Author Topic: Do we really need reactive? (Read 4176 times)

trash heap · « **on:** August 29, 2016, 08:08:33 PM »

avabobs reply in another topic got me thinking.

Quote from: avabob on August 22, 2016, 04:51:24 PM

Actually a point of clarification. The ABC did not relax the rules in 1977. They actually tightened them in 1976, requiring essentially even oil to be applied gutter to gutter. The rule was referred to as amendment 4. This rule was very unpopular and not consistently enforced partly due to lack of accurate measuring devices and partly due to variations in interpretation by local secretaries. It was under this rule that Glenn Allisons famous 900 was disallowed. The rule was not changed until approximately 1985 when the limited distance dressing rule was introduced. It allowed oil to applied in any manner but could not be applied our buffed past 28 ( later 24 ) feet. The limited distance dressing rule was changed under the so called system of bowling in 1989. It allowed long oil, but required at least 3 units of oil to applied out to the gutter. That is still the rule we have today.

If USBC would go back to a shorter pattern. Would there be a need for reactive equipment. I would think today's players with a urethane or even plastic ball could score very high on those short conditions. Might be able to extend the length a little further.

I am sure a THS pattern could be figured out that would work for everyone and we would see the same results we see with reactive in leagues today.

It just seems now days its like a never ending loop. New Ball too good on heavy oil, make new oil that defeats new ball, so another new ball comes out to defeat new oil......and on and on.

Do we really need it?

CoorZero · « **Reply #1 on:** August 29, 2016, 08:20:26 PM »

We may not really need it, but the equipment companies sure do. It's all about the $$$. Take away reactive coverstocks and you're taking away the vast majority of their products for sale. Can't really differentiate a whole lot with urethane and that would cause a problem with competition between the likes of Storm, Ebonite, Brunswick, etc. Then there's the trickle-down effect to the other stuff like certain cleaners, polishers, etc. that would be rendered obsolete.

The visual aspect of it also has to be considered. Urethane balls (and especially polyester) aren't going to look as pretty hooking down the lane and going through the pins as reactive balls regardless of how short/light the oil patterns are. Those who put an extreme amount of revs on the ball are the obvious exception, but they also don't represent anywhere near the majority of bowlers. If the game is going to grow you have to be able to sell it to those outside of it, and I really don't think going down this route would do that. Looks are as important as anything these days.

ignitebowling · « **Reply #2 on:** August 29, 2016, 09:34:51 PM »

Perception of what is needed today is based off of marketing not common sense. There is nothing new in bowling since the early 2000's but manufactures still have to sell equipment. They do just that, they create a reason or belief to buy new equipment and bowlers keep doing it for old technology.

If you went back to plastic covers with any core you'd still be in the same boat today of "new" plastic coverstocks made to handle today's heavier oiled conditions. New symmetric and asymmetric core technology would still be pushed as well. Recycled stuff just like now to sell more product.

Lane conditions determine what you may or may not need. More oil, more aggressive covers like reactive and particle bowling balls. Mush less oil and you can easily go back to plastic bowling balls.....but do not kid yourself and think that manufactures would stop selling you the latest and greatest new technology. People would still be buying stuff similar but not exact to what they are today.

Fast forward to the 5:50 mark and watch PBIII and Ciminelli make plastic look just like any reactive ball out today....it is because of the lack of oil. The lane condition is the biggest factor in scoring pace not the equipment. Look at the scores from nationals this year. All of the new technology and bowlers got it handed to them because of the tough conditions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfiOWf6aZ1k

Juggernaut · « **Reply #3 on:** August 29, 2016, 09:38:49 PM »

Kudos coorzero.

J_w73 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 29, 2016, 11:44:52 PM »

I agree with ignitebowling, The lane condition is what creates high scores. Yes, new equipment can help break down a pattern to make it play easier after a few games, but I'm sure enough oil could be put down to nullify this for a 3 game set.

I have seen guys come back to bowling after a 25 year break and came back using their equipment from the late 80's and early 90's. Guess what, they averaged 215 to 220. They didn't do this back when they got this equipment. They averaged low 200 to high 200 at the most back in the early 90s.

I would love for USBC to eliminate patterns that end at a certain distance and the rest of the lane has clean back end. The USBC should make the 3 unit (or higher) rule apply to the whole lane. This would stop guys from just using the newest hook monster and throwing the ball 20 plus miles per hour and still getting the ball to hook and create enough angle to carry everything that touches the headpin. Once you get past a certain MPH, the messengers and kicks out of the gutters becomes absurd. Put oil down the whole lane to where you have to actually slow the ball to get it to hook, and you will eliminate all of the extra carry.

tkkshop · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2016, 06:25:39 AM »

Quote from: J_w73 on August 29, 2016, 11:44:52 PM

I agree with ignitebowling, The lane condition is what creates high scores. Yes, new equipment can help break down a pattern to make it play easier after a few games, but I'm sure enough oil could be put down to nullify this for a 3 game set.

