Next Arsenal Dilemmas: Part III

[Amyers]

Well, in this case the RG, cover checmisty, and surface will be kept relatively constant. So, by your theory, all three of these balls will react identically. And thats possible. Thats why it's a theory and you test it.

Why on earth do you think the cover chemistry is a constant between three different balls made by three different manufacturers? other than the fact the covers are all resin and you don't have a urethane or plastic in there the covers are not a constant. The surfaces are all different for each of those balls also not a constant in the arsenal. I never said the balls will react the same I expect the Reax to be earlier and the Defiant to be later with more backend I have no idea what that innovate will be like. That's the issue here is your making assumptions. You assume that because you have three pearls the coverstocks are the same they are not. You have three polished balls so the surface is the same they are not.

True, but as we've argued about before...how successful surface changes are depend on two rather important questions.
1) How long does a X Abralon surface last? Depends on the surface low grits ie 500 starts changing within a game higher grit surface last much longer on average 500-1500 should be refreshed by hand after every series. 2000-4000 refresh by hand every other series. Polished surfaces are a little more difficult but I redo them when the ball reaction changes usually about every 40 games or so.

How does the surface change each time the ball is thrown? Surface grit always changes towards matching the lane surface around 4500 to 5000 grit. There have been numerous studies done on this I'm not just making it up


2) How effective are hand applied surface changes? Very effective for unpolished surfaces not so much with polished surfaces

If surface changes are your strategy, you need to know roughly how the use of the ball changes the surface. If you know that a 3000 Abralon ends up being a 3130 Abralon after 1 series...then you can make adjustments to surface accordingly. And, just as important, you have to be able to change surface by hand. If not, you need a personal ball spinner. Most inexpensive models are poor quality. The more professional units are very costly. And paying a pro shop $25 per ball every 3 games...thats essentially $75-$100 per week of surfacing cost. For a pro that gets this service for free by their rep out in the truck...not a big deal. For the 99.4% of the rest of the bowlers...it's an absurd expense.

No one suggest you have your ball completely resurfaced every 3 games maintain lower grit surface by hand and redo polished surfaces every 40 games or so. I know even in Cali you can find a proshop to resurface for $15 mine lets me use there machine for free as long as I buy my pads and polishes from him. $15/40=$.37 per game think you can afford it.


I don't understand this comment. You seem to be saying RG is irrelevant and manufacturer differences are myths. I can tell you that PBA professionals...more than 1...have stated there is a BIG difference between one company and another. Radical is believed to hook the soonest...followed by Brunswick. Ebonite/Track/Columbia tend to hook the latest. The rest of the brands fit in between.

I am in no way stating RG is irrelevant not sure where you got that from but brand is completely irrelevant when a ball starts to hook is determined by Surface, Cover Stock, R.G, and maybe somewhat the differential although that's really more how not when. Notice brand is nowhere included in that list. Anybody who thinks all Radical balls are early have never thrown the Ridiculous or the Reax Gusto. Storm is well known for balls that are late and have big backend take a look at the Alpha Crux that ball isn't late. The ball manufactures try to make a complete line anymore, thinking that particular manufactures are only making one type of ball motion is just a fallacy.


Are you sure? How did Motiv cheat? Answer = Differential. Why would a company choose differential as the way to cheat if differential didn't really matter much?

One of the reasons why you and I argued about how serious the Motiv Carnage thing really was. On the Pro Tour I doubt to many of them are troubled by the difference of whether a ball has a differential of .61 or .59. For bowlers at our skill level I don't think we would notice if the ball was .61 or .41. Differential primarily effects flare potential most of us don't have releases powerful enough to cause 7+ inches of flare anyway and even if we did it really doesn't matter as long as the ball is flaring enough to expose fresh ball surface it doesn't matter if the gaps between the flare rings are .25 or .75 the effect is the same.


Poor PerfectScale...nobody likes it. : ( The bottom line is you need a quantitative way to compare balls from numerous manufacturers. There is no method that is currently available that is more likely to be worth a darn. It's not "Perfect"...but nobody else has a better system...so until they do, we have PerfectScale.

Not to mention, I've seen a decent correlation between PerfectScale and overall ball reaction. Lets look at an example:
Arsenal #1.
When I put Arsenal #1 together, a couple years back, I thought the progression would be:

Hammer Rhythm, 900Global Bullet Train, Columbia300 Encounter, Brunswick Slingshot. That is putting together an arsenal based on cover material. Solid, Hybrid, Pearl, Pearl. But when I went to put this together, the ball driller that was going to drill the Bullet Train said the Bullet Train cover (S79) would be too strong to be used as a ball down option and he would suggest the Bullet Train be the 1st ball in the progression for medium-heavy oil.

