Do various balls really change the way you play?

[Aslan]

Okay...I know...stupid question. And the answer is much more likely to be "yes" than in the drilling/layout discussion from 2 years ago. BUT...some research from the lanes today made me scratch my head a bit:

Like many have instructed...I did NOT bowl for score today. Four practice games....4 different balls...then another couple practice games to work on something and play a game of low-ball.

Now...the PURPOSE of the practice was to evaluate my arsenal...no preconceptions...just trying to figure out the SHAPE of my shot with each ball.

REASONING: (See thread about what to do when two teammates are playing the same line)...I'm trying to see if, with the current arsenal limitations, if I have the ability to play different lines.

Here is the data (standing = left foot, target = at the arrows; RH bowler):

Radical Reax Pearl: Standing 25: Targeting 11.

Ebonite Innovate: Standing 23: Targeting 12.

Hammer Scandal Pearl: Standing 24: Targeting 10.5.

Track 300A: Standing 21: Targeting 10.

ASSUMPTIONS based on data:
1) I bumped the surface on the Innovate up to 3000...it develops a track easily...so it tends to hit weaker than the other two balls (ReaxP and ScandalP). It was therefore logical that I may have to slightly straighten out my line, moving the target left a board and moving my feet 2 boards to the right. The Innovate is designed and drilled to be the ball I go to when the lanes transition and the Reax Pearl is burning up...so I expect it to be a bit weaker.

2) The Scandal Pearl is a MONSTER...probably the best ball I've ever owned...I like it even better than the Melee Jab that Rob gave me and the Brunswick Loaded Revolver I was using last season. It is very similar in specs to the Reax Pearl...but the EBI cover and the lower differential make it a bit more consistent and controllable than the Reax Pearl. This ball was designed to be the ball I go to once there is enough carrydown of oil to the breakpoint that the Innovate is no longer coming back. In terms of where I stand and target, it's very similar to the Reax Pearl...doesn't overreact in the middle...and doesn't go insane if I miss right.

SURPRISE(S):
I took the Track 300A simply because I was hoping to work on an outside/in line into my game plan. I figured by using a very, very weak ball...about the weakest other than a urethane or Storm Mix or Scout Reactive...that I could maybe move enough right of the track...that I could stay more in the dry, and go "out and in".

Moving INSIDE...one of RobM's usual (and solid) pieces of advice...would be more IDEAL than throwing a ball in the "dirty"...BUT...I don't have a solid nor hybrid ball...nor a ball really designed to do that. I thought I could surface the 900Global Bullet Train or surface the Reax Pearl...but if I'm wrong....move way inside with surface...I could burn out every ball on these THSs that tend to be shorter and drier. I tried a more extreme inside line on Saturday...and my current arsenal just doesn't have the "umphh" to play that far inside (at least without surface changes). And I don't have the "hand" either.

What was surprising...is that I could stand 21 and target 10...and still hit the pocket. How can I go from the Scandal Pearl...and only move in 3 boards with my feet and a half a board with my target...and still hit the pocket? I tried the 300A up the 6-board (out-and-in)...and went Brooklyn...so I had to move inside.

SUMMARY
How can a ball from summer 2012...with a 2.58 RG and a 0.029 differential...a very weak, polished, pearl cover...from a manufacturer with weaker tendencies in coverstocks...be only a 1:4 move right??? What does that say about ball technology? What does it say about lane conditions? Are we at a point in bowling where the THS is so easy that you get lined up and pretty much any ball from a Scout Reactive to a Storm Snap Lock are pretty much going to be on the same line?

Sorry for the length...wanted to present the entire thing....you can pick and choose what you want to comment on.

[RobLV1]

I'm trying to see if, with the current arsenal limitations, if I have the ability to play different lines.

Here is the data (standing = left foot, target = at the arrows; RH bowler):

Radical Reax Pearl: Standing 25: Targeting 11.

Ebonite Innovate: Standing 23: Targeting 12.

Hammer Scandal Pearl: Standing 24: Targeting 10.5.

Track 300A: Standing 21: Targeting 10.

ASSUMPTIONS based on data:
1) I bumped the surface on the Innovate up to 3000...it develops a track easily...so it tends to hit weaker than the other two balls (ReaxP and ScandalP). It was therefore logical that I may have to slightly straighten out my line, moving the target left a board and moving my feet 2 boards to the right. The Innovate is designed and drilled to be the ball I go to when the lanes transition and the Reax Pearl is burning up...so I expect it to be a bit weaker.

