Tri-grip and a gods thoughts!!

[Aslan]

As for pin lengths and top weights…obviously with my usual buying strategy of taking what is on clearance, I don't specify things like that. I doubt that minor of a detail would make much difference in my game.

As for weights, there are two lines of thinking:

1) Use the heaviest ball you can control. The heavier weight has better carry.
2) For each 1lb reduction in weight, you get a 3-4% increase in revs. A 3-4% increase in revs can lead to a preferable entry angle that can result in a 10% increase in pin carry.

So, to me…its sort of a wash. The 15 and 14lb balls are going to give you better revs and ball motion and a better pin carry due to angle…while a slight reduction in pin carry due to weight. A 16lb ball is going to give you more power when you hit the pocket…but at a less preferable angle which could lead to a slight reduction in pin carry. It seems like it ends up being a wash.

As to switching from one weight to another…I did that in the past and have since decided not to do it in the future. When I replace my 16lb arsenal with the 15lb arsenal in my closet…it will be a wholesale switch. That way I'm not going from weight to weight between shots/frames.

As to "tri-grip"…I tried it…thus far I'm not that impressed. It seems to make the ball more comfortable and feel lighter…but it doesn't come off my hand as naturally as my conventionally drilled balls.

[Mike White]

As for pin lengths and top weights…obviously with my usual buying strategy of taking what is on clearance, I don't specify things like that. I doubt that minor of a detail would make much difference in my game.

As for weights, there are two lines of thinking:

1) Use the heaviest ball you can control. The heavier weight has better carry.
2) For each 1lb reduction in weight, you get a 3-4% increase in revs. A 3-4% increase in revs can lead to a preferable entry angle that can result in a 10% increase in pin carry.

So, to me…its sort of a wash. The 15 and 14lb balls are going to give you better revs and ball motion and a better pin carry due to angle…while a slight reduction in pin carry due to weight. A 16lb ball is going to give you more power when you hit the pocket…but at a less preferable angle which could lead to a slight reduction in pin carry. It seems like it ends up being a wash.

As to switching from one weight to another…I did that in the past and have since decided not to do it in the future. When I replace my 16lb arsenal with the 15lb arsenal in my closet…it will be a wholesale switch. That way I'm not going from weight to weight between shots/frames.

As to "tri-grip"…I tried it…thus far I'm not that impressed. It seems to make the ball more comfortable and feel lighter…but it doesn't come off my hand as naturally as my conventionally drilled balls.

Nice how you just pull numbers out of your..... stinky place.

[Aslan]

Nice how you just pull numbers out of your..... stinky place.

Nope. Not this time. Saw an article on it online. They tested the same balls at 3 different weights.

AND NO…it wasn't an article by Rob M.!!

[Mike White]

Nope. Not this time. Saw an article on it online. They tested the same balls at 3 different weights.

AND NO…it wasn't an article by Rob M.!!

Think about it, if you're getting 200 rpm, and you increase your rpm rate 3-4% you're looking at an increase to 206 to 208 rpms.

That amount is far below your standard deviation.

Next is why 3-4%.

If you had a 16 lb ball, and reduce it to 15, you've decreased the weight by 6%, why would your rev rate only increase 3-4%

If you are going to use a source for your information, it's best to provide some way of confirming it's not your stinky place, but someone else's.

[Doghouse Reilly]

A FYI:

I believe the article being referenced is:
"The Science of Bowling: How does ball weight affect rev rate?"
https://cmgbb.wordpress.com/


Prediction to save everyone some time:
MW will go and read the article, come back and say the math wasn't done right and that the conclusions are all wrong etc.
or at the vary least say Aslan left something out. LOL

[Mike White]

A FYI:

I believe the article being referenced is:
"The Science of Bowling: How does ball weight affect rev rate?"
https://cmgbb.wordpress.com/


Prediction to save everyone some time:
MW will go and read the article, come back and say the math wasn't done right and that the conclusions are all wrong etc.
or at the vary least say Aslan left something out. LOL

Their conclusions aren't wrong.

Conclusion
What can we take away from this? One thing that stands out is that the difference is not very significant – dropping from 16 to 15 gave, at most, a 4% gain, which is not a great deal. Another thing that stands out is that if the RG of the ball goes up as the weight goes down, the gain is much smaller. When the RG dropped, the gain in rev rate was magnified. Analyzing the equations, we can see that when the RG remains constant, the percentage difference in rev rate will be the percentage difference in the square root of the weight of the ball. If the core changes in dynamics, that difference can be exaggerated or reduced. My conclusion? A higher rev rate is not a great reason to drop in weight.

What I'm not a fan of is the idea that somehow the body knows to only produce x force when applying revs to a ball so when you increase the mass of the ball, the body still only produces x force, and acheives fewer revs.

It's my opinion that the body will compensate with additional force on the heavier ball to achieve a similar rev rate to what was achieved on the lighter ball, and less force on a lighter ball.

I have first hand (or should I say first elbow) experience in throwing revs with multiple weight balls.

