How to Tame a Virtual Gravity, nano pearl on league night.

[sprocket]

I don't know Mo Pine personally, but what does that mean hide the polish??? Like don't use it,,,put it in a safe place,,,,? Some balls will react way to soon without the polish, helps get it through the front part of the lanes without losing energy, so I am told!

I'm not 100% sure what all of Mo's gripes are with polish so I'll just tell you my theory. Warning: My theory could be completely wrong.

So lets say you sanded the ball to 1000 and then looked at it under a microscope. I am imagining seeing peeks and valleys and the peeks are sharp. Now take the ball to 2000 and look at it again under magnification. I am imagining seeing peeks and valleys that are smaller than before and the tops of the peeks are still sharp. Now take it to 4000. If I'm right so far, then the peeks and valleys should be smaller still, meaning a finer grain, and the peeks are still sharp.

Now let's go back to when the ball was at 2000. So you have a ball at 2000 and you hit it with polish and then look at it under a microscope. Now I am imagining the same peeks and valleys as before polishing but now the tops of the peeks are BLUNT instead of sharp. Maybe the valleys are even partially clogged with polish. Perhaps without magnification the ball looks quite similar to a 4000 sanded ball, but which is better? A ball that still has its "teeth" or a ball with larger blunted teeth? I would think the ball sanded to 4000 with small but sharp teeth is better and more predictable.

Also, maybe once you reach 4000 trying to use polish to tame the ball even more is a bad idea. Perhaps at that point a better choice is a ball that is tamer to start with or a different layout.

[MICHAEL]

I'm not 100% sure what all of Mo's gripes are with polish so I'll just tell you my theory. Warning: My theory could be completely wrong.

So lets say you sanded the ball to 1000 and then looked at it under a microscope. I am imagining seeing peeks and valleys and the peeks are sharp. Now take the ball to 2000 and look at it again under magnification. I am imagining seeing peeks and valleys that are smaller than before and the tops of the peeks are still sharp. Now take it to 4000. If I'm right so far, then the peeks and valleys should be smaller still, meaning a finer grain, and the peeks are still sharp.

Now let's go back to when the ball was at 2000. So you have a ball at 2000 and you hit it with polish and then look at it under a microscope. Now I am imagining the same peeks and valleys as before polishing but now the tops of the peeks are BLUNT instead of sharp. Maybe the valleys are even partially clogged with polish. Perhaps without magnification the ball looks quite similar to a 4000 sanded ball, but which is better? A ball that still has its "teeth" or a ball with larger blunted teeth? I would think the ball sanded to 4000 with small but sharp teeth is better and more predictable.

Also, maybe once you reach 4000 trying to use polish to tame the ball even more is a bad idea. Perhaps at that point a better choice is a ball that is tamer to start with or a different layout.

I get you point about the peeks and valleys, BUT when a ball has polish, it keeps the energy in the ball and saves it for the dry part of the lane! A ball can lose its hooking ability, and I have seen it happen, when the polish is removed! If you looking for that flip motion, with a pearl ball like the IQ pearl for instance, take the polish off and its a dog,,, no flip, burnt out before it gets to the hook stage of the delivery!

So polish does have its place, and a ball will behave differently with a 4000grit and lets say a 4000 with polish! My Virtual Gravity Nanno Pearl works great on fresh house oil, with a 4000 and polish. Great Flip, but if the oil on the lanes is light, or dry it burns up before it even gets there, with much less flip.

Some balls need oil, to get throw the heads, and polish seems to help on some balls, like my IQ pearl, and Virtual Gravity ..... the more polish the bigger the flip.

[bowl1820]

hummmm, seems pretty easy, and even to apply with the spinner???? splits the ball in half, two sides, or do a four side application? Does he mean doing it by hand, because I would agree 100 percent with that analysis, but the spinner even for cleaning a ball does a very precise job in my opinion.

thanks for the clarifications bowl1820!!