2) The Scandal Pearl is a MONSTER...probably the best ball I've ever owned...I like it even better than the Melee Jab that Rob gave me and the Brunswick Loaded Revolver I was using last season. It is very similar in specs to the Reax Pearl...but the EBI cover and the lower differential make it a bit more consistent and controllable than the Reax Pearl. This ball was designed to be the ball I go to once there is enough carrydown of oil to the breakpoint that the Innovate is no longer coming back. In terms of where I stand and target, it's very similar to the Reax Pearl...doesn't overreact in the middle...and doesn't go insane if I miss right.

SURPRISE(S):
I took the Track 300A simply because I was hoping to work on an outside/in line into my game plan. I figured by using a very, very weak ball...about the weakest other than a urethane or Storm Mix or Scout Reactive...that I could maybe move enough right of the track...that I could stay more in the dry, and go "out and in".

Moving INSIDE...one of RobM's usual (and solid) pieces of advice...would be more IDEAL than throwing a ball in the "dirty"...BUT...I don't have a solid nor hybrid ball...nor a ball really designed to do that. I thought I could surface the 900Global Bullet Train or surface the Reax Pearl...but if I'm wrong....move way inside with surface...I could burn out every ball on these THSs that tend to be shorter and drier. I tried a more extreme inside line on Saturday...and my current arsenal just doesn't have the "umphh" to play that far inside (at least without surface changes). And I don't have the "hand" either.

What was surprising...is that I could stand 21 and target 10...and still hit the pocket. How can I go from the Scandal Pearl...and only move in 3 boards with my feet and a half a board with my target...and still hit the pocket? I tried the 300A up the 6-board (out-and-in)...and went Brooklyn...so I had to move inside.

SUMMARY
How can a ball from summer 2012...with a 2.58 RG and a 0.029 differential...a very weak, polished, pearl cover...from a manufacturer with weaker tendencies in coverstocks...be only a 1:4 move right??? What does that say about ball technology? What does it say about lane conditions? Are we at a point in bowling where the THS is so easy that you get lined up and pretty much any ball from a Scout Reactive to a Storm Snap Lock are pretty much going to be on the same line?

First of all, your supposition that some balls are "weak" and some balls are "strong" is basically flawed. As I have written many, many times, our culture has a bias toward these words. "Strong" is good, and "weak" is bad. It's more about where the balls utilize their energy: early to start up in the oil (really not possible), or late (further down the lane) to knock down all of the pins. Secondly, however you choose categorize your bowling balls, no ball dictates where you can play on the lane. Only the lane dictates where you can play based on the oil pattern, who else is playing on the lane, who has played on the lane before you, the topography, and the weather outside (temperature and humidity).

Now, unless you have magically turned into Walter Ray since the last time I saw you bowl, the idea of a 1/2 board adjustment with your feet or your eyes is ridiculous... almost as ridiculous as your misguided belief that you have to play outside lines because you don't have a lot of hand. You yourself have said many times in the past that Vegas lanes are much oilier than California lanes, and yet you insist on playing in the dirt on the dry CA lanes. Why? An interesting byproduct of my BTM interview with Pete Weber was a discussion of one of the really significant differences between elite bowlers and league bowlers: elite bowlers see the lanes the front to back while league bowlers see the lane from side to side. Once you can get it through your head that on a 40' house shot, you have 20' of friction past the pattern regardless of where you play at the arrows, you WILL master this game, but not before!

[Tony]

It appears like you are MOL playing the same line that you suggested you did in the original post 18 to 24.5 with target of 9.5 to 12, so you really just confirmed that you like that shot.

When practicing did you try playing more inside and see if you could adjust to make it work? Say targeting the 15 board and adjusting to see if you can get a consistent shot from there.

Besides changing your starting spot you might also need to adjust to setting a target line rather that just a single spot at the arrows, I think that's what Rob is probably referring to when he talks about the lane past the end of the pattern and the viewpoint of the more advanced player.
When we get to the point where we see the target spot down the lane is actually the most important target, and where we cross the arrows with the ball isn't really as important, as long as we get the ball to that target down the lane.
http://www.kegeltrainingcenter.com/k...n-7-easy-steps

[NewToBowling]

First of all, your supposition that some balls are "weak" and some balls are "strong" is basically flawed. As I have written many, many times, our culture has a bias toward these words. "Strong" is good, and "weak" is bad. It's more about where the balls utilize their energy: early to start up in the oil (really not possible), or late (further down the lane) to knock down all of the pins. Secondly, however you choose categorize your bowling balls, no ball dictates where you can play on the lane. Only the lane dictates where you can play based on the oil pattern, who else is playing on the lane, who has played on the lane before you, the topography, and the weather outside (temperature and humidity).

