New Article... Feedback?

[bowl1820]

Great! Finally....a definition we can use!

Okay...given that definition...I'm going to assume it is correct.

I recognize the definition, That came from Mo Pinel. So it more likely than not it's accurate.

worst post ever.

You called it there, That post was just dirt threw in the water to make mud.

[Doghouse Reilly]

Right that's from MO.


Here's some info posted by "charlest", he's known on all the other bowling forums.


Skid/Flip:
It's the relationship of:

The cover's finish.
The strength of the core.
The amount of oil and the amount of dry backend.
Together with the bowler's rev rate/ball speed ratio and their tilt and rotation.

You need to look at all these factors in relation to one another and by themselves, this will help to determine how much the ball will skid/flip.

- If you dull the ball, it will tend to hook earlier and save less for the backend; thus reducing its tendency to s/f. Adding more polish will increase the flip.

- If you use a more end-over-end release (less rotation), it will s/f less. More rotation or more tilt will increase the s/f.

- If you use it on longer oil, with a shorter dry backend, it will s/f less.

- If you drill it with a higher RG (pin further from the PAP, keeping all other relationships the same), it will s/f more.

- If you use a smaller VAL angle, it will s/f more.

A low RG Diff on the ball usually adds control; usually a higher RG diff will cause a greater tendency to s/f, all other things being equal.

If you're rev dominant (more revs than speed), more balls are likely to be skid/flip.

For someone who is speed dominant or who is rev/speed matched, lower RG would usually help a ball to rev up earlier and reduce s/f tendencies.

[Aslan]

So it sounds like Doghouse is saying I'm correct...there are certain specs that would make a ball less ideal as a "skid/flip" ball and thus certain balls can't reasonably claim to be "skid/flip" as they don't meet the definition or meet it far less than "ideal".

[Aslan]

You called it there, That post was just dirt threw in the water to make mud.

I hope it wins a ball just to spite you.

[rv driver]

I haven't read the whole bread, but it occurs to me that sell of thes measurements of ball reaction are treated as if they're acvomplished in a vacuum. Which, as we all know, simply is not the case. There's approach/swing/release characteristics and anomalies, as well as lane conditions that will affect how a ball reacts. It's the ball in real-world conditions that's important and hard to analyze, due to the plethora of variables present.

[rv driver]

"Thread," not "bread."

[bowl1820]

So it sounds like Doghouse is saying I'm correct...there are certain specs that would make a ball less ideal as a "skid/flip" ball and thus certain balls can't reasonably claim to be "skid/flip" as they don't meet the definition or meet it far less than "ideal".

Of course there are certain ball specifications that are better suited for and can enhance (make more pronounced) a skid/flip reaction nobody says there not.

But just because a ball doesn't have those specifications doesn't mean it can't be skid/flip to some extent, just that it won't be as skid/flippy as one that has those specifications can be.

[Aslan]

But just because a ball doesn't have those specifications doesn't mean it can't be skid/flip to some extent, just that it won't be as skid/flippy as one that has those specifications can be.

But that's the point Bowl1820!

At what point is a "truck" a "car"? At what point is a dog a wolf? What is "heavy" vs "light"?

Most people in every bowling thread on the internet seems to think specifications actually MEAN something....yet nearly all of them are in agreement that everything is just variable and it's hard to say and sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, etc... Nobody wants to actually define anything....which makes specifications useless.

For example, lets say I start a bowling ball company and claim my bowling balls go longer and snap harder than any other balls on the market. Then a bowler buys them and I get a customer complaint saying my bowling balls don't work as advertised. I simply respond that using my specific release, drilling, lanes, oil conditions, humidity, and speed...my claims are true. How does a person refute my claims....if my claims are based on nothing? How can a person argue that a core plays a certain role in a ball's motion....if we can't define what a core does and what a core does not do?

I'm working off the assumption....that bowling ball companies are not just making things up. I assume they actually believe core and RG and differential and cover stock....that these things MATTER. And most people would agree they do. But when I say, "Okay...then the IDEAL skid/flip ball would be "INSERT IDEAL SPECS"....everyone gasps and says, "Whoa...whoa....I throw a Rotogrip Poopmaster and it's way more skid/flip than the Storm Stinkvomit! Those stats don't mean anything!"

IF stats mean something...then there must be an ideal for a certain reaction. Anything, any stat, any spec....that is not that ideal....is less than ideal. It can't be both ways. I can't sand a bowling ball and claim I'm trying to make it go longer. I can't polish a bowling ball and try to make it hook sooner. Likewise, I can't say a solid, sanded ball is "skid/flip"....when sanding it or making it out of a solid cover....causes it to hook sooner....because then it's not "Skidding". If an RG makes a ball hook sooner....then a low RG ball...cannot be "skid/flip". If a symmetric core is designed to smooth out the ball motion....then that's not "flip"....that's a "skid/curve" ball.

