What would cause a ball to play abnormally strong compared to its Mfg rating ?

[Tony]

I have a DV8 outcast that I've had a couple of years now, it doesn't get used much right now but I grabbed it today and went to throw a few games.
The issue always has been it plays way stronger than it's rating and of course I have been told various things like it needs to get some oil in it or the lanes must be really dry.....
Well I've used it a fair amount just trying to get used to it and it has like most balls changed only a slight amount.
Typically I'll start at 20 and throw between 8 and 12 then adjust from there, with both my Storm hy-road and Storm IQ I will vary in this area rarely getting out past 25 for a starting spot and throwing in the 8 to 12 range. That generally has me around the pocket.

Today I decided to keep on throwing the outcast and adjust to where ever I could to get back to the pocket. The lanes were fresh oil house shot, same shot as the other balls get used on
I started at 20 throwing over 10, got the 7 pin on the first shot, I started adjusting and ended up stringing some strikes together lining up on 33 to 35 and throwing between 3 and 4th arrow, this is way further left than I ever play with any ball much less a ball not rated as a giant hook monster.
The question I have is why ?

[KYDave]

Is the layout different than the hyroad and iq? What about the surface?
Any of the pitches different?

[Tony]

Is the layout different than the hyroad and iq? What about the surface?
Any of the pitches different?

They are all drilled pin up and all factory surface, polished balls the outcast says its : 500 Siaair/Royal Compound/Royal Shine the Hy-road and IQ are both 1500-grit Polish. The pitch / drilling is pretty close on all the balls.

[RobLV1]

There are a couple of issues here. First, the manufacturer's rating is often nothing more than a marketing ploy to appeal to a particular segment of bowlers. A few years ago, one of the major manufacturers had a graph of their line of bowling balls based on uses for particular types of oil patterns; heavy oil, medium oil, light oil, etc. When they came out with a new ball, a friend of mine threw it and found that while it was touted as being a ball for light oil, it was way to strong for light oil conditions. I happened to know a high ranking executive at the company, so I asked him why the ball appeared on their graph as being for light oil. He responded that they had a hole in the graphic that needed filling so that's where they put the ball, despite the fact that it wasn't suited for light oil at all. The second consideration is the differences between cover materials from different manufacturers. Storm has long been known as a producer of balls that go long (little reaction to oil) and snap (lots of reaction to friction). Brunswick (manufacturer of DV8 balls) on the other hand is know for balls that read the oil more, but react less to friction. What you saw with the Outcast could very well have been a result in this difference in cover materials.

[1VegasBowler]

There are a couple of issues here. First, the manufacturer's rating is often nothing more than a marketing ploy to appeal to a particular segment of bowlers. A few years ago, one of the major manufacturers had a graph of their line of bowling balls based on uses for particular types of oil patterns; heavy oil, medium oil, light oil, etc. When they came out with a new ball, a friend of mine threw it and found that while it was touted as being a ball for light oil, it was way to strong for light oil conditions. I happened to know a high ranking executive at the company, so I asked him why the ball appeared on their graph as being for light oil. He responded that they had a hole in the graphic that needed filling so that's where they put the ball, despite the fact that it wasn't suited for light oil at all. The second consideration is the differences between cover materials from different manufacturers. Storm has long been known as a producer of balls that go long (little reaction to oil) and snap (lots of reaction to friction). Brunswick (manufacturer of DV8 balls) on the other hand is know for balls that read the oil more, but react less to friction. What you saw with the Outcast could very well have been a result in this difference in cover materials.

While I can not speak about what Rob said concerning the ratings, he is absolutely correct about the Brunswick and Storm balls with their reactions to oil and friction.

[Tony]

There are a couple of issues here. First, the manufacturer's rating is often nothing more than a marketing ploy to appeal to a particular segment of bowlers. A few years ago, one of the major manufacturers had a graph of their line of bowling balls based on uses for particular types of oil patterns; heavy oil, medium oil, light oil, etc. When they came out with a new ball, a friend of mine threw it and found that while it was touted as being a ball for light oil, it was way to strong for light oil conditions. I happened to know a high ranking executive at the company, so I asked him why the ball appeared on their graph as being for light oil. He responded that they had a hole in the graphic that needed filling so that's where they put the ball, despite the fact that it wasn't suited for light oil at all. The second consideration is the differences between cover materials from different manufacturers. Storm has long been known as a producer of balls that go long (little reaction to oil) and snap (lots of reaction to friction). Brunswick (manufacturer of DV8 balls) on the other hand is know for balls that read the oil more, but react less to friction. What you saw with the Outcast could very well have been a result in this difference in cover materials.

