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

[Aslan]

I'd like to talk about "How to Create a Bowling Ball Arsenal/Progression".

This will be a Six Part discussion focusing on these topics one at a time:
1) Coverstock (solid, hybrid, pearl)
2) PerfectScale (and other hook measurement tools)
3) Surface
4) Core Symmetry
5) Differential
6) RG

I tried to start with the "simplest" and work towards the more complex.

ASSUMPTIONS
1) Assume you're putting together a 4-5 ball arsenal to allow you to address lane transitions and to allow you versatility to play multiple centers/conditions.

So, to start, what are YOUR THOUGHTS regarding this strategy concerning COVERSTOCK:

Ball #1 (first ball out of bag, fresh conditions, longer patterns, sport patterns, etc...)
SOLID cover

Ball #2 ("go to ball", ball down option from Ball #1, regular ball, THS ball, etc...)
HYBRID cover

Ball #3 (slightly stronger ball than ball #2 to combat "carrydown", 3rd ball out of the bag, "skid/flip" ball, etc...)
PEARL cover

Ball #4 (dry lane ball, wood lane ball, practice ball, etc...)
PEARL cover

GUIDELINES
1) Let's try NOT to jump ahead to the other topics. Obviously, bowling balls are complex because there are SO many factors that affect ball movement....but if we can't limit ourselves to just one topic at a time...the dicsucssion will quickly dissolve into generalities about arsenals.

2) I INVITE ROBM to participate. I know he HATES "assumptions" and "progressions"...and I'm certainly, certainly not downplaying the need to let the lanes dictate how you play them. But;
- RobM is one of the foremost experts on ball technology and I feel his comments will enhance the value of this discussion a great deal (Bigly in Trump Speak).
- When putting together an "arsenal"...there ARE limitations. Most bowlers only use one ball...but even serious bowlers with "arsenals" do not have an endless ocean of balls to choose from (my Closet of Destiny aside)...so they MUST limit themselves to a limited "set".
- AND...I KNOW that Rob has written on this very topic on his website or BTM...so again, his input, again, would be very helpful.

[Aslan]

My personal thoughts, having talked to RobM a bit about coverstock...is that coverstock 'may' be the least valuable of the six factors...because surfacing can make a Pearl hook sooner than solid. So, if surface is a factor...coverstock is LESS of a factor.

That being said, very few bowlers have access to surfacing equipment without paying an additional $ on a regular basis. Thanks to MWhite, I have my own ball spinner...and I just spent over $100 to buy some polish/compound and surfacing pads...after spending about $100 previously for similar supplies. So, "surfacing" is ABSOLUTELY important and will be addressed in more detail in a subsequent thread (Part 3)...but if a bowler is creating an arsenal and looking SOLELY at coverstock...I "believe" most ball manufacturers would suggest a solid, THEN a hybrid, THEN a pearl. Now, how much of that is the annoying ball manufacturers just making the same ball 3 times and trying to gimic people into buying 3 versions of it????? I dunno...up for discussion.

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.

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.

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.

But, those are just my thoughts...this is a "discussion" thread...so have at it! And let's make Bowl 1820's job as easy as possible by not getting too "fired up".

[RobLV1]

Okay, there are just four elements that determine ball reaction: Core, Cover Material, Layout, and Surface.

Core: You really can't prioritize the core elements; symmetry, shape, differential, and low RG. It all depends on the individual bowler. Some bowlers love asymmetric cores, others (two-handers in particular) really can't use them at all. Different bowlers have better results with some shapes of cores and really struggle with other shapes. This is just something you need to know from your own experience. Speed or Rev Dominant bowlers really need to look at low RG as a way of controlling their speed/rev dominance. Axis tilt also influences how import low RG is. Less axis tilt = low RG more important. Finally, Differential is very important to high rev bowlers with lots of axis rotation, while it is relatively unimportant for bowlers with lower rev rates and less axis rotation.

Cover Material: By cover material, I'm talking about formulations, NOT type of material (solid, pearl, or hybrid). The type of material is nothing more than the manufacturers attempt to coerce bowlers into buying three version of the same ball, based primarily on the OOB surface. The surface material is important, and, unfortunately, we have to take the word of the manufacturers about the relative strength of the cover materials, plus consider the reputation. Brunswick balls are generally perceived to find more friction in the oil, while Storm balls react more to friction. These reputations are there for a reason: they are usually pretty valid. Consider what happened when Storm first introduced the Sync for more read in the oil. It was probably the worst Storm ball ever produced. Likewise, when Brunswick introduced the Fortera Exile, a supposed skid/flip offering, it disappeared as fast as it was introduced.

Layout: The layout is nothing more than how the core is positioned within the ball, which changes the Diff. and Low RG numbers. If you stick to two layouts; a pin up layout for angular backend reactions, and a pin down for smoother, curving reaction, you can easily change from ball to ball seemlessly, which is, after all, the goal of every arsenal.

Surface: Definitely the most important element in determining ball reaction as it can easily be changed to adapt to different oil patterns, different centers, and different bowlers. 60% of bowlers will have to change the surface to get the best ball reaction for them.

This, in a nutshell, is it. Questions/comments?

[bowl1820]

Okay so this basically a remake of "Aslan's Latest Nerdy Activity: The 4-ball arsenal tiered selection system" thread (and others):
http://www.bowlingboards.com/threads...ection-system?