I find it odd that most people claim "PerfectScale" is useless...yet they believe cover stocks....they believe RGs....they believe in surfaces....all of which are taken into account with the PerfectScale. Most bowlers agree that the core does something....they just can't tell you exactly what it does.

I believe a true "skid/flip" ball MUST be a polished, pearl with a high RG and an assymetric core. Anything less than those....detracts from it's ability to truly "skid/flip". I believe, this is also why many people (Rob, Amyers, etc...) have said that they feel Brunswick struggles with making a "skid/flip" ball....which makes sense because Brunswick covers are considered by most to hook sooner than other ball makers. So a Radical, Brunswick, or DV8....would not be "ideal" for a skid/flip ball. But that's just my "theory". I'm sure many of the DV8 guys will argue that they've had some very good "skid/flip" balls. Unless we have the robot help us...truly defining these things gets lost in a cloud of "well, his release is....*****....on **** lanes....as a tweener....throwing at that speed...etc..."

One thing I find frustrating is watching the ball videos. You see guys throwing these balls...and they are all going long and snapping. Even the strokers/tweeners seem to be generating 400rpms....and it looks like the breakpoint on the lanes has been sanded or something....the balls hit the breakpoint like a golf ball hitting a cinder block. Then all us "dummies"....see those videos and go, "Oooooo! That ball really turns the corner!! I need to get THAT ball!! Then even my horrid release can result in Jason Belmonte type of carry!!!" Then we buy it....the ball does nothing but make a tiny move on the backend...and we think it's "broken".

I'm very worried about my next arsenal. I have a LOT of polished pearls with low RGs...and I want to start throwing the Defiant Edge. But the logical part of my brain is asking, "Why throw a polished pearl Rotogrip ball....with an RG that is going to try and get it to hook sooner....while the cover is trying to make it go longer?" Maybe...it'll be a pleasant surprise....maybe the cover/surface allows it to clear the heads...retaining power...and the core then overcomes my higher speed...to get the ball to make a definitive move to the pocket. Maybe. Or....I might be disappointed....because the ball will have no energy downlane...because the core wants to hook before the ball ever 'grabs' or find friction.

The opposite is true for the Bullet Train I plan to un-retire. I have a feeling that the core is going to save up energy...higher RG...but that dam S79 cover...even if I get it surfaced to 3000 and polish the heck out of it....is going to want to grab as soon as it finds any friction. That will result in two balls....neither of which can carry...so I'll be using a Track300A and constantly cussing up a storm because that ball isn't going to make ANY move...ever...so I'm going to subconsciously "try" to make it move...and then I'm back to square 1.

Mudpuppy Cliff Notes: Second worst post ever. Bowl 2-handed and the ball won't matter.

[Amyers]

But that's the point Bowl1820!

At what point is a "truck" a "car"? At what point is a dog a wolf? What is "heavy" vs "light"?

Most people in every bowling thread on the internet seems to think specifications actually MEAN something....yet nearly all of them are in agreement that everything is just variable and it's hard to say and sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, etc... Nobody wants to actually define anything....which makes specifications useless.

For example, lets say I start a bowling ball company and claim my bowling balls go longer and snap harder than any other balls on the market. Then a bowler buys them and I get a customer complaint saying my bowling balls don't work as advertised. I simply respond that using my specific release, drilling, lanes, oil conditions, humidity, and speed...my claims are true. How does a person refute my claims....if my claims are based on nothing? How can a person argue that a core plays a certain role in a ball's motion....if we can't define what a core does and what a core does not do?

I'm working off the assumption....that bowling ball companies are not just making things up. I assume they actually believe core and RG and differential and cover stock....that these things MATTER. And most people would agree they do. But when I say, "Okay...then the IDEAL skid/flip ball would be "INSERT IDEAL SPECS"....everyone gasps and says, "Whoa...whoa....I throw a Rotogrip Poopmaster and it's way more skid/flip than the Storm Stinkvomit! Those stats don't mean anything!"

IF stats mean something...then there must be an ideal for a certain reaction. Anything, any stat, any spec....that is not that ideal....is less than ideal. It can't be both ways. I can't sand a bowling ball and claim I'm trying to make it go longer. I can't polish a bowling ball and try to make it hook sooner. Likewise, I can't say a solid, sanded ball is "skid/flip"....when sanding it or making it out of a solid cover....causes it to hook sooner....because then it's not "Skidding". If an RG makes a ball hook sooner....then a low RG ball...cannot be "skid/flip". If a symmetric core is designed to smooth out the ball motion....then that's not "flip"....that's a "skid/curve" ball.

I find it odd that most people claim "PerfectScale" is useless...yet they believe cover stocks....they believe RGs....they believe in surfaces....all of which are taken into account with the PerfectScale. Most bowlers agree that the core does something....they just can't tell you exactly what it does.

