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.
Bookmarks