I have seen guys come back to bowling after a 25 year break and came back using their equipment from the late 80's and early 90's. Guess what, they averaged 215 to 220. They didn't do this back when they got this equipment. They averaged low 200 to high 200 at the most back in the early 90s.

I would love for USBC to eliminate patterns that end at a certain distance and the rest of the lane has clean back end. The USBC should make the 3 unit (or higher) rule apply to the whole lane. This would stop guys from just using the newest hook monster and throwing the ball 20 plus miles per hour and still getting the ball to hook and create enough angle to carry everything that touches the headpin. Once you get past a certain MPH, the messengers and kicks out of the gutters becomes absurd. Put oil down the whole lane to where you have to actually slow the ball to get it to hook, and you will eliminate all of the extra carry.

and the NFL should make Antonio Brown play in crocs to slow him down. You're trying to eliminate high speed and and high rev bowlers because they get messengers? Oh, and we should make Tom Brady tie his left arm behind his back.

spmcgivern · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2016, 07:32:30 AM »

Quote from: tkkshop on August 30, 2016, 06:25:39 AM

Quote from: J_w73 on August 29, 2016, 11:44:52 PM
I agree with ignitebowling, The lane condition is what creates high scores. Yes, new equipment can help break down a pattern to make it play easier after a few games, but I'm sure enough oil could be put down to nullify this for a 3 game set.

I have seen guys come back to bowling after a 25 year break and came back using their equipment from the late 80's and early 90's. Guess what, they averaged 215 to 220. They didn't do this back when they got this equipment. They averaged low 200 to high 200 at the most back in the early 90s.

I would love for USBC to eliminate patterns that end at a certain distance and the rest of the lane has clean back end. The USBC should make the 3 unit (or higher) rule apply to the whole lane. This would stop guys from just using the newest hook monster and throwing the ball 20 plus miles per hour and still getting the ball to hook and create enough angle to carry everything that touches the headpin. Once you get past a certain MPH, the messengers and kicks out of the gutters becomes absurd. Put oil down the whole lane to where you have to actually slow the ball to get it to hook, and you will eliminate all of the extra carry.
and the NFL should make Antonio Brown play in crocs to slow him down. You're trying to eliminate high speed and and high rev bowlers because they get messengers? Oh, and we should make Tom Brady tie his left arm behind his back.

Totally agree. We shouldn't be trying to repress the sport to appease some older generation of bowlers. As much as Jack Nicklaus wants to complain about the golf ball, it isn't going to go backward in technology.

Just as in golf, increase the difficulty of the environment and allow the manufacturers to continue pushing the limits of what they are allowed to do. Reduce the ratio of THS to something more reasonable is where I would start.

And even in the days of urethane on short oil, bowlers still threw coast-to-coast. In fact, if you go the route of short oil and no reactive, you playing into the hands of the high rev bowler even more than today.

itsallaboutme · « **Reply #7 on:** August 30, 2016, 07:38:52 AM »

For those of you that didn't bowl during the urethane era there was plenty of reaction difference between the different balls when used on the conditions we bowled on then. They all get lumped together now because none of them hook enough to use on the amount and type of oil used today.

The one thing that gets lost in these discussions is the advancement of the lane machine. The consistency of lane conditions now is unbelievable compared to even the urethane ere. Almost every center now strips every time they oil. No more re-oiling with the "afternoon run" after the lanes were done in the morning then bowled on all day. Almost every 6 o'clock league has fresh conditions. Most centers I've been in won't even give out lanes between when the lanes are stripped and oiled and when leagues start.

bergman · « **Reply #8 on:** August 30, 2016, 10:32:17 AM »

in 1977 the ABC indeed attempted to put into place a rule mandating that oil be distributed evenly across the width of the lane, however, it was met with much resistance and it was quickly rescinded. The rescission prompted many proprietors to engage in widespread crowning, beyond what was occurring before the controversy over the attempted rule change. The ABC further modified the rules in 1985/86, but
make no mistake, the watershed year that started it all was 1977.

Steven · « **Reply #9 on:** August 30, 2016, 11:13:40 AM »

Quote from: trash heap on August 29, 2016, 08:08:33 PM

If USBC would go back to a shorter pattern. Would there be a need for reactive equipment. I would think today's players with a urethane or even plastic ball could score very high on those short conditions. Might be able to extend the length a little further.

I am sure a THS pattern could be figured out that would work for everyone and we would see the same results we see with reactive in leagues today.

It just seems now days its like a never ending loop. New Ball too good on heavy oil, make new oil that defeats new ball, so another new ball comes out to defeat new oil......and on and on.

Do we really need it?

