win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: USBC Bowling Technology Study  (Read 3849 times)

giddyupddp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 155

 

HackJandy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1321
  • On to greener pastures
Re: USBC Bowling Technology Study
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2018, 09:49:57 PM »
Interesting, what happens as a result not clear to me

pdf article:
http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/TechnologyStudy/FullStudy.pdf

videos:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIFfKFInYIiYAQIQQVCEe-_oZv_kjqctZ

 ??? ??? :o :o 8) 8)

(edit: TL;DR versioned this post).  Here's to reason from the PSOs.

In discussing rollbacks in technology, the majority was in favor of modifications and believe it would not significantly affect the customer. All want to see a specification for oil absorption and said any rollout would need to occur in three or four years to allow manufacturers time to react and that current balls needed to be grandfathered in.

Also their bowling leader summit told them the truth.

• Coverstocks should be the focus for specifications, not the core
• Any changes should focus on the consumer, providing a positive experience
• Quality shot-making remains the most influential component to bowling well
• Bowling has declined because the world evolved, and bowling did not
• Goal should be to stop things from escalating, to hold things in check


For record in favor of USBC having a spec for oil absorption (amazed they didn't already) going forward as that is the real issue as long as they grandfather balls in.  I agree we do need to at least stop the arms race even if I believe rolling it back is not as easy as the USBC and proprietors seem to think.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 02:01:14 PM by HackJandy »
Kind of noob when made this account so take advice with grain of salt.

amyers2002

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
Re: USBC Bowling Technology Study
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2018, 08:48:23 AM »
I know this has been a big issue for you I've seen you post on it a lot but in all reality it doesn't really matter what the rules are for most of us. I would prefer they grandfather the balls in to and I figure they will but as far as 99% of the posters on this site goes it makes no difference. We will all have moved on to whatever is newest and greatest by then anyway. Even your average league bowler buys a new ball every year. Look at the rack on league night how much stuff do you see that's older than a couple of years now? Not much. There's the occasional older bowler throwing old equipment or new bowler who just got a deal on something plugged to try it out but those throwing old equipment as usual won't be much of a factor.

I know we can all point out that one or two bowlers who kick it with older equpiment but most of us who compete buy a few balls a year at least. Let's not make mountains out of mole hills and get all pissed off about rules that effect balls that most of us won't be using then anyways.

It's not the first time ball specifications have changed I know some of the guys on here must have been around bowling the last time they changed them was there an uproar then?


avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Re: USBC Bowling Technology Study
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2018, 09:57:07 AM »
Balls have always dissipated oil.  I remember winning a tournament in 1976.  Started with a yellow dot playing outside 10.  Ended up playing 15 the last game.  The problem we have today is how rapidly the balls can blow up a pattern, even with 3 times the volume of oil used prior to introduction of urethane. 

This is bad because it has always been fundamental that longer formats bring out the cream and minimize the luck factor in carrying.  Even worse the super aggressive shells allow bowlers to over power the oil pattern rather than play it the way it is constructed. 

imagonman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: USBC Bowling Technology Study
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2018, 11:16:28 AM »
Balls have always dissipated oil.  I remember winning a tournament in 1976.  Started with a yellow dot playing outside 10.  Ended up playing 15 the last game.  The problem we have today is how rapidly the balls can blow up a pattern, even with 3 times the volume of oil used prior to introduction of urethane. 

This is bad because it has always been fundamental that longer formats bring out the cream and minimize the luck factor in carrying.  Even worse the super aggressive shells allow bowlers to over power the oil pattern rather than play it the way it is constructed.

This Chad guy acts like this is some new revelation that must be addressed ASAP. Where's he been for the last 20+ yrs. Where's the USBC leadership been since the ball motion study completed over 10 yrs ago. NOW they want to change RG's & Diff's. & oil absorption rates etc.
 my question to them is, "what the f**k you been doing all this time?" Oh yeah, that's right, living w/ your head in the sand & your hand in the manufacturers pockets. Now we have to sell everyone urethane & weak coverstock balls cuz the oil sucking hook monsters are ruining the sport & pretty much has run that course. NOT AN ANSWER USBC! We see what's going on here..............

HackJandy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1321
  • On to greener pastures
Re: USBC Bowling Technology Study
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2018, 11:32:22 AM »
I know this has been a big issue for you I've seen you post on it a lot but in all reality it doesn't really matter what the rules are for most of us. I would prefer they grandfather the balls in to and I figure they will but as far as 99% of the posters on this site goes it makes no difference. We will all have moved on to whatever is newest and greatest by then anyway. Even your average league bowler buys a new ball every year. Look at the rack on league night how much stuff do you see that's older than a couple of years now? Not much. There's the occasional older bowler throwing old equipment or new bowler who just got a deal on something plugged to try it out but those throwing old equipment as usual won't be much of a factor.

I know we can all point out that one or two bowlers who kick it with older equpiment but most of us who compete buy a few balls a year at least. Let's not make mountains out of mole hills and get all pissed off about rules that effect balls that most of us won't be using then anyways.

It's not the first time ball specifications have changed I know some of the guys on here must have been around bowling the last time they changed them was there an uproar then?

For most part agree with you except this time there was talk of not grandfathering balls in after a set time period unlike every time before.  Otherwise all this could largely happen behind closed doors with the ball makers.  Still whatever happens happens and so be it.  And the post above this absolutely nails it.  In the end proprietors are the only ones that can truly totally ban my equipment which yes I will be using 5+ years from now (when have decent sized arsenal ball abuse and oil absorption gets spread out, have a ball I bought in 2007 I still throw in addition to some others I have that are 20+ years old).
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 02:14:46 PM by HackJandy »
Kind of noob when made this account so take advice with grain of salt.

spmcgivern

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2079
Re: USBC Bowling Technology Study
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2018, 01:19:17 PM »
The one nugget of text that constantly rubbed me the wrong way was the term "standard" lane pattern. 

Quote
No matter the reason for bowling, the majority in each group agreed standard conditions are OK for league play, but 75 percent of USBC members, 72 percent of BPAA members and 87 percent of IBPSIA members stated challenging or very challenging lane conditions should be used for tournaments.

The problem is the THS is the one pattern that isn't standard.  There really isn't any regulation to it so to state it is okay for league play is misleading.

If reduced oil absorption is what is needed to reduce the cliff of oil on the THS I deal with, then that is where my money would go.  The average bowler doesn't realize a year on a challenge pattern (say 6:1) or something like that could actually increase their average.

Juggernaut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • Former good bowler, now 3 games a week house hack.
Re: USBC Bowling Technology Study
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2018, 02:13:03 PM »
“Better late tha never”
         
               Imagonman

  ;D
Learn to laugh, and love, and smile, cause we’re only here for a little while.