I don't know the exact reasoning to it, I haven't found a exact quote where he talks about it just comments and there are some contradictory comments.

I think it has to do with getting consistent results, polishes have more variables when used even on a spinner. Things like how much polish you apply, how hard you press and for how long you you spin it while applying pressure and polish.

[Stormed1]

Depending on your axis measurements the ball appears to have a strtong layout with a narrow VAL angle which is condusaive to a strong flip style motion

[MICHAEL]

Depending on your axis measurements the ball appears to have a strtong layout with a narrow VAL angle which is condusaive to a strong flip style motion

It definatly has a strong flip at the end!! And when the oil, and people we are bowling match up, and they don't push the oil into bad places, a great thing can happen... a 300 game, and 780 series!! I think back to the middle game where I was having some carry problems, that I worked out by the third game,, but if only 20 more pins in that middle game some where,,, and a 800 series!! GRRRRRRRRRR!!! 300, 216 264! That middle game cost me the 800, and I had many pocket hits but 10 pins, and 7's!

Since then it has been several times too strong to use, even for game one! Its an oil specific ball,,, if its right,,,, hang on and go to town!! I used the following week a Freight Train, 14lb,,, and it gave me a 637. First time I have used it for 3 games without changing to another ball. It was my wifes ball, and she didn't like it, too strong for her.

[bowl1820]

hummmm, seems pretty easy, and even to apply with the spinner???? splits the ball in half, two sides, or do a four side application? Does he mean doing it by hand, because I would agree 100 percent with that analysis, but the spinner even for cleaning a ball does a very precise job in my opinion.

thanks for the clarifications bowl1820!!

Okay here's a direct quote from Mo Pinel about using polish.

Mo Pinel:
Polishing a bowling ball is the most difficult process to repeat! The standard deviation on the polishing process is high. It has its place. I prefer smoother, non polished, surfaces, 4000 or even a white pad. I don't like introducing a foreign substance as a primary alternative.

[MICHAEL]

Okay here's a direct quote from Mo Pinel about using polish.

Mo Pinel:
Polishing a bowling ball is the most difficult process to repeat! The standard deviation on the polishing process is high. It has its place. I prefer smoother, non polished, surfaces, 4000 or even a white pad. I don't like introducing a foreign substance as a primary alternative.

I would ask Mo Pinel,, what about the sanding, is it not JUST as difficult a process to do uniformly, and repeat??? I say once a ball has be resurfaced by any human being, its never going to be the same! Even while you are sanding, you might apply more pressure at some point on the ball, and for sure it will vary,
as much as the inconsistency of applying polish with my spinner. They seem to just be two different sides of the same card.

I think the same comment he makes about the polish, (and some balls require polish according to the manufacturer), would apply to sanding a ball with any grit. Apply polish is not a bad thing IMHA, when I had my 780, and 300 game last week, I put it on the spinner, cleaned it, and applied polish pretty darn good I would say,,, LOL (I polish the ball in halfs)

Some balls are designed to have polish, and lose energy without it, a 4000 matte in my opinion, on a ball that is designed for polish does not behave the same to me,,, but what the hell do I know. compared to a True Bowling God... (

[sprocket]

Well Iceman, I think you're starting to sway me. Nothing beats theory better than real world experience! I'd almost forgotten my own polish success story so hear goes:

I was bowling a Sunday morning tournament and yes, it was the same one from my post in the other thread but I wasn't the tournament director back then. The format at that time was bowl three games and cut to the top one third. Then bowl another three games and then stepladder for the top five. So I bowled the first three games with a Black U-dot and the first two games were really good but I started getting too much hook the third game and it was much lower. I still made the cut. Before the second round I decided to throw the ball in the Luster King. I'm not sure what those things put on the ball but I think there was like a wedge of wax that the ball spun against.

