Aslan's Arsenal Progression Discussion Thread: (Part 1 of 6)

[Amyers]

My thoughts......I don't think it matters much for Ball #1 or Ball #2. I think surfacing can help a bowler fine tune any cover material for those spots. I 'would' say that, IDEALLY, a Pearl coverstock is good for Ball #3 and Ball #4.

For Ball #3, if you want a "skid/flip" reaction/ball...I don't see why you would aim for a solid or hybrid cover. The goal is to get the ball to go long on a transitioned pattern...the solid and hybrid are just going to roll out early unless you make speed/release adjustments.

As we stated above cover stock composition means nothing a polished solid or hybrid will perform just as well as a pearl

For Ball #4, again...if this ball is for wood lanes, dry lanes, practice, etc...I don't see Solid or Hybrid being worthwhile for the same reason as for Ball #3.

Sometimes the goal on wood lanes or dryer shots is as much about controlling the back ends with a even reaction as it is about getting the ball down the lane. Again solid or hybrid is useless but you may want some surface to control the back ends somewhat

Now, what would then be the difference in Balls #3 and #4??? I think those differences are HUGE...but something to discuss in parts 2-6.

Actually discussing that here makes some sense. The main difference I look at between these 2 balls would be strength of cover although core is important too. While your type 3 ball might consist of a Code Black, Primal Rage, Ridiculous Pearl or Mastermind Braniac none of these would fit well as your #4 which for me at least would be a Tropical Breeze, Rhino, Outcast, or Match type of ball.

[chip82901]

Here's my current arsenal: Storm Timeless, Storm Phaze II, Storm Street Fight, Storm Phaze, Storm Pitch Blue

Now, what comes out of the bag first depends on what I see from throwing a few balls in practice.

For example, I'm not huge on dull balls as I look for length out of just about everything I throw. That being said, I have a weak drill on my phaze II, as I let the surface do what it's supposed to do.

Usually, first ball out of my bag at my home center is either Timeless (2-1 pearl/solid hybrid), or the Street Fight (3000 sheen finish). I look at the Street Fight if the backends are a little snappier, as it has great length and I can usually play fairly straight with it. Usually works out great when I bowl on my men's league as most of the guys usually blow up the 10 board (typical right?). On my mixed league, the oil usually gets spotty with all of the ladies bowling. That's where the timeless shines from the get go. It blends the oil very well.

As the night progresses, I can usually stay with the same ball, or, I'll switch to surface (Phaze II) and move a bit deeper. If I end up getting extreme over/under reaction, I will grab my Pitch Blue and play straight down the 5 board.

The way I play my arsenal is probably much different than others, as I tend to go pearl out the bag, and switch to surface as I move inside, but, it works well.

Now, on dry lanes (recently bowled a tourney in my home center that was 42' on the right lane, and 36' medium volume on the left), I will elect to go with surface on the dry to sort of "kill" the ball. Now, when doing this, there isn't much forgiveness. Basically, its all about forward roll, getting the ball to want to start and earlier motion, and use some of its energy while still in the oil, so that it doesn't over react when it hits the end of the pattern.

It's all a feel thing honestly.

[RobLV1]

I often do the same thing that you do, but I usually look at RG rather than surface when I move in. For example, a typical move for me is from the Timeless, to the Code Black: same cover material, same surface, earlier rolling core.

[Aslan]

I'm going to start Part 2...but before I close the door on COVERSTOCKs...

Does anyone see a FLAW in starting with a SOLID, moving to a HYBRID, then a PEARL, then a PEARL? Whether you personally would use this method or not, do you see any potential "issues/problems" with this approach?

I know everyone has a different way of progressing...but in terms of COVERSTOCKS (specifically)...many high level coaches will suggest you start with your strongest ball...then progress to weaker (Ball #2).

Ball #3 and Ball #4...there is a lot of disagreement because using the progression system I layed out...is dependent on the concept of "carrydown"...which in some scenarios (high level, scratch leagues, tournament bowling, etc...) can be virtually "non-factor"...in which case I would "jump" Ball #3 and go to Ball #4.

However...in most house leagues....where 1/4 to 1/2 the bowlers on the pair are throwing plastic/urethane as their strike ball and "spraying and praying" the lanes..."carrydown" is 'generally' believed to be a factor...in which case Ball #3 needs to be STRONGER than Ball #2...and generally you won't get to the point where you need Ball #4 (most nights).

SIDENOTE:
There are lots of ways to put together a "progression" or "arsenal"....and I appreciate everyone's input on how to put their's together. I'm not aware of a"right" answer on the topic. Whatever "works"....more power to you! I used to use a "BENCHMARK" system where I had a 5-ball arsenal and would start with my #3 (in terms of hooking sooner/later) ball as my "benchmark" ball. I would then have 2 options for a stronger ball, and two options for a weaker ball. I abandoned that system...as it wasn't working very well (for me)...but many, many bowlers use a "benchmark" system...and there are certainly advantages to doing so.

