win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout  (Read 9354 times)

bradl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« on: October 06, 2020, 08:23:25 PM »

This may be a hard question to ask, but I'll ask it anyway.

I'm looking now to standardize my layout across all of the balls I have, but I'm more wondering about how a given layout would work (I'm tired of just telling the PSO "pin up, CG kicked out!" and not knowing the exact layout), and I'm looking for insights into how any of you would think a layout would work.

And of course, it doesn't help that the last ball I had punched up was from 4 years ago, with the Scandal Pearl, and I'm not too well versed in trying to reverse engineer/figure out a layout after the ball has been punched up..

With that, if I'm right handed, have a PAP of 5.25 over, 1.25 up, with a ball speed around 425rpm, how do you think that a 70x5x50 or a 70x4x50 layout or similar would roll? I'm seeing how someone with that same layout (with a 5" pin) is rolling that ball phenomenally, but has a 370-380rpm ball speed (slower than me).

Nothing that I see in the standard symmetric layout guides mention anything about how the ball is drilled up (dual-angle layout specs), so I can't tell how close the above would be to one of those on the symmetric sheets. Anyone have any ideas on how that layout would work with that speed and PAP?

BL.

 

TWOHAND834

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4338
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2020, 07:35:53 AM »

This may be a hard question to ask, but I'll ask it anyway.

I'm looking now to standardize my layout across all of the balls I have, but I'm more wondering about how a given layout would work (I'm tired of just telling the PSO "pin up, CG kicked out!" and not knowing the exact layout), and I'm looking for insights into how any of you would think a layout would work.

And of course, it doesn't help that the last ball I had punched up was from 4 years ago, with the Scandal Pearl, and I'm not too well versed in trying to reverse engineer/figure out a layout after the ball has been punched up..

With that, if I'm right handed, have a PAP of 5.25 over, 1.25 up, with a ball speed around 425rpm, how do you think that a 70x5x50 or a 70x4x50 layout or similar would roll? I'm seeing how someone with that same layout (with a 5" pin) is rolling that ball phenomenally, but has a 370-380rpm ball speed (slower than me).

Nothing that I see in the standard symmetric layout guides mention anything about how the ball is drilled up (dual-angle layout specs), so I can't tell how close the above would be to one of those on the symmetric sheets. Anyone have any ideas on how that layout would work with that speed and PAP?

BL.


What exactly is your ball speed.  I think you meant to say it but put "ball speed of around 425 rpms".  This will tell us how matched up you are to your rev rate.
Steven Vance
Former Pro Shop Operator
Former Classic Products Assistant Manager

bradl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2020, 04:46:35 PM »

This may be a hard question to ask, but I'll ask it anyway.

I'm looking now to standardize my layout across all of the balls I have, but I'm more wondering about how a given layout would work (I'm tired of just telling the PSO "pin up, CG kicked out!" and not knowing the exact layout), and I'm looking for insights into how any of you would think a layout would work.

And of course, it doesn't help that the last ball I had punched up was from 4 years ago, with the Scandal Pearl, and I'm not too well versed in trying to reverse engineer/figure out a layout after the ball has been punched up..

With that, if I'm right handed, have a PAP of 5.25 over, 1.25 up, with a ball speed around 425rpm, how do you think that a 70x5x50 or a 70x4x50 layout or similar would roll? I'm seeing how someone with that same layout (with a 5" pin) is rolling that ball phenomenally, but has a 370-380rpm ball speed (slower than me).

Nothing that I see in the standard symmetric layout guides mention anything about how the ball is drilled up (dual-angle layout specs), so I can't tell how close the above would be to one of those on the symmetric sheets. Anyone have any ideas on how that layout would work with that speed and PAP?

BL.


What exactly is your ball speed.  I think you meant to say it but put "ball speed of around 425 rpms".  This will tell us how matched up you are to your rev rate.

thanks for the response.

I'm at 425rpm when using a solid, but have been as slow as 415rpms with a pearl. That's from the specs from my last practice/coaching session along with my last readings with Blueprint.

BL.

Bowl_Freak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1216
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2020, 05:18:34 PM »
MPH= Ball Speed
RPM= Revolutions (which you are providing only)
Need to see both numbers to see if you are speed dominate, matching, or Rev Dominate.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2020, 05:20:54 PM by Bowl_Freak »

Aloarjr810

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Alley Katz Strike!
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2020, 06:37:07 PM »

This may be a hard question to ask, but I'll ask it anyway.

I'm looking now to standardize my layout across all of the balls I have,

If interested here's article (in pdf format) that might be of interest.

