Next Arsenal Dilemmas: Part III

[Aslan]

To consider that chemical differences do not exist between cover materials from different manufacturers is naive at best.

Nevermind...maybe I don't need to post a poll....unless that poll is, "How naïve is Amyers?" which nobody would probably vote on and Bowl1820 would frown upon.

[Aslan]

I only watched three frames, it was too painful. 350-375 at best there. But I did see video of Mike bowling about 3-4 years ago and it was higher, probably 425 or so.
If that is 550 in this video then Danielle McEwan is a cranker.

THIS

We went over this extensively in another thread...and I agree with billf...at the time we broke it down and eventually came to the conclusion that his rev rate at that time was around 425. Some people saw it as 395ish...others saw it as 480ish...but the point is...it's a very high rev rate and his speed is not noticeably high nor noticeably slow...so I'd guess 16-18mph off his hand....so that's about 14-16 at the pins...so I think his center's speed 'gun' is probably accurate.

[JaxBowlingGuy]

You can calculate speed by the time the ball takes to hit the pins. Pretty easy just need a stop watch which most phones have now days. I use that when helping others with keeping consistent speed.

[Amyers]

I will let both PBA pros that told me that more than once...that you and Rob are skeptical.

Ask those same pros if they would be willing to purchase their balls and slot them in their arsenal by the manufacturer. I bet you get a crazy look.

Every time I try to make a statement about any one spec and it's effect on ball motion...you claim it's impossible to know because there are so many variables and you can't isolate any of them. Okay. So we're back to the "Amyers Method" of arsenal selection which involves a dart, a dart board, a piece of paper with every ball currently available, and a suitcase full of sandpaper. I am NOT a proponent of the "Amyers Method".

Like our previous debating on this matter....either specs MATTER...or they DON'T MATTER. You can't have it both ways. If RG is important, it's important. If it's meaningless...then whats the point of even knowing what it is? You're essentially saying ball manufacturers just post all these specs to confuse us and try to make us think that the balls are special. I'm not quite that cynical of ball manufacturers...except maybe Motiv.

Where are you getting this? I think specs matter a lot. What I don't agree with is when you go off on one of these tangents focusing only on one factor and ignoring everything else and creating your own fantasy ratings in this case for manufactures that shouldn't even really be in the conversation.

1. Surface
2. Cover Strength
3. RG
4. Differential
5. Drilling

That's what you need to look at in the order that they effect ball motion anything else is dreams, out dated info, and fantasy land.

Rob can answer this better than I can...but I believe the Fortera series by Brunswick was an attempt at "skid/flip" and many people believe that was a failed effort.

I believe that I admitted that Brunswick has repeatedly failed at a high end pearl and even placed the Fortera as a possible low oil ball in your lineup lol. I also pointed out some really good skid flip balls that Brunswick makes in my post too. Really I don't know that style ball is something you really need anyway. My Vintage Zone is skid flip enough for me I really don't need anything much longer or stronger than that ball. I guess the VG Pearl fits that spot in my line up but I really don't use that ball much anymore the Zone is more controllable and consistent as the VG and rolls just as long.

[Amyers]

Nevermind...maybe I don't need to post a poll....unless that poll is, "How naïve is Amyers?" which nobody would probably vote on and Bowl1820 would frown upon.

You were arguing that all the covers were constant since all three were pearls in your proposed arsenal. I'm not sure that Rob intended me as the Naïve one here. I do agree that some brands share some characteristics that doesn't mean that it makes sense to consider that fact when slotting balls in an arsenal.

[RobLV1]

Rob can answer this better than I can...but I believe the Fortera series by Brunswick was an attempt at "skid/flip" and many people believe that was a failed effort.

So...I guess I'm forced to post a poll.

I agree completely. By the time my Exile cracked (which wasn't long), I had to request a different ball to replace it because it was already discontinued!

[Aslan]

You were arguing that all the covers were constant since all three were pearls in your proposed arsenal. I'm not sure that Rob intended me as the Naïve one here. I do agree that some brands share some characteristics that doesn't mean that it makes sense to consider that fact when slotting balls in an arsenal.

You are just begging for a poll MR!!!

So it "matters"...but you shouldn't consider it??

Kinda like whether or not I am naked while typing this...it "matters"...but please don't consider it.

[Amyers]

So it "matters"...but you shouldn't consider it??

If I was deciding between buying two top end pearls one of them was Brunswick and one was Storm do I consider it yes and I'm probably going to buy the Storm even though I generally prefer Brunswick equipment. Honestly on THS shots I don't see the point in the high end pearls and I'm referring to balls like the Lock Pearl, 900 Global Respect Pearl, and RG Hyper Cell Skid. Maybe it's just my style I can get more than enough skid/flip out of my Danger Zone or my wife with her MM Braniac and even her Soul Mate that any bowler would want. I guess I could see it more on sport shots but I really don't understand why people want or need that.


