With new bowling balls being announced, anyone interested in any of them?

[KYDave]

I know where you are going with this. But there are so many other variables than just what the numbers are. For example you can take a core with similar numbers but have different pin asymmetry and roll differently. Not to mention the differences in the cover stock additives. And yes mfg do shuffle around the cores and covers. Example is new release no rules exist. No rules chaotic core with the dare devil trick cover. Do you think this ball will be any different than the original no rules or the dare devil trick or all 3 basically the same?

[Aslan]

I know where you are going with this. But there are so many other variables than just what the numbers are.

Either the numbers mean something...or they don't. They can't "sort of" mean something.

For example you can take a core with similar numbers but have different pin asymmetry and roll differently.

True...but not as much as one would think. Sure...you can drill something pin up versus pin down...you can tweak a surface...you can look at minor coverstock additives...but these are all minor items that pale in comparison to the bowling ball coverstock and core....unless you're talking a serious surface change.

And yes mfg do shuffle around the cores and covers. Example is new release no rules exist. No rules chaotic core with the dare devil trick cover. Do you think this ball will be any different than the original no rules or the dare devil trick or all 3 basically the same?

But...what is the chaotic core? Isn't it just a minor variation of the hyper cell core? Which...was a minor variation on the Defiant core?

And when you talk coverstocks...it's even more questionable regarding how different the variations are...because we can't see the formula of the coverstock materials. You mentioned the DareDevil coverstock...what was the difference in that "Reckless" coverstock and it's predecessor the "80H Microbite"? Could it have been a 1% increase in particulates and a slight 1.5% reduction in slip agent? Maybe even less significant than that? Maybe a slightly different mix of solvents?

That arguement would be like Chevy releasing a new version of the Corvette...because they now come with Michelin tires instead of Firestones. Or "The New 2017 Chevy Suburban! It's actually the 2016 Chevy Suburban...but we added two cupholders to the backseat!!"

The point is...they can't really "change" anything. The cores MUST be similar...because they are at the differential limit. Any company that flirts with a 0.059 differential better have their lawyers on speed dial after what happened to Motiv. And the USBC tests on coverstocks...you virtually can't make wholesale changes in coverstocks or you'll fail the battery of tests. Thats why every ball Rotogrip releases has virtually the identical durometer value (73-75)...because making the ball covers softer will fail them out of the gate.

Lets say I agree with you about specs, which I scientifically speaking do not...but lets just say you're right. If the specs aren't important....the manufacturers have to come up with some type of marketing tool that can simply say, "Look...for 'whatever reason'...THIS ball does well for the MOST number of bowlers across a wide variety of conditions." So, how can a company SHOW that to be true? I.e....the titles/honor scores database. If Rotogrip thinks their Chaotic core and Reckless coverstock is a magical combination...and for whatever non-spec-related reason it just happens to be in the hands of bowlers winning the most titles and scoring the most honor scores...it will be a HUGE hit!! A marketing success!!

And no....the company's bogus honor score/bragging sections don't count...anyone can post anything there. But imagine logging into the USBC website and seeing a list that looks something like:

Rotogrip Hyper Cell: 89.8
Rotogrip Haywire: 85.6
Track Paradox: 85.2
Brunswick Mastermind: 84.7
Ebonite Gamebreaker2 Phenom: 83.9
Storm Snap Lock: 73.9
Radical Guru: 58.9
Hammer Scandal: 58.9
Hammer Gauntlet: 57.7
Columbia300 Eruption Pro: 57.6
Ebonite Cyclone: 57.6
900 Global Cardinal Boost: 57.4
Rotogrip No Rules: 48.9
DV8 Diva: 48.7
Brunswick LT-48: 48.7

Each "score" would be a conversion of how many titles, how many honor scores, the sales volume of each ball, and the numerical weight of each score. For example, a 300-game might be worth 1 point/# balls sold. A PBA Major Title may be worth 10,000 points/# balls sold. The raw data would then be converted into a "value" between 1-100.

