Aslan's Arsenal Progression Discussion Thread: (Part 2 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 PERFECTSCALE (and other "hook rating" systems):

Ball #1 (first ball out of bag, fresh conditions, longer patterns, sport patterns, etc...)
> 208.9

Ball #2 ("go to ball", ball down option from Ball #1, regular ball, THS ball, etc...)
196.8 to 208.9

Ball #3 (slightly stronger ball than ball #2 to combat "carrydown", 3rd ball out of the bag, "skid/flip" ball, etc...)
> 204.8

Ball #4 (dry lane ball, wood lane ball, practice ball, etc...)
< 196.8

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.

I KNOW this is frustrating...but last time I tried to talk in depth about ball prograssion systems...we tried to talk about every possible combination of specs/characteristics that go into arsenal creation...and the thread was very, very hard to read.

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]

Now...there are more than one rating system out there. Each ball manufacturer has their own system...which works fine if you only use one manufacturer's equipment. MANY bowlers do this and tend to be very "brand loyal"...especially those bowlers that are staffers and required to only throw certain manufacturer's equipment.

BUT...for the many, many bowlers that use multiple brands....numerous rating systems exist.

For those not familiar with PerfectScale....it is the system developed by the forum's parent site (bowlingball.com) and is described in detail HERE.

Before I go into my thoughts, here are some thoughts from the previous discussion thread:

BOWL1820: "Note: The PerfectScale Rating system can be misleading."

ASLAN: "I realize the PerfectScale rating is misleading...but I'm only using it as 1/5 of the evaluation. And as I said...it remarkably does a better job of predicting when a ball is going to hook than simply going my hybrid versus solid versus pearl....I think because it factors in the actual strength of the cover material...but I'm guessing at that."

JJKinGA: "Rather than the perfect scale to account for coverstock friction, I think you may want to look at BTM's length rating which is designed to provide spearation between the bowling balls and give an idea of the amount of friction. BJI has a similar rating but BTM has been very transparent about how it is measured and it should be pretty consistent. It tracks very well to how they rate the balls for a given amount of oil (longer is higher rated on dry, shorter rates better on heavy). I haven't found that the torque, back end or hook ratings are that useful to me. Perhaps because those properties are more drilling depedant."

I have NOT looked at the BTM or BJI rating systems. My BTM subscription has expired...and I didn't renew it...NOT because it wasn't valuable....I just never had enough time to stay current on the articles. Like my XTraFrame subscription...I loved watching the qualifying and match play...but it took hours and hours of time and I'd end up trying to watch events from 3-4 months ago...well behind the tour...and could never seem to catch up until the season was over.

I'd be interested in hearing more about those systems (and others) as part of this thread...if anyone cares to share (and has a current subscription(s)).

REMEMBER...I am going from topics I believe are LEAST important...to those that are MOST important...so I'd consider PerfectScale (or other overall rating systems) to be more reliable a factor than COVERSTOCK...but not as important as the other factors listed...and from previous comments on this topic...most others would echo that sentiment.

[Aslan]

My THOUGHTS on PERFECTSCALE are as follows:

In Support of PerfectScale:

When I put my first arsenal together...I tried the Solid, Hybrid, Pearl approach. The glaring deficiency in that approach...was I was trying to start with a Hammer Rhythm (essentially a cross between the popular Taboo and Arson lines)...a SOLID...then moving to the 900 Global Bullet Train (a HYBRID). I ended up having to switch them in the progression...because the Bullet Train had an S79 cover...a very strong cover.

Had I used PerfectScale instead of coverstocks to allign my progression...I'd have DEFINITELY started with the Bullet Train (222.8) rather than the Rhythm (211).

In my current arsenal, despite having 3 balls that are all pearls and ALL have identical RGs...the Ebonite Innovate is my #2 option and has a PerfectScale rating WELL below the #1 ball; the Reax Pearl (224.8).

Another "PRO" of these systems...is that they simplify what is an almost impossible task...taking into account 7-14 different "specs"...including things NOT listed in my 6 factors...like "Age/Technology" or "Manufacturer". Some manufacturers have equipment that rolls SOONER....some manufacturers have a tendency to roll LATER. Balls have been getting increasingly stronger and stronger over time...and that is taken into account with PerfectScale as well. Using a system based on something like coverstock or RG...you may end up comparing a Radical and Ebonite ball...both Pearls, both 2.49 RG...yet Radical and Ebonite are on different ends of the spectrum in terms of where on the lanes they hook. Same thing with Age/Technology...a bowling ball from 1994 with a 2.50 RG is not going to have the same hook potential as a ball from 2016 with a 2.50 RG.

The Counter Arguement, from my perspective is:

PerfectScale often mirrors Differential. A higher differential...often equals a higher PerfectScale. So by using BOTH as factors in my "system" I'm trying to develop...I'm sort of "double-counting" differential.

