BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: charlest on May 17, 2017, 04:40:04 AM
-
I recently learned of a proposed rule change. I suspect it would not affect many of you but it seems inane and senseless to implement, not even mentioning that it's up for serious discussion.
The rule currently states:
“The use of approved cleaning agents listed in the Approved Anytime section of the Approved Cleaners and Polishes list is permissible.â€
The proposed change is to delete current text and replace with the following:
“Only a dry towel is to be used to clean the surface of a bowling ball during USBC certified competition. Should a foreign substance appear on the outer surface of a bowling ball which cannot be removed by a dry towel, an approved cleaner may be used with consent from a league or tournament official.â€
The idea that you have to ask permission to clean your ball is childish at best.
Here is the text that they sent along with this:
We would like to request your comments about a potential specification regarding the use of liquid cleaners during competition. The intent of the specification always has been to allow a bowler to remove dirt and oil from the ball during competition with the use of an approved liquid cleaner. Current specifications allow the use of cleaners provided:
1) It does not affect the hardness of the ball
2) It is totally removed from the ball before delivery
USBC’s approved use of liquid cleaners is intended only for cleaning the ball surface, not to alter the ball performance. USBC is aware there are some liquid cleaning products that do not technically violate the above hardness and residue specification, but do alter the performance of the ball on the lane. The intent of the specification is to prohibit the use of cleaners that alter ball performance during competition.
-
USBC is aware there are some liquid cleaning products that do not technically violate the above hardness and residue specification, but do alter the performance of the ball on the lane. The intent of the specification is to prohibit the use of cleaners that alter ball performance during competition.
So instead of not allowing something such as "the purple" which is the easy solution we are going to go the hard route instead?
-
What about those players that use a " shammy type pad"
-
What about those players that use a " shammy type pad"
It would probably qualify as a dry towel, but that is irrelevant to point of this discussion.
-
How do I know what is in your bottle? I'm just looking at the other side of things. Just because the bottle says Vise cleaner ,how do I know that it isn't something you made in a chemical lab?
-
How do I know what is in your bottle? I'm just looking at the other side of things. Just because the bottle says Vise cleaner ,how do I know that it isn't something you made in a chemical lab?
EXACTLY!
These (USBC) people obviously have nothing to do...
I can't think of one "league or tournament official" that would know one product from another. Insane.
-
How do I know what is in your bottle? I'm just looking at the other side of things. Just because the bottle says Vise cleaner ,how do I know that it isn't something you made in a chemical lab?
I think even a USBC inspector would have to assume that the contents of the bottle is what it says it is.
The USBC "Approved for use Anytime" cleaner I use only comes in quart bottle. I'm not putting a quart of anything in my bowling bag. So I put some in a 4 oz. spray bottle. I put my own label on it, and dare anyone to question that I am not using an approved cleaner.
Notclay,
About 3 years ago a senior bowler in my league took umbrage at my cleaning my ball during a game. He said, "You're never allowed to clean a ball during bowling". He has been bowling for probably 50 years; yet these ignorant words came right out of his mouth. I was almost speechless that he would utter such. I told him, in no uncertain terms, that it was allowed by USBC/ABC rules. The next week, I brought a copy of the relevant section of the rule book, showed it to him, and have been carrying it in my bag ever since. Oh, and he was league vice-president!!
-
The USBC is a joke & this plus the new lane condition specs they propose solve nothing. They finally realize that most balls out there are too strong{illegal} but again put the onus on the proprietors w/ new lane spec requirement's {to spend $$$$ they lose daily w/ declining numbers} or the bowlers themselves now. {I've seen/had balls come back w/ sticky rubberized/glue gunk that will only remove w/ an 'illegal' solvent applied} Now I have to ask permission? BS!
This is their solution instead of limiting the manufacturers of balls/equipment. They realize scoring is out of control, and these are there 'Band-Aid on a bullet wound' solutions. AND you wonder why the game is dying a slow death! PLEEEZ!
-
OFFICIAL: "Sir, I'd like to know if the cleaner you're using is approved for use during play."
ME: "Taste it and see for yourself."
charlest,
I, too, buy my cleaner by the quart, and just use another bottle (from an approved cleaner) because it fits in my bag.
I really don't see the huge advantage someone might have over me, even if they are using something illegal. The way I look at it is this: If someone feels that desperate then they have a bigger problem than whether or not their ball is clean. Chances are they can't hit their target three times in a row or something else...
I, however, resent the idea that I would need to ask permission to clean oil, dirt, or pizza off my bowling ball. This is just silly, and will only be enforced at USBC Nationals.