Using a 15 pound ball caused enough force back on my elbow to tear some muscles around the elbow.

Dropping to 14 pounds has not caused any similar tearing.

If I had applied the same force on the ball, the ball would be applying the same force back on my elbow.

[Aslan]

A FYI:

I believe the article being referenced is:
"The Science of Bowling: How does ball weight affect rev rate?"
https://cmgbb.wordpress.com/


Prediction to save everyone some time:
MW will go and read the article, come back and say the math wasn't done right and that the conclusions are all wrong etc.
or at the vary least say Aslan left something out. LOL

Correct on all counts!!

[Mike White]

Correct on all counts!!

Predictable in the sense that your ability to skip over the most important parts of the story cloud what you think the story is telling you.

That whole Weight vs Rev Rate page dealt with the scientific consequences of a "what if", while ignoring the "what if not".

They made the assumption that the bowler will apply the same force regardless of the weight, or RG of the ball... Thats' the "what if"

They ignore the possibility that the bowler will apply a different force under those changing situations. The "what if not"

If you properly read the assumptions and grasped it's significance, your comment would read as:

"2) For each 1lb reduction in weight, you may or may not get a 3-4% increase in revs. A 3-4% increase in revs may or may not lead to a preferable entry angle that may or may not result in a 10% increase in pin carry."

It would have been better if rather than completely rely on the theoretical, they actually did some measurements on a population of bowlers, then report their findings.

Joe Slowinski is a proponent of measuring bowlers rather than going with the theoretical.

But even he didn't mention the glaring flaw in a study he quoted.

Article from bowlingknowledge.info

And the report it's based on.

Aging effects on Bowling

The study limited the population to bowlers either on the PBA, or PBA seniors.

Then it found the decline in ability of the aged was low.

Well duh, if the decline wasn't low in those people, they no longer would have been on the PBA, or PBA seniors.

They completely ignore the population that used to be on the PBA, but quit due to decline in ability.

[Aslan]

They made the assumption that the bowler will apply the same force regardless of the weight, or RG of the ball...

Yes. They assumed that the bowler would bowl properly and not try to muscle a shot.

It would have been better if rather than completely rely on the theoretical, they actually did some measurements on a population of bowlers, then report their findings.

I did that and everyone "poo pooed" it saying the real data was tainted because it was ME throwing the ball and thus affected by my imperfections. So, do we want Mike Fagan throwing a ball to see what a pin change would do? And then have Mike Fagan throw 3 different weights to test THIS hypothesis/theory? Or do we want me and ZDawg and Iceman to throw different pin balls and different weight balls to see what the differences may or may not be?

You claimed the study was imaginary..it's not imaginary...so, thats all I care about. If you still hate it...write an angry letter to the author!

Joe Slowinski is a proponent of measuring bowlers rather than going with the theoretical.

He also has the tendency to come off as an arrogant jerk if you deal with him directly. Maybe he's cooler than I think...never met him in person...I thought Rob was arrogant online and in person he's not nearly what I thought...maybe Joe is the same way. But in the few internet interactions I've had with Joe...he comes off like a guy that isn't going to take your criticism constructively. He probably won't even bother coming down from the skyscraper high horse he sits on to even acknowledge your opinion exists.

[Mike White]

Yes. They assumed that the bowler would bowl properly and not try to muscle a shot.

The No Muscle Armswing improves accuracy.

If you take the No Muscle concept thru to release, you end up with no revs.

I did that and everyone "poo pooed" it saying the real data was tainted because it was ME throwing the ball and thus affected by my imperfections. So, do we want Mike Fagan throwing a ball to see what a pin change would do? And then have Mike Fagan throw 3 different weights to test THIS hypothesis/theory? Or do we want me and ZDawg and Iceman to throw different pin balls and different weight balls to see what the differences may or may not be?

The sample size of one inconsistent person tainted the study. Also you're inability to see those few shots were the drilling actually did make a difference tainted your conclusion.

You claimed the study was imaginary..it's not imaginary...so, thats all I care about. If you still hate it...write an angry letter to the author!

Ok you found someone who said the 3-4% number, but they did that in a theoretical sense. Nowhere was there any comment about a 10% increase in pin carry in that study.

The "study" was prompted by an interesting discussion

In that discussion, the physics "expert" seems to let his bowling opinions override his physics knowledge.

In physics, kinetic friction is always less than static friction.

In bowling, a ball that has rolled out hits weaker than a ball that hasn't rolled out.

So the physics expert (Mkirchie) concludes that since a ball that has rolled out is undergoing static friction, and a ball that is still hooking is undergoing kinetic friction, therefore kinetic friction is larger than static friction.

The lone dissenter (Luksa) objects correctly, but lacks the confidence to stand his ground.

Finally the bowling expert (CoachJim) injects this gem.

4. The Roll Phase happens when the ball has started rolling in the direction of the side rotation. I think this is the point of confusion as the ball still is hooking in this phase.

Ok this discussion occurred 5 years ago, so the opinions of these people may have changed since then, but there is some serious misinformation in that discussion.