I also use a "progression" system...because it allows me to play the area I am most successful at using (11-13 at the arrows, standing about 23 with my left foot +/- 6 boards depending how the lanes are playing). As Rob has discussed in other threads...that is ONE WAY of setting up a progression...there are OTHER ways...as mentioned a bit here....where people continue to play different parts of the lane as the lanes transition...and in those cases often times will move IN and use STRONGER equipment....also a common type of progression that many bowlers use.

[RobLV1]

1) Yes. Since, as I have pointed out, the only difference between solids, hybrids, and pearls is the surface, this system is basically flawed because it totally disregards the cores. If you look at the characteristics of the cores, and are willing to change surfaces, then looking at the type of cover material is a total waste of time.

2) The idea of starting with your most aggressive ball and then "balling down" in a progression to the least aggressive is based on traditional oil transition on wooden lanes with non-absorbent balls. Modern bowling in many cases requires the opposite "progression", or a pyramid type progression from the least aggressive to the most aggressive and back to the least aggressive. Please see my BTM article entitled "Should I Stay or Should I Go" for an explanation.

3) I just submitted a new article to BTM entitled "The Dead Zone Revisited" which should put the idea of carry down to rest once and for all. In a nutshell, the streaks of oil that go past the pattern do not contain a large enough volume of oil to affect the motion of a modern reactive bowling ball... plain and simple.

[JJKinGA]

I will echo Rob's thoughts about progression. It really is more about finding balls that fill a role. I have found i like describing the lanes by length and amount of friction/hook on the back end. So that gives 6 conditions. then I add in the very troublesome wet/dry condition. That gives me a need for up to 7 roles to fill. I choose to ignore difference in back end on the short oil. I can play straighter or deeper to compensate - if the hook is that much, I can use the spare ball. I know that some use three shapes and four lengths (like the Motiv ball chart). I don't find I need quite that level of precision, and bringing that many is too much). As

As far as progression, I do find that the role needed does progress as the match goes on. So i may need a longer ball or one that hooks less or if i need to jump in deep I may need a shorter and larger hooking ball. In usual situations, the role change is predictable and this leads to a progression. But I am thinking of the role, not a predetermined ordinal sequence.

Since using this concept I have actually reduced the number of balls i own and been happier with the ball change choices I have made. Even in a tournament this weekend at a house I was not familiar with - I was using my long large hooking ball. i started to see it move too sharply. I bowled one frame with my medium length high hooking ball. It went way too long. I was able to pull out the early reading medium hooking ball and continue to get a good ball motion to the pocket. If I was trying to sequence them I would have Not had the early/medium ball in the order as it doesn't really have a good application at my home center.

[Amyers]

Have to agree with Rob on this one the system your proposing is the wrong way to look at arriving at the wrong point. Two bad ideas in conjunction with each other don't make a good one. Using the supposed composition of the cover stock to play any role in your progression is fool hardy. What the H*** is a hybrid anyway? 1 part pearl/1 part solid or 2 parts pearl or 3? Who knows? You think every brand uses the same formula and even within that brand they use the same formula of how much additive they add for every ball even on the pearls and solids? Truth is we have no clue. Stick to core and surface to help determine and use your eyes for the rest.

On the coaches than suggest you start with your strongest ball were they even referring to bowling on a house shot? I doubt it the reason for that advice is on sport patterns starting off with a more aggressive ball and in this case that's referring more to surface allows you to start to burn a hole into the pattern so that as the shot breaks down you can move left and bounce off that spot latter. On a house shot that's not necessary the dry spot is already provided.

I used to use a progression system a little different than yours but similar I've since abandoned it because it simply didn't work well for me. For instance my rhino is considered a light oil ball and would be #4 in your system and the least aggressive ball in my bag I tried using it like that and simply hated the ball by the third game on drier conditions I've moved pretty deep on the lanes that ball will make it back to the pocket from there but the carry is simply abysmal. I was ready to trash the ball as junk and talked to my PSO about it he watched me bowl with it and simply said that balls never going to carry for you on that line and of course I pointed out that was the only line I could play at the point and he asked me if I had tried moving right and starting with it? I'm like h*** no it's a light oil ball. I tried it first game was a 247. The balls great thrown at straighter angles. Now I tend to buy my balls for the area on the lane I want to play. I know my balls tend to want to start early so I really don't look at anything lower than a 2.50 rg,. I slate them by surface, cover strength, and core but not from any idea of strongest to weakest but by where they are going hook and how hard off the spot.