Layouts: Keeping It Simple
https://gofile.io/d/tVinmg

Excerpt:
Finding what works
Whether or not you already know your PAP, the following system will help identify the kinds of
layouts and balls that seem to work most often for you. Here’s where the homework begins:

1. Take every single ball you own, whether its three or 30, and put them on the floor in your
living room. I even want you to include the balls you don’t use anymore.


2. Put the balls in order from your favorite to your least favorite. Don’t worry about which ball is
your favorite for which condition; just pick an order that makes sense based on your gut
feeling. If you have 10 balls, for example, order them so that the first one is your favorite ball
and the tenth one is your least favorite ball.
3. Now I want you to record the layouts and ball type (asymmetrical or symmetrical). You have a
couple of options to do this:

a) You can take them all to the pro shop and ask them to write down the layout for each
ball. This would most likely be in terms of the Dual Angle system or the Pin Buffer system
(more on these in a future article). The more balls you have, the less likely you’ll want to
actually do this.

b) You can draw a picture of each layout, noting the pin and CG locations (all bowling balls),
and the mass bias (MB) or preferred spin axis (PSA) for any asymmetrical bowling balls, in
relation to your grip. These are all clearly indicated with some kind of dot or small
logo/image engraved in the ball. See the sketch and image below for examples.

You can simply draw a quick sketch and indicate the pin, CG, and mass
bias relative to your grip.
c) Or, just take a picture of each ball from the same angle and then label them.

Three balls with their pins circled in green, CGs circled in yellow, and
mass bias circled in red.


Feel free to use whichever of these three methods works best for you. (Just remember to put the
balls away before your significant other or roommate gets irritated that they can’t walk in the living
room. Not everyone loves a bowling ball collection in the middle of the floor. For us, though,
revisiting old friends is fun!)

Now comes the hard part. We need to figure out what the similarities and differences are between
our favorite balls and our least favorite balls. The easiest way to do this is to break them up in
groups. For example, if you have nine bowling balls, you can categorize them into your favorite
three, your middle three, and your least favorite three.

Start looking for trends and similarities:

Where is the pin on your favorite balls? Where is it on your least favorite balls? For example,
maybe your favorite balls are primarily pin up, meaning that the pin is above your finger holes
somewhere.
Where is the CG? Is it in the middle of your gripping holes, or way out the right/left?
Where is the mass bias, or PSA? Next to your thumb or far away?
Are your favorite balls mainly symmetrical or asymmetrical?
Aloarjr810
----------
Click For My Grip

bradl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2020, 11:03:18 PM »
MPH= Ball Speed
RPM= Revolutions (which you are providing only)
Need to see both numbers to see if you are speed dominate, matching, or Rev Dominate.

My bad. totally forgot to add that.

My ball speed with a solid and hybrid is 15.2mph. With a pearl, I drop down to 14.8. For reference, the numbers are coming from a Scandal Solid, Scandal Pearl, Gamebreaker 2 MVP, and Mission Unknown.

BL.

MI 2 AZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8153
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2020, 02:37:40 AM »
Are you getting more hook with the pearl or covering more boards?
_________________________________________
Six decades of league bowling and still learning.

ABC/USBC Lifetime Member since Aug 1995.

TWOHAND834

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4338
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2020, 08:26:17 AM »
MPH= Ball Speed
RPM= Revolutions (which you are providing only)
Need to see both numbers to see if you are speed dominate, matching, or Rev Dominate.

My bad. totally forgot to add that.

My ball speed with a solid and hybrid is 15.2mph. With a pearl, I drop down to 14.8. For reference, the numbers are coming from a Scandal Solid, Scandal Pearl, Gamebreaker 2 MVP, and Mission Unknown.

BL.


Okay.  So 15mph is more like 17 at your release.  The ball speed you see is more than likely the speed as it enters the pins.  With your ball speed and at 420 rpms (took average of the two ball speeds and rev rates) it makes you a little rev dominate, but not much.  Regarding layouts....I would not go any less than 4.5 pin to PAP.  If you wanted to do a one layout system, I would go with 55 x 5 x 30.  With your specs, the closer that first number is to 90 the more the ball will want to "flip" at the breakpoint.  The closer to 45, the more the ball will want to roll.  You will want to control the back end of the lane.  Therefore, with your ball speed, do the 5 inch pin to PAP to help you get push through the first 30 feet and then use surface adjustments and that 55 degree angle to control the back 30 feet.

