In order to make that work you need to get popular enough where the companies actually send you the balls to review or you'll be shelling out a ton of money for balls. The forum owner actually does reviews on the new releases using employees.
Tamer bowling does some of the better reviews out there and they aren't sponsored by anyone.
I am a proud member of Bowlingboards.com bowling forums and ball contest winner
Current arsenal
900 Global Badger Claw - Radical Ridiculous Pearl - Spare Ball Ebonite T Zone
In order to make that work you need to get popular enough where the companies actually send you the balls to review or you'll be shelling out a ton of money for balls. The forum owner actually does reviews on the new releases using employees.
I havent seen any actual reviews, i have however seen their reaction videos. It would be nice if they would discuss the balls while the video is playing, instead of forcing us to listen to that awful music.Originally Posted by JaxBowlingGuy
I just had an idea. Why not require them to send all new balls ready for release to USBC and they could test them on their robot. Use sport shots of 32', 36', 40' 42' 44' 46' 48' something like that, then a house shot and dry open bowling shots. Have them do an unbiased review. Then put in a 1 year ban on all their balls if they get caught cheating.
Come on USBC show us your BALLS.
The amount of data that table would show would be insane. Think of all the combinations that robot would have to come up with (Rev Rate, Speed, PAP) to cover the reviews for people. If you don't do this and you simply have a set criteria that is used each time, bowling companies would simply make all their equipment for those ranges. Take the following rev rates 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450; the following speeds (in mph) 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; and then 5 PAP set-ups you would have 150 different combinations - to show that in a table not only takes a long time, but would also create a table of insane data. This also assumes only one shot per combination (which all of those are not playing the same line so you have to factor in multiple tries across the 150 combinations) and then after all of this we want the USBC to create an unbiased review...just isn't reasonable.
Currently in the arsenal: Roto Grip Hyper Cell (@2000), Hammer Gauntlet Fury (@1000 polished), Roto Grip Idol (@2000), Storm IQ Tour Emerald (@1500 polished), Storm Phaze 4 (@1500 polished), Hammer Cherry Vibe (@1500 polished), Hammer Black Widow Urethane (@1000), Jet Blackbird
OK lets go strictly with the house shot with 42'. All balls tested and rated using this as a base line. Try it with different releases on arrow 1-2-3-4. Give it a rating. Have to be better than what we have now. All drilled the most popular way.
JaxBowling is right...and fordman has a good idea about having the USBC do the testing/rating...BUT...
...regarding the reviews by bowlingball.com (forum owner)...I think they'd run into the same problem as other ball review sites (like Lane Side Reviews up in Canada..eh). Ball companies send you free balls to test so you'll say really nice things about them and people will want to buy them. I've seen virtually ZERO bad reviews of any bowling ball to date.
...concerning the USBC rating the balls..."rating" wouldn't be a problem...but "opinions" would be. The USBC can't be biased towards any one manufacturer...so they'd have to only give raw data or a raw rating...which might be about as helpful as "specs".
Thats why I like the idea of a database based on performance, titles, and honor scores. It's strictly data...so the USBC isn't involved in bias in any way...and it doesn't tell you anything about a ball other than how many times it has won a title, bowled a perfect game, bowled an 800/900 series, etc... It pressures the ball companies to make better balls and sponsor the best bowlers. And, it levels the playing field (somewhat) for large/small manufacturers using sales data as part of the computation. The only 'disadvantage' for smaller manufacturers is they can't compete for PBA titles. But, they could still get credit for International, Collegiate, and USBC titles as well as honor scores.
The overall POINT...is the consumer needs "something" to justify buying these new releases...and there's really nothing new (technologically speaking) coming to market. The cores are at the limit of the USBC specification...and the coverstocks are at the limit of what they can acheive. So, now you just have balls coming out with new combinations of cores and coverstocks...renamed, redesigned...but no real engineering breakthroughs. The complimentary problem...is that the THS lane conditions don't require the high-performance balls...and the high performance players with high revs are starting to look for more tame options...like urethane.
In Bag: (: .) Motiv Trident Odyssey; (: .) Hammer Scorpion Sting; (: .) Brunswick Endeavor; (: .) Radical Outer Limits Pearl; (: .) Ebonite Maxim
USBC#: 8259-59071; USBC Sanctioned Average = 186; Lifetime Average = 171;
Ball Speed: 14.4mph; Rev. Rate: 240rpm || High Game (sanc.) = 300 (268); High Series (sanc.) = 725 (720); Clean Games: 181
Smokey this is not 'Nam', this is bowling. There are rules. Proud two-time winner of a bowlingboards.com weekly ball give-away!
I don't mind the idea of a database of honor scores per se (Storm, Pyramid and a few others do something like that on their sites... an honor roll of scores thrown with the product) - but what happens if you change balls in the middle of an 800 set? Or are using 2 different balls on your lanes for a 300? Hard to get around variables like that.
Rating balls by the number of honor scores shot with them would be problematic & skewed, so really wouldn't be helpful. mc_runner points out a couple right there.
It would also turn into a big catch-22, Because the balls with the fewest honor scores (let's call them ball "B"), would always be passed over in preference to those with the most honor scores (Ball "A").
Thus being passed over, ball "B" would always have the fewest honor scores, not having a chance to increase and ball "A" would always be higher. Not because ball "A" was better, It just shows more honor scores because more people are using it.
Plus older balls will have higher numbers do to being out longer. New balls would always be struggling to show increased numbers.
Also it tells you nothing about the ball, conditions etc, just that someone shot a high score with it.
As for the USBC they should already have a database, from the ball approval process. Which would contain the actual tested ball spec's, such as Low RG, High RG, Differential, Intermediate Diff., Coefficient of Restriction and probably most importantly the Coefficient of Friction.
With the Coefficient of Friction you would then be better able to rank coverstocks.
That would be a more useful database than one just based on honor scores.
Last edited by bowl1820; 07-06-2017 at 10:08 AM.
Right handed Stroker, high track ,about 13 degree axis tilt. PAP is located 5 9/16” over 1 3/4” up.Speed ave. about 14 mph at the pins. Medium rev’s.High Game 300, High series 798
"Talent without training is nothing." Luke Skywalker
If all balls are tested by USBC they should compare the perfect scale rating to what they find. If it says it is a 232 and hooks 3 boards ask them to rerate it. I have had one ball rated at 230 and another at 176 both drilled the same both with a matted cover. Hardly any difference. Also had a ball I bowled 300 with and it was a one time great ball never could do anything with it again. What ball do you use and average the best. is a better gage.
I like the ball videos where every shot thrown is a strike. Now that is a great ball, right?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks