New Article... Feedback?

[ChuckR]

The following is the information on the Melee Hook I was lucky enough to win.
RG Max 2.537
RG Min 2.487
RG Differential .050
RG Average
Center Heavy (1) 3.6 Cover Heavy (10)
Hook Potential Low (10) 235 High (250)
Length Early (25) 70 Long (235)
Breakpoint Shape Smooth Arc (10) 70 Angular (150)

From what I can figure out. The ball should Rev late with a lot of hook with a smooth arc.
The other data is ?????????????

Laneside Reviews layed it out 70x5x20 with a motion hole.

[Jessiewoodard57]

Makes a lot of sense to me since I took a haywire that would not stay right of center and hit like a marshmallow, sanded it to 3000 and polished it and it rolls a lot like my Sinister now. Makes me think instead of a new ball anytime soon I need to buy a spinner instead.

[RobLV1]

Good Information as always. Now for a reality check.
Storm gives: Alpha Crux
Lbs. RG Diff. Interm. Diff. Weight Block
16 2.50 0.051 0.016 Click to View Larger
15 2.50 0.052 0.017 Click to View Larger

DV8 gives: Grudge
Asymmetrical Diff.
0.014 @ 15 lbs.
RG Max
0.000 @ 15 lbs.
RG Min
2.490 @ 15 lbs.
RG Differential
0.056 @ 15 lbs.
Hook Potential
Low (10) 265 High (225)
Length
Early (25) 105 Long (235)

I stopped with these 2 as most others are just as confusing.

Okay, balls of different weights are listed separately because the core numbers vary from weight to weight. If you look at the low RG and the differential, you will get what you need provided that you use the same layouts for all of your balls. All of the other stuff: hook potential, hook shape, length, etc. is all BS marketing rhetoric designed to get you to buy a particular bowling ball (telling you what their research says that you want to hear). If you use the same layout, realize that you can do anything you want to change the surface, and just look at the core numbers, you will realize that you have all the information you need without wading through all the BS that the ball companies try to sell you.

[billf]

Rob, this reminds me of a conversation we had many years ago so of course I like the article.

I do wish you had mentioned that "pearl" is an ingredient to the cover composition and is not what causes the shine. The Motiv Jackal is a good example of a dull pearl. The polish added does that. Easy cover manipulation to emulate what I'm looking for is why I've always been drawn to solids. However when the pearl version is cheaper I have no problem buying that and changing the surface to what I need.

[RobLV1]

Rob, this reminds me of a conversation we had many years ago so of course I like the article.

I do wish you had mentioned that "pearl" is an ingredient to the cover composition and is not what causes the shine. The Motiv Jackal is a good example of a dull pearl. The polish added does that. Easy cover manipulation to emulate what I'm looking for is why I've always been drawn to solids. However when the pearl version is cheaper I have no problem buying that and changing the surface to what I need.

Good point, Bill. I have a bad habit of overlooking things that are obvious to me but may not be to others.

[Amyers]

Rob, this reminds me of a conversation we had many years ago so of course I like the article.

I do wish you had mentioned that "pearl" is an ingredient to the cover composition and is not what causes the shine. The Motiv Jackal is a good example of a dull pearl. The polish added does that. Easy cover manipulation to emulate what I'm looking for is why I've always been drawn to solids. However when the pearl version is cheaper I have no problem buying that and changing the surface to what I need.

It always amazes me how many people don't know that

[Aslan]

Interesting article as always!

Just to add some credence to it...I was recently told something very similar by a ball rep (i.e. solids, hybrids, pearls don't matter....surface matters).

Does that mean I agree with Amyers (see past arguments)?

Sort of...

Yes, I've always agreed that surface is the most powerful effect on how soon a ball hooks. That has proven over and over again. But much like my debates with RobM over ball progression/arsenals....the difference in opinion is in the practicality:

IF...we decide to have an arsenal based on surface....then we must constantly maintain that surface. That requires a ball spinner, a LOT of abralon pads, and a lot of dedication to surfacing your bowling balls after each league night. Anything less than that commitment...and you're fooling yourself...because the finish on your bowling ball will not last more than one night...if that.

Just like my ball progression debate....IF we assume that a "progression" is a bad systems approach to attacking the lanes...then we need an alternate system...and that alternate system cannot be "Spin the Wheel of Destiny" or "Get information/hints by watching granny (not 'classy' per se...) throw her Columbia Yellow Dot straight up the middle of the lane at 6mph....and use that to make some determination."

What I WILL say...is that I have been 'learning' (believe it or not) some things that originally I was skeptical about...and I think RobM initially got me thinking about these things....