-
I'll be bowling at a house that is notorious for leaving thick belt gunck which a dry towel wouldn't work easily. I bowl there two a month for practice and I keep a wet/soaked towel, I guess I'll be breaking the law..ooooooo😱
-
The USBC is a joke & this plus the new lane condition specs they propose solve nothing. They finally realize that most balls out there are too strong{illegal} but again put the onus on the proprietors w/ new lane spec requirement's {to spend $$$$ they lose daily w/ declining numbers} or the bowlers themselves now. {I've seen/had balls come back w/ sticky rubberized/glue gunk that will only remove w/ an 'illegal' solvent applied} Now I have to ask permission? BS!
This is their solution instead of limiting the manufacturers of balls/equipment. They realize scoring is out of control, and these are there 'Band-Aid on a bullet wound' solutions. AND you wonder why the game is dying a slow death! PLEEEZ!
x2 -- i couldn't have said it better myself
-
There was a 50 year old guy who was using a scuff pad during league play. Someone called him out for it and he swore up and down he was allowed to do it. Once he was told he was allowed to clean his ball, but not adjust the surface he didn't understand the difference. Once again, this was a 50 year old guy who has been bowling for 20-30 years....
-
And people wonder why our sport is declining so rapidly.... Bring back the ABC!!! Is the USBC is trying to get rid of its members? Sigh...
-
Is cleaner giving that much of an advantage? Purple stuff kinda isn't even relevant where I'm at 3-4 houses that is..
-
I happen to disagree. You can control scoring pace with conditions as evidenced by tournaments like the OC. People still shooting big numbers with urethane even on very tough conditions. Doesn't matter how good the balls get, the "lane guy" will always be king. And as far as I know, sticky rubberized glue gunk will get on urethane and plastic too . .
The manufacturers are keeping bowling alive, and scoring pace isn't what's killing the game. USBC member average is 175, if they lost all the members averaging 220 plus because the scoring pace was too high, that would be a fairly insignificant loss. Recreational bowling is doing just fine, league bowling is what is suffering. Fewer and fewer people want to sign up for a weekly commitment for 35 weeks a year, they've got stuff to do. The world is changing and league bowling isn't changing with it. The majority of bowling centers are also very terrible businesses (as pointed out by itsallaboutme in another thread I think?), they just set fliers out on tables and unlock the doors in the morning and are stunned when people don't flock in despite the fact that most centers are still stuck in the 90s.
All these new concept centers like Main Event are thriving, league centers are the ones having issues, and USBC doesn't really have much to do with that. It's not their fault that people don't want to spend hours a week in an archaic dump because everyone is so busy trying to keep bowling the way that it was and complaining that it isn't. I for one am enjoying it a ton now that I'm just going with the flow. Doesn't matter what the scoring pace is, same people will still be in the same place. If the 230s drop to 210s, the 190s drop to 170. Numbers might be different, results will be the same.
The USBC is a joke & this plus the new lane condition specs they propose solve nothing. They finally realize that most balls out there are too strong{illegal} but again put the onus on the proprietors w/ new lane spec requirement's {to spend $$$$ they lose daily w/ declining numbers} or the bowlers themselves now. {I've seen/had balls come back w/ sticky rubberized/glue gunk that will only remove w/ an 'illegal' solvent applied} Now I have to ask permission? BS!
This is their solution instead of limiting the manufacturers of balls/equipment. They realize scoring is out of control, and these are there 'Band-Aid on a bullet wound' solutions. AND you wonder why the game is dying a slow death! PLEEEZ!
-
Only USBC can say WHY they are proposing this stupidity. Regardless of their reasoning, I resent the idea that they are trying to dictate whether or not I can clean my bowling ball, for any reason I want, if it's with an approved (by USBC) cleaner.
Are they saying that all their time and research to create an "approved list and a non-approved list" has all been a waste? If a cleaner has been approved by them, meaning it has no illegal advantage over my opponents, then why dictate when I can use it? You can't have it both ways.
I guess I should say they can't LOGICALLY have it both ways, but since when do they worry about logic?
-
Most likely because of what was said earlier, just because you have a bottle that says approved doesn't mean what is in the bottle is. It's another example of a few idiots cheating and ruining it for everyone.
-
+1
-
I guess we'll go back and forth with this, but again, how would any league official, or any USBC official know whether something in a bottle is legal or not? They won't, so they will either, 1) give approval (most likely) and just add a useless step for all bowlers, or 2) deny cleaning of bowling balls, thus rendering all their prior research useless...
The dishonest will ALWAYS find a way to cheat. It is impossible to "legislate" honesty.