It's fun to fantasize, but it's never going to happen. The BPAA (more specifically, your local friendly house owners) makes the rules, and they have no interest in making changes that would likely reduce scores. Add in the impact to ball industry that helps keep the PBA afloat, and you have a complete non-starter.

But all this won't keep the subject from being brought up again.

michelle · « **Reply #10 on:** August 30, 2016, 11:39:25 AM »

Quote from: CoorZero on August 29, 2016, 08:20:26 PM

We may not really need it, but the equipment companies sure do. It's all about the $$$. Take away reactive coverstocks and you're taking away the vast majority of their products for sale. Can't really differentiate a whole lot with urethane and that would cause a problem with competition between the likes of Storm, Ebonite, Brunswick, etc. Then there's the trickle-down effect to the other stuff like certain cleaners, polishers, etc. that would be rendered obsolete.

The visual aspect of it also has to be considered. Urethane balls (and especially polyester) aren't going to look as pretty hooking down the lane and going through the pins as reactive balls regardless of how short/light the oil patterns are. Those who put an extreme amount of revs on the ball are the obvious exception, but they also don't represent anywhere near the majority of bowlers. If the game is going to grow you have to be able to sell it to those outside of it, and I really don't think going down this route would do that. Looks are as important as anything these days.

And yet there is an argument to be advanced that bowling was far more popular pre-reactive than post-reactive.

Ball manufacturers seemed to do ok back in the pre-reactive days, even when the primary changes were moving a pancake weight block around.

If anything, the insistence on being able to go coast to coast on ANY condition has been a contributing factor to what has effectively killed bowling.

CoorZero · « **Reply #11 on:** August 30, 2016, 11:57:38 AM »

Quote from: michelle on August 30, 2016, 11:39:25 AM

And yet there is an argument to be advanced that bowling was far more popular pre-reactive than post-reactive.

Ball manufacturers seemed to do ok back in the pre-reactive days, even when the primary changes were moving a pancake weight block around.

If anything, the insistence on being able to go coast to coast on ANY condition has been a contributing factor to what has effectively killed bowling.

I'm not arguing that what happened in the past wasn't effective, because it was. But that ship has sailed and it isn't coming back into port. That's all there is to it. Reactive is here to stay until the next thing the come up with gets put into place.

Quote from: ignitebowling on August 29, 2016, 09:34:51 PM

Perception of what is needed today is based off of marketing not common sense. There is nothing new in bowling since the early 2000's but manufactures still have to sell equipment. They do just that, they create a reason or belief to buy new equipment and bowlers keep doing it for old technology.

That's exactly the point. I do beleive that with the right condition changes that we could easily make the switch back to urethane and/or polyester, but neither of those things are going to happen.

Quote
Fast forward to the 5:50 mark and watch PBIII and Ciminelli make plastic look just like any reactive ball out today....it is because of the lack of oil. The lane condition is the biggest factor in scoring pace not the equipment. Look at the scores from nationals this year. All of the new technology and bowlers got it handed to them because of the tough conditions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfiOWf6aZ1k

But I would still like to point out the majority of bowlers aren't like PBIII or to a much stronger degree Ciminelli. If a major shakeup in bowling like this were to happen I don't think those in that mold would be the models taken into consideration for the overall effect on the game.

avabob · « **Reply #12 on:** August 30, 2016, 02:28:39 PM »

I still disagree with Mr bergman on the chronology but this thread prompts me to put up a more long winded historical analysis. You have to go clear back to the early 70s for the complete story. That is when very hard urethane finish replaced lacquer. The hard finishes caused oil to move down the lane rather than tracking. Bowlers hated this attribute and lane men tried many things to create a decent acoring environment. At the same time bowlers discovered that softer polyester balls helped somewhat. Lane men started drying out the outside boards to a greater degree than had been the case on lacquer. This combination lead to a scoring explosion that began around 1974-75. The ABC initial response was to outlaw the softest of the polyester balls for the 76-77 season. In addition amendment 4 had been passed which mandated even oil be applied gutter to gutter. The initial trend to shorter oil began with this rule as lanemen tried to reduce the impact of carry down. The introduction of the urethane ball in 1981 was the second big technological innovation in balls. Urethane accepted aggressive surface changes to yield positive ball reaction from the new breed of power players that were emerging. I always found it humorous yhat ABC efforts to curb scoring spawned the limited distance dressing rule that lead to even higher scoring by allowing extreme lane blocking through the heads. The short oil rule was eventually scrapped in 1979 and replaced by the rule that required at least 3 units of oil on the outside boards. Little did anyone know that in less than two years the next big innovation, the reactive resin urethane ball, would totally over power the 3 unit requirement. What resin really did was more effectively dimish the negative impact of carry down by soaking up oil rather than pushing it down the lane. In reality there has been nothing revolutionary in ball technology since the introduction of resin.

ignitebowling · « **Reply #13 on:** August 30, 2016, 05:20:57 PM »

Quote from: CoorZero on August 30, 2016, 11:57:38 AM

Quote from: michelle on August 30, 2016, 11:39:25 AM
And yet there is an argument to be advanced that bowling was far more popular pre-reactive than post-reactive.