I believe a true "skid/flip" ball MUST be a polished, pearl with a high RG and an assymetric core. Anything less than those....detracts from it's ability to truly "skid/flip". I believe, this is also why many people (Rob, Amyers, etc...) have said that they feel Brunswick struggles with making a "skid/flip" ball....which makes sense because Brunswick covers are considered by most to hook sooner than other ball makers. So a Radical, Brunswick, or DV8....would not be "ideal" for a skid/flip ball. But that's just my "theory". I'm sure many of the DV8 guys will argue that they've had some very good "skid/flip" balls. Unless we have the robot help us...truly defining these things gets lost in a cloud of "well, his release is....*****....on **** lanes....as a tweener....throwing at that speed...etc..."

One thing I find frustrating is watching the ball videos. You see guys throwing these balls...and they are all going long and snapping. Even the strokers/tweeners seem to be generating 400rpms....and it looks like the breakpoint on the lanes has been sanded or something....the balls hit the breakpoint like a golf ball hitting a cinder block. Then all us "dummies"....see those videos and go, "Oooooo! That ball really turns the corner!! I need to get THAT ball!! Then even my horrid release can result in Jason Belmonte type of carry!!!" Then we buy it....the ball does nothing but make a tiny move on the backend...and we think it's "broken".

I'm very worried about my next arsenal. I have a LOT of polished pearls with low RGs...and I want to start throwing the Defiant Edge. But the logical part of my brain is asking, "Why throw a polished pearl Rotogrip ball....with an RG that is going to try and get it to hook sooner....while the cover is trying to make it go longer?" Maybe...it'll be a pleasant surprise....maybe the cover/surface allows it to clear the heads...retaining power...and the core then overcomes my higher speed...to get the ball to make a definitive move to the pocket. Maybe. Or....I might be disappointed....because the ball will have no energy downlane...because the core wants to hook before the ball ever 'grabs' or find friction.

The opposite is true for the Bullet Train I plan to un-retire. I have a feeling that the core is going to save up energy...higher RG...but that dam S79 cover...even if I get it surfaced to 3000 and polish the heck out of it....is going to want to grab as soon as it finds any friction. That will result in two balls....neither of which can carry...so I'll be using a Track300A and constantly cussing up a storm because that ball isn't going to make ANY move...ever...so I'm going to subconsciously "try" to make it move...and then I'm back to square 1.

Mudpuppy Cliff Notes: Second worst post ever. Bowl 2-handed and the ball won't matter.

Well as far as impartial testing the only thing I've ever seen are the USBC studies and Mo with Radical using the throwbot and I've seen numerous people poo on even those. Honestly I think most of the development takes place by having pro's and staffers tell them what they want and them supplying test balls until they find something that fulfills that wish. At the very least I know some of that goes on because I know people who have participated in them.

Part of the issue here is your looking for absolutes on what the ball will or can do and the rest of us are talking relative motion. The other part of this is your failure to grasp the fact that everything is realitive and a tradeoff in bowling. Too high of an RG will go to long for some players that can be off set by adding surface or a stronger coverstock. Too low of an RG may hook to early for some bowlers reduce the surface. The point of a bowling ball is to provide a margin to the largest percentage of people that will buy the ball not too simply build what has the largest backend reaction.

This is why you see low rg balls with polished surfaces and high rg with lots of surface or a manufacturer that makes a polished solid or a sanded pearl. It is a design tweek to make the ball more useable or to improve it's shelf appeal.

The ball can never provide more than what you put into it. if you throw at 18 mph and have 200 revs it's going to be a dart regardless. If you have low speed and high revs odds are good your going to struggle to keep the ball from hooking too much/ too early not matter what type it is. Now the incorrect choices can make either of these situations worse but balls aren't miracle workers.

Mo himself has state that he's not a huge fan of the skid/flip motion so it's not terribly suprising you don't see huge amounts of that probably the closest thig to it is the RAVE On and Rack Attack pearls both of which are weaker balls but somewhat skid/flip and symmetrical cored lol. I don't see much DV8 around here but I think ther last big attempt was the Schnizo which didn't go well. As for Brunswick their last big one was the Exile which my coach uses as lower oil ball when he wants to play straighter lol. Brunswick does make the Diva line which has had some somewhat skippy pieces in again symmetrical cored. I actually thik the problem is the opossit that their covers are somewhat weaker and don't have the power to quickly transition them but I could be wrong about that.

[ChuckR]

A comment for Amyers on Brunswick. I mentioned in another post that I had the Melee Hook I won drilled 50x4x30 and when it finds friction it rolls into the pocket with authority. I do hope this will last as it only has 6 games on it. My Mastermind Genius has the s/f style at 40x4x30.