Topography fix? Rob will enjoy this

[Phonetek]

I think that the original idea of this thread has been lost. Lanes that have topographical issues do not "lack quality." Topography is a fact of life on synthetic lanes; it's the nature of the beast. The idea is that bowlers have to get it in their heads that oil is no longer king; topography is!

True but how many posts actually stay on topic? At least they are still valid to subject although not the original point. Nonetheless, I agree topography is King. The now 12 300's in about a week will also agree.

Phonetek: The comment to John was dripping with sarcasm. Yours didn't warrant it! LOL

One of my few comments that I wasn't being sarcastic and giving credit where credit is due. I'll keep in mind for the future that you only respond to insults. LOL

[boomer]

I think that the original idea of this thread has been lost. Lanes that have topographical issues do not "lack quality." Topography is a fact of life on synthetic lanes; it's the nature of the beast. The idea is that bowlers have to get it in their heads that oil is no longer king; topography is!

I think that, as with most things, it's within limits.

"Lanes that have topographical issues, but are within limits, do not 'lack quality'" would be a better statement. If centers let their lanes get outside those limits then we have issues. If the lane profile was convex overall, that would not be enjoyable or constructive. If the USBC and the owners associations aren't enforcing it, why would owners do it?

Nothing is ever perfect. You get zeros on a thousandth depth gauge and woohooo - until you grab a tenth-thousandth depth gauge and see that needle wiggle . . . crap! And then you slide it on a reference plate and see that ink . . . and start scraping.