Also, the STRENGTH of these type of rating systems is that they take all the specs into account. That "strength"....is also the "weakness"....because it doesn't really tell you "why" a particular ball is stronger/weaker. If a ball has a super strong CORE....but a weak COVER...it may have the same PerfectScale rating as a ball with a very weak CORE, and a very strong COVER....and you're not going to know that...even thought that "may" be an important distinction.

In the progression I listed...I think your strongest ball should have a higher PS rating, than your next strongest ball. If you are using ball #3 to battle carrydown...it should also have a higher PS rating than Ball #2. And if you have a ball #4 to use on drier/shorter/wood conditions...it should probably have a lower PS rating.

Thoughts from the group??

[RobLV1]

There are two ways to define hook:

1) The traditional method measures the number of boards covered.
2) The size of the angle of the change of direction as the ball completes the hook phase on the lane.

I think that it is pretty easy to see that the tradition method is totally dependent on when the ball hooks: the earlier the hook phase starts, the more boards the ball will cover. The size of the angle of the change of direction is totally dependent on the release of the bowler and within a general type of ball (reactive resin, for example) will not change from ball to ball.

Once you accept this basic fact, the very idea of a "Perfect Scale" becomes flawed, right along with the hook potential ratings used on the PBA ESPN telecasts. Length is the only way to evaluate how a ball hooks, other than to consider the duration of the hook phase which is affected by the differential though in different amounts for different bowlers.

[JJKinGA]

Over the years I have found I care much more about the length than total hook. This is even more true when I play at multiple houses. Getting the ball to read the lane at the right distance make s sure I can stay in the pocket. So i have my arsenal set up so I have three balls that read early, two medium, and one that goes pretty long. for the early reading balls, I have one that hooks a lot, one medium and one very little (urethane). For the medium I have one that hooks a lot and one that is medium. This lets me find a length that gets to the pocket well and an amount of hook that maximizes entry angle with control. For my usual bowling center I only bring the medium/high hook, long and the early/low hook. That way i have an option if the lanes are very wet/dry (early/low hook) or abnormally dry (long).

[Tony]

I can totally agree that length is the factor that is most important / helpful to me, the PS ratings have not provided any meaningful information to me, in fact they have been somewhat misleading to the point where I really don't consider them a useful tool in purchasing a ball.
Sadly with all the spec's and reviews available, some of the best sources for information on the ball, have been watching other bowlers I know throw the ball, and talking to my PSO.

[Amyers]

I can totally agree that length is the factor that is most important / helpful to me, the PS ratings have not provided any meaningful information to me, in fact they have been somewhat misleading to the point where I really don't consider them a useful tool in purchasing a ball.
Sadly with all the spec's and reviews available, some of the best sources for information on the ball, have been watching other bowlers I know throw the ball, and talking to my PSO.

ding, ding, ding winner, winner chicken dinner. Of course throwing the ball yourself is the best tool but rarely available. If you can understand surface and Rg. you can get a clue to what the ball will do the only real way I've found to judge the strength of the cover is to watch the ball rolled. You do have to understand how different bowlers throw the ball in relationship to you but it's the best indicator of how the cover strength effects the ball motion

[Amyers]

I agree with the below comments about length and you've evaluated perfect scale as being slightly more useful than cover composition which I would say is correct in the manner of both being completely useless for anything. I've pointed out balls ratings in the perfect scale that were completely incorrect on here before. If I knew nothing about bowling balls maybe the perfect scale might be effective in helping me make a decision but I certainly would not base an arsenal on it for the simple fact as it has no bearing on when the ball hooks

[bowl1820]

"the earlier the hook phase starts, the more boards the ball will cover."

The earlier a ball starts the hook phase, doesn't necessarily mean it will cover more boards.

Most of the time when bowlers say "Hook" what they are referring to is backend, that dramatic angle change they see a ball make.

Here's a simple example:
The illustration is not remotely to scale and so the ball paths are slightly distorted and would look different on a actual lane.


A more to scale diagram as you can see the red&black lines are hard to see thus the above diagram:


Which hooked more?

Most players would say the Red ball "Hooked" more because they seen it make a dramatic angle change, It went long and snapped hard.

But both balls (Red & Black) have covered the same amount of boards, The main difference was just where the ball made the change in direction "hooked".

The Black ball started it's hook earlier than the Red one, but that didn't make it cover anymore boards than the Red one.

Note:

• Frontend Boards Covered (FBC): This is the number of boards crossed from the laydown point to the breakpoint.
• Backend Boards Covered (BBC): This is the total number of boards crossed from the breakpoint to the entry board at the pocket.
• Total Boards Covered (TBC): This is the total number of boards crossed from the time the ball contacts the lane until it enters the pocket.

