PBA bans Urethane older than 2 calendar yrs old

[Phonetek]

Looks like Sean is getting his way. This is ONLY at the PBA level. (Probably for now) I'm interested in seeing the fallout that's going to follow. Personally I think this was a decision force by panic and a knee jerk reaction. I don't think they really thought this through.

[J Anderson]

Looks like Sean is getting his way. This is ONLY at the PBA level. (Probably for now) I'm interested in seeing the fallout that's going to follow. Personally I think this was a decision force by panic and a knee jerk reaction. I don't think they really thought this through.

Even if the USBC were to follow suit there’s no way it would be enforced in most local associations. I believe the problem with older urethane is that it gets softer over time. What Rash was whining about was that the PBA had promised they would be testing all the urethane balls at the Players Championship and then their testing equipment broke. This is just a a simple way to address the issue without having to test the balls.

[Ryster]

Three Purple Hammers failed testing before last week's ToC final match play broadcast. They were all "Kentucky" balls from 2016/2017.

The USBC knows, and openly acknowledges, that ALL urethane balls gets softer as they age before their hardness ultimately stabilizes. They even said the balls may go below 70D.

Mitch Beasley posted on Facebook that there was a specific batch of "Kentucky" Purple Hammers well below the 72D minimum hardness that were released and shipped by a bad employee at the time. Bowlers are still actively seeking out these balls.

Taking all of this into consideration, the PBA really had no choice but to pull all pre-2020 urethane balls out of play.

Another thing to consider is that as of 8/31/2022, the USBC is requiring ALL newly manufactured bowling balls to have a minimum hardness of 73D. Manufacturers will no longer be permitted to manufacture additional quantities of balls previously approved based on the 72D minimum. The Purple Hammer supposedly falls under that and will cease production as a result. This could explain why Hammer has been getting other urethane balls approved recently, and those were probably approved at a 73D or harder spec.

[ALazySavage]

I don't really see the issue with this, specifically I'm confused with what they didn't really think through. This is a specific response to a ball which has a known and now popularized issue that is still an active piece of equipment - thus it theoretically could be replaced with the same ball (a new factory location is not a PBA concern and was a business decision) and the PBA is essentially saying if the ball is truly legal recreate it. Access to equipment is not an issue for pros and other than the time Simonsen threw that really old piece from the 90's, I don't know that any discontinued urethane equipment is being thrown other than on a very small case by case situation (maybe the black widow urethane). If Beasley's post is correct, that also shows that pros are fully aware that there is a significant difference with that ball that can't be replicated (at least legally).

If everything is legitimate this doesn't change anything, it isn't as though they changed this rule after the equipment was discontinued and not available.

[Ryster]

The PBA kind of created this mess when they said they would only test balls before finals, but not during qualifying. Then they didn't test due to testing equipment issues. Then they finally do a test before the finals of the ToC and find three non-compliant balls. Then they issue a statement that they just don't have the staff and resources to test so they are just banning any pure urethane ball more than 2 years old. However, they are still going to need staff to check the serial numbers of the balls at check-in to make sure they pass. Expecting the PBA players to self-govern this and go by the honor system would be foolish.

Players will find ways to prematurely soften covers on new pure urethane equipment. Soak them, bake them, whatever. If it is that much of an advantage, the players will figure something out regardless of the ethics involved. Now that they know testing is less likely, they will try to game the system in the hopes the ball doesn't get tested and confiscated.

You are correct. For the most part all of the urethane balls involved are still current models that the players could easily replace with new examples. The only outliers will be Hot Cells, Simo's Grenade, and that old ball Butturff was using that had been plugged several times already. Jesper and Belmo may also need to invest in some new Pitch Blacks. However, if these guys are truly the best in the world it won't matter when their urethane ball was manufactured. They should still be able to compete with the equipment.

[Phonetek]

What I meant by them not thinking it through is that they just banned everything instead of being specific. We know about the bad batch from Kentucky and possibly some others, so why not just ban those? Didn't they ban one of the Jackal models back in the day? The ban was very specific to a very specifically manufactured ball at a specific time. I just feel this time they are casting to wide of a net.