So the Luster King door opens and the ball is GLOWING. Holy Sh!t it's WAY too shiny! BTW I don't know how much of this applies to modern resin balls but let me finish my story anyway! So the next thing that happens is we find out there was a scheduling conflict and there is another tournament coming in that has reserved the lanes we just bowled on, so they are moving us to the other end of the house. Well, back then people actually used to open bowl and those lanes had seen some use by open bowlers that morning. Also that end of the house has always hooked more than the other.

So we start warmups and my shot looks pretty good! I start the first game with spare, strike, spare, then an 8-10 split. I then proceeded to throw the next 23 STRIKES IN A ROW! I had 300 the middle game (too bad it wasn't sanctioned) and I think 783 for the series. So then I had to wait around for quite awhile because I was top seed for stepladder. No one else was even close to my score. So I'm going to win this right? FORGET IT. I left the 8-10 three times in the tittle match and shot 160 something. This was back when I had a ton of hand but it was also back in the era of true carry down. My highly polished miracle ball had given me all it was going to give. Plus my adrenaline high was all gone....

Anyway that's my story. I guess polish has its place!

[bowl1820]

I would ask Mo Pinel,, what about the sanding, is it not JUST as difficult a process to do uniformly, and repeat???

He didn't really say it was difficult to do uniformly, but that it was difficult to repeat!

I say once a ball has be resurfaced by any human being, its never going to be the same! Even while you are sanding, you might apply more pressure at some point on the ball,

That's true enough

and for sure it will vary,as much as the inconsistency of applying polish with my spinner. They seem to just be two different sides of the same card.I think the same comment he makes about the polish, (and some balls require polish according to the manufacturer), would apply to sanding a ball with any grit.

Now this is where the "The standard deviation on the polishing process is high." part comes in. I believe he's referring to how much the surface varies from the last time you did it to the next when using polish versus doing the same thing with pads and such that it would have less variation.

Apply polish is not a bad thing IMHA, when I had my 780, and 300 game last week, I put it on the spinner, cleaned it, and applied polish pretty darn good I would say,,, LOL (I polish the ball in halfs)

Now he didn't come out and say you couldn't use it, that "It has its place." and the he prefered smoother, non polished, surfaces.

Some balls are designed to have polish, and lose energy without it,a 4000 matte in my opinion, on a ball that is designed for polish does not behave the same to me,,, but what the hell do I know. compared to a True Bowling God... (

Of course a ball with polish will react differently without it. But that doesn't mean you couldn't achieve the same reaction using the right combinations of grits.

Now me I'm not saying don't use polish, as long as it gives you the result you want then do it.

Some balls are designed to have polish

This makes me think of this post by Rob Mautner:

The whole concept of the OOB finish being somehow sacred drives me crazy. I think that bowlers have this vision of ball designers sitting around, trying to come up with the "magic" finish that will make this (whatever ball it happens to be), the greatest bowling ball of all time. That's simply not the case. Basic marketing says that you define your "target" consumer and design you product to appeal to that consume. If the "target" consumer (bowler) for a particular ball happens to be a high speed, high rev, balanced bowler, the OOB will be perfect for that imaginary bowler. If you happen to be a medium rev, medium speed balanced bowler, then, for that ball to work for you, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE SURFACE. It's that simple. At least 60% of bowlers will not be successful with any particular bowling ball using the OOB finish.

[bowl1820]

.........a Black U-dot ........ the Luster King..........modern resin balls................I guess polish has its place!

Well today most consider putting your ball in the luster king the worst thing you could do.

Because it packs the pores full (Especially if they put the wrong compound block in, I seen that happen. At this one house I was at they tried this new compound block in the machine and all the balls that got polished in it totally quit working. You couldn't make it hook at all and they had to sand the balls to get the stuff off the cover.).

And a lot of people think it's a cleaning machine (it's not, it's polisher) and it justs grind the dirt/oil into the cover (That's why you should clean the ball first if you do use it)

I think their okay if you want to shine up your plastic ball and maybe a urethane ball (like the Black U-dot).