The Equipment Specifications Committee has ruled to suspend the three-unit rule.

[bowl1820]

Short version is the USBC finally listened to everyone, studies the situation etc. and figured out the current lane dressing rules no longer work with todays ball technology. So they are suspending the 3 unit minimum rule and sitting back and watch what happens, then figure out what to do from there.


Excerpt:
SUMMARY
The research has shown the current lane dressing rules by USBC no longer are applicable because of advancements in technology.

The research and testing by the Equipment Specifications and Certifications team is an ongoing commitment to its educational effort and dedication to the idea that USBC needs to continually explore all facets in bowling while thinking about the future of the sport and the integrity of the competitions conducted in the sport.

In addition to the research and data gathered,USBC believes the engagement of all stakeholders in these topics is extremely important to build a brighter future for the sport and a better USBC of which everyone can be proud.

I like this part here, It basically states what most of us already knew
The modern bowling balls drastically alter any oil pattern applied to a lane surface,to the extent that by the end of a league session the pattern is totally different than the starting pattern. Most patterns likely do not comply with the current three-unit rule,required at the time oil is applied, by the end of a league session.The existing enforcement policy of one inspection per year does little to ensure continuous compliance.

The ability to govern and uphold policies, the very reason for USBC’s existence, must be for meaningful cause with the ability for its governing body to enforce. The three-unit rule in the current environment no longer makes sense,and therefore,suspension or elimination of the rule is required

You can read the report here:
http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/2019OilPatternReport.pdf

[RobLV1]

Free for all!!!

[mc_runner]

Rob, Maybe i'm wrong here but given the pace of ball tech since this rule was implemented back in the early 90s, hasn't this rule been pretty much obsolete for a long time? Do you think there will actually be a noticeable change in how houses oil?

[taxexpert2]

I would think if they could get away with it there might be some houses that choose to do away with the oil altogether. That would be an interesting scenario.

[bowl1820]

I would think if they could get away with it there might be some houses that choose to do away with the oil altogether. That would be an interesting scenario.

I doubt that would happen or else we would have seen it happen before now. Houses weren't required to oil the lanes in the first place, just that if they did oil they had to have a minimum of 3 units.

Lanes are a capital investment for the house and oiling them protects that investment. The house would be shooting themselves in the foot by not oil at all.

IMO the suspension of the 3 unit rule will change pretty much little to nothing.

Rob has said many times that modern balls don't react to less than I think it was 6-7 units of oil. Given if that is accurate and some place on the lane only had 3 units (or a little more) of oil to begin with, the balls never reacted to it in the first place. So if a house drops it 0 units in those areas it won't make any difference.

If the balls did react to 3 units in any way, going to 0 units would just be minuscule change in their reaction.

As for oil on the rest of the lane, the houses aren't going to jump up and say "Yeah we can reduce how much oil we are putting out now." in those areas because if they wanted to do that, they could have already did it.

The 3 unit rule was just a minimum they had to put out if they used oil in the first place. So they could have dropped the oil down to the minimum long before now.

The main thing this rule change will do is give everybody something else to blame for them bowling bad or the other player bowling good. Even if it had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[RobLV1]

No, I don't think that we will see any significant change in how bowling centers oil. I do, however, think that the USBC's admission that 3 units of oil is of no consequence to modern reactive resin balls should put an end to the on-going discussions about carry-down still being a factor in bowling. I have had tapes taken past the pattern on a THS, and there were no "streaks" of carrydown that were over 2 units of oil. If reactive balls don't "see" three units of oil, they will certainly not react to two units of carrydown. Like I said, "It should put an end to the discussion." Unfortunately, I can almost hear it already, "Oh, no, I've always believed in carrydown, it can't be, it can't be..."

[bowl1820]

I do, however, think that the USBC's admission that 3 units of oil is of no consequence to modern reactive resin balls

The Usbc report didn't say 3 units of oil was of no consequence to modern reactive balls or that it was.

The report just said that with todays modern lane equipment technology the 3 unit rule was no longer relevent and that modern balls drastically change the conditions.

As for the debate about carrydown, Yes until there is reliable definitive testing of how modern balls react to varying amounts of oil, how much transfer of oil (carrydown) happens during different bowling situation and equipment and oils used the debate will go on.

[Aslan]

Meanwhile...I think the most important part of that statement is the acknowledgement that inspecting a center once a year is pointless.

And honestly...what happens if the USBC inspects a facility and they violate a rule? Massive penalties and decertification!!?? Yeah right...more like, "okay, let's go test a second lane...and if that doesn't pass...have them re-oil a lane until we get a passing reading."

If bowling is going to really be taken seriously, there has to be some standardization of USBC certified patterns. As I've griped about recently in my scoring post...it's just pathetic that in Fall league I average 178 at one center...then I average 201 at another center...then I average 135 on a challenge pattern.