While I wasn't aware the mfg would do something like that the "Perfect Scale" is also a lower rating on this ball and actually so is the Hy-Road. I've heard comments about the perfect scale not being perfect but it doesn't seem like a random number that they turn out. As far as the general characteristics of the brands I have encountered this before because I have used mostly Storm, Roto-Grip, Brunswick and Ebonite balls over the years, in looking back the Storm Roto-grip balls have been the best interaction for me.
Since I'm going to pick up a repair/ refresh on the IQ tonight maybe I'll bring the Outcast to my PSO and see what surface adjustment would tame the ball down and maybe make it play the way I was hoping for .....or maybe I'll just buy a Roto-grip Hustle or something in that range in a Storm ball.....hate to have to buy another ball !

[vdubtx]

Yea, I have been bitten with this in the past. Purchased a Roto-Grip Uproar which was touted as medium-light oil. Well, it would hook a lot more than my Hyper Cell at the time on the same conditions.

Needless to say, I could not use it on the conditions I intended to use it for. Had it re-drilled to tame it down and it still was just too much. This has really been the only time I did not get what I wanted from a bowling ball.

Before I buy a ball anymore, I wait to see it thrown by someone in league and watch the reaction down lane.

[J Anderson]

While I wasn't aware the mfg would do something like that the "Perfect Scale" is also a lower rating on this ball and actually so is the Hy-Road. I've heard comments about the perfect scale not being perfect but it doesn't seem like a random number that they turn out. As far as the general characteristics of the brands I have encountered this before because I have used mostly Storm, Roto-Grip, Brunswick and Ebonite balls over the years, in looking back the Storm Roto-grip balls have been the best interaction for me.
Since I'm going to pick up a repair/ refresh on the IQ tonight maybe I'll bring the Outcast to my PSO and see what surface adjustment would tame the ball down and maybe make it play the way I was hoping for .....or maybe I'll just buy a Roto-grip Hustle or something in that range in a Storm ball.....hate to have to buy another ball !

Prefect scale is an imperfect attempt to create an objective standard by which to compare balls from different manufacturers. The problem is that as bowlers we tend to think of balls as "strong" or "weak". Generally speaking lane conditions don't call for stronger or weaker. They call for earlier or later as determined by whether the ball manages to get into the roll phase just before hitting the pocket, or not. RobM has been trying for years to get people away from the strong/weak terminology. There are too many negative connotations to the word weak.

[mc_runner]

My biggest issue with the Perfect Scale is that it doesn't factor in ball reaction at all (building on what John just said) - a pearl rated at 230, for example, will turn much later & presumably harder than a sanded solid at 230. Does one hook "more"? Is one "Stronger"? Which one and why?

IMO you are better looking at the numbers, core, and cover. Rob's advice throughout the years has led me to making informed ball buying decisions and I have to say it's been a big bonus (as someone who gets maybe 1 per year or 2 max).

[djp1080]

Yea, I have been bitten with this in the past. Purchased a Roto-Grip Uproar which was touted as medium-light oil. Well, it would hook a lot more than my Hyper Cell at the time on the same conditions.

Needless to say, I could not use it on the conditions I intended to use it for. Had it re-drilled to tame it down and it still was just too much. This has really been the only time I did not get what I wanted from a bowling ball.

Before I buy a ball anymore, I wait to see it thrown by someone in league and watch the reaction down lane.

I saw a fellow in a senior league using the Up Roar and it worked extremely well. It was a ball I thought I should try. I looked at the specifications and thought I had other balls that should have worked just as well or better. I guess I missed my chance. I still like my Hy-Road from Storm as good a ball as I've tried up till now. Bought a new one at a 15 lbs not too long ago. I'll pretend it's an Up Roar.