So the new progression was Bullet Train, Rhythm, Encounter, Slingshot.

Had I used RG, the progression would have been Rhythm (2.50), Encounter (2.51), Bullet Train (2.55), Slingshot (2.586).
Had I used manufacturer strength, it would have been Slingshot, Bullet Train, Rhythm, Encounter.
Had I used PerfectScale, it would have been Bullet Train (222.8), Rhythm (211), Encounter (203.8), Slingshot (157.6). <----Ding Ding Ding!!

In other words, PerfectScale predicted the exact arsenal and progression that the ball driller eventually suggested. Why? How? Luck? Randomness?

It's actually quite simple. PerfectScale takes into account all of the above specs, data, and how balls behave when tested...to give a number that has a lot of information that goes into it's make-up. I'm not trying to convince anyone to use PerfectScale. I promise, I get no royalties...I don't work for bowlingball.com...if I did, Bowl1820 would probably resign and we'd lose about 1/3 of our community. But so far...I have seen no actual data nor testing that shows PerfectScale to be any less reliable a system for arsenal and progression development...than any other spec. The great thing about the arsenal and progression tool I'm working on is it takes into account ALL of these items. PerfectScale is just 1 of 7 variables. Currently all values are weighted equally...but that would probably change once I get the testing complete.

I think you just proved my point about the importance of who the manufacturer of the ball is

I meant by having all the cores assymetrical, that variable is held constant. I didn't mean symmetry didn't mean anything.

I know what you meant and it's still wrong.

Radical Reax RG Int. .013
RG Defiant Edge RG Int. .017
Ebonite Innovate RG Int. .008 (actually should be considered symmetrical)

Neck not even close to a constant



Again...not saying you can ever isolate just one variable...when comparing balls from numerous time periods and manufacturers. But you also will have a difficult time trying to understand the effects of specs on a progression or arsenal...if you have a large number of variables. Every time you reach a conclusion...someone can just point to one of the many variables and say your conclusion is wrong.

The trick is, with 7 variables...potentially 8 or more...to truly isolate a variable...would require a much larger pool of equipment to test. I am interested...but not that interested...nor that wealthy. But if a manufacturer wants to furnish me the equipment, I'd gladly accept the challenge.

Consider the surface, rg., cover strength, manufacturer intent, and especially what you need the ball to do and make your decision. It doesn't require 7 or 8 data points to build an arsenal. If you want to make it easier decide on a brand preference and it makes it even simpler.

Like I argue with Rob. At the end of the day you need a system you can use to build an arsenal and are likely going to be building an arsenal of a lot of different manufacturers. That means you need a way to slot balls in your arsenal. Of course there are nearly 10 variables to consider...and thats the trick. Which of these variables MEAN something? Which of them MATTER? If they all matter, then we'll never have a true system to create an arsenal. Just might as well buy 3 random balls and use constant surfacing to try an manipulate ball movement.

It makes more sense than using brand as a basis in putting your balls in a progression

Above comments in red

[bowl1820]

Are you sure? How did Motiv cheat? Answer = Differential. Why would a company choose differential as the way to cheat if differential didn't really matter much?

From most all of the discussions that's been had on Jackalgate throughout the forums and info from the company. I believe it's been concluded that Motiv wasn't deliberately cheating, it's was just a issue of poor quality control.

The core molds were reused to the point were they began to wear and deform, which altered the core spec's.

Quality control wasn't monitoring properly considering that the Jackal cores were right at the upper limit of the differential spec's to begin with. So ball's started to be produced that were out of spec. and thus illegal.

[Aslan]

Above comments in red

Great. Now I can't quote you and respond because you put your answer in the quote of my post...which I can't see without going back and looking at your response and then copying and pasting and re-quoting it manually.

So, summary response:
1) The fact that all 3 are pearls is constant. That cannot change. You CAN surface the balls. And honestly, as I think Rob would agree, you can surface a Pearl to hook sooner than a solid...absolutely...surface trumps everything concerning ball movement. But..."Pearl" is held constant. So, yes, I am evaluating the null hypothesis that Pearls are Pearls and there are no differences due to manufacturer. That is the fancy statistical way of saying, I think there will be a difference between these "Pearls" due to manufacturer differences.

