Selecting a Ball to Suit New Lanes

[larry mc]

Perfect timing! Sean Rash just shot 300 on TV using the LT 48. It is obviously not a "weak" ball. I does get further down the lane, retaining energy to demolish the pins. If we could just get away from the "weak" or "strong" terminology and simply refer to early roll or late roll, I think that a whole lot of bowlers would actually end up with the right ball in their hands rather than the "strong" ball which is often the wrong ball.

it is a weak ball , check brunswicks site on it and ive seen it many times in person , u can shoot 300 with any ball if the conditions match up right, a strong late ball would be something like a hyper cell skid

[RobLV1]

it is a weak ball , check brunswicks site on it and ive seen it many times in person , u can shoot 300 with any ball if the conditions match up right, a strong late ball would be something like a hyper cell skid

I'm not referring to the actual characteristics of the LT 48, but to the terminology of "weak" vs. "strong" that is commonly used to describe bowling balls. Think about our modern society. Don't we revere things that are "strong" and show distain for things that are "weak"? This cultural mindset often carries over to new bowlers who automatically assume that a "strong" ball is better for them, when in fact, something that is less aggressive and goes longer would be a much better match for them. I was not challenging your statement, only the misleading terminology that you, like so many bowlers (even Randy Pedersen on the PBA telecasts) choose to use.

[Amyers]

I'm not referring to the actual characteristics of the LT 48, but to the terminology of "weak" vs. "strong" that is commonly used to describe bowling balls. Think about our modern society. Don't we revere things that are "strong" and show distain for things that are "weak"? This cultural mindset often carries over to new bowlers who automatically assume that a "strong" ball is better for them, when in fact, something that is less aggressive and goes longer would be a much better match for them. I was not challenging your statement, only the misleading terminology that you, like so many bowlers (even Randy Pedersen on the PBA telecasts) choose to use.

I get where you are going with this but it is only a descriptive term and yes I agree that "weak" does have a negative connotation in our society. The bowler who is picking out a ball due to its being strong is just as likely to purchase because they like the color or smell though instead. Those of us who are in the know understand that it is how the ball matches up to the conditions and our bowling style that matters.

[RobLV1]

I get where you are going with this but it is only a descriptive term and yes I agree that "weak" does have a negative connotation in our society. The bowler who is picking out a ball due to its being strong is just as likely to purchase because they like the color or smell though instead. Those of us who are in the know understand that it is how the ball matches up to the conditions and our bowling style that matters.

That is exactly what I'm trying to get accross. Many of the posters on this site are not "in the know," they are just starting out and I'm trying to help them to get started in the right direction. Describing balls as "weak" or "strong" is only confusing to them.

[Perrin]

I just wish we could get the ball companies to release information about their coverstocks like they do the cores.

it would allow us to actually compare balls from different manufacturers scientifically instead of generic Storm coverstocks go longer....

[Mark O]

That is exactly what I'm trying to get accross. Many of the posters on this site are not "in the know," they are just starting out and I'm trying to help them to get started in the right direction. Describing balls as "weak" or "strong" is only confusing to them.

I completely agree and dropping those descriptions is a great way to get someone started in the right direction. I mean if you're brand new to the game why would you ever want a ball that was considered to be "weak". The strongest ball you can possibly have is a ball that knocks all 10 pins down consistently and that ball can be any ball in your bag that day depending on the conditions and how you throw it. You wouldn't use a sledge hammer to tap in a nail in order to hang a picture frame, the same can be said about selecting the right tool for the job on the lanes. It's just unfortunate because any advertisements you see always seem to be trying to sell "the most hooking ball to date" and some PSOs just want to add to their bottom line by selling you the ball with the biggest price tag. Best thing I think anyone can do is to find a quality PSO that will look to get the right ball in your hand and one that will also get that ball to perfectly fit on your hand. Makes a world of difference!

[Amyers]

That is exactly what I'm trying to get accross. Many of the posters on this site are not "in the know," they are just starting out and I'm trying to help them to get started in the right direction. Describing balls as "weak" or "strong" is only confusing to them.

I'm not disagreeing that there needs to be a better system or terminology. Unfortunately I haven't seen anything out here that solves the problem. Even if you use your terminolgy as early rolling or late rolling how do you determine that unless you are very familiar with the balls already? I figure your going to say Rg but that only counts the core and ignores surface and coverstock.

[RobLV1]

The only reason that I emphasize the rg so much, is that it is the only thing that is numerically determined. Theoretically, if you have two balls with the same cover material, the same surface, the same layout, but one has an rg of 2.56 and the other has an rg of 2.48, the ball with the 2.56 rg will go longer. Obviously, rg is not the only thing that counts, but it is a great starting place as it's the only thing that is actually numerically measureable. You have to start somewhere, and it might just as well be with the rg.

[Amyers]

The only reason that I emphasize the rg so much, is that it is the only thing that is numerically determined. Theoretically, if you have two balls with the same cover material, the same surface, the same layout, but one has an rg of 2.56 and the other has an rg of 2.48, the ball with the 2.56 rg will go longer. Obviously, rg is not the only thing that counts, but it is a great starting place as it's the only thing that is actually numerically measureable. You have to start somewhere, and it might just as well be with the rg.

I agree that Rg is the only measurable thing you are given. Unfortunately that is the problem with it also. The core of the bowling ball only reflects about 20 percent of a balls motion. Leaving the remaining 80 percent to be determined by coverstock, drilling and surface. Very rarley will you have the opportunity to purchase two balls with different cores and the same surface

Buying a strong or agressive ball because that is what you think you need without doing any research makes you a fool. Using Rg as a lone determination makes you misguided even when you do research you may still be very incorrect. It is much easier to correct a fool than redirect the misguided.

[RobLV1]

I agree that Rg is the only measurable thing you are given. Unfortunately that is the problem with it also. The core of the bowling ball only reflects about 20 percent of a balls motion. Leaving the remaining 80 percent to be determined by coverstock, drilling and surface. Very rarley will you have the opportunity to purchase two balls with different cores and the same surface

Buying a strong or agressive ball because that is what you think you need without doing any research makes you a fool. Using Rg as a lone determination makes you misguided even when you do research you may still be very incorrect. It is much easier to correct a fool than redirect the misguided.

Back in the days of plastic and then urethane balls, when the ball had only a pancake weightblock to compensate for the holes that were to be drilled, it was said that cover and surface accounted for about 80% of a ball's reaction. The cover and surface was all there was with the exception of static weights creating a very slight imbalance depending on how the ball was laid out. Now, some thirty to forty years later, when balls are made with dynamic cores the create massive weight imbalances within the ball, you are telling me that cover and surface account for about 80% of ball reaction. Think about what you are saying logically. Does this really make sense to you?