Before anybody hits with that "cg doesnt matter crap", I get it.   ;)  But go on any Storm video, they still use dual angles on their symmetricals and even Mo has used it recently, one being when he did the video on laying out the Bonus.  Come to think of it, JR Raymond does as well in all his BowlerX ball motion videos.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2020, 08:32:37 AM by TWOHAND834 »
Steven Vance
Former Pro Shop Operator
Former Classic Products Assistant Manager

bradl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2020, 02:18:16 AM »
MPH= Ball Speed
RPM= Revolutions (which you are providing only)
Need to see both numbers to see if you are speed dominate, matching, or Rev Dominate.

My bad. totally forgot to add that.

My ball speed with a solid and hybrid is 15.2mph. With a pearl, I drop down to 14.8. For reference, the numbers are coming from a Scandal Solid, Scandal Pearl, Gamebreaker 2 MVP, and Mission Unknown.

BL.


Okay.  So 15mph is more like 17 at your release.  The ball speed you see is more than likely the speed as it enters the pins.  With your ball speed and at 420 rpms (took average of the two ball speeds and rev rates) it makes you a little rev dominate, but not much.  Regarding layouts....I would not go any less than 4.5 pin to PAP.  If you wanted to do a one layout system, I would go with 55 x 5 x 30.  With your specs, the closer that first number is to 90 the more the ball will want to "flip" at the breakpoint.  The closer to 45, the more the ball will want to roll.  You will want to control the back end of the lane.  Therefore, with your ball speed, do the 5 inch pin to PAP to help you get push through the first 30 feet and then use surface adjustments and that 55 degree angle to control the back 30 feet.

Before anybody hits with that "cg doesnt matter crap", I get it.   ;)  But go on any Storm video, they still use dual angles on their symmetricals and even Mo has used it recently, one being when he did the video on laying out the Bonus.  Come to think of it, JR Raymond does as well in all his BowlerX ball motion videos.

It was this that got me thinking about it! Since my layouts were all over the place (they met my need of "pin up, CG kicked out!"), I hadn't thought about all of them being being the same at that time, so I knew I was going to get a stronger reaction from each layout, but getting a read of each ball on different conditions was going to be hard. To do this with a symmetric ball that is proving to be a good benchmark/control ball is exactly what I am looking for.

So if getting closer to 90 is going to flip more at the breakpoint, and 45 is roll more, then would something like a 65 x 5 x 30 get closer to the spot where you'd get the best of both worlds?

Are you getting more hook with the pearl or covering more boards?

I'm going to say cover more boards rather than more hook. The pearl would be going longer so it would be projected farther right than the solid. But with the slower ball speed it would have a better chance to recover off the spot than the solid.



If interested here's article (in pdf format) that might be of interest.

Layouts: Keeping It Simple
https://gofile.io/d/tVinmg

Where is the CG? Is it in the middle of your gripping holes, or way out the right/left?
Where is the mass bias, or PSA? Next to your thumb or far away?
Are your favorite balls mainly symmetrical or asymmetrical?

For most of the balls, the CG is kicked out to the right, while the pin is up. For the Mass bias, I'd have to check on those that I have left that are asymmetrical. The problem I have with checking is that most of the balls I have left and have access to have either cracked or have weight/balance holes in them, which now make the layouts completely useless since the new rules are now in effect. Off the top of my head from my gear going back 10 years:

Maverick: cracked.
Black Widow Red Legend Pearl: cracked at the bridge after only 9 games on it.
Warrior Supreme: cracked.
Pivot: cracked.
Cold Blood: balance hole.
First Blood: balance hole.
Challenge: balance hole.
Absolut Hook: cracked.
GB2 MVP: Cracked.
Mission Unknown: Balance hole.

I can go back farther to see how everything else is laid out, but as you can tell, I'd be going back a good 20 years if not more.

BL.

TWOHAND834

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4338
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2020, 09:48:21 AM »
You could do the 65 x 5 x 30.  That should be fine because you are splitting the difference.  The main thing is adjusting surfaces.  With you being a little rev dominate, you are already going to create backend.  You just have to make sure that the surfaces of the coverstocks are where they need to be so that the ball enters the pocket at the right entry angle and goes through the pins the right way to maximize carry.