If I have three balls I'm thinking about building an arsenal from what brand they are never enters my mind. I'm looking to fill shot shape and oil handling spots so I'm looking at Surface, Cover Strength, and RG mostly when I make my decisions.

[Aslan]

I guess when it comes to arsenal selection....from what I've seen/read/heard...and maybe Bowl1820 even has USBC videos or old posts on this subject that will give us an even wider array of "theories"...but I've seen primarily TWO methods:

1) Cover stocks (solid, hybrid, pearl)
2) RG (2.49, 2.51, 2.53, 2.55)

Now, both of these methods have positives and negatives, depending on who you talk to. For example;

CoverStock:
Pro: Most evidence shows that surface trumps cover and cover trumps the rest of the specs/variables.
Con: There is also testing that leads us to believe (as Rob mentioned) that "pearl", "hybrid", "solid" are essentially meaningless advertising/sales tools.

RG:
Pro:
If you're less concerned with building an arsenal with different ball motion "shapes"...and more concerned with building a progression where you have balls that go shorter to longer (in terms of when they change from skid phase to hook phase)...RG is a good way to put an arsenal together. Rob wrote a very good article on arsenal creation using RG as the primary factor...and since RG also encompasses (to varying degrees) core symmetry, core strength, and differential...it's a probably one of the better "spec-related" indicators of ball movement...at least in terms of when the ball starts to hook.

Con:
Well, first, a very small % of bowlers know what the RGs of their equipment is...the RG changes slightly based on weight and finding the RG for a non-15lb ball isn't always as easy, depending on the brand/website. Second, even if bowlers KNOW their RG...most would struggle to explain what it actually means. And probably the biggest "con" is that most verifiable testing leads one to believe that surface is so, so, so much more dominant than any spec....including RG....that nothing else really at the end of the day matters.

So, let me post a few examples of how my "arsenal selection" process has went and what the lessons learned were (as mudpuppy cliff noted as I can be)...

[Aslan]

Arsenal #1 (2013-2014)
900Global Bullet Train, Hammer Rhythm, Columbia300Encounter(s), Brunswick Slingshot

This arsenal didn't involve any real "planning" or "selection" process. I simply took 4-5 balls that were in my "closet of destiny" and tried to put them into a "progression".

This method involved essentially 5 slots....where I would start with the #3 ball as my "benchmark". The thought process was...if I use the "medium" ball...I have two balls I can "ball up" with and two balls I can "ball down" with...depending on what the pattern/lanes indicate. I bolded that part...because I know Rob gets annoyed when I talk about a "progression"...and I want him and others to understand...the "progression system" is just as dependent on lane conditions as any other method...it's just a different way to organize what you start with.

Pros:
1) It was logical to start in the middle and give myself as many options (balling up or down) as possible.
2) I got to use my older balls first...thus lessening the chance that some of these balls would crack or shrink over time due to sitting around unused.
3) Ultimately, slotting (#1-#5) was based on actual practice data...not specs.

Negatives:
1) When basing your arsenal or progression on actual practice data...you need a consistent release. Since none of us are EARL the robot...this is actually not a good way to slot the balls.
2) The positioning changed from week to week....one minute a ball would seem to hook more (this is important, see below)...then the next week another ball would seem to hook "more". Was this the ball? Or the inconsistent technique? Or the varying lane conditions?
3) As we progress in bowling, we learn what Bowl1820 means in his signature...it isn't about how many boards are covered when a ball hooks...it's more important WHERE does it hook....and where does it stop hooking (roll phase). Without understanding that concept...you may see a ball "not hook"...NOT because the ball is too 'weak'...it's just that it hooked too soon. So you see it as "not aggressive enough" when actually it's the most aggressive ball in your bag.
4) This method ignores pretty much all of the physics of bowling ball technology.

LESSONS LEARNED:
1) A better "progression" method is starting with the soonest hooking ball...and if you bowl in the same place often enough...sometimes you learn to start with the #3 or #2 or #4...so it's still a "progression"...but that doesn't mean you robotically always start with ball #1.
2) Basing your arsenal on ONLY practice data...when you are <190 average...you're probably not nearly consistent enough. You can't ignore specs completely.
3) Trying to surface the heck out of balls to make them "hook more"...not a good idea. It turns out...you can only make them hook sooner...not "more"...and if they hook "sooner"...they may cover more boards or may not (depends on when they enter the roll phase)...but you'll likely have severe carry issues with a ball that hooks way too and has no energy left for the backend.

And...most importantly...it led to approach Arsenal #2 a little differently. Rather than buy 5 random balls of the same weight...then try to force square pegs into round holes...I would develop a method of selecting which balls I want to include in the next arsenal based on a combination of:
Core Symmetry (assy./sym.), RG, differential (flare), cover material (Pearl, Hybrid, Solid), PerfectScale rating, and surface prep (OOB).... < to be continued in next post >