Aslan's Scores (of the non-lady kind)

[Amyers]

If you can find a post/article by Rob that praises playing 2nd arrow...let me know.


I realize that...but I've always looked at their value as options for burnt patterns and to allow you to continue playing an up and in game even when the pattern was a bit thinner. To use them first out of the bag on a fresh pattern I would only assume was a good strategy on lower volume or shorter patterns or wood lanes. Rob, I think, is saying that assumption is sometimes/most of the time incorrect.


If you ask me, it's not. If you ask Rob or anyone that has anything to do with marketing/selling bowling balls...balls become "too old" after a relatively short time. I'm going to test that difference with the Melee Jab that Rob gave me and the Loaded Revolver as they both have similar covers and RGs. Initial impressions are that there may be a difference...it's just a matter of how significant it is.

#1. I doubt Rob feels the need to write an article about playing the second arrow as that is where a lot of house bowlers all ready play

#3. Two things here whether a ball is a pearl or a solid or a hybrid makes very little difference and the purpose of any of those is not so you can play burnt sections of the lane. The main thing to consider is surface typically pearls tend to have polished surfaces and solids lower surface grits but this isn't always true. A pearl will read the midlane slightly slower than a similarly surfaced solid or hybrid and tend to provide a stronger reaction off of the breakpoint. A highly surface pearl may provide some small advantage if the heads are burnt but this is a condition that rarely happens on first shift leagues. The real reason for a pearl is to save energy and provide a strong move off the spot not to play a burnt section of the lane.

#4. The difference between a low end ball from year to year is usually very small. You might see some larger differences between upper line and midline balls from year to year but it's not like they are introducing new tech into their lower end balls on a yearly basis. I expect you will see very little difference between the balls. I think you'll see more difference between the surface of the balls than the actual balls themselves. The Loaded Revolver has more surface so it will read somewhat earlier and maybe cover a board or two more total. To be honest I haven't ever met a bowler who liked the revolver line but I haven't thrown them myself but I did have the opportunity to throw the Jab. I really expected to like the ball (balls with those numbers usually work well for me). I never really understood bowlers who sold balls after 10 games until I threw the Jab. I was glad I just got the opportunity throw someone else's because if I had bought it I'm pretty sure I would have just walked it over to the trash bin and deposited it. All the rest of the Brunswick balls I tried worked well for me but that thing just wouldn't work not matter what I tried. If I played outside it hooked early and burnt up if I moved inside with it The ball was allergic to oil. I do know some people who like it just didn't work for me at all.

[Aslan]

The real reason for a pearl is to save energy and provide a strong move off the spot not to play a burnt section of the lane.

Then why would anyone use anything other than a Pearl? Are you saying there are people out there that are trying to find balls that are going to lose energy prior to the breakpoint and not have a strong move to the pocket?

See...and this is just my interpretation of the argument so it may be off...but is SEEMS like:

1) Just about everyone (ask PSOs) want a ball that is going to go "Long and have a strong backend". It's practically a punchline because a PSO KNOWS that is what every bowler wants when they come in looking for a new ball or to get a ball drilled.

2) To accomplish that, you need a ball with minimal surface, a pearl (more so than a hybrid or solid) cover stock, and a core/diff. that is going to provide the 'engine' for that downlane movement.

NOTE: There are significant factors that unfortunately come into play at this point. The real physics of bowling is simply friction and rev rate. The balls can't throw themselves nor create revolutions...they are forced to work with the inconsistencies and limitations of the bowler. So at this point you may have a bowler with too much speed (over-powers the lane friction) and needs more rpms to compensate. Or you may have a senior bowler with plenty of rpms but a ball speed that is too slow...so said bowler either needs to move further inside and stay in the higher volume of oil longer OR they need to lower their rpms, axis tilt, axis rotation appropriately.

So the question is....why bother with hybrids or solids?

IF the hypothesis is true that when balls hit weak it's because they are all burnt up...and we need to move inside of 2nd arrow to adequately throw a ball with stored up energy:

1) Nobody should play outside the oil line. And if they do....they should suffer for it not be rewarded.
2) Everyone should throw pearls and just vary their speed/rpms accordingly to deal with the speed/rpm/friction relationship.

IF you believe in that mindset....then really hybrids and solids are simply balls for people that either:
A) Don't like to hit the pocket with a lot of energy...they are trying to get an all-spare game patch or something.
B) Don't want to (or feel they are unable to) alter their speed/rpms so they forego an explosive backend in exchange for a ball that hits pocket (all be it light).