1) Manufacturer differences are more significant than I thought.
2) RG may be a better progression basis than cover material.

Now...the jury is still out on this one...
3) The technology difference is noticeable as time progresses.

1) I've noticed that Brunswick balls hook sooner than other manufacturers I've thrown. I've thrown Columbia, Hammer, 900Global, Storm, RotoGrip, and Brunswick....and have had very little luck with Columbia and Rotogrip. I just can't seem to make them move. The Hammer ball moved...but I had a LOT of surface on that ball. The Rotogrip ball seemed to garb early and just die...not sure why. The Storm ball had some movement...a little later. Now, everyone has their own experiences...and mine need much more sample size to be truly relevant...but going into this discussion I'd have guessed ZERO difference between manufacturers...and I'm seeing that was a false premise...at least preliminarily speaking.

2) PerfectScale and RG have been better indicators of when and how much a ball will hook than cover material. My 900Global was a hybrid...and it had WAY more movement than most of my last arsenal. My Asylum was a hybrid...it had very little movement and hit like a wet noodle. Looking at RGs...I can see how they would have been better at showing me how soon balls would hook...than just assuming solids hook first, pearls hook last. And while people hate my bringing up PerfectScale because it's not a true ball spec....if you really want to know how MUCH a ball will hook...in addition to when...it's been rather accurate at predicting that. I can't think of one example...where a ball with a lower PerfectScale number hooked like a monster or vice versa.

3) The test I did with the Melee Jab was inconclusive. It's newer technology...should have made it more aggressive than the older technology (but similar specs) Loaded Revolver. In some ways, it wasn't. In some ways...it was. The Jab didn't to bite as early as the Lo. Revolver....which I thought it would. However...it bit HARDER when it finally did. It would go a little longer...which I didn't expect based on it's technology and specs...but it reacted very strongly to friction...far more so than the Lo. Revolver. And THAT might be the technology difference I was looking for in the test.

The confusing thing about the Jab...is the RG. At 2.5012....I'd expect an earlier phase shift...yet that ball...very late (as long as it was in the oil)...almost what I'd term a "skid/flip". Which...is also weird because it's a symmetric core...yet had a rather angular motion at the end...also not what I would have expected.

So...still "learning"...but I'm getting more in the camp of Rob on cover materials and their insignificance. Which means....I might need to invest in a ball spinner...which I don't want to do...because I already get laughed at for my homemade de-oiler.

[Amyers]

Interesting article as always!

Just to add some credence to it...I was recently told something very similar by a ball rep (i.e. solids, hybrids, pearls don't matter....surface matters).

Does that mean I agree with Amyers (see past arguments)?

Sort of...

Yes, I've always agreed that surface is the most powerful effect on how soon a ball hooks. That has proven over and over again. But much like my debates with RobM over ball progression/arsenals....the difference in opinion is in the practicality:

IF...we decide to have an arsenal based on surface....then we must constantly maintain that surface. That requires a ball spinner, a LOT of abralon pads, and a lot of dedication to surfacing your bowling balls after each league night. Anything less than that commitment...and you're fooling yourself...because the finish on your bowling ball will not last more than one night...if that.

Just like my ball progression debate....IF we assume that a "progression" is a bad systems approach to attacking the lanes...then we need an alternate system...and that alternate system cannot be "Spin the Wheel of Destiny" or "Get information/hints by watching granny (not 'classy' per se...) throw her Columbia Yellow Dot straight up the middle of the lane at 6mph....and use that to make some determination."

What I WILL say...is that I have been 'learning' (believe it or not) some things that originally I was skeptical about...and I think RobM initially got me thinking about these things....

1) Manufacturer differences are more significant than I thought.
2) RG may be a better progression basis than cover material.

Now...the jury is still out on this one...
3) The technology difference is noticeable as time progresses.

1) I've noticed that Brunswick balls hook sooner than other manufacturers I've thrown. I've thrown Columbia, Hammer, 900Global, Storm, RotoGrip, and Brunswick....and have had very little luck with Columbia and Rotogrip. I just can't seem to make them move. The Hammer ball moved...but I had a LOT of surface on that ball. The Rotogrip ball seemed to garb early and just die...not sure why. The Storm ball had some movement...a little later. Now, everyone has their own experiences...and mine need much more sample size to be truly relevant...but going into this discussion I'd have guessed ZERO difference between manufacturers...and I'm seeing that was a false premise...at least preliminarily speaking.

