Storm/USBC???

[Ryster]

but since the testing was done behind closed doors - we won't know ANYTHING . . . which makes it politics.

The USBC did explain why they did that, and it does make sense. They stated:

"Each ball test can take 3-5 minutes. If the tester is having a conversation with the player
during the test, it would take much longer.

The curtain is used simply to provide a workspace without distraction or interruptions for the
staff completing the hardness tests. The integrity of the results also requires a similar
environment from test to test. Additionally, it would be unfair to ask players to submit their
equipment for research, and then allow the public and other competitors to view the results."

I could see someone asking numerous questions during testing, which could turn that 3-5 minutes in to 10-15 minutes. I could also see large groups of bystanders congregating there to watch the testing and starting rumors and speculation on what was going on. Then you see a PBA or PWBA tour player there and it makes matters worse. The staff also probably has a routine for the tests and just wants to get the work done. Kind of like when doing a special project or something at work. The person or team signs out a conference room and isolates themselves.

Again, I am not a huge supporter of the USBC (and certainly believe that there are conspiracies going in certain aspects in the world arena) but I really don't think there was anything political or nefarious going on here. They were doing testing and just wanted an isolated area to do it. The USBC claims they were not just focusing on Storm equipment and the testing they were doing was part of a 2-year research study they were working on. Belmo kind of stoked the fire with his social media post and pictures. He knew what he was doing with that post and it wouldn't be surprising to learn that Storm corporate encouraged him to post it.

At the end of the day, no one wins here. The USBC continues to look bad and will certainly lose membership from this, Storm is acting like an innocent victim seeking redemption, and hundreds of thousands of bowlers are wondering what in the world is going on with the sport they love. It's just bad for bowling all around.

[boomer]

That's BS.

I've done standards testing for auto races (SCCA) - it's easy to deal with that situation. You have one person talking to the competitor and one person doing the inspections. The person talking with the competitor can answer the questions and give information while the inspector can be working, even behind plexiglass, which we have plenty of due to Covid, without interruptions.

What that answer was is prevarication - it's their way of getting around an issue that makes them look bad.

Either their management is incompetent (probably to a degree)

OR

Their management is biased and they're trying to spin it (probably to a degree)

OR something else that coffee hasn't yet revealed to me.

[Aslan]

ANY manufacturer pushes the envelope. ANY racer pushes the envelope of their motor, suspension, etc. You NEVER see a desert racer in a class say, "well, I'm allowed 14" of travel in the front but I felt safe with 10" . . . that way I'm well within spec." You NEVER see a motor manufacturer say, "Well, we're allowed 1.6L but we're happy with 1.4L because that means we're safe." Nope - you find Toyota (in the 80s) pushing it and getting away with 2.0L for several races (oops!) - you find literal vacuums put under Formula 1 cars to get an aero advantage (well, it's not AGAINST any rule. . . yet . . .) you find baseball players putting pine tar riiiiiiiiiiight up to the line on their bats.

so, I would EXPECT Storm - as well as Hammer and Motive - to have their highest performance line to be RIGHT up against the limit. If they weren't, they would not be doing their job.

I would also expect their QC to be on top of it so that if the number is 73D, then they would have to HIT that number - which, btw, Storm says they do.

But, there lies the contradiction. If you're a Nascar driver, you want that call at the limits because it gives you the best chance to win. If it's illegal, ya just hope nobody bothers to check. HOWEVER....if someone does check and you have to give back a title because you're car was illegal...then suddenly it's the pit crew's fault for pushing the limits so hard that they were over them.

One goes with the other. If you're allowed 0.060 of differential...you run a repeatability test that shows your manufacturing capability for variation. If it shows that in internal testing...the ranges found were 0.0581 to 0.061. The data may also show that 98% of the tests were 0.0585 and 0.0607. At that point you have two choices:

1) Use the revised range (cancelling out outliers) and say your average was 0.0596. You figure your revised variation was only .0022. You still want to "push the envelope" so you cut that in half (0.0011) and subtract it from the limit (0.060) and you tell manufacturing that for THIS BALL you design to a differential as close as possible to 0.0589.

2) You use the same data but set a limit based on the potential for outliers (0.0571) or with a more conservative approach to the revised data (0.0576).

Now, the advantage of Option 1 is that you think you can win a couple more titles and your players qualify and win slightly more. The RISK is that you could fail a spot with about a 22-24% chance of failing. That may sound risky, but it's also like saying you have a 76-78% chance of not being tested or having your equipment pass if it is tested.

The advantage of Option 2 is, while you may not have quite as much success with the releases (sales $$), you have a drastically reduced chance of failing a spot check. Probably by a factor of 10...to around 2%.