Now, unless you have magically turned into Walter Ray since the last time I saw you bowl, the idea of a 1/2 board adjustment with your feet or your eyes is ridiculous... almost as ridiculous as your misguided belief that you have to play outside lines because you don't have a lot of hand. You yourself have said many times in the past that Vegas lanes are much oilier than California lanes, and yet you insist on playing in the dirt on the dry CA lanes. Why? An interesting byproduct of my BTM interview with Pete Weber was a discussion of one of the really significant differences between elite bowlers and league bowlers: elite bowlers see the lanes the front to back while league bowlers see the lane from side to side. Once you can get it through your head that on a 40' house shot, you have 20' of friction past the pattern regardless of where you play at the arrows, you WILL master this game, but not before!

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Get these 1/2 board adjustments out of your head. If you are going to test try 3-4 board variances

[steverwrx]

Here is the data (standing = left foot, target = at the arrows; RH bowler):

Radical Reax Pearl: Standing 25: Targeting 11.

Ebonite Innovate: Standing 23: Targeting 12.

Hammer Scandal Pearl: Standing 24: Targeting 10.5.

Track 300A: Standing 21: Targeting 10.

All basically the same line/shot. To really experiment, try standing 35/40 and hitting 15/20. Or standing 10 and hit 5.

[Aslan]

Now, unless you have magically turned into Walter Ray since the last time I saw you bowl, the idea of a 1/2 board adjustment with your feet or your eyes is ridiculous...

No...but I DID meet him and get his autograph and a picture taken.

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Get these 1/2 board adjustments out of your head. If you are going to test try 3-4 board variances

To both NTB/Iceman and RobM...many of these "slight" adjustments are no more absurd than someone saying they took a step back on the approach or tried to slightly change their hand position. The average (or in my case below-average) bowler can't consistently make those changes with any degree of confidence and thus it's more of a "mental" thing. Think of those numbers as "mathematical averages" of a larger subset of data. No, I can't consistently hit a 0.5 board target. BUT...most bowlers can't consistently hit a 1-board target either....yet we make 1-board adjustments all the time.

It appears like you are MOL playing the same line that you suggested you did in the original post 18 to 24.5 with target of 9.5 to 12, so you really just confirmed that you like that shot.

When practicing did you try playing more inside and see if you could adjust to make it work? Say targeting the 15 board and adjusting to see if you can get a consistent shot from there.

I actually tried what you are suggesting and what RobM is suggesting. Rob thinks I just ignore his advice...but I actually follow it quite a bit. As I sort of mentioned in my post...I moved in and played a much more extreme line during the weekly tournament on Saturday...standing as far left as 31 and targeting as far left as 21. After missing the headpin (right) on multiple shots...a former regional PBA pro that was bowling against me came over and said: "You may want to move a few boards right where you're standing because that line you're playing is way too aggressive. Just a suggestion."

And he was right. I was intentionally trying to play outside my usual comfort zone to see if I 'could' make a more inside/aggressive/angular shot work. I could not.

I agree with nearly everything RobM said in his post, have learned a LOT from him over these past few years, and have great respect for him and his knowledge. Where RobM and I often come into disagreement is the "practical application" of that knowledge. If I try and try and try to move inside...and it's not working...Rob is going to tell me it's because I need to either change my entire approach (speed, etc...) or I need an entirely different arsenal. And if I try to nail him down on what an ideal arsenal looks like...he'll tell me it's a silly question because every center, state, day, and lane is different. "Practically"...that makes it impossible for 99.7% of bowlers that don't have an unlimited arsenal at their disposal and need a practical strategy to optimize their scoring on the conditions they encounter most often. In Rob's defense...he is bowling on many, many centers throughout the Vegas area...and those conditions are NOT what most of us are seeing at our local centers. It's kind've like the "carrydown debate"...RobM is absolutely correct in his non-carrydown theory...but that theory (like all hypothesis) is based on a certain set of assumptions. Most higher level bowlers aren't competing on dirty, old, lightly applied oil, short patterns, sometimes oiled and sometimes not, against bowlers where half the bowlers are throwing Columbia WDs up the middle and missing badly. Rob is absolutely correct that lane play can be greatly affected by who you are bowling against...but that is not a consistent variable when trying to plan a strategy.