2) As I said before...the effect of a ball picking up oil...and dulling the surface of the ball (from 3000-5000 over time for example) FAR outweighs the physical effect of the ball striking various surfaces. But anyone that has ever bowled with their own equipment...will attest that over time....there are chips and such on the ball. That is the result of a ball being thrown through the air, hitting a hard surface, striking pins, falling in the return, going through the return, and then repeating that process thousands of times. It is physically impossible...even if the bowling ball was made of diamond...that external forces (air, temperature, physical forces, etc..) will not have some impact on the ball. Granted, this "damage" and "roughing up" of the bowling ball is outweighed by the oil...causing the NET result to be the ball losing surface over time, not gaining surface.

But as I said before. Managing your arsenal through surface prep, in my opinion, is a bad idea and a costly proposition. Even at $15 per week (the low end of the numbers thrown around), you've paying $325 (roughly) per season to maintain a given surface. Would you rather spend $325/season surfacing your old bowling balls? Or use that money to buy two new bowling balls at the end of the season? Which is why, for anyone stuck on surface manipulation as the way to create their arsenal...I would strongly recommend getting a professional ball spinner for $200-$400...because it'll pay for itself in a year. You can try for the $89 cheapie carp online or even create your own...but in this area, I think you get what you pay for.

3) I have no problem using one brand that I am confident about and building my arsenal the way they build it. The problem with this is the ball manufacturers aren't honest. They tell you that every 6 months their technology changes, then they re-release old cores in new covers. They tell you that you need a solid a hybrid and a pearl...yet testing seems to point to the fact that there may be no difference at all between a solid a hybrid and a pearl.

But presently, I have no confidence in any one ball manufacturer that would lead me down a path to be brad loyal to one brand. And the vast majority of bowlers are not loyal to one brand. So, I think there is a need for a scientific-based approach to arsenal creation and progression creation that takes into account all of the manufacturers.

From most all of the discussions that's been had on Jackalgate throughout the forums and info from the company. I believe it's been concluded that Motiv wasn't deliberately cheating, it's was just a issue of poor quality control.

The core molds were reused to the point were they began to wear and deform, which altered the core spec's.

Quality control wasn't monitoring properly considering that the Jackal cores were right at the upper limit of the differential spec's to begin with. So ball's started to be produced that were out of spec. and thus illegal.

There are multiple reasons I would disagree with that conclusion.
1) Motiv did not immediately come out and say it was an error and they were looking into it. Public Relations 101. If you honestly made a mistake or think that the manufacture of these items was a mistake....it would be the FIRST thing you say...rather than their initial response which was, "Okay. We'll stop selling those and reimburse everyone and pay the fine."

2) I've discussed this with multiple bowlers...some PBA level...and the consensus opinion in their "circles" is that Motiv knew, their staff knew, their athletes knew, and the athletes of other manufacturers knew. That is why I asked the PBA to conduct their own independent review...which I'm sure they looked at, tried to read, didn't understand, then threw it off the side of their yacht into the ocean.

3) EVEN IF...we assume this new explanation from liars...about lying...is accurate. From a quality control standpoint...how in the WORLD do you create a spec at the extreme upper limit of the specifications...then "not check"? If I was a loyal Motiv guy...I'd be VERY worried that apparently Motiv's QC protocol is non-existent. Every ball manufacturer....EVERY one...should have a QC protocol for their bowling balls. Before that batch leaves the factory...checks, double-checks, sign offs. I'm not saying bad balls can't slip through the cracks...but the excuse that "Quality control wasn't monitoring properly considering that the Jackal cores were right at the upper limit of the differential spec's to begin with" is the same as saying, "Motiv knew that a ball with a 0.060 differential would never realistically pass QC testing on a regular basis...so they just said "screw it" and sold them anyways."

So, the only facts that remain are;
1) Motiv made hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars selling illegal equipment.
2) They can only claim they didn't know it was illegal because they intentionally didn't test it for fear it was illegal.
3) The only part of the USBC's action against them that they actually disagreed with...was they felt like the USBC was wrong for enforcing the rules. (i.e., they never disagreed with the tests or findings)
4) Two relatively unknown bowlers won significant PBA and USBC titles throwing equipment that their manufacturer, manufacturer reps, and pro athletes knew (or kinda knew) was illegal.
5) The PBA is SO worthless...that the competition circumvented them and sent balls into the USBC directly. Granted...nobody is raising their hand admitting they sent them in...because they know the PBA would treat the whistleblower far worse than the company that actually cheated. The PBA doesn't have ball specification rules. But they have a lengthy few sections on "PBA code of conduct". Having read those sections, I wouldn't put it past the PBA to fine DV8 or Storm for "making a fuss and causing image issues that detract from the PBA's image". The entire code of conduct is written to make the PBA "image" the most important thing.