Excerpt:

Without getting into laborious detail (only to be mocked later for even developing something so silly), and with Mudpuppy Cliff Notes in mind, the categories take into account FIVE factors (no order of importance):
1) coverstock (pearl, hybrid, solid)
2) cover finish (500-4000 abralon, high polish, matte/sanded, etc...)
3) RG
4) differential
5) PerfectScale Rating (bowlingball.com system/hook rating)

Except now with the inclusion of "Core Symmetry" we have SIX factors.

[Aslan]

Okay so this basically a remake of "Aslan's Latest Nerdy Activity: The 4-ball arsenal tiered selection system" thread...Except now with the inclusion of "Core Symmetry" we have SIX factors.

Well, aside from stalking me (kidding)...that's a good catch. I 'thought' I had started this thread before...but it was awhile ago.

To help those that are looking at the post for the first time...I will move some of the content from that thread to this one...if it applies to the topic at hand.

Rob's post is interesting, as I knew it would be on this topic, but he addressed items I was going to bring up in 2-6...so, I'll copy/paste his comments into the future threads (2-6). However, he DID mention cover material as one of his 4 factors...which is interesting. Rob talked about it in terms of the varying covers from the various manufacturers...which, I left off my "6 topics"...NOT because it isn't a valid consideration...only that it's "confusing" and it opens the conversation to all kinds of debate about which companies hook the soonest versus latest.

RobM
Have you done any research or has BTM ever looked into which manufacturer hooks "sooner" versus "later"? I know you aren't a fan of Brunswick's attempts at skid/flip (for example). What about their sister brands DV8 and Radical? Do you have the same opinion about the skid/flip of the sister brands?

[Aslan]

To keep "Part I" on track...

The only comment made by folks regarding cover stock (specifically) was Bowl1820:

"Ball#3
Polished/Pearl reactive with a medium to high RG and medium differential (medium to dry conditions)"

So, for those who 'missed' that original thread...which going back and looking at it...was a bit hard to read/follow because we tried to address every item at once......but the general consensus in that thread, specifically regarding coverstocks...was that coverstocks were generally a non-factor because, in a large part, they could be manipulated using surfacing....and surfacing is a more important factor.

Kind've like the type of plastic used to make the body of a race car. As long as the type of plastic is approved by the racing circuit...and it's the same weight/texture/strength/durability...and is coated with an approved coating...it probably doesn't matter much what specific type or mix of resin/vinyl/esters your particular plastic is made of.

I'd be interested in getting comments from ball manufacturers on this topic as coverstocks seem to be important factors to THEM. I don't know if they'd agree that coverstocks are inconsequential...and I certainly don't think they'd admit that even if it were true.

RobM: Didn't you say once that you did a study where you took the various coverstocks and surfaced them the same...and they had the same reaction (regardless of the coverstock)?? Could you summarize your findings from that experiment?

I'll give others the chance to add their 2 cents on coverstocks (pearl, hybrid, solid) before moving on to topic #2: "Perfectscale" (and other 'hook' measurement systems).

Note: I'm not ignoring RobM's post...I will reference it when we get to those items he mentioned AND I will copy/paste some of the content from the thread Bowl1820 referenced as well...once I get to those parts. I'd like to "close the door" on the coverstock issue first.

[RobLV1]

1) It is pretty much impossible to classify all of the different brands in terms of their cover materials... there are just too many brands out there. With that being said, more and more bowlers seem to be sticking with one or two brands as the number of offerings from each company keep increasing. One of the reasons that I have been using Storm balls almost exclusively as of late is the fact that Storm tends to reuse their most popular cover materials quite often; most notably the R2S formulation which was first introduced over ten years ago in the Special Agent. That same cover material has been used in all of "Road" series, the Fast/Fanatic series, the Rocket series, the Code Black, and, most recently, the Timeless. Using balls with the same cover material makes changing between them very easy. Currently, I have the Code Black, the Rocketship, and the Timeless in my arsenal, and changing is virtually seamless. As for different brands within the same company, I know that even though Storm and Roto Grip are both manufactured by Storm, I see a big difference in the cover materials. I love Storm reactions, and I have yet to find a Roto ball that I like.

2) The experiment that I did was to take the Brunswick Melee Cross (solid) and the Melee Jab (pearl) and put the same surface on both of them (same core, same material, same layout). First I used the Cross surface on both, then the Jab surface on both. With the same surface, the differences between the balls were indistinguishable. This is substantiated by the BTM reviews of the Storm Rocket (hybrid), and the Sky Rocket (pearl). Both have the same OOB finish, and the reviews showed them to be virtually identical.

[Amyers]

Ok so basically to sum up what's been said here.

1. The type of cover stock i.e. pearl, hybrid, solid means less than nothing
2. The strength of the cover is important but hard to quantify
3. surface is important but part of a separate discussion

[Brite1]

Ok so basically to sum up what's been said here.

1. The type of cover stock i.e. pearl, hybrid, solid means less than nothing
2. The strength of the cover is important but hard to quantify
3. surface is important but part of a separate discussion

Sounds about right lol. Or in other words, move on to the next part lol, since the only part of this discussion that is pretty much agreed upon to be important(strength of cover) is next to impossible to quantify from one brand to the next.

[RobLV1]

Ok so basically to sum up what's been said here.

1. The type of cover stock i.e. pearl, hybrid, solid means less than nothing
2. The strength of the cover is important but hard to quantify
3. surface is important but part of a separate discussion

This seems to be the case. Aslan has a very unique way of looking at things, so since he started the thread, he gets to choreograph it.