Unless conditions are really dry I can hit the pocket with anything in my bag on a THS shot from beginning to end of the series. It's not about what gets me to the pocket it's about what's the most efficient line to the pocket with what's carrying that day. Do I want to play straighter then it's the Rhino, a little deeper the Fanatic, or maybe that day I need to really get in deep and wheel it the Danger Zone. Some days during the three league games I can stay with the same ball through, some days I have to use all three, most night I'll use 2 out of the three. I'm yet to really understand why some nights are better for one of the other I'm sure it's some combination of certain lanes, the oil pattern that night, and how I'm releasing the ball that day. Until you really understand how to move to accommodate the balls in your bag and when those different motions are effective for you personally any progression you build will be flawed.

[Tony]

Like others have mentioned the idea of starting with the most aggressive ball and moving down through an predetermined progression has not worked well for me
Over the last couple of years I have added / tried some different balls and am finding that starting with my benchmark ball in practice (hy-road) will help me see what the lanes are doing. Normally if it's one of the regular local houses I already have an idea what they will be like. I am slowly finding that what seemed to make sense doesn't really make sense at all and I look for the ball who's length / hook gets it to the pocket just after hitting the roll phase and packing maximum power, then depending on what ball that is will determine the next ball as the lane changes.
When I went through the old style progression it would take a game of adjustments only to realize that was the wrong ball anyway. Now with the two main places I am bowling I know it's one of a couple different balls that I'll usually start with, the most aggressive ball ends up being more effective later in the set thrown at a shallower angle.
All in all this seems to have potential to work better for me, but I've only just begun to learn about all the things I need to know.

[Aslan]

Now I tend to buy my balls for the area on the lane I want to play.

This is sort of the opposite to the approach I use. I use balls that are similar...but are just different enough to allow me to stay in the same general area that gives me the greatest success. My system keeps me from HAVING to move inside, outside, etc... Once I'm lined up and am comfortable that I'm playing the lanes the way they are dictating that I play them...I can stay in that area for 3 games with no problems...just need to ball down...then, if there's carrydown or my angle gets too extreme....I can ball "up".

Your approach seems to be the opposite....similar to some of the other posts...where you have varying lines that you play...and your arsenal varies enough to allow you to play different lines.

Each of these strategies have their positives and negatives. In my case....I don't have much of an option when I get inside of 3rd arrow. The angle is too extreme for polished pearls and I don't have a high RPM release to compensate. Can I play this line? Yes....but I have to be perfect. Even a 1-board miss or a slightly more flat release, or a little too much hand....and I won't strike. I also can't move to my "B-Game"....playing up the first angle...up an in...because my balls all have 2.49 RGs...they all want to roll out when I'm playing in the dry.

Your strategy has the opposite positives/negatives. You have more variability to move around...you can play outside...you can play inside. But...if you wanted to stay in the same general area (your "A-Game")...you'd likely have a problem unless you had that line to yourself all night....not a very common thing unless you're a lefty.

But...concerning COVERSTOCKS (and we'll talk about this more when we get to "SURFACE")...I guess the issue I struggle with is that most people here would seem to agree that coverstocks (Pearl vs Hybrid vs Solid) are meaningless. YET....most would also agree that:

1) Coverstock strength is one of the 4 top factors.

2 Surface is also one of the 4 top factors.

If coverstock strength and/or surface are one of the top 4 factors....than coverstock has to be considered as well. For example...RG. If you believe that SURFACE is important....than who cares about RG? You can take balls with varying RGs and simply surface them to do whatever you want...so RG is meaningless. With that being true....the list of 6 factors is now down to ONE factor....surface. You can just buy 4 Tropical Breezes....and surface them all drastically different...and you have functioning arsenal. I'm reluctant to buy into that belief....but we'll talk more about that when we get to SURFACE. MY POINT is....to disregard COVERSTOCK because surfaces can be changed....it leads one to believe that we can disregard EVERY spec...because surface can be changed...and surface is the most important factor in ball movement.

And if COVERSTOCK doesn't matter....then how do we define "coverstock strength"? I've heard many bowlers and PSOs and ball manufacturers talk about "strong covers"...but I haven't come across ONE definition of what that actually means. Newer balls....manufacturer differences...I think those play into "coverstock strength"....but it's a bit of a mystery what a "strong cover" actually means.

Again...no "right" or "wrong" answers here...it's just a discussion.

[RobLV1]

Honestly, I have NEVER heard any bowler defending an arsenal philosophy that allows them to stay on one particular part of the lane. The reason for this is pretty apparent: IT DOESN'T WORK! Defend it until you are blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that when the balls absorb the oil, and the oil is GONE, you only have one alternative: to find more oil. To think that you can ball down and stay in the same place is delusional. Once again, man up and pay the $37 for a BTM subscription and read my article that will be up in the next week or so. Here's a hint: a 41' pattern, after just 22 games is 34' long. There is no "progression" of ball changes that is going to allow you to play a pattern that is 7' shorter after just 22 games.