And before anyone gets all crazy about this...REMEMBER:
Motiv has yet to release a statement that they did not know these balls were out of spec. Even murderers, the first thing out of their mouth is, "I'm innocent". So either Motiv's PR department is staffed with toddlers throwing poo at each other like monkeys in a zoo....or they are "intentionally" not making that statement. Why? If you are pro-Motiv and believe I'm in the wrong....WHY...why would they purposely not proclaim innocence? Do the math.

I sent 4 letters out initially, to DV8 (by way of Brunswick), the USBC, the PBA, and Motiv. The USBC was the only one to respond and simply re-stated what they had already released. I sent 5 letters to newspapers I thought might take interest in this story. To my knowledge, they all felt an illegal bowling ball specification story...might not be that exciting a story...so as far as I know they didn't pursue it.

I mention the above, because Motiv and the PBA had a chance to keep my business and my respect. They chose not to. Therefore, I'll never purchase a Motiv product. And I did not renew my XtraFrame membership. I also refuse to watch the National PBA Tour nor will I be loyal to their sponsors. Does that scare them? Of course not. They don't care. But, one person takes a stand...then another...then another...and maybe eventually the cheaters, liars, and inept governance of the sport will get addressed. Probably not in my lifetime...but oh well. I AM a bit torn about the XtraFrame membership...because I like to watch the WPBA and PBA50...and the pro bowlers (almost every one I've met) are great people and nice people and none of this is their fault...so maybe I break down and get a 3-day subscription or something when I have a free weekend to just veg and get caught up on the PBA50 and WPBA seasons...but...it's a tough choice.

[Amyers]

Great. Now I can't quote you and respond because you put your answer in the quote of my post...which I can't see without going back and looking at your response and then copying and pasting and re-quoting it manually.

Sorry I'll try to do it differently see if this works

So, summary response:
1) The fact that all 3 are pearls is constant. That cannot change. You CAN surface the balls. And honestly, as I think Rob would agree, you can surface a Pearl to hook sooner than a solid...absolutely...surface trumps everything concerning ball movement. But..."Pearl" is held constant. So, yes, I am evaluating the null hypothesis that Pearls are Pearls and there are no differences due to manufacturer. That is the fancy statistical way of saying, I think there will be a difference between these "Pearls" due to manufacturer differences.

All three balls may be pearls but they all have different cover stocks and whatever differences you see after throwing the balls won't be manufacturer differences but will be the differences between those particular covers and the different surfaces that are applied to the different balls. If you see the Reax Pearl hook earlier as I expect it to it won't be because Radical balls hook earlier it will be because that particular surface/cover stock/core/drilling combination caused that ball to hook earlier the fact that the ball was Radical branded has nothing what so ever to do with it. As I pointed out earlier all three cores are vastly different too.

2) As I said before...the effect of a ball picking up oil...and dulling the surface of the ball (from 3000-5000 over time for example) FAR outweighs the physical effect of the ball striking various surfaces. But anyone that has ever bowled with their own equipment...will attest that over time....there are chips and such on the ball. That is the result of a ball being thrown through the air, hitting a hard surface, striking pins, falling in the return, going through the return, and then repeating that process thousands of times. It is physically impossible...even if the bowling ball was made of diamond...that external forces (air, temperature, physical forces, etc..) will not have some impact on the ball. Granted, this "damage" and "roughing up" of the bowling ball is outweighed by the oil...causing the NET result to be the ball losing surface over time, not gaining surface.

The chips, scratches, and gouges that a ball pics up over time have very little to do with ball motion 1/64,000 of the ball is out of contact with the lane once ever 3rd of a second it's not going to particularly effect your ball motion or the overall surface of the bowling ball. If you look at the surface of a ball under magnification you will see that the ball has microscopic teeth. These teeth wear down over time even on a ball with a polished surface. Restoration of those teeth is what you are seeking with a resurface I never meant to claim that balls surface would increase although that is possible say one of Motiv's 5500 grit surfaces thrown on worn wood lanes probably would scan with a lower surface number after a number of games. A bowling ball will always revert to the mean of the surface that it is being thrown on.

But as I said before. Managing your arsenal through surface prep, in my opinion, is a bad idea and a costly proposition. Even at $15 per week (the low end of the numbers thrown around), you've paying $325 (roughly) per season to maintain a given surface. Would you rather spend $325/season surfacing your old bowling balls? Or use that money to buy two new bowling balls at the end of the season? Which is why, for anyone stuck on surface manipulation as the way to create their arsenal...I would strongly recommend getting a professional ball spinner for $200-$400...because it'll pay for itself in a year. You can try for the $89 cheapie carp online or even create your own...but in this area, I think you get what you pay for.

It wasn't $15 week unless your bowling 40 games a week which me and you may hit sometimes but I doubt every week. It's not really a question of if I want to buy 2 new balls at the end of the year. I'm going to do that anyway and maybe one during the season if I feel like it. It's a question of do I want my arsenal performing the way it was designed to 1/3 of the way into the season, 1/2 way into the season, and so on. Your managing surface prep no matter what decision you make here it's really just a question of do you want degraded performance from the $200 you invested in the ball because you refuse to Spend the $15 to maintain it. It's kind of like saying your not going to change the oil in your car because it costs to much and your going to buy another one next year.

3) I have no problem using one brand that I am confident about and building my arsenal the way they build it. The problem with this is the ball manufacturers aren't honest. They tell you that every 6 months their technology changes, then they re-release old cores in new covers. They tell you that you need a solid a hybrid and a pearl...yet testing seems to point to the fact that there may be no difference at all between a solid a hybrid and a pearl.

But presently, I have no confidence in any one ball manufacturer that would lead me down a path to be brad loyal to one brand. And the vast majority of bowlers are not loyal to one brand. So, I think there is a need for a scientific-based approach to arsenal creation and progression creation that takes into account all of the manufacturers.

I don't believe you have to be brand loyal I tend to throw more Brunswick simply because I have excellent contacts there that I can get a lot of info from. Before that I threw a hodge podge of anything but really liked Roto. The only reason I suggest that is it does make putting an arsenal together easier. This has been fun I think you've actually got a decent two balls there in your first and second spots with the Reaxx and the Defiant. I just believe you have a big hole at the top and the bottom with your current third ball. I really do think it would be easier for you to select and build an arsenal if you though more of what I want this ball to do in each slot than trying to build an arsenal based on how weak or strong the ball is and trying to fit them in a procession.

[Aslan]

Sorry I'll try to do it differently see if this works

MUCH better!!!

All three balls may be pearls but they all have different cover stocks and whatever differences you see after throwing the balls won't be manufacturer differences but will be the differences between those particular covers and the different surfaces that are applied to the different balls.

Are you going to force me to make a poll to ask if there are differences between manufacturers?

Think of it in terms of manufacturing. Companies buy resins. They buy additives. They have formulas. They have manufacturing techniques. They have varying levels of quality control (or in Motiv's case, no quality control). You're telling me...that if Ebonite and Radical made the EXACT SAME BALL...same RG, same Diff., same Pearl/Hybrid/Solid cover, same surface prep with abralon pads, same polish applied for the same amount of time...you're telling me those balls would behave exactly the same? I don't want to post a poll...but I can tell you with 99% certainty...based on conversations with pros...that there is definitely a "general trend" that some companies roll sooner than others or hook sooner than others. Even ROB....who is hiding from MWhite right now....has specifically told me that some ball manufacturers make better skid/flip balls than other manufacturers.

Again, you are trying to say (and I'm paraphrasing here):
"Use a progression from Brunswick or Rotogrip. Then sand one to 500, sand one to 2000, and sand one to 4000 and polish...and there's your ideal arsenal. All other specs are useless to consider...and you can't truly test different balls because the specs won't be exactly the same and even if they are you can just have the balls surfaced to whatever you want...so specs are generally meaningless."

And the problem is...I can't 100% disagree with you. I agree, that balls probably can be surface manipulated to do whatever you want them to do. But then you get into an entire different argument. And at the end of the day...why would ball manufacturers even invest so much time and effort into specs (or cheat like Motiv)....if all that matters is how much sandpaper you have in your bowling ball bag?

If you see the Reax Pearl hook earlier as I expect it to it won't be because Radical balls hook earlier it will be because that particular surface/cover stock/core/drilling combination caused that ball to hook earlier the fact that the ball was Radical branded has nothing what so ever to do with it. As I pointed out earlier all three cores are vastly different too.