I've left Motiv off the list because I'd consider their balls non-eligible for the list for 1-year as part of their recent suspension.

A bowler could USE this list...they could be thinking about getting a Gauntlet...and see the list and thing, "Hmm...maybe I'll give that Radical Guru a look." And it would help manufacturers as well in MANY WAYS:

1) Maybe Track decides not to discontinue the Paradox...because it's high up on the list and in demand.
2) Maybe Rotogrip makes a new release with the Hyper Cell core and Haywire coverstock...and could use the list to really help in their advertising. The combination of the top two balls on the board!
3) Lets say the Gauntlet and Scandal are only up so high...because one PBA bowler is on fire on the tour. Maybe Brunswick approaches that bowler and makes him/her a heck of a deal to switch teams.
4) This type of table could be part of every PBA telecast...giving the manufacturers publicity and maybe even creating rivalries as two opposing bowlers are throwing balls that are battling for position.
5) It helps for new bowlers...they see the list and think, "Hmmm...maybe I should get a Cyclone or a Diva or a Cardinal Boost. They aren't too expensive...but they have a high score.
6) Maybe a company like Columbia sees the success of the Eruption Pro and says, "Thats are next re-release! We're re-releasing the Eruption Pro....call it the Eruption Pro Titanium!"...same ball, different color...maybe a couple 'tweaks'...but due to it's position on the list...the new version will sell easily.
7) What happens if some ball by Seismic or Lane #1 or Pyramid starts showing up on the list? Small companies are at a disadvantage due to non-PBA participation...but using sales volume in the denominator of the equation...evens the playing field. All it takes is one ball...showing up in the Top 15-25...and a small manufacturer could see a 300% increase in sales.

Just thoughts....

[KYDave]

Pin asymmetry I'm talking about the core not the drilling. Specifically where the mass is located.

I wasn't implying the specs were not important. I was just saying there is more going on that that. But yes typically I often shop based on core specs first. As far as the covers I guess I will just agree to disagree with you on that.

I think your idea is good. But you also have to consider that often "big balls" aren't used on tour near as much as mid level balls so not sure how that would skew the numbers.

[JJKinGA]

The rating based on success in competition is neat, but way useless. Let's figure that there are 4 significant tournaments a week that the USBC would track. To get good differentiation between close samples you would need at least 30 results. And that is for variables that aren't just binary (won or didn't win). So you wouldn't even have meaningful data for 7 weeks probably 3 months. I don't think the majority are waiting to see the results to make a purchase. It really would be more of a reason for ball companies to keep a ball in the market longer rather than a way to sell the new model.

[Aslan]

The rating based on success in competition is neat, but way useless. Let's figure that there are 4 significant tournaments a week that the USBC would track. To get good differentiation between close samples you would need at least 30 results. And that is for variables that aren't just binary (won or didn't win). So you wouldn't even have meaningful data for 7 weeks probably 3 months. I don't think the majority are waiting to see the results to make a purchase. It really would be more of a reason for ball companies to keep a ball in the market longer rather than a way to sell the new model.

Yeah...the data on new releases just isn't going to all of the sudden show up. It would take time. But, the companies could use the data to make more sense of why they choose to use a certain core or a certain coverstock or a certain re-release. Now it's just a random mix and match of various cores they have laying around...minor changes to cover stock chemistry (if any change...we don't know for sure if they even change the chemistry)...and re-releases of balls that were popular 15 years ago because they had a cool name.

The point is to try and give the bowling ball consumer something tangible to consider when looking at new ball releases...rather than crazy fake ball review videos, random sponsored bowlers spamming every bowling forum on the web claiming "Ball X" has the technology equal to NASA, and specifications that the majority consensus is = meaningless. At the end of the day...all that matters is whether a given ball will help you score better. The better a ball scores...with a large population of bowlers...the more likely it is that said ball is "better" than the competition. Doesn't mean it WILL be. A kid threw a 900-series with a Rotogrip Asylum and I hated that ball with a passion when I was trying to throw it...but with a large enough sample size....the better quality and better performing balls should rise to the top.