So, I guess my follow-up question to the group and others that may not have weighed in yet...without arsenal changes (but with surface changes on the table)...and without drastic physical changes (because my physical game is not at the level where I can alter speed/steps without some potentially BAD outcomes)...how would someone move inside and make their shot work? I agree with Pete W. and Rob and Tony are saying...and in this practice session I was focusing much, much further downlane...trying to just get an idea of where the ball was breaking (breakpoint) and then I sort of back-calculated where the target would be at the arrows. I also utilize vertical targeting techniques a GREAT DEAL after reading Suzie Minshew's article in BTM some time ago. You guys are absolutely correct...most lower-level bowlers think of the lanes completely in a "lateral" way.

But HOW do you move inside? For those of you that have 2-3 lines you can play...depending on what the lanes are presenting and your competition/team make-up...what do you do differently when you choose to play a more aggressive/inside line? And do any of you disagree with Rob's "ban" on playing the 1-10 board area? I see quite a few high level bowlers...mostly older guys throwing ancient equipment...and they still throw that straight up the outside and it moves in to the pocket and strikes. I'm not "advocating" it because these bowlers often times (generalizing) are only playing that line because they stubbornly refuse to learn more about the modern game, technology, etc...

And back to the key question I asked: "Is anyone else surprised that the 300A performed nearly the same as the Reax Pearl?" 4 boards with my feet and 1 with my eyes seems like a very, very slight modification given two balls that are only similar in that they are polished pearls. The Reax isn't even "polished" (per se)...I surfaced it to 4000 and then hit it with buffing compound...no additional "polish". How can we say that ball technology is meaningful if a person can take a Reax Pearl and a 300A and throw them on the same line...and get nearly the same results?

P.S. Just to clarifiy, I value everyone's input and don't mean to come off as "argumentative". I am simply trying to investigate this topic to the best of my ability, improve my game, and hopefully provide a thread that others can get value from as well.

[Aslan]

Dang...that picture was larger than anticipated.
Bowl 1820...is there a technique I can use to shrink pictures to a certain size or do I have to make those changes on the image hosting site? (for future reference)

All basically the same line/shot. To really experiment, try standing 35/40 and hitting 15/20. Or standing 10 and hit 5.

I tried standing 21/31 and hitting 18/21 on Saturday (see previous post).
This led to leaves such as 1-2-4, 1-2-4-8, 8-10, 1-2-10 (2x), and a 1-2-7.
I 'could' try to move my feet 5 boards left and my target 5 boards right, as you suggest, but I can't see that fixing the issue...UNLESS...I get a very, very angular reaction out in the dry. I could try that in the future.

I tried standing 18/20 and targeting 5/8 during yesterdays practice (see previous posts).
With the 300A, this essentially led to the ball crossing over and hit brooklyn side or taking out the 4-7-8.
Moving my feet another 8 boards right...I don't see that working well...unless I make some speed/hand position changes.

[bowl1820]

Dang...that picture was larger than anticipated.
Bowl 1820...is there a technique I can use to shrink pictures to a certain size or do I have to make those changes on the image hosting site? (for future reference)
.

You would either have to change the size in whatever image editor you use or depending on what image hosting service your using. Make use of any editing options they have or if they provide thumbnail links use that.

Since your using photobucket just click on the Editor option and select the photo and resize it.

[bigt_45]

Not sure how many others use their mobile device on here but the picture resized automatically on my phone.

[bowl1820]

I actually tried what you are suggesting and what RobM is suggesting. Rob thinks I just ignore his advice...but I actually follow it quite a bit. As I sort of mentioned in my post...I moved in and played a much more extreme line during the weekly tournament on Saturday...standing as far left as 31 and targeting as far left as 21. After missing the headpin (right) on multiple shots...a former regional PBA pro that was bowling against me came over and said: "You may want to move a few boards right where you're standing because that line you're playing is way too aggressive. Just a suggestion."

And he was right. I was intentionally trying to play outside my usual comfort zone to see if I 'could' make a more inside/aggressive/angular shot work. I could not.

It was good you were intentionally trying to play outside your usual comfort zone. But that should have been something you worked on in practice, not in the middle of a tournament.

You move inside when the conditions warrant, considering another player advised you to move and not play there. The conditions most likely weren't right (at least for you) at the moment to play that line.

So if the conditions weren't right to play that line, of course you couldn't make it work.

So you can't really say "I can't do it", you have practice and get comfortable with it then play there at the proper time.