Author Topic: Lane 1 and the PBA (Read 8491 times)

Gixer · « **on:** March 30, 2009, 07:34:44 AM »

A thought occured to me while watching the PBA show yesterday. Why haven't I seen any Lane 1 stuff on TV? I've seen practically everything else even Elite but no Lane 1. I'm not trying to start anything here just curious thats all..

Steven · « **Reply #16 on:** March 31, 2009, 12:53:44 PM »

Inverted: I'm envious at the insights you have. You not only have the time to be a successful business owner and family man, but you're able to do extensive research on the tour as to who uses what brand for what reason. Truly remarkable.

Again, if you look at the better players who have the possible potential for the exempt tour, they're getting free equipment from the major companies starting back at the regional level. They all have their buddies who have similar deals with companies, and they all hang out, share notes, and make contacts for their next possible contract moves. In other words, it's a small world that perpetuates itself over-and-over again.

Think about it logically. There isn't much of an incentive to go through the trouble of experimenting with smaller companies where you're guaranteed to have thousands out of pocket, and no local rep to help you out with setup according to your specific needs. Bowlers are notoriously cheap, and they're going to go the path of least resistance -- guaranteed. Especially when what they have is pretty good.

Uncle Crusty · « **Reply #17 on:** March 31, 2009, 01:13:09 PM »

quote:
Well, if it's an excuse, it's one that everyone besides Storm/Roto is making this year. That company has dominated telecasts.

Last year and prior, when balls that reacted more like Brunswick (for lack of a better way to explain it) were the better matchup, there were more free agents throwing MoRich, Brunswick and then you had Loschetter making two shows with Lane #1. So it obviously worked for him if it got him to the show.

I'll give you that Storm/Roto is a better matchup for people this year, because the evidence bears that out.

I think I've proved sufficiently that I'm not an apologist for any single company, both through my own insistence on throwing multiple companies' stuff and my willingness to take the company to task when it made something I couldn't use, so I have no problem saying the following: Anyone who says "Lane #1 is junk" and ascribing it to the entire product line is either stirring or is confusing their own matchup issues with actual quality. For various reasons, this company is a lightning rod for criticism but that doesn't make haters right.

Jess

Which is why I talked about matchups over the past decade. Every year, especially when the patterns get tweaked, it seems one company, or perhaps more accurately, one characteristic type of ball roll, has the nut on Tour. This has been the case forever.

But my point is, if no one has ever had the nut with Lane#1, doesn't it stand to reason that the equipment is just not as versatile as it needs to be for people to thrive on Tour with it? I mean, Brunswick poured their covers forever, and back in the late 90's and early 2000's, WRW and PB3 won about 18 zillion titles with Brunswick, and that's not even counting some of the other guys who mopped up with Big B. Since you compare Lane#1's roll with that of Brunswick and MoRich (and rightly so), wouldn't you think Lane#1 could have earned a few titles in an era where that type of ball reaction was king? The answer is no.

And using the Loschetter/Haugen argument (saying those guys *did* make the show with Lane#1, although they went on to lose on TV) doesn't definitively prove that Lane#1 could thrive on Tour. For instance, I remember WRW making several shows in his pre-Brunswick days throwing some red Wilson-brand ball. He may have even won on TV with one of those clunkers, but that doesn't mean Wilson equipment should be in everyone's hands.

Personally, I think the major problem with Lane#1 is versatility (or a lack thereof). A lot of people I know who throw Lane#1 (and this is stright from the horse's mouth, so to speak) say that nearly all