Relative "Strengths" of bowling balls

[bowl1820]

And herein lies the problem. The ball that went long and snapped hard is actually not the weaker ball, it's the ball that went long and snapped hard. Once we label it as "weak," all is lost!

I understand what your saying there, But I think though that there is no terminology that would be satisfactory in the long run to replace Strong or Weak.

Saying aggressive & non-aggressive or whatever, ultimately still will boil down to just being considered someone saying strong & weak.

Maybe using the terms Strong/Weak in some more appropriate way, might be more viable than coming up with new words to try to get people to perceive them differently.

What that way is I won't hazard a guess, other than to say that the one using the terms strong/weak should define what they mean by strong or weak in the context they are using them.

[1VegasBowler]

I understand what your saying there, But I think though that there is no terminology that would be satisfactory in the long run to replace Strong or Weak.

Saying aggressive & non-aggressive or whatever, ultimately still will boil down to just being considered someone saying strong & weak.

Maybe using the terms Strong/Weak in some more appropriate way, might be more viable than coming up with new words to try to get people to perceive them differently.

What that way is I won't hazard a guess, other than to say that the one using the terms strong/weak should define what they mean by strong or weak in the context they are using them.

I'm going to ask for an opinion here.

I would say that my Ultimate Nirvana, Fanatic BTU, Vintage Danger Zone & Ruckus Schizo are the strongest, and the Thug Unruly & Vandal are the weakest.

Now, when I say that, I am referring to the energy that increases or retains at the back end. I know they all have different reactions to oil and friction, and they can be classified as either Continuous, Angular or Traction (depending on the ball).

[bowl1820]

This wasn't a political "comparison," it was living proof from the real world that there is a cultural bias towards the words. Whether the use of "stronger" and "better" as synonyms was intentional or not, it is how the words were used and is indicative of the attitude of our culture toward these words.

I don't think you see it Rob.

Most ordinary people looking at that will just see a political comment on Trump, Obama and the rest. (which is just what M.M. did)

Not a academic comment on the cultural bias towards how words are used and perceived.

[Amyers]

We've discussed this before and I understand the point and what you're tryin to accomplish. Unfortunately in trying to spare bowlers from misunderstanding ball motion and how it relates to their game and the conditions they bowl on the terminolgy your using doesn't really change anything. Your just using different words.

The factors that contribute to the problem are the ball manufactures marketing, the pro shops being inclined to sell higher price higher profit higher end equipment, and the THS shots we bowl on that mask the true differences in bowling balls. I believe all of these contribute to the problem way more than any culture bias against weak or strong.

Most bowlers who bowl on THS conditions don't really need anything stronger than a midline ball at most. Yet all the companies sell tons of high end balls that are really developed for sport shots because bowlers think more hook is better. They don't buy that ball because someone said its strong they buy it because it hooks more and they mistakenly think that makes it better.

This is why it's important to have a good coach and preferably one that isn't the PSO also. I don't think you fix this by changing words but by changing mindsets.

[Amyers]

I'm going to ask for an opinion here.

I would say that my Ultimate Nirvana, Fanatic BTU, Vintage Danger Zone & Ruckus Schizo are the strongest, and the Thug Unruly & Vandal are the weakest.

Now, when I say that, I am referring to the energy that increases or retains at the back end. I know they all have different reactions to oil and friction, and they can be classified as either Continuous, Angular or Traction (depending on the ball).

Here's the problem everyone has different intentions when they say strongest. I would never use strongest in regards to energy retention myself. Personally I prefer to think about strength by where I lineup with that ball because even a long ball that covers a lot of boards can force you left (as a righty).

To answer your question on energy retention. It's basically surface/Rg controlled which is why the BTU probably doesn't belong on the high end of the list but I haven't seen one yet so I might change my mind. High energy retention isn't great either though a ball that goes through the pins with too much energy can be worse than a ball that burns up and hits flat. Energy in the pit doesn't help. It's always about the ball that hooks at the right time in the right place that rolls as it hits the pins. It's not about energy at 20ft or energy as it rolls off the back of the lane but as the ball being in position to transfer the most energy to the pins for the best results

[1VegasBowler]

Here's the problem everyone has different intentions when they say strongest. I would never use strongest in regards to energy retention myself. Personally I prefer to think about strength by where I lineup with that ball because even a long ball that covers a lot of boards can force you left (as a righty).

To answer your question on energy retention. It's basically surface/Rg controlled which is why the BTU probably doesn't belong on the high end of the list but I haven't seen one yet so I might change my mind. High energy retention isn't great either though a ball that goes through the pins with too much energy can be worse than a ball that burns up and hits flat. Energy in the pit doesn't help. It's always about the ball that hooks at the right time in the right place that rolls as it hits the pins. It's not about energy at 20ft or energy as it rolls off the back of the lane but as the ball being in position to transfer the most energy to the pins for the best results

I understand what you're saying my friend. And here's what I see when I throw.

Ultimate Nirvana - Great for medium to heavy oil. With it being drilled pin down at 65x4.5x70, it was done with the intent of having a fair amount of length, but not to over hook. The ball is all energy and it hits harder than anything I have.