I'm not "poo-poo-ing" Rob's theories/approach. I read Rob's stuff as much as anyone and take lessons from him and have bowled with/against him before. But if we're going to go down a road where there's a theory that exists regarding ideal places to play (vs less ideal) and ideal ball movements and ideal ball specifications...part of leading the way in those theories/philosophies is being able to defend them. And I don't mean the usual bowling defense of, "everyone bowls differently, use what works." Because when you rely on THAT defense....then why do anything or read anything or learn anything? At that point, Iceman wins, because bowling is really just a matter of having a gift vs not having a gift. All the other stuff is just white noise.

[Amyers]

Then why would anyone use anything other than a Pearl? Are you saying there are people out there that are trying to find balls that are going to lose energy prior to the breakpoint and not have a strong move to the pocket?

See...and this is just my interpretation of the argument so it may be off...but is SEEMS like:

1) Just about everyone (ask PSOs) want a ball that is going to go "Long and have a strong backend". It's practically a punchline because a PSO KNOWS that is what every bowler wants when they come in looking for a new ball or to get a ball drilled.

2) To accomplish that, you need a ball with minimal surface, a pearl (more so than a hybrid or solid) cover stock, and a core/diff. that is going to provide the 'engine' for that downlane movement.

NOTE: There are significant factors that unfortunately come into play at this point. The real physics of bowling is simply friction and rev rate. The balls can't throw themselves nor create revolutions...they are forced to work with the inconsistencies and limitations of the bowler. So at this point you may have a bowler with too much speed (over-powers the lane friction) and needs more rpms to compensate. Or you may have a senior bowler with plenty of rpms but a ball speed that is too slow...so said bowler either needs to move further inside and stay in the higher volume of oil longer OR they need to lower their rpms, axis tilt, axis rotation appropriately.

So the question is....why bother with hybrids or solids?

IF the hypothesis is true that when balls hit weak it's because they are all burnt up...and we need to move inside of 2nd arrow to adequately throw a ball with stored up energy:

1) Nobody should play outside the oil line. And if they do....they should suffer for it not be rewarded.
2) Everyone should throw pearls and just vary their speed/rpms accordingly to deal with the speed/rpm/friction relationship.

IF you believe in that mindset....then really hybrids and solids are simply balls for people that either:
A) Don't like to hit the pocket with a lot of energy...they are trying to get an all-spare game patch or something.
B) Don't want to (or feel they are unable to) alter their speed/rpms so they forego an explosive backend in exchange for a ball that hits pocket (all be it light).

I'm not "poo-poo-ing" Rob's theories/approach. I read Rob's stuff as much as anyone and take lessons from him and have bowled with/against him before. But if we're going to go down a road where there's a theory that exists regarding ideal places to play (vs less ideal) and ideal ball movements and ideal ball specifications...part of leading the way in those theories/philosophies is being able to defend them. And I don't mean the usual bowling defense of, "everyone bowls differently, use what works." Because when you rely on THAT defense....then why do anything or read anything or learn anything? At that point, Iceman wins, because bowling is really just a matter of having a gift vs not having a gift. All the other stuff is just white noise.

First off Don't have me putting words in Rob's mouth he may disagree with what I've said.

As to the question of why they make anything other than pearls is because as usual your over reacting to what I've said and taking it to the 10th degree. Burning up is not the only reason a ball can hit weak. It can also hit weak because the ball hasn't gotten to the roll phase too. Ask my wife (who needs lots of surface) what happens when she misses inside. She leaves 5 pins because the ball deflected and hit like a marshmallow. Burning up and not getting into a roll are both extreme examples though.

Yes every moron walks into the PSO and says I want something long and strong but there are plenty of bowlers out there that understand that you don't always want something that screams off the friction at 80 miles an hour too. Otherwise every bowler would have a Hyper Cell Skid and step down to Sky Rocket but pro shops sell lots of other stuff too. Most bowlers that have bowled long have learned a ball that's super angular is super hard to control too.

Heck I'm not saying the using a pearl balls going to fix all the problems with your game but thinking that you can't use a pearl before game 2 is just wrong headed. Ball selection is about finding what works for you not some preconceived rules that you just made up in your head. Ball selection "again" is not about hitting the pocket but about hitting the pocket at the correct angle with the ball in the correct phase with the maximum energy.

IF you believe in that mindset....then really hybrids and solids are simply balls for people that either:
A) Don't like to hit the pocket with a lot of energy...they are trying to get an all-spare game patch or something.
B) Don't want to (or feel they are unable to) alter their speed/rpms so they forego an explosive backend in exchange for a ball that hits pocket (all be it light).

I wont go this far with it but unless your just generating crazy revs and ball speed and probably not then. Throwing lower grit sanded equipment up 5 isn't going to be your best option. Noticed changed conversation to surface not Pearl, Hybrid, or Solid.

[RobLV1]

Ameyers hit the nail on the head. Forget about material for a minute, and worry about surface.