-
You're right, it's just a complete catch 22 and anyone who so chooses can argue their case either way and really have valid points on either side of the argument. It IS really funny though that the VAST majority of league bowlers can't even comprehend cheating. Don't know how many people I've had to explain the easy slide rule to that get upset because they just want to slide and then I explain how people use it to cheat and they just smile and shake their heads. Hadn't ever occured to them before.
I'm of the mind I really don't care what people want to do in the middle of a set . . anytime you make changes you have to adjust to those changes, so I'd see most things as a detriment rather than help, but I know those who get uppity on principle alone regardless of actual outcome.
I guess we'll go back and forth with this, but again, how would any league official, or any USBC official know whether something in a bottle is legal or not? They won't, so they will either, 1) give approval (most likely) and just add a useless step for all bowlers, or 2) deny cleaning of bowling balls, thus rendering all their prior research useless...
The dishonest will ALWAYS find a way to cheat. It is impossible to "legislate" honesty.
-
The dishonest will ALWAYS find a way to cheat. It is impossible to "legislate" honesty.
Yes it is. Still, that's the USBC's job. Tough job.
Regardless of whether the rule is good or bad, having the opinion that the USBC should not even ATTEMPT to solve cheating is the wrong opinion.
-
Well, the USBC should try to solve it intelligently, else be endlessly mocked. There's a point of diminishing returns, and ball cleaner isn't a battle they're gonna win in either sense.
For what it's worth, the Shammy takes a bit of rubbing, but gets belt marks and junk off rather well. There's a house I bowl in that's rather dirty, and I've never reached for the cleaner before because the Shammy gets it off quicker than I could get the bottle out.
The dishonest will ALWAYS find a way to cheat. It is impossible to "legislate" honesty.
Yes it is. Still, that's the USBC's job. Tough job.
Regardless of whether the rule is good or bad, having the opinion that the USBC should not even ATTEMPT to solve cheating is the wrong opinion.
-
I have a few simple questions.
What criteria, EXACTLY, will be used to decide whether or not you can clean your ball?
Will it be predicated on how "dirty" it is?
If I'm approved, can I clean it myself using my stuff, or do I have to have it done for me by a shop designated by them to ensure the use of an approved cleaner?
Or, will the officials making the decision have an approved cleaner available lane side that can be used for a "small fee"?
Hmmmmmmmmmm...............
-
Well, the USBC should try to solve it intelligently, else be endlessly mocked. There's a point of diminishing returns, and ball cleaner isn't a battle they're gonna win in either sense.
For what it's worth, the Shammy takes a bit of rubbing, but gets belt marks and junk off rather well. There's a house I bowl in that's rather dirty, and I've never reached for the cleaner before because the Shammy gets it off quicker than I could get the bottle out.
This is in itself an ironic offshoot of this discussion.
A short time ago, I believe the PBA banned or was thinking of banning micro-fiber towels because they're more abrasive than plain terry cloth cotton towels. I'm not sure what happened to this concept, but if you take it a step further, I am 99% sure that the leather, shammy pad is more abrasive than micro-fiber towels. I could care less, but, if you want to get technical .... :):):)
(To get even more technical, I have no idea what a shammy is, but I know most leather drying "towels" for cars are supposed to come from Chamois sheep, pronounced "shammy". So car people often use a chamois cloth (porous dried skin of the Chamois sheep) to dry their cars. :):):):):):) )
-
Haha, I would have to agree . . touche.
Well, the USBC should try to solve it intelligently, else be endlessly mocked. There's a point of diminishing returns, and ball cleaner isn't a battle they're gonna win in either sense.
For what it's worth, the Shammy takes a bit of rubbing, but gets belt marks and junk off rather well. There's a house I bowl in that's rather dirty, and I've never reached for the cleaner before because the Shammy gets it off quicker than I could get the bottle out.
This is in itself an ironic offshoot of this discussion.
A short time ago, I believe the PBA banned or was thinking of banning micro-fiber towels because they're more abrasive than plain terry cloth cotton towels. I'm not sure what happened to this concept, but if you take it a step further, I am 99% sure that the leather, shammy pad is more abrasive than micro-fiber towels. I could care less, but, if you want to get technical .... :):):)
(To get even more technical, I have no idea what a shammy is, but I know most leather drying "towels" for cars are supposed to come from Chamois sheep, pronounced "shammy". So car people often use a chamois cloth (porous dried skin of the Chamois sheep) to dry their cars. :):):):):):) )
-
There are a handful of chemicals that can impact the ball surface during the course of bowling. They should be outlawed as much for safety concerns as for any competitive advantage. The USBC has allowed balls with friction coefficients beyond belief. The idea if narrowing the list of mild cleaning agents that could have the most incremental pact on ball performance is ridiculous.