Now, in Nascar...it makes sense to cheat...because it's millions in rewards and cheating can gain you a tremendous advantage. A slight tweak to the aerodynamics could be the difference between 1st place and 7th place.

In bowling, it usually doesn't make as much sense..for the same reasons. It's much less likely that a 0.0018 reduction in differential will be a huge benefit...and even if it is...there's less money at stake. A racing team (just one) could make more than a bowling ball company over one year. Drivers usually get a big cut of the prize money if they finish in the top 5-10...so we're talking 10s of millions riding on just one race. What's the highest purse in bowling? Most tournaments you're probably under $100,000.

And then there's the penalties. A millionaire driver gives $4M in prize money back and the racing team (company loses $6M)...but they still make plenty on the TV contract. A bowling company risks a recall that would likely wipe out an entire year's revenue and probably lose some customers for a long period of time/forever.

As a poker player, it's about risk/reward. The driver is willing to take a big risk if there's a big reward. The bowling company needs to play more conservatively given they are "All In".

As for "did Storm know"? The 1st rule of regulations/law enforcement is it's not just a matter of "did" you know, it's usually more a matter of "should you" have known. Either Storm cheated or they suck at quality control. That is a choice between being devious or being stupid. There's no "win".

I chimed back in on this because I was looking at what ball I may want to get to replace my Force Pearl down the road...and I was wondering if the Altered Reality was still out there to buy. Then I found it and read the disclaimer and remembered that it was on that list. Guess I'll cross that one of the list. No wonder the "BatComputer" liked it...the numbers were fabricated. Oh well, maybe by the time I need it, the new Quantum Evo Response will be at a better price point.

[boomer]

I agree with you - sort of.

Yes, any competitor will push the limits. I don't really like to use NASCAR because they've always been the outlaw group and have a mentality that, "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't winnin'" - which has always bugged me. In car racing, I came from the rally world and while we DO push the rules, that slogan was always looked down on. Cut sipes in your tires, sure, but keep them to the maximum width. If the class calls for a 1.6L motor, stick with that.

I think you're on, with the risks and such. It's a bit more than the way you put it, though. Statistically they'd be looking at the standard deviation from the norm - if the limit is .060, and out of 100 samples you're sitting at .058 but the st-dev is .005, then you've got a problem. That means too many are going to be over .063. However, if the st-dev is .002, then you should be good. That means that 95% of your samples would be within .056 to .060 and less than 2.5% would be at or over .060.

They may want to drop that mean to .057, with a st-dev of .002, meaning less than 1% would be over .060.

That's the game the MFGs would be playing. Lowering the st-dev as much as possible (which is also good for marketing - if your ball is as it is advertised, within tighter tolerances, it will be easier to sell) and bringing the mean as close as possible to the limit.


It doesn't make sense that any MFG would deliberately stay too close to the limit (mean) with too high a variance (st-dev) that would allow it to have too many outside the limits. According to what we were told by the governing bodies, ALL or nearly all of the tested samples were outside the prescribed limits. For any MFG to either be sloppy enough to do that, or to deliberately do that, somewhat boggles the mind. A company like Storm has a significant investment in QC and has a definite interest in their reputation.


To do the tests behind closed doors, behind a curtain, with NO ability for the MFG to at least monitor the process is problematic. The whole, "if they talk with us, it distracts us and we can't do our work" is bunk. You can have a camera for remote monitoring (like many states do for vote counting), you can have a rep there not allowed to talk (like many other states and counties and such do for vote count monitoring) but taking notes. There are a LOT of ways to allow interested parties to monitor the process that won't impact the process itself BUT would allow light into the process. Instead, they allowed themselves to look like they were hiding something and then excusing it away with the whole, " If the tester is having a conversation with the player during the test, it would take much longer." excuse - and it LOOKED like an excuse.

Had there been someone outside of the sanctioning bodies there to monitor the process, it would have left much less of a bad taste in many peoples' mouths.

[boomer]

btw - nice to have you back! It's fun talking with ya

[Aslan]

btw - nice to have you back! It's fun talking with ya

Thank you.

The reason ball manufacturers got "sloppy"...is the SAME reason that you heard when Motiv did it and you still hear now..."it's the USBC's fault for checking" or "they never did this before, why start now?" or "differential/hardness doesn't even matter to the vast majority of bowlers!"

In other words, ball manufacturers like Motiv, Storm, Radical...to a lesser extent DV8 and later 900Global...they:

1) Figured it was a small percentage chance of getting caught.

2) Figured the USBC wasn't going to do anything about it anyways.

The USBC spent the last 50 years...just sitting on their hands and trying to put out minor fires...that were obviously cheating or bad for the game. In those 50 years, the PBA went from an important part of bowling to almost extinct...to a lesser form of WWE wrestling. And while the USBC and professional bowling would love to see bowling as a worldwide Olympic sport...they can't do it with varying oil patterns and a sport so dependent on technology.

