Bowling in 1980?

[RobLV1]

A few days ago I was watching a couple of seniors practicing. One of the bowlers is a current league bowler who averages about 220. The other is a former Tour Player from the 1970's. As I observed their ball reactions and listened to their conversation, it occurred to me that their bowling beliefs were formed around 1980, and never changed. Are you bowling in 2018, or in 1980? You are bowling in 1980 if you still believe that:

• The two lanes that make up a "pair" should play the same.
• The oil is responsible if they don't play the same.
• You can always play the 2nd arrow on a house shot.
• You only need to watch your own ball reaction to adjust.
• Adjustments are always 2 and 1.
• You can "make" a ball hook.
• One bowling ball hooks more than another.
• You can ignore the core, because surface is 75% of ball reaction.
• Pin up balls go longer.
• Carry down has a negative effect on reactive resin balls.

How many of these do you still believe to be true?

[boatman37]

I must be bowling in 2000 cause I believe 1/2 of those...lol. No. I do bowl more old school (my first year in leagues was about 1979 (I was about 10 then)). But I would say I believe #4 because I'm a lefty and play the 1st arrow almost every time but I'm usually the only one out there so watching another bowler doesn't really help me. I will say that my teammate got a new ball a few weeks ago and it is about 3 boards stronger than his other ball and he has been struggling with it. The lanes were drying up on him with his old ball so I told him to try the new one. He resisted for awhile because his argument was that it hooked even more. I finally convinced him to try it as he had nothing to lose at this point. He grabbed the new ball and threw 4 or 5 strikes in a row. My theory was that oil had carried down the lane by then which helped the new ball? Only explanation I had.

[bowl1820]

Carry down has a negative effect on reactive resin balls.

Carrydown can have a negative effect on any ball, If there is enough present.

[RobLV1]

I must be bowling in 2000 cause I believe 1/2 of those...lol. No. I do bowl more old school (my first year in leagues was about 1979 (I was about 10 then)). But I would say I believe #4 because I'm a lefty and play the 1st arrow almost every time but I'm usually the only one out there so watching another bowler doesn't really help me. I will say that my teammate got a new ball a few weeks ago and it is about 3 boards stronger than his other ball and he has been struggling with it. The lanes were drying up on him with his old ball so I told him to try the new one. He resisted for awhile because his argument was that it hooked even more. I finally convinced him to try it as he had nothing to lose at this point. He grabbed the new ball and threw 4 or 5 strikes in a row. My theory was that oil had carried down the lane by then which helped the new ball? Only explanation I had.

His new ball was three boards "stronger" than his old one because it hooked earlier, not because it hooked more. When he changed to his new ball, the earlier hook allowed the ball to exit the pattern where there was still oil, after he, or others, had effectively shortened the pattern at the break point.

[RobLV1]

Carrydown can have a negative effect on any ball, If there is enough present.

I've been throwing nothing but plastic for the past year. Plastic creates more carry down than any other kind of ball. It is also more affected by carry down because of it's lack of friction. I am very accurate, therefore I create more consistent carry down than random bowlers. During the last year, I have only seen carry down affect my own shot three or four times. During those times, my average increased by twenty to thirty pins because the shim that was created made my miss room as big as a reactive ball's. I never saw a negative effect, even on a plastic ball.

[ALazySavage]

My answers to the survey:

• The two lanes that make up a "pair" should play the same. Never believed this, but since moving to Colorado and bowling at my home house I don't see how anyone here could possibly believe it.
• The oil is responsible if they don't play the same. This is the one I have held onto the longest - but with topography information coming out the past few years I no longer believe it is as strong of a player.
• You can always play the 2nd arrow on a house shot. Nope
• You only need to watch your own ball reaction to adjust. You can adjust off of your own shot, but ten is better than one.
• Adjustments are always 2 and 1. Nope
• You can "make" a ball hook. You can make the ball hook differently by changing hand positions and speed (in the sense of how early it reads)
• One bowling ball hooks more than another. Location, location, location
• You can ignore the core, because surface is 75% of ball reaction. Surface is the strongest determinant - core is more of the fine tuning and perfecting of reaction
• Pin up balls go longer. This is why I have a pro-shop operator that I really like, so he can help me with the drill patterns (so much so that I live in Lakewood, CO and go back to Tempe, AZ for my equipment)
• Carry down has a negative effect on reactive resin balls. It can still be a player depending on the severity of the situation. I think people listen to Randy Peterson and blow this out of proportion. The typical pro has more revs than anything I'm going to see and they keep their covers fresh to destroy the fronts - typically house bowler doesn't do either (and if you have seen the BTM article about surfaces you would know that they change drastically). While I'm not on the boat that carrydown doesn't exist I feel that when people see their ball labor on the backs it is because they have stayed in the same part of the lane and are seeing more of the ball losing energy in the front rather than the claim of carrydown. Personally, if I'm bowling against a team that has this feeling I intentionally throw my Black Widow Urethane throughout practice and often game 1 (by the way, the ball flairs so much that it wouldn't create much anyway) and then watch them mentally beat themselves.

[mx1alex]

I wasn't born yet! That said a lot of those statements can be argued semantically. I mean of course I can make a ball hook.

[RobLV1]

I wasn't born yet! That said a lot of those statements can be argued semantically. I mean of course I can make a ball hook.

The idea is that with modern balls, the more you try to "make" the ball hook, the less it hooks. If you are trying to argue the statements semantically, perhaps they are lost on you anyway.

[mx1alex]

The idea is that with modern balls, the more you try to "make" the ball hook, the less it hooks. If you are trying to argue the statements semantically, perhaps they are lost on you anyway.

Well I joined this place to learn and when you have noobs like me read statements like that it's easy to see where confusion would set in. Last night I bowled a quick game to try out my new ball. Just messing around I could "make" the ball roll almost straight down the lane or "make" the ball hook depending on how I released the ball.

[Amyers]

I think the point Rob was arguing is if you are doing things out of the ordinary to make a ball appear to hook more your not throwing your best shot and often times when you attempt it in real life you actually end up removing the rotation from the ball. Often when this appears to be done you'll actually notice the "greater" hooking ball was thrown with less speed. You are correct that it is possible to throw a backup ball or similar and have less hook on the ball than I would traditionally