BTU - Urethane balls are great for burned up lanes, but they tend to start reading at around 25ft. The BTU has a cover stock that absorbs oil, goes a bit longer than urethane and has a nice gradual hook to it. This ball also has a lot of energy at the back end and is my 2nd best hitter.

Vandal - While it is considered an angular ball, this is a hard hitter, and hits just as good as the BTU. If I stay in the oil, it almost has the same reaction as the BTU. But it also has a lot of of forgiveness if I get too far outside. But when it does get too far outside, it also loses energy and I'm most susceptible to leaving the 10 pin.

VDZ - I had this drilled for the short Sport patterns, and reacted very well on the Cheetah. Great energy and hard hitting. I can use it on longer oil patterns, but I have to release and keep it at the 15 board.

Ruckus Schizo - This is the only ball I have changed the surface on. I went from OOB to 4000 with polish. And while I don't use it very often, it is also useful on the longer oil patterns.

I know you got a nice laugh when I said I go from my UN to the BTU during league nights, but I do that because the lanes get burned up in a hurry with the thin oil out there and the other bowlers in the same track.

The BTU allows me to stay in my original track, whether it's 15-10 or from the 10. It also allows me to play what would normally be out of bounds for a lot of bowlers from the 7 to the 3. And I say that is out of bounds for them because there are a ton of bowlers here that won't move no matter what, and they can't understand why they can't get to the pocket by the middle of the second game like they did in the first.

Is this the best way to do it? In my case it is. My adjustments are subtle compared to what others do, and I use it to my advantage. I watch the track of other bowlers to determine how I can attack the lanes that suits me the best.

There is certainly good and bad to what I do. But the equipment I have lets me do what I think will work for the conditions.

[RobLV1]

First of all, let me say that I am not naive enough to think that I can change the way bowlers refer to bowling balls. I just do what I can.

I do think it's interesting that two posters here, Ameyers and 1VegasBowler, illustrate exactly why we need new terminology. Ameyers, like most bowlers considers "strong" balls to be early rolling, while 1VegasBowler considers "strong" balls to be balls that retain energy for the back ends. These balls most bowlers consider to be "weak". While the bowlers who need balls that go longer and retain energy, they will often not buy them because they are too busy looking for something "strong." Hence the need for words that are descriptive of ball motion and have no cultural bias attached to them.

[1VegasBowler]

First of all, let me say that I am not naive enough to think that I can change the way bowlers refer to bowling balls. I just do what I can.

I do think it's interesting that two posters here, Ameyers and 1VegasBowler, illustrate exactly why we need new terminology. Ameyers, like most bowlers considers "strong" balls to be early rolling, while 1VegasBowler considers "strong" balls to be balls that retain energy for the back ends. These balls most bowlers consider to be "weak". While the bowlers who need balls that go longer and retain energy, they will often not buy them because they are too busy looking for something "strong." Hence the need for words that are descriptive of ball motion and have no cultural bias attached to them.

Would the words Angular, Continuous, Traction & Straight be better words to use?

[Mike White]

First of all, let me say that I am not naive enough to think that I can change the way bowlers refer to bowling balls. I just do what I can.

I do think it's interesting that two posters here, Ameyers and 1VegasBowler, illustrate exactly why we need new terminology. Ameyers, like most bowlers considers "strong" balls to be early rolling, while 1VegasBowler considers "strong" balls to be balls that retain energy for the back ends. These balls most bowlers consider to be "weak". While the bowlers who need balls that go longer and retain energy, they will often not buy them because they are too busy looking for something "strong." Hence the need for words that are descriptive of ball motion and have no cultural bias attached to them.

You don't need new terminology, you need to learn to correctly use current terminology.

As it relates to bowling, energy (in the bowling ball once released) is not lost until it contacts the pins, at which point the pin gains the energy that the ball loses (minus the energy required to cause sound and slight increase in temperature).

The word energy (specifically kinetic energy) has been defined long ago, and it builds on terms such as mass, velocity, moment of inertia, and angular velocity.

You seem to be redefining the word energy to mean the balls ability to knock down pins.

The balls ability to knock down pins is related to it's ability to achieve the proper amount of deflection.

Deflection is a result of a balls momentum, and angle of impact.

Momentum is the product of mass, and velocity.

It's a waste of time to build new terminology on top of old terminology that most here seem to not understand.


A while back I suggested you take a course in physic at a local community college.

Clearly you rejected anything I told you, but if a professor in the process of teaching the class, stated the exact same things I have stated here, then you just might begin to believe what I have been telling you.

If nothing else, it would give you better tools to analyze, and potentially alter your theories on ball motion.

[RobLV1]

Mike, I'm not talking about physics. I'm talking about the cultural bias towards the words "weak" and "strong" that are currently used by bowlers to describe the motions of different bowling balls. This has nothing to do with what I know about physics, or what you know about physics, it has everything to do with the way that bowlers think about bowling balls. That the words "weak" and "strong" are the current words that are generally used is a fact. That using these particular words has a detrimental effect on bowlers' ball choices is the very thing that this thread is all about.