Thing to bear in mind going forward with the new weight hole rules.  If you decide to punch up anything new, if you want to maximize control, drill balls with the diffs .030 and below (Messenger, IQs just to name a couple).  If you want a ball that will rev up and be more continuous, looks at balls with diffs .045 and higher. 
Steven Vance
Former Pro Shop Operator
Former Classic Products Assistant Manager

Dakota

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2020, 12:28:09 PM »
Hi Bradi - Thank you for the question.  I have read your notes and the follow up that you have received from several skilled bowling folks.  My thoughts are several - (1)  You will probably end up with several new balls.  Many good choices on the market.  (2) Your high RPM Rate and low ball speed present a unique problem.  Your ball does not perform the required Skid - Hook - Roll requirement for a proper land trajectory.  A ball alone cannot resolve this problem.  (3) You need to have a very competent Pro Shop Operator (PSO) to talk too and have balls drilled. (4) I am not sure that you disclosed your ball weights. (5) I do not recommend a one drill pattern fits all situations as a solution. (6) Have your balls laid out with the Dual Angle (DA) technique. (7) So, research the ball market and determine the coverstock, RG, and Differential for each ball.  A one type layout for all balls will confuse the ball and its basic engineering. (8) Ball review sources are Ballreviews.com and Bowling This Month. (9) Study and select the best ball for the condition that you bowl on. (10) I am a strong believer in the Dual Angle Technique.  Your PSO will be able to help you.  (11) Finally you must build a strong relationship with your PSO to achieve the goals that you desire.   Best of luck - Denny O'Neill, Silver Level Coach and almost at the Gold Level.

bradl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #11 on: October 10, 2020, 03:15:06 AM »
Hi Bradi - Thank you for the question.  I have read your notes and the follow up that you have received from several skilled bowling folks.  My thoughts are several - (1)  You will probably end up with several new balls.  Many good choices on the market.

Not too worried about that here. my gear is roughly 4 years old (I took time off to get the kids going in their youth leagues, so right now everything I have is either outdated or or not usable at all. Because of that and the rules regarding weight holes are now in effect, I was down to 4 balls, but now I'm at 3:

Hammer Scandal
Hammer Scandal Pearl
Faball Blue Hammer

My Maverick just cracked in addition to what is above that I can't use. I also have a NIB Black Widow Platinum Silver I'm waiting to have punched up, pending on a layout I want to build everything around.

Quote
  (2) Your high RPM Rate and low ball speed present a unique problem.  Your ball does not perform the required Skid - Hook - Roll requirement for a proper land trajectory.  A ball alone cannot resolve this problem.

Please elaborate on this. No, I'm not the 21mph throwing Eugene McCune or similar, but I definitely don't have slow ball speed. 15mph is roughly around average, and as someone mentioned above, that appears to be average when it hits the pins, not at the point of release. As soon as alleys open up here again in California I'll get a better reading (Last time I went bowling was the end of January, shortly before everything went on lockdown).

Quote
(3) You need to have a very competent Pro Shop Operator (PSO) to talk too and have balls drilled.

That's the current problem I am having right now. I have one PSO in mind, just based off of who I trust (the guy learned under Leanne and Gary Hulsenberg), though the issue I'm having there is that he really doesn't like to drill much of anything that isn't Storm/Roto.

Quote
(4) I am not sure that you disclosed your ball weights.

I had before but didn't in this thread. I'm at 15lbs.

Quote
(5) I do not recommend a one drill pattern fits all situations as a solution.

Again, why do you say? I mean, I get it if you're thinking to have one type of layout for one type of motion that you want, second for another, a preferred pin-up layout, preferred pin-down layout; however, that leaves the bowler with needing to remember which layout he has on the ball being used to remember the motion that is expected.

I was thinking that KISS should make that a lot easier.
 
Quote
(6) Have your balls laid out with the Dual Angle (DA) technique.

All of mine are. What I don't have are the actual angles for the layouts. See below for why.

Quote
(7) So, research the ball market and determine the coverstock, RG, and Differential for each ball.  A one type layout for all balls will confuse the ball and its basic engineering.

Why is that? Are you saying that you couldn't have a solid, hybrid, and pearl of a given ball that has the same core, lay them out exactly the same, and only have to worry about surface adjustments? That would confuse the ball and the engineering behind it?

That really wouldn't make sense, especially if you are building an arsenal around a given 1-2 punch that have similar characteristics.

Quote
(8) Ball review sources are Ballreviews.com and Bowling This Month.

I already use those religiously.

Quote
(9) Study and select the best ball for the condition that you bowl on.

I already have. That's why I'm wanting to standardize on a layout. The first one I want to use it on would be a control/benchmark ball. Then I build everything else around that.

Quote
(10) I am a strong believer in the Dual Angle Technique.  Your PSO will be able to help you. 

I'm a strong believer in that as well. See below for the PSO issue.