What I'm saying is, all things equal...Radical hooks sooner than other brands. Your response is, "all things aren't equal". I know that. That's why I'm trying to develop a "system" to create an arsenal based on multiple and sometimes conflicting specs....and yes, with full knowledge that someone can manipulate reactions with surface at any time.

It wasn't $15 week unless your bowling 40 games a week which me and you may hit sometimes but I doubt every week.

Yes, if you believe the resurface needs to happen at 40 games. Many believe the ball surface changes much faster than that.

It's not really a question of if I want to buy 2 new balls at the end of the year. I'm going to do that anyway and maybe one during the season if I feel like it.

Well, pardon me Scrooge McDuck....I was assuming most bowlers don't have a room full of gold coins.

It's a question of do I want my arsenal performing the way it was designed to 1/3 of the way into the season, 1/2 way into the season, and so on. Your managing surface prep no matter what decision you make here it's really just a question of do you want degraded performance from the $200 you invested in the ball because you refuse to Spend the $15 to maintain it.

Realize, you're talking to the one person that brings his homemade ball dehydrator with him to Vegas...despite the smirks and weird looks I get in the elevator of the hotel. I hand surface, de-oil, hand surface again, and polish my bowling balls every 10 games or so. I don't wait 40 games. And it costs me relatively nothing except for the Abralon pads and resin polish. So, yes, I maintain the ball surfaces probably even better than anyone else does. But, I don't use a ball spinner and I don't pay to have it done at the Pro Shop.

It's kind of like saying your not going to change the oil in your car because it costs to much and your going to buy another one next year.

Good analogy....but how well does it work if the oil change costs $32,500 over the course of a year and a new car is $20,000? I sometimes will buy a new printer rather than new ink cartridges because the printer is on sale for $89 and the ink cartridges add up to $85. So, yeah...if I can buy a new car every year for $20,000 versus paying $32,500/year in oil changes to drive my old car around...absolutely I'm getting a new car each year.

This has been fun I think you've actually got a decent two balls there in your first and second spots with the Reaxx and the Defiant. I just believe you have a big hole at the top and the bottom with your current third ball.

As we've discussed before...the problem in arsenal and progression selection is that specs contradict each other. I'm very nervous about using 3 balls that all have identical RG values and pearl coverstocks. On the one hand, the differences in the 3 balls should give them enough separation...on the other hand...it's not ideal.

And because of my style and speed and improved release...many of the "big hook" "premium" "pro level" balls...I can't really use. Mark Baker suggested I get myself a 900Global Cardinal Boost because I don't have any "weak" equipment for drier house shots or for practice on drier lanes. And I may have to re-think this arsenal if the Ebonite Innovate is too strong in the #3 position. I'm banking on the experiences I've had thus far...that most of the Ebonite International stuff (excluding Hammer) has been far weaker and hooked late enough...that it won't be a problem.

I also am constantly changing my arsenal selection strategy because my game is constantly changing and my centers are changing. As Rob preaches, at the end of the day your equipment and decisions have to be based MOSTLY on how your equipment is reacting to the lanes you are bowling on that given night. I used to have the Melee Jab as my #3 ball after the Lethal Revolver and Dark Encounter and in front of the Asylum and Loaded Revolver. After working with one of my coaches, it was clear to them that:

1) The Asylum wasn't working. It was hooking so early that by the time it got to the pocket is hit like a baby pillow.
2) The Melee Jab would work best AFTER the Loaded Revolver...when the lanes had transitioned...but maybe there was some carry-down at the breakpoint.

So, the point of the above example is that arsenal selection isn't going to guarantee you a perfect progression. Sometimes balls don't work well...like the Asylum. Sometimes balls are stronger (Jab) or weaker (Dark Encounter) than you would expect based on the specs. I'm now essentially down to the Le. Revolver and Lo. Revolver because I retired the Asylum, gave away the Jab, and the Dark Encounter hooks too early on the narrow house pattern that I play on. I personally believe...it's the low RG of the Dark Encounter and Asylum...which hurt me even more as my release got better and my speed got slower. I predict this proposed arsenal will also need "tweaks" along the way. Sometimes it's a surface tweek. Sometimes you need to change the order. Sometimes you need to change your approach a little. And sometimes you just run into a ball you can't really use.

I had a bad experience with the Asylum...but a kid through a 900 series with it...so I can't condemn RotoGrip...it just wasn't a good ball for me. Maybe I had it drilled wrong...maybe not. I agree with you that I think I'll have better luck with the Defiant Edge.