Ball manufacturers seemed to do ok back in the pre-reactive days, even when the primary changes were moving a pancake weight block around.

If anything, the insistence on being able to go coast to coast on ANY condition has been a contributing factor to what has effectively killed bowling.

I'm not arguing that what happened in the past wasn't effective, because it was. But that ship has sailed and it isn't coming back into port. That's all there is to it. Reactive is here to stay until the next thing the come up with gets put into place.

Quote from: ignitebowling on August 29, 2016, 09:34:51 PM
Perception of what is needed today is based off of marketing not common sense. There is nothing new in bowling since the early 2000's but manufactures still have to sell equipment. They do just that, they create a reason or belief to buy new equipment and bowlers keep doing it for old technology.

That's exactly the point. I do beleive that with the right condition changes that we could easily make the switch back to urethane and/or polyester, but neither of those things are going to happen.

Quote
Fast forward to the 5:50 mark and watch PBIII and Ciminelli make plastic look just like any reactive ball out today....it is because of the lack of oil. The lane condition is the biggest factor in scoring pace not the equipment. Look at the scores from nationals this year. All of the new technology and bowlers got it handed to them because of the tough conditions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfiOWf6aZ1k

But I would still like to point out the majority of bowlers aren't like PBIII or to a much stronger degree Ciminelli. If a major shakeup in bowling like this were to happen I don't think those in that mold would be the models taken into consideration for the overall effect on the game.

My point with the video is that you can dry the lanes out enough to make plastic look as explosive as reactive resin in many cases. For lower rev players not as much, but for many bowlers(especially younger) who have learned how to hook the ball it will be seen as a bigger advantage to those styles then it is for lower rev players. Inflated scores due to conditions not equipment.

No matter the reason for someone wanting to get rid of todays technology, either to preserve scoring integrity, or to save money on equipment the end results would still be similar to what you have now. Manufactures "pushing" old technology to make sales, and consumers trying to buy scores in equipment instead of working for them on the lanes and in practice.

ignitebowling · « **Reply #14 on:** August 30, 2016, 05:37:57 PM »

Just for fun, buying a "new" plastic ball in a world where plastic is the high performance coverstock. It is funny when reading this information in reference to plastic coverstocks.....but many of those same rules apply to reactive resin. They are trying to figure out ways to sell you something you probably do not need or already have.

"The Crux plastic exemplifies performance for dedicated bowlers. The Catalyst Core is not only groundbreaking technology, but will become the stimulation of exceptional bowling. And with the ERG Hybrid plastic coverstock at the helm, you can rest assured that the Crux has decisive performance."

"Building on the dominating success of the original Crux plastic, weâ€™ve paired that same revolutionary asymmetrical Catalyst Core with our technologically advanced ERG Pearl plastic coverstock to deliver a ball that produces unprecedented backend motion and optimal entry angle. Perfect for uncompromising skid/flip performance on fresh lane conditions, the Crux Pearl plastic easily clears the midlane and widens the pocket as the Catalyst Core builds momentum for a devastating charge at the backend."

"There is more to the Phaze plastic than meets the eye. This ball is a technological breakthrough that includes an all-new cover/core combination. The AX-16 Pearl plastic features a proprietary additive that gives it an enormous footprint. The low RG, high differential Velocity Core produces more ball motion than any other ball in the Master plastic line"

"Make your grudge go on even longer with the DV8 Grudge Hybrid plastic bowling ball. The Grudge Hybrid features the proven Grudge Low RG Asymmetric core which was featured in the original. This core offers a low RG/high differential for maximum hook and flare.

The difference is the new Composite Hook Hybrid plastic coverstock, finished at 500/4000 Siaair. This will give the Grudge Hybrid extra length and energy retention which will result in the strongest backend reaction possible."

Author Topic: Do we really need reactive? (Read 4176 times)

trash heap

Do we really need reactive?

CoorZero

Re: Do we really need reactive?

ignitebowling

Re: Do we really need reactive?

Juggernaut

Re: Do we really need reactive?

J_w73

Re: Do we really need reactive?

tkkshop

Re: Do we really need reactive?

spmcgivern

Re: Do we really need reactive?

itsallaboutme

Re: Do we really need reactive?

bergman

Re: Do we really need reactive?

Steven

Re: Do we really need reactive?

michelle

Re: Do we really need reactive?

CoorZero

Re: Do we really need reactive?

avabob

Re: Do we really need reactive?

ignitebowling

Re: Do we really need reactive?

ignitebowling

Re: Do we really need reactive?