And the ball manufacturers also are to blame. They all nearly went bankrupt making rubber, urethane, and plastic balls that required great skill to throw high scores with. With the USBC asleep at the wheel, they came up with balls that almost strike by themselves...if the house puts down a THS.

And the rare bowling centers that survived the 1980s...they want the 'sport' to be as easy as possible! People drink more, eat more food, and frequent your establishment more if they strike.

All 3 entities wanted a "recreational activity" that was "easier" and where ball companies could survive by giving the bowler some sort of "edge" with their offerings. Every time the USBC stood up to object, they immediately sat back down for fear that any action they take wouldn't sit well with the customers or ball manufacturers or the BPAA. Fast forward 50 years and you have:

A) A USBC that can't win no matter what they do. They've already exponentially increased honor scores to the point they are relatively meaningless. They can't yank certifications for centers that won't comply...because the center will just have non-sanctioned leagues...like many already do. If the USBC slaps the wrist of a ball manufacturer, they all cry foul, the PBA gets upset, and some bowlers quit because they now have to pay $95 to re-drill a replacement ball.

B) A PBA that is relatively unwatchable. They have keep coming up with gimmicks just to get people to tune in.

C) A BPAA that has lost almost half it's centers...and now your center is either gonna turn into a "glam bowling" center like "Lucky Strikes" or it's gonna get sold to Bowlero and get gutted.

D) Ball manufacturers that are now down from about 15 to...3?? No, 4?? Maybe 5-6 tops...with only 4 that I believe are PBA sanctioned. They have tight margins...for every guy like me that buys 2-5 balls per year...there are many people that buy 1 ball per lifetime.

So, if ya want to end the cheating...you enforce the rules. Not because you used to work for a rival company or to be a hard ash. You enforce the rules so everyone is playing by the same rules. If the USBC wouldn't be afraid of their shadow...we 'might' have an actual 'sport'....without 2-handers, with centers that have to follow rules concerning oil patterns and such. And we'd have more predictable equipment that is more dependent on the variance between bowler talent...versus variations in the balls. Might even have a shot at the Olympics.

And the PBA could help by making changes to their qualification system...and to put in place a small number of rules concerning equipment and "teams". Force the ball manufacturers to sponsor a certain number of bowlers for each "brand"...and those bowlers can only throw that "brand". This builds brand loyalty. Having every bowler throwing all different "brands" is confusing and builds no brand loyalty.

Rules are rules. Companies can push the limits if they want...but the closer you push it, the more likely you'll have a VERY bad financial year when you fail your spot check.

[boomer]

I'm absolutely with you on everything you just said - I guess my ONLY point is that enforcement done behind a curtain just INVITES conspiracy theories and complaints.

Do it out in the open and while you'll still get complaints, they will be lessened and the conspiracy theories will get minimized.


As far as rules and enforcement -

I'm a big "as few rules as possible, but as many as are needed" - I used to be the one writing and enforcing a certain class of rally racing here in the SW. I could recite the rules for the three classes (divided into 2WD and 4WD each) in one breath. There was little cheating, enforcement was EASY, and people were happy. I'd have over 100 entries per race weekend, and had to put in an entry limit for the end of the year weekend event. Another sanctioning body took over and the rule book became a book, entries took a dive (they've recovered somewhat) and complaints went through the roof. Funny thing, though, those couple of guys who were always winning, kept winning. Nothing really changed except that you had to pay a lot more money to stay within the rules.

Applying to PBA - I have no idea. LOL - I'm not a PBA guy. I watch them (and I find them entertaining, but then I'm a bowler, and yes, I wish that Randy would retire and they should get Norm in there) but . . .

Applying to USBC - enforcement? There was no enforcement at Nats for the past couple of years. Only checking serial numbers (which . . . how hard would it be to fake a serial number?) I'm good with minimal rules for balls, but they didn't even check for those. No measuring holes, no measuring top/side-weight . . . I'm good with minimal rules - and from what I've seen demonstrated (I can't afford to do it myself) they seem pretty middle-of-the-road-ish I guess. But if we want to enforce, then enforce. IDK . . . just seemed kinda stupid to me. Open bags, get my balls out, they glance at them, then put them back.

I also completely agree re: ball brands. I like Storm (I like the gimmick, LOL) but having all those brands under Storm? C'mon. I mean, I know that economically it makes sense to consolidate, but it SUCKS. I brew beer - and I support the small local breweries in my area, partly for that same reason (but also, I think small has more soul) - I wish there was diversity in our brands again.

Side note - 1 ball per lifetime? Yeah - couple people in league. One still uses a 1980ish Black Beauty. Carrydown? LOL holy crap!