[Aslan]

I can totally agree that length is the factor that is most important / helpful to me, the PS ratings have not provided any meaningful information to me, in fact they have been somewhat misleading to the point where I really don't consider them a useful tool in purchasing a ball.
Sadly with all the spec's and reviews available, some of the best sources for information on the ball, have been watching other bowlers I know throw the ball, and talking to my PSO.

1) I would hesitate to call these type of rating systems, "misleading". Any rating systems "can" be misleading if you rely solely on it for your decisions.
2) As discussed in some other threads...the only things I would rate "less important" than Coverstock (least important on my list) are:
- what manufacturers say (marketing)
- what average bowlers say (uninformed heresay)
- watching other bowlers throw the ball
- what the PSO in the center says (slightly informed/biased information/slightly marketing)
- online video reviews
- ball demos/personal trials
- drilling layouts

...in that order.

1) Manufacturers lie in order to make $$$. I've never, not once, heard a manufacturer say, "This ball sucks...but it's a cool color scheme and has a cool name."

2) Average bowlers are idiots....and couldn't tell you what 2 of the 6 items I've listed even mean. Most bowlers in an average house league don't even know a ball HAS a core...much less anything else.

3) If you watch a 400rpm bowler throw a ball....and it looks awesome so you buy it...you're likely to disappointed that it doesn't do nearly the same thing with your suitcase style release.

4) I can't count on two hands how many times BB users have complained about a ball they bought, based on a PSO recommendation. Pro shops are in the business of SELLING you things. If those things don't work...they are in the business of selling you a replacement thing. And most PSOs "think" they know way, way more than they actually do...and virtually none of them agree with each other. If they DID know as much as they pretend to...they'd be bowling rather than drilling bowling balls.

5) Online reviews are slightly better than just watching people throw stuff...because they give you more information and are more informed than the average bowler. BUT....like manufacturers....I've never heard a bad online review and rarely seen a video where the ball doesn't strike. The only way they get free balls to throw...is by saying really awesome stuff about the balls they get for free.

6) Ball demos are somewhat meaningful...because it's at least YOU throwing the balls. But....a good bowling ball is a a ball that FITS your hand. Bowling balls at demos rarely "fit" your hand the way they would if you bought them and had them drilled. AND...you have to hope they have the ball you want, in the weight you want, drilled in the way you want....AND....hope they put a fresh pattern down rather than bowl on open bowling conditions.

7) We had a really, really long debate about drilling layouts before...it's a complicated subject...but in summary...drilling layouts certainly DO affect ball motion...but you can't drill your way to a good ball reaction...and once it's drilled...it's drilled....not something you can "tweak" unless you want to shell out another $15 to fill in the holes and another $55 to re-drill it. A lot of expense for minimal benefit. I think it's been proving that surfacing is a much more effective way to fine tune ball motion...much less expensive as well.

ding, ding, ding winner, winner chicken dinner. Of course throwing the ball yourself is the best tool but rarely available. If you can understand surface and Rg. you can get a clue to what the ball will do the only real way I've found to judge the strength of the cover is to watch the ball rolled. You do have to understand how different bowlers throw the ball in relationship to you but it's the best indicator of how the cover strength effects the ball motion

But again...you and Rob tend to be in the "Candyland" camp....where you're basing that on the assumption that every bowler has access to every bowling ball on the market and can simply go to the lanes....throw every ball...and make a decision. That's NOT an option for 99.999999% of bowlers. The point of a rating system...is to give you some type of data...so you can limit your choices to a certain subset of balls that are most likely to fit your needs.

Absolutely....throwing every new release...drilled to fit your hand...drilled in every possible layout...on conditions you are likely to see on league night would be IDEAL. But, it would also be IMPOSSIBLE.

Like I said when I added my 2 cents....these rating "compromise rating systems" 'can' be misleading...IF you use them by themselves. And...since PerfectScale seems to mirror differential...I'm not sure how valuable it is to consider both of them. On the other hand, as listed above, I think I'd trust PerfectScale or the BTM/Bowling Journal numeric ratings more than I'd trust "Clive McDoodle" who recommends Ball A because it smells like a pomegranate and he once bowled a 250 with it.

NOTE: I forgot to add "ball scent" to the list of characteristics that are rather meaningless. I had a Storm ball that smelled like Lime...kinda made my ball bag smell good. I just bought my second Storm ball (added to Closet of Destiny) and it says it smells like Cranberries...but to me it smells like somebody vomited after drinking fruity cocktails. I imagine I'll now have to order some Storm product to get rid of the smell....nice little marketing scam...

I'll try to get to Part 3 of this topic this weekend. The GOOD news (hopefully) is that as we move further down the list...we'll be dealing with the more impactful variables rather than arguing about/discussing the more meaningless ones.