Quote
(11) Finally you must build a strong relationship with your PSO to achieve the goals that you desire.   Best of luck - Denny O'Neill, Silver Level Coach and almost at the Gold Level.

That's part of my problem. The PSOs that I actually trust are back in Las Vegas; I'm in Northern California. The one PSO I had started with here screwed me over, never ordered the ball I asked for, pocketed the money, then moved to Vegas without any warning. Another PSO that I trusted here moved to Storm HQ (That was Gary and Leanne). And with COVID, those PSOs in Vegas aren't open (to my knowledge) as the casinos they are in aren't open; and even if they were, the last balls they punched up for me were from 4-5 years ago, and don't have the specs on those anymore.

Nothing is open here in NorCal, either; In fact, unless I want to make a 2 hour drive east to Reno, or a 6 hour drive north to Oregon, there really isn't anywhere I can go to talk to any PSO (and with Oregon catching fire 2 weeks ago, everything there is shut down as well). After that, the PSOs that I know and trust are back in my hometown of Omaha.

So I'm trying to find that PSO here, and short of making a trip back to Vegas, I'm actually getting the best advice from everyone here.

BL.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 01:52:50 PM by bradl »

Dakota

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #12 on: October 10, 2020, 07:50:24 AM »
Hi BL - Thank you for the detailed response.  I have had good fortune with distant PSO's.  I lived in Arkansas and went to a BTM clinic in Las Vegas, many years ago.  The coach that I was lined up with determined my spec sheet.  His shop was in East Point Mich.  I would just send an email and the new drilled ball would show up at my home in several days.  I recently did the  same with a PSO in Pennsylvania.  I am a member of the USBC Coaches WEB site.  I will post your dilemma and see what bounce back I get. A thought - take one of your cracked balls that is a great fit.  Send it to a qualified PSO and have them determine your spec sheet.  The cracked ball can be just thrown away. You will have to pay about $25.00 to ship the ball.  Call them up and make a deal.  Ball costs will be the same but you will have to pay shipping.  I can provide several high quality PSO's in the Michigan area.  Also Texas.  Also,  I will get more PSO's from my Coaches WEB site.  Denny

itsallaboutme

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2006
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #13 on: October 10, 2020, 08:06:44 AM »
Have you tried Dave Bolles in Stockton, Nick in Rohnert Park or Gene Bruihl wherever he is these days in the Bay Area?  Not sure there is anyone left in Sacramento.

Aloarjr810

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Alley Katz Strike!
Re: Looking to Standardize on a single Layout
« Reply #14 on: October 10, 2020, 09:33:30 AM »
2) Your high RPM Rate and low ball speed present a unique problem.  Your ball does not perform the required Skid - Hook - Roll requirement for a proper land trajectory.  A ball alone cannot resolve this problem.

With a 17mph off hand release and 425rpm rev rate that just makes you Rev Dominate, That's assuming the measurements are correct. It's not a unique problem, you just need to adjust your layouts accordingly.

(if your just estimating your rpms your most likely too high. People generally over estimate their revs, if so your probably only slightly rev dominate.)

Your ball is quite probably going through the Skid - Hook - Roll phases someone can't just look at your speed and revs numbers and say it's not.

Quote
(5) I do not recommend a one drill pattern fits all situations as a solution.

Okay Bradl this is part of long running debate,  whether you should have a unique layout/ball for every situation or just a limited number of layouts.

Rob Mautner who writes articles for Bowling This Month magazine, Wrote a article called "Making the Case for Limited Layouts"

Here's a pdf of it.
https://gofile.io/d/JEhrdC

Here is a excerpt:
Quote
The benefits of using limited layouts

I believe that most bowlers should stick with one or two standard layouts that work for their game. Once you learn the basics of bowling ball cores, determine the one or two layouts that work for you, research cover materials for balls that you are considering for purchase, and accept the fact that the out-of-box surface is not sacred and can and often should be changed to fit your style of bowling, then you are truly in control of the balls in your arsenal and can easily change among them as a successful form of adjustment to changing lane conditions.

Also here's a video that address's using limited layouts:

So your idea of using a standardized layout is perfectly valid.

Quote
(7) So, research the ball market and determine the coverstock, RG, and Differential for each ball.  A one type layout for all balls will confuse the ball and its basic engineering.

Yes researching ball spec's is always a good idea.

As for confusing the ball engineering by using only one layout, I've seen that statement only one other time (I can't remember who said it).

But it ranks up there with the idea that you can't change the OOB surface on a ball because that would defeat the "Design Intent" of the ball.
Aloarjr810
----------
Click For My Grip