Also bowling styles come into play...as Rob mentioned earlier. MWhite throws very weak equipment...Storm Mix, etc... Is rev rate is so high...that I can't imagine what it would look like if he tried to play something like the Radical Guru up the track. The ball would probably hit the left gutter so hard that it'd jump into the next lane. Rob has a much different style (from what I've seen). Slower...inside to outside...he's good around 15-20 (versus me at least...I suck inside of 15). So, while the Jab worked well for me...it didn't work as well for him.

And that's why, sometime in the next 120 games...I'm also going to get input from my coaches. Tell them what 3 I'm looking at....maybe why if they ask....and get their input. I don't like to just ask them, "What balls should I buy for my next arsenal"....because they're under contract to at "push" or "favor" their lines. But if I give them a "here's what I have, what do you suggest?"...they can help me with the progression and drilling...and I'm not asking them to promote a competitor's products. And, if one or more of the coaches thinks a ball is a disaster for me...I'd consider changing the arsenal, maybe using something else I have undrilled, or even buying a ball to fill a hole.

[Aslan]

Huh. There's an 11000 word limit. Who knew?

(continued)

I really do think it would be easier for you to select and build an arsenal if you though more of what I want this ball to do in each slot than trying to build an arsenal based on how weak or strong the ball is and trying to fit them in a procession.

I know what I want them to do.

Ball #1: Able to play the track on heavier/medium oil...wider patterns or longer sport patterns. A good Ball #1 if I'm on a tougher, fresh shot.
The Reaxx should be good here. It has a low RG, a strong core, a strong cover. I can always add a little surface if the pearl cover goes too long on a given pattern. But maybe the pearl cover allows me to use it on my narrow THS. Carry shouldn't be a problem...it's a newer ball...it's a strong ball...but at the end of the day it could be too strong for me at my current speed and rev rate.

P.S. Many people reading this may ask, "why not just increase your speed?" That's a really long answer...but the short version is, altering speeds and maintaining your timing....pros can do it...most of us non-pros...it's difficult.

Ball #2: First ball out of the bag on my fresh THS. Hopefully can perform well for 1-2 games...until the pattern really breaks down.
A little concerned that the Defiant Edge may be too week on a fresh THS...but it's a narrow THS and I've been doing well with pearls and polished equipment...so I'm optimistic.

Ball #3: A ball that can be used in Games 2 and 3 of my THS...maybe useful in practice on non-freshly oiled lanes...but strong enough to carry.
I agree with you that this is the least ideal of the 3...but it's difficult finding a ball weak enough to play in the dry that still has the power to carry the corner pins...and Ebonite tends to hook the latest...just really skeptical that a ball with a 2.49 RG will be much use when the lanes transition....but, the Melee Jab was perfect as a #4 ball...and it had a low RG...so, we'll see!

[RobLV1]

In what book of fairy tales did you read that Ebonite hooks the latest? If you want something that is still strong but hooks hard on the back end, try the Storm Fight, but before you ever throw it, take the surface down to 1000 and polish the cr*p out of it!

[Amyers]

1. I like the idea of adding the Cardinal Boost would be a good fit.

2.If your willing to add some surface on the Reax if you need to that even makes it a better fit. I really don't know how effective trying to do polished finishes is without a spinner I would think consistently replicating the finish would be problematic but I've never tied it so it may be easier than I think.

Think of it in terms of manufacturing. Companies buy resins. They buy additives. They have formulas. They have manufacturing techniques. They have varying levels of quality control (or in Motiv's case, no quality control). You're telling me...that if Ebonite and Radical made the EXACT SAME BALL...same RG, same Diff., same Pearl/Hybrid/Solid cover, same surface prep with abralon pads, same polish applied for the same amount of time...you're telling me those balls would behave exactly the same? I don't want to post a poll...but I can tell you with 99% certainty...based on conversations with pros...that there is definitely a "general trend" that some companies roll sooner than others or hook sooner than others. Even ROB....who is hiding from MWhite right now....has specifically told me that some ball manufacturers make better skid/flip balls than other manufacturers.

3. You will never get different ball manufacturers to make the same ball with the same core and same cover stock so we will never answer that question. The cover stocks that each manufacturer uses are unique to that manufacturer they also each use multiple different cover stocks themselves. In the past I do believe that your belief about certain manufacturers specialized in certain types of shapes on the lanes I really don't believe this is true anymore. Anybody that believes Brunswick cant do backend hasn't thrown the Mastermind Braniac or Radical Ridiculous. Storm/Roto known for backend makes the Alpha Crux and Hyper Cell.