We've tried to coax kids into bowling with changing to a 2-handed style...we've tried to keep bowlers bowling by giving them balls that hook on their own...we've catered patterns to increase scoring...then these bowlers and kids go to a tournament on a sport pattern and they all pretty much swear off ever bowling on a non-THS pattern ever again because its so emabarrassing. We all know guys that are 200+ bowlers in league that go to the USBC Open and average 147 and swear off ever bowling outside their league again.

No other sport can influence the results the way bowling can. Basketball can't have some games with lowered rims. Football stadiums can't have shorter fields. Hockey can't make bigger nets. Baseball is able to "sort of" change their stadiums to be more pitcher friendly or hitter friendly...but nearly the way a bowling center can boost averages with oil patterns.

And, while some used to argue...and some (like Iceman) think I'm full of it...pointing out that I haven't managed to throw multiple 800s yet...so bowling can't be THAT easy...but every single other metric (than my game) OVERWHELMINGLY points to the problem. 3x-10x the perfect games...far more 900 series in recent decades. A 175 average used to qualify you for the PBA...now I've seen bowlers after 1-3 years bowling average over 175.

What can the USBC do?? I don't know. Every answer I have is almost impossible for the USBC to implement. It's just gone too far downhill at this point.

[fortheloveofbowling]

Golf is the sport that you can compare to bowling in regards to influencing the scoring pace. In many ways bowling and golf can be compared.

[Aslan]

Golf is the sport that you can compare to bowling in regards to influencing the scoring pace. In many ways bowling and golf can be compared.

So...a standard house would be a municipal golf course...an easier house would be a 3-par golf course...and a sport pattern would be a TPC golf course??

[fortheloveofbowling]

So...a standard house would be a municipal golf course...an easier house would be a 3-par golf course...and a sport pattern would be a TPC golf course??

Your basic local golf course can offer different scoring basically with the different tees. Generally there will be 3 different distances for the same hole depending on the tees you are choosing to play from on a given day. Lets say i usually shoot around par from the middle set of tees but choose to use the longest set one day. More than likely i am going to shoot higher on average from those tees. That is a basic comparison for easy-easier-easiest house shots which would be red-blue-black tees at your local course without any other factors considered.

A tournament type golf course is were you can really alter scoring because of some enhanced features in fairway and green layouts as well as course distance. When setting up a golf course to be really tough just narrow the fairways and raise the rough so shots straying right or left can offer an increased challenge or penalty on your second shot. The greens generally on tougher courses offer areas to place the hole which is harder to hit shots closer to and can offer tougher putts. This would be the challenge for a local only golfer playing a US Open and a house shot only bowler bowling in the US Open.

There are so many comparisons between the 2 sports between equipment, physical aspects, mental aspects, etc.... Golf has gone through a lot of the same problems over the years as well due to equipment enhancements and course set up opinions.

[ALazySavage]

"There are so many comparisons between the 2 sports between equipment, physical aspects, mental aspects, etc.... Golf has gone through a lot of the same problems over the years as well due to equipment enhancements and course set up opinions."

On the pro level I can agree with this statement to a certain degree - professional golfers can over power courses and score until the course is essentially made "unfair". If we take the PBA and PGA level out of the argument though I don't think golf has nearly the same issue - I'm not seeing your typical weekend golfers firing a ton of scores in the 70s, but in bowling I can go to about any league and see people averaging 200+ that have the physical game of a 180 bowler and the conceptual knowledge of a 160 bowler. Equipment in golf has made the game easier I will admit that, but not to the degree that bowling has. I bowl on a Tuesday fun league in the fall in which I have a sub 200 teammate who brings 6 balls so that they can match up to the lane with no physical game adjustment, a sub 180 bowler who also brings in 6, and a 160 bowler who loads up with 4-5 - there is nothing in golf that I have seen that compares to that (if you follow the rules).


The real correlation between all sports is essentially the availability of knowledge with the explosion of the internet, youtube, virtual coaching, etc. Finding information (some of it bad) is so easy that we have to spend less time researching one topic and can move to the next one quicker.

[Aslan]

I guess I can see the "tee arguement"...'sort of'.

And I think there's the comparison between the bowler that can throw strikes but not shoot spares...and the long drive golfer that can't make putts.

But...I don't think you'd see a par golfer suddenly become a 20 over golfer just by going from the black tees to the white tees. There's just no way to explain how a bowler, like me, can average 145 (which is less than a beginning bowler on a THS) on challenge conditions, struggle to average in the high 170s on a tougher THS, and average 195-201 on easier conditions.

