Relative "Strengths" of bowling balls

[RobLV1]

Last night I posted a thread on that other site, and had it locked within one hour... a personal record even for me. The thread was locked because it was perceived to be a political subject, which it was not. I simply found real-life proof of the cultural bias that I have long suspected in regards to the term "Strong," and "Weak," that I have long suspected causes one of the most common threads on virtually every bowling forum that I visit: bowlers who lack ball speed, the ability to make lateral adjustments, or are rank beginners often buy overly-aggressive bowling balls because they think they need a "strong" ball to make up for their physical limitations. When I watched the Vice Presidential debate the other night, one subject jumped out at me... not because it's an analogy as the moderator on the other site referred to it in a private message response to me, but because it is real-life proof of the bias that I have long suspected.

The post was as follows:

For years now, I have been writing articles encouraging bowlers to stop referring to bowling balls as strong or weak because of the cultural bias of the two words: strong is good, weak is bad.

Last night while watching the Vice Presidential Debate, Sen. Kaine repeatedly challenged Gov. Pence, saying that Donald Trump had said that Putin is a "better" leader than President Obama. Each time, Gov. Pence responded that Trump had not said that Putin is a "better" leader than President Obama, but that he had said that Putin is a "stronger" leader than the President. Senator Kaine didn't seem to get the difference. The proof is in the putting: stronger is not always better, in leadership or bowling balls.

Let me reiterate; this is not a political posting. It is living proof that in our society, stronger is perceived as "better." How about if we start referring to bowling balls as aggressive/early rolling, aggressive/mid rolling, or aggressive/late rolling; or non-aggressive/early rolling, etc., instead of weak or strong, leading many, many bowlers down a long and painful path of being frustrated because they are trying to use balls that are way too aggressive for their levels of ability.

[1VegasBowler]

Isn't today's culture and politics wonderful? lol

Unfortunately, too many bowlers think they are better than what their true abilities are and vice versa.

Dirty Harry said it best. "Man's got to know his limitations".

[bowl1820]

While you might not have intended it to be a political post, I can see how it may have been perceived as one given the current political climate.

The thread could have easily gone in a direction (political) you did not intend for it to go, because readers would have focused on the political aspects of the post not the bowling ones.

Politics, Religion can be very hot button topics, like they say “don't talk religion or politics at the dinner table.”

So using a political comparison right now might not have been the best way to put forth your idea.

[bowl1820]

In this video they discuss the same idea.

USBC Gold coach Bryan O’Keefe and USBC Hall of Famer Carolyn Dorin-Ballard discuss the difference between strong and weak bowling balls and the common misconception of what it means for a ball to be considered strong.





Basically what they say is most people look at the right to left movement (Left to Right for lefthanders) of the ball (how many boards it covers) and equate that for how strong a ball is. (The ball that went long and snapped hard must be the strong ball)

But what they say is you should be looking at is from front to back and how early or late the ball moves. (The ball that went long and snapped hard is actually the weaker ball)

[1VegasBowler]

It's all about the energy retention.

For what I have, the Ultimate Nirvana, Fanatic BTU, Vintage Danger Zone & Ruckus Schizo have the best energy.

The Vandal & Thug Unruly have less energy.

[RobLV1]

In this video they discuss the same idea.

USBC Gold coach Bryan O’Keefe and USBC Hall of Famer Carolyn Dorin-Ballard discuss the difference between strong and weak bowling balls and the common misconception of what it means for a ball to be considered strong.





Basically what they say is most people look at the right to left movement (Left to Right for lefthanders) of the ball (how many boards it covers) and equate that for how strong a ball is. (The ball that went long and snapped hard must be the strong ball)

But what they say is you should be looking at is from front to back and how early or late the ball moves. (The ball that went long and snapped hard is actually the weaker ball)

And herein lies the problem. The ball that went long and snapped hard is actually not the weaker ball, it's the ball that went long and snapped hard. Once we label it as "weak," all is lost!

[RobLV1]

It's all about the energy retention.

For what I have, the Ultimate Nirvana, Fanatic BTU, Vintage Danger Zone & Ruckus Schizo have the best energy.

The Vandal & Thug Unruly have less energy.

Thank you for making my point! Are the four balls that have the "best" energy the one's that have the most energy (strongest), or are they the ones that have the energy profile that works the best for you?

[Hot_pocket]

I'm one of those people who thought it was opposite and even now I don't want to believe it lol. The next ball I get, I'm thinking about one of the pyramids balls, I want it to have and early roll. I have a lot of long and strong pieces and feel like on the fresh, I just can't get an early enough reaction of the modified shot I'm on.

[1VegasBowler]

Thank you for making my point! Are the four balls that have the "best" energy the one's that have the most energy (strongest), or are they the ones that have the energy profile that works the best for you?

The first 4 have the highest energy at the end.

[RobLV1]

So using a political comparison right now might not have been the best way to put forth your idea.

This wasn't a political "comparison," it was living proof from the real world that there is a cultural bias towards the words. Whether the use of "stronger" and "better" as synonyms was intentional or not, it is how the words were used and is indicative of the attitude of our culture toward these words.