbowling]

Not the first time and certainly won't be the last.

It is unfortunate because Rob does have knowledge to offer.

[vdubtx]

It is unfortunate because Rob does have knowledge to offer.

He absolutely does. And most of the time it is without condescension.

[RobLV1]

Boy am I confused. You mean if my fingers are at 6:30 or 7 o'clock it will hook the same as when they are at 4:00? So if I come straight up the back it will hook the same as when I come around the side?

I apologize for sounding condescending. It's simply self preservation. When I read posts like this, I either condescend, or beat my head against a wall until my eyes bleed!

[fordman1]

That explains a lot.

[RobLV1]

That explains a lot.

Okay, you want explanation. First, your referral to the position of your fingers as you start your approach indicates that you are throwing the ball rather than rolling the ball. Back to 1980. We had to throw the ball, because with no core and a very week cover, the only way to get the ball to hook was by moving the fingers around the ball very quickly after the thumb exited the ball. Today, regardless of where the fingers are at the start, the hand is always behind the ball as the thumb exits, and the fingers rotate through the ball, never around it. Today the best release is the one with the biggest lag between when the thumb exits, and when the fingers exit. The initial position of the fingers at the time that the thumb exits the ball, along with the amount of rotation through the ball determines your axis tilt and your axis rotation... how the ball hooks, not how much it hooks. You really need to find a qualified coach to help you to learn the modern game.

BTW, I never argue anything semantically. I simply try to use the written word to communicate something (bowling) that is very difficult to explain without hands on, direct personal communication. If one picture is worth a thousand words, then one lesson is worth a million!

[fordman1]

The vast majority of League bowlers throw the ball "old style" and I guarantee they mostly use the new balls. I know that I can get the ball to hook more or less by the way I throw it.
What would yo say the average age of league bowlers would be? I would guess over 40 most work more hours than they used to. They don't have time to learn how to use the new style of bowling. New style bowlers don't slide. They have very high back swings. That is hard to do with bad knees, legs, back and old age.
Remember all lanes are not equal. Wood vrs. synthetic. Different oil patterns.
Yes bowlers can make the new balls hook more or less. That general statement was what my problem was. I am sure you know a lot about bowling and how to coach but blanket statements are silly.

[mx1alex]

BTW, I never argue anything semantically. I simply try to use the written word to communicate something (bowling) that is very difficult to explain without hands on, direct personal communication. If one picture is worth a thousand words, then one lesson is worth a million!

I write scientific protocols for a living so I'm usually very literal in my interpretations of things. When I write a protocol there may be a dozen principal investigators who will take my protocol and actually perform what the protocol says to do. Sometimes when I get all the data back I realize that the study was done a dozen different ways because of how it was interpreted. So I understand how frustrating it can be to write what you want to say and have it be misinterpreted into something else. As a noob bowler who is here to learn and try and better my game, it's almost like reading a foreign language sometimes trying to understand what some of you folks who have been in the game for years are trying to say. I wasn't trying to argue with you. Sorry I'm a noob and make you bash your head in the wall.

[RobLV1]

The vast majority of League bowlers throw the ball "old style" and I guarantee they mostly use the new balls. I know that I can get the ball to hook more or less by the way I throw it.
What would yo say the average age of league bowlers would be? I would guess over 40 most work more hours than they used to. They don't have time to learn how to use the new style of bowling. New style bowlers don't slide. They have very high back swings. That is hard to do with bad knees, legs, back and old age.
Remember all lanes are not equal. Wood vrs. synthetic. Different oil patterns.
Yes bowlers can make the new balls hook more or less. That general statement was what my problem was. I am sure you know a lot about bowling and how to coach but blanket statements are silly.

The majority of the high average bowlers that I coach are seniors. Your belief that most seniors cannot learn how to use a modern release is based on your own personal experiences and the fears that come along with them. Once bowlers learn that a modern release has nothing to do with not sliding or a high backswing, a modern release is pretty easy to achieve for anyone who is willing to drop their preconceptions. My "blanket statement" that all reactive balls hook the same amount is a true statement based on how the amount of hook is measured. If you use the traditional measurement of the number of boards covered, then you are not taking into account that a ball that hooks earlier will cover more boards than one that hooks later. If you look at the size of the angle used to measure the change of direction, then you will see that all of the balls hook the same amount, based on the release of the individual bowler.

Please understand that my reason for starting this thread in the first place was to try and help the bowlers who choose to frequent these boards. I am not attacking you or your style of bowling. If you are bowling in a league on a house shot, you're probably pretty successful at it. Some bowlers, however, want to succeed on more difficult sport patterns, and I can honestly say that the "old style" of throwing the ball does not work very well in that situation. The two bowlers I wrote about at the beginning are a good example, at least one of them; the 220 average league bowler. Two or three years ago before my back totally gave out on me, I bowled in a small tournament with him. Despite the fact that I was averaging about 195 at the time in league, I beat him easily in the tournament. His high game that day, on a real pattern was 168. His lack of understanding of the modern game was the only reason that I was able to do this. Once he couldn't blindly throw the ball to the right and have it radar its way back to the pocket, he was lost.

If you want to learn something here, I will do everything I can to help you, but you really need to stop seeing my efforts as a personal attack on you and your beliefs.

[bowl1820]

My "blanket statement" that all reactive balls hook the same amount is a true statement based on how the amount of hook is measured.

This right here Rob is what causes some of the confusion when you make those kind of statements. You don't include the "this is how I define "_____"" with the original statement.

Example maybe You could have said: "All reactive balls hook the same amount, With hook being defined/measured this way......"



If you use the traditional measurement of the number of boards covered, then you are not taking into account that a ball that hooks earlier will cover more boards than one that hooks later.

A ball that hooks earlier doesn't necessarily cover more boards than one that hooks later.


Here's a simple example:
The illustration is not remotely to scale and so the ball paths are slightly distorted and would look different on a actual lane.
http://s5.postimg.cc/3ry5g09zb/lane_diagram_tbc.jpg

Which ball hooked more?

Most would say the Red ball "Hooked" more because they see it make that dramatic angle change, It went long and snapped hard. But both balls (Red & Black) have covered the same amount of boards (Both Frontend Boards Covered (FBC) and Backend Boards Covered (BBC), The only difference was just where the ball made it's change in direction (How early it "hooked").

As you see both balls went out to the 8 board, the black ball reacted earlier and the red ball later, They both covered the same amount boards though.



If you look at the size of the angle used to measure the change of direction, then you will see that all of the balls hook the same amount, based on the release of the individual bowler.


Heres another one:
http://s5.postimg.cc/mljyd087b/lane_diagram_tbc2.jpg

Now here if we define "hook" as total backend boards covered you can say all three ball hooked the same because they covered the same amount of backend boards regardless of how early or late they hooked.

[RobLV1]

Thanks for the clarification, Al. Unfortunately, my back and neck problems make it too painful to sit at the computer for more than eight or nine minutes at a time. Sometimes I just don't have the time and focus to make my writing perfect. Boy, I really miss the days when I could write full length articles for BTM, sitting at the computer for as long as it took.