Not to mention...a beginning bowler can probably average 99-129 on ANY condition. Sport, PBA, Challenge, THS, no oil...it doesn't matter because they are throwing a plastic ball at 10 (total) pins...oil patterns simply don't affect them. In golf, there is no comparison to that. A beginning golfer will likely have to pick up their ball after 10-12 shots. A great golfer may hover around 2-6...a good golfer around 2-8. But, a bad golfer (with no limits on number of shots allowed) could shoot 4-26. And there's NO WAY a beginning golfer will have the same score on a tough course that a good golfer will. Length, width of fareways, elevation of traps and greens, etc...will ALWAYS hurt bad golfers just as much or worse than it will good golfers.

Also...in golf, good equipment "can" help...but it can also hurt...more so than in bowling. For example, a big driver will help a beginning golfer versus an old, tiny, wood driver from the 1950s. BUT...if you suck at golf...a driver can also send a ball about two fareways over. A powerful bowling ball may not help a bad bowler (or may hurt him/her a little)...but not to the degree a powerful driver can hit a golf ball in the wrong direction.

I think golf is the closest comparison without admitting that bowling has lost too much legitimacy to be relevant. Without golf...nearly every other major or minor sport could never be compared to bowling. Remember when people thought bowling couldn't be an Olympic sport because of the 'help' bowlers got from wrist braces? That now seems like SUCH a minor issue compared to what we're seeing now. Rubber to urethane seemed like such an earth-shattering technology increase in the 80s...now it's considered nothing compared to reactive resin and cores. And none of the technology arguments even 'really' matter...when you compare them to oil patterns.

And it's a "no-win" situation for a bowling center. For example, in my case, if I bowl on a Challenge pattern and average 145...I get annoyed and 'long' for bowling on a THS because bowling on sport patterns is 'too hard'. Bowling shouldn't be that friggin hard...it's not enjoyable. HOWEVER...then I bowl on an easy THS and if I get a 170s-190s score...I get so dejected that I can't stand it...because I "know" how bad that score really is on a pattern that is so easy.

[RobLV1]

One of the biggest differences between golfers and bowlers is how they approach the game. Go to any public golf course and you will routinely see a majority of golfers who have never broken a hundred playing from the back tees. Why? Because they can hit the ball a long way but have very little accuracy and no understanding of how to play the game. Bowlers, on the other hand, tend to shy away from tough patterns, and gravitate towards house shots that favor power over accuracy and an understanding of the game. So, the games are different but the motivations of the amateur athletes are the same.

[Phonetek]

Interesting topic. Someone said it would be interesting if they stopped oiling. That could never happen. One fact everyone fails to acknowledge is that oil technically isn't put on the lanes for the bowlers, it is simply to protect the lane surface end of story. With no oil at all, obviously anyone with a hook wouldn't keep it on the lane. More importantly it would damage the lane very quickly. Last year when we cut our lanes they were a nasty orange color, no this wasn't because of oil absorption or staining, it was from friction created on the lane surface where balls got through the oil enough to touch the wood surface on the lanes.

Once the lanes were re-done, they were a beautiful blonde natural wood color again. Now that nearly a year has past that color has changed some. Not as dramatically as last year because they went a few years without doing any sort of surface adjustment. So bottom line, if you took freshly resurfaced lanes and put no oil on them and whipped out an oil monster and rev'ed it up and flung it down you WOULD see a visible ball track all the way down. Essentially the friction burns in the path.

That said, oil patterns that differ are in fact laid down to challenge the bowlers so that much is true. Ultimately it's really for lane surface protection first and foremost. If they put less than the "minimum" then the proprietor is only hurting his lanes and is an idiot. Keep in mind, this is all regarding "Wood" lane surfaces not synthetic which I know little about. Still, I would think that logic would dictate that there has to be a minimum amount of oil needed to keep those surfaces protected too. They may be synthetic but I can't imagine they are indestructible and there would be no consequences to the surface with too little oil. I could be wrong.

Modern equipment doesn't help let me tell you. We frequently have problems with oil sucking reactive balls getting stuck in the ball return near the ball rack. They get so slippery they get caught in the pulleys and just stay there until we remove the ball return cover and get it or another ball knocks it out. I always have to tell reactive bowlers they MUST wipe their ball between shots unless they want to wait every frame for someone to throw a ball on the adjacent lane to knock it out of the ball return. Now all that said, I can verify 100% that due to the modern equipment, we oil our lanes EVERY day without fail and we haven't changed neither our oil pattern nor volume since I've worked there. Sometimes with a heavy volume of customers we oil twice in a day or oil once and line and dust later. Again, we don't do it for you....we do it to keep our lanes in top notch condition. Freshly oiling also virtually eliminates out of ranges caused by a build up of oil carried down on the pin deck, which results in the pins sliding off spot vs. falling, at least for a while.