Coming from someone who regularly throws a Faball black hammer as a spare ball I can tell you first hand it's nothing special. If never use it for my strike ball because it's weak as anything. Unless I really want to shoot at 10 pins all day I'd never consider it. I've had Yellow Dots that had more hit and better reaction. It's a marshmallow, it didn't get better with age, it just makes a great spare ball though.

[ALazySavage]

The Jackals were banned because the differential was greater than .060, that is pretty easy to call out specifically since it is specific models of ball/core. With the urethane the purple hammer is getting the attention but the concern can be for all urethane equipment; USBC has come out and said that all urethane will soften over time. With the inability for PBA to figure out how to consistently run the durometers themselves you can't expect the pros to carry around the equipment so the easiest way to control this is to limit the time it is out in competition. Since the coverstock type is what the concern is you can't isolate a single ball as you can with a core type.

In regards to the self-governing you are right, the expectation can't be that across the board people will follow the rules*** because some will get desperate (the 671 serial number is known through the entire tour if we are aware of it); but this is probably a step in the correct direction.

With the comment about us recreational bowlers using urethane and not seeing anything special - we are not pro bowlers, so while we don't see the benefits our games don't match physically to the pros and the environment they encounter. Just like Rob says in about every third post I have seen, the typical house environment and typical physical attributes of non-professional bowlers do not lend themselves to urethane being the best choice, in many instances it does for pros. The excessive softened equipment simply is adding another urethane option for pros and that option is outside of the legal limits.

***Something else to think about, based on the rumors/speculation coming out from this (if they are true) - It has been known for a while now on tour that the 671 serial number purple hammers were released well below the legal hardness requirement, of the three balls that were disqualified they were all allegedly 671 serial numbered purple hammers, 2 bowlers were Storm staffers so they can't have those balls - so at a minimum 1 of the 3 Brunswick guys on the show (assuming that only one person had all three eliminated balls, which is probably unlikely) was knowingly using equipment that is illegal and took it to the championship match of a PBA major - the balls were confiscated, but if that is all the penalty is it would continue - at least with the 2 year rule you have removed all of those balls from competition (and also cleared out a lot of old urethane that has softened to some degree).

[Ryster]

If the PBA banned only Purple Hammers within a certain serial number range manufactured in 2016/2017, then Brunswick would have requested that Storm Pitch Blacks from the same time frame be tested. The USBC says that ALL urethane balls get softer over time. If that is indeed, true, and the Storm balls tested soft then the PBA would have had no choice but to ban all urethane. Now the PBA has this arbitrary two-year threshold. PBA guys bowl hundreds of games per year. There are probably "newer" Purple Hammers and other urethane balls out there with 300+ games on them at this point. Any softness due to age or use is probably well in play on those.

The Jackal issue was a whistleblower that sent a case of balls to the USBC. The USBC tested them and found them out of compliance due to core issues. Motiv tracked it down to core molds that had fallen out of compliance causing the core's undrilled static numbers to fall outside of spec. In this situation we have allegations that there are certain non-compliant serial numbers of Purple Hammers from 5-6 years ago that made it out of the Kentucky plant. Since there is no way for the USBC to get a brand new sample of these balls from such a time frame, they cannot test to determine if they were non-compliant brand new out of the box.

The whole urethane thing is really kind of crazy. It would be interesting to see the hardness difference between a 6 year old ball, and the same model of new manufacture after 300 games.

[Phonetek]

The whole urethane thing is really kind of crazy. It would be interesting to see the hardness difference between a 6 year old ball, and the same model of new manufacture after 300 games.

Actually that could be doable. It would take time to be able to test. It would tire out EARL out but it is probably something that should be explored.

[Phonetek]

I guess there is something to be said about reactive. Since they crack well before becoming OG, you don’t have to worry about someone using one from 15 years ago, they don’t exist. lol