2) PerfectScale and RG have been better indicators of when and how much a ball will hook than cover material. My 900Global was a hybrid...and it had WAY more movement than most of my last arsenal. My Asylum was a hybrid...it had very little movement and hit like a wet noodle. Looking at RGs...I can see how they would have been better at showing me how soon balls would hook...than just assuming solids hook first, pearls hook last. And while people hate my bringing up PerfectScale because it's not a true ball spec....if you really want to know how MUCH a ball will hook...in addition to when...it's been rather accurate at predicting that. I can't think of one example...where a ball with a lower PerfectScale number hooked like a monster or vice versa.

3) The test I did with the Melee Jab was inconclusive. It's newer technology...should have made it more aggressive than the older technology (but similar specs) Loaded Revolver. In some ways, it wasn't. In some ways...it was. The Jab didn't to bite as early as the Lo. Revolver....which I thought it would. However...it bit HARDER when it finally did. It would go a little longer...which I didn't expect based on it's technology and specs...but it reacted very strongly to friction...far more so than the Lo. Revolver. And THAT might be the technology difference I was looking for in the test.

The confusing thing about the Jab...is the RG. At 2.5012....I'd expect an earlier phase shift...yet that ball...very late (as long as it was in the oil)...almost what I'd term a "skid/flip". Which...is also weird because it's a symmetric core...yet had a rather angular motion at the end...also not what I would have expected.

So...still "learning"...but I'm getting more in the camp of Rob on cover materials and their insignificance. Which means....I might need to invest in a ball spinner...which I don't want to do...because I already get laughed at for my homemade de-oiler.

Lol I don't really think the reason people are laughing at you is the home made ball oven so I think your safe to buy the ball spinner.

Why you think balls have to be asymmetrical to be skid flip I will never know. Storm Hyroad Pearl, DV8 Diva (any of the polished ones), Hammer Viral, and the Radical Rave On are all balls that have symmetrical cores that flip pretty hard on the back. Anytime you have a polished surface, higher rg, and moderate differential your going to get a pretty angular reaction no matter the cores shape.

[Aslan]

Why you think balls have to be asymmetrical to be skid flip I will never know. Storm Hyroad Pearl, DV8 Diva (any of the polished ones), Hammer Viral, and the Radical Rave On are all balls that have symmetrical cores that flip pretty hard on the back. Anytime you have a polished surface, higher rg, and moderate differential your going to get a pretty angular reaction no matter the cores shape.

Well...lets just say I got weird looks in the elevator at the casino in Vegas...and two people asked me "What is that?" Having to explain a bowling ball de-oiler to drunk people in an elevator...is nearly impossible.

As to the "assymetric" comment....it's simple. If I ask you what the difference is between assymetric cores and symmetric cores...what are you going to tell me? Probably...that symmetric cores are more smooth arc shape and assymetric more angular.

So...if I ask you to describe to me "skid/flip"....you're going to say it's where the ball skids longer...then "flips".

So when you ask these questions...and the definition of "skid/flip" and "assymetric cores" are similar...it begs the question...how does a symmetric core 'help' a ball be "skid/flip"? Just like...why would you want a "dull" "skid/flip" ball? Isn't the point...that the ball skids? Doesn't adding surface reduce said "skidding"?

These type of questions are where the bowling ball industry has kinda fallen flat on their face a bit...they have so many variables in their specs....that some seem to contradict each other. It lends even more to Rob's article discussion...because when a company adds "pearl, hybrid, solid"...and those things don't really mean anything...then what else doesn't really mean anything? Differential? Core (symmetric/assymetric)?

Ball motion/specs are based in physics. Physics doesn't change. There has to be constant truths when it comes to Physics. It can't be "well, some companies the motion as it relates to the core is different..." Nope. Can't do that. You're violating the rules of Physics. If an assymetric core gives X reaction...and you want Y reaction...then the X reaction is not preferable towards obtaining the Y reaction. If it's meaningless...then it's meaningless. Like cover materials. Either they are or are not...chemically different. And said chemical difference either does or does not affect the ball motion. The chemistry can't be "variable"...you can't pick up the ball and sometimes it chemically is one way and other times chemically a different way.

The industry needs to be honest about what matters and what doesn't....what makes a ball go longer versus shorter...what makes a ball react in an angular way versus a smoother arc way...and those have to ALWAYS be true...not various versions of 'true' depending on the company, ball, star allignement, moon phases, and el nino effects.

[NewToBowling]

Keep in mind all symmetrical balls are asymmetrical once they are drilled. I don't think there is a world of difference between asymmetrical vs symmetrical balls as the mfg would lend you to believe.

Same with pearls/solids/hybrids. Honestly not much difference between Haywire and Hywire. Polish up a Haywire and voila = Hywire