[Aslan]

Monday League: low oil synthetics, THS (38ft?) with some out of bounds at 1-3.

518 Series: 182-143-193

Experimenting with some advice from the site about ball selection. Started with the Jab...tried to find a line that would work. It was 'okay'. Spare shooting could have been better.

Game 2 I was still struggling and switched to the Loaded Revolver in the 6th frame. Spare shooting was miserable.

Game 3 was clean except for a 4-9 split in the 4th. Horrible carry though.

PinPal Stats:
First Ball Average: 8.77 pins
Strikes: 31% (3 doubles and 5 singles)
Spares: 61% picked up

Single Pin spares: 72% (8/11)
Most common single-pin leaves: 5-pin, 6-pin, and 10-pin (2x each)
Never left a single 1-pin nor 2-pin

Multiple Pin spares: 50% (5/10)
Most common multi-pin leaves: 2-4-5 (2x).

Splits: 33% (1/3)

Average over 3 games: 172.67.
Average had I picked up 100% of single pin spare leaves: 183.33.

Another average night of spare shooting with very little carry. Doesn't look much different from last week. Maybe I'll see what the Asylum can do Wednesday and maybe next week. At this point, at least on Mondays, I don't think it'll hurt much.

[fortheloveofbowling]

A little premature mr moderator on the pwba list. Did you not see the espn magazine photo shoot called THE BODY ISSUE with Kelly kulick that highlighted the fact that a woman bowler could actually have an athletic physique? She was basically naked just holding the bowling ball to cover up. The PWBA would do well to highlight the attractiveness of their bowlers much the same way the LPGA did in the 70's. Or should the women be considered fat and beer drinkers like the men????? I might not agree with aslan all the time or much at all but he did point out their bowling skills and did not refer to the women in a disgraceful way, just that they were hot. That means attractive for the prudish or elderly.

PS,
Please don't end this thread and punish aslan for my opinion even though it is the correct one.

[Amyers]

A little premature mr moderator on the pwba list. Did you not see the espn magazine photo shoot called THE BODY ISSUE with Kelly kulick that highlighted the fact that a woman bowler could actually have an athletic physique? She was basically naked just holding the bowling ball to cover up. The PWBA would do well to highlight the attractiveness of their bowlers much the same way the LPGA did in the 70's. Or should the women be considered fat and beer drinkers like the men????? I might not agree with aslan all the time or much at all but he did point out their bowling skills and did not refer to the women in a disgraceful way, just that they were hot. That means attractive for the prudish or elderly.

PS,
Please don't end this thread and punish aslan for my opinion even though it is the correct one.

I agree I thought Aslan handled his list in a appropriate way. Is it the only reason to watch WPBA no does it help if the women are attractive yes. I would have no problem if one of the females on the site put a list of the most attractive males on the PBA tour.

Aslan wasn't referencing their bra sizes or anything overtly sexual in nature. As long as it stays on the up and up leave it alone. If someone doesn't like it they don't have to participate. Keep it PG but as long as it does leave it be.

[vdubtx]

the prudish or elderly.

A little too much of this regarding that thread. I thought it was fine and didn't cross a line.

[NewToBowling]

I didn't see any problem with it. Let's not be so uptight here.

Humans procreate. To procreate it helps if some of us are attractive. It's ok to point out if you find someone attractive.

Just mindless fun banter really

[Aslan]

Thank you all. I thought about it some and while I don't think I crossed any lines, all my comments were positive, and I tried to highlight the performances throughout the season (many I saw in person as an avid watcher of PBA XTra Frame and a PWBA fan)...I also understand the point of view by Bowl1820 and the others. As I stated in the first sentence....it's one of those threads where I knew it was going to possibly go South quickly...so I wasn't surprised.

Yes, the site is a little quick on the trigger sometimes...but maybe thats why this place hasn't devolved into Yahoo chat or Xbox Live where Bowl1820 spends the majority of his time trying to clean up fake viagra ads and booting the countless 11-year olds that love to use the n-word. My only real hope is that the list didn't offend any of the actual people on the list...that was certainly not the intent. The fact that it made the prudes yell in unison "oh my!"...well...thats to be expected. But I certainly didn't mean to imply that the ladies are just there for our visual enjoyment any more than People magazine implies that actors and other people in their " Annual Most Beautiful People" list aren't serious about their profession and only exist for our visual amusement.

Not to mention...I DID put a fairly lengthy disclaimer at the bottom....so legally...if you got offended it's technically on you.

But, ya swing and sometimes get a hit and sometimes strike out. I've gotten threads locked for less....I've gotten away with more...ya just roll with the punches. But don't aggravate Bowl1820 too much about it...I may not agree, but I understand the motivation.