I will admit if I was looking for a top of the line polished pearl I might be sorely tempted to look 900/Storm/RG before Brunswick but I wouldn't be lining balls up in my arsenal that way.

But if you did find that ball where the RG, cover, surface, differential are the same they would roll the same but like I stated above that will never happen.

Again, you are trying to say (and I'm paraphrasing here):
"Use a progression from Brunswick or Rotogrip. Then sand one to 500, sand one to 2000, and sand one to 4000 and polish...and there's your ideal arsenal. All other specs are useless to consider...and you can't truly test different balls because the specs won't be exactly the same and even if they are you can just have the balls surfaced to whatever you want...so specs are generally meaningless."

And the problem is...I can't 100% disagree with you. I agree, that balls probably can be surface manipulated to do whatever you want them to do. But then you get into an entire different argument. And at the end of the day...why would ball manufacturers even invest so much time and effort into specs (or cheat like Motiv)....if all that matters is how much sandpaper you have in your bowling ball bag?

Honestly I don't care who makes the ball. The manufacturer is basically meaningless beyond the fact that I trust them to have a cover stock appropriate to the reaction I'm looking for. I know everything else about a ball then I purchase it besides the cover. If I purchase a ball with a high to medium rg and polished surface I knw as long as the cover is sufficiently strong I will have a ball that goes long and to some extent flips that's going to be better for medium to light oil who makes it doesn't matter other than do I trust that company to manufacture that cover.

If I buy ball 2 that has a lower rg and more surface I know that ball will roll more evenly hook earlier and probably have more a bench mark type shape. The only real question here is do I trust this company to design a core that will sufficiently spin the ball up in heavy oil and can they make strong enough cover to give it the strength that it needs.

The only way manufacturer plays a roll is do I trust them to build what I need/want?

What I'm saying is, all things equal...Radical hooks sooner than other brands. Your response is, "all things aren't equal". I know that. That's why I'm trying to develop a "system" to create an arsenal based on multiple and sometimes conflicting specs....and yes, with full knowledge that someone can manipulate reactions with surface at any time.

See this statement is exactly the problem. Not only are all things not equal they never will be. This is a dangerous preconception that Radical balls hooks sooner. Go out and buy a Rave On, Ridiculous, or Jack Pot or even find a Reax Gusto in a bargain bin and tell me about how early Radical balls are.

Yes, if you believe the resurface needs to happen at 40 games. Many believe the ball surface changes much faster than that.

In a perfect world I guess we would resurface after every set I simply don't have the time 40 games is about the time frame that my pearls really seem to lose reaction

Well, pardon me Scrooge McDuck....I was assuming most bowlers don't have a room full of gold coins.

Seems like to me your drilling a new arsenal up about once season here. I don't drill my balls all at the same time buy I do tend to buy about three per year. With the amount we bowl your pretty much going to run through that amount. Compared to most of the other hobbies I've had bowling is cheap and I refuse to cry over a few dimes.

As we've discussed before...the problem in arsenal and progression selection is that specs contradict each other. I'm very nervous about using 3 balls that all have identical RG values and pearl coverstocks. On the one hand, the differences in the 3 balls should give them enough separation...on the other hand...it's not ideal.

It wouldn't be my way of building an arsenal that's for certain. I'm more concerned with the Rg's being that similar than anything being willing to adjust the surface will help create separation if you need it. I think the reax and defiant are fine. Balls from Ebonite scare me, balls I've never heard of scare me, balls I've never seen roll scare me, and balls from Ebonite that I've never heard of or seen roll = terrifying

[Amyers]

In what book of fairy tales did you read that Ebonite hooks the latest? If you want something that is still strong but hooks hard on the back end, try the Storm Fight, but before you ever throw it, take the surface down to 1000 and polish the cr*p out of it!

The entire concept of guessing when a ball will hook by the name stamped on it is a combination of old fairy tales and Aslan's imagination

[JaxBowlingGuy]

MWhite throws very weak equipment...Storm Mix, etc... Is rev rate is so high...that I can't imagine what it would look like if he tried to play something like the Radical Guru up the track. The ball would probably hit the left gutter so hard that it'd jump into the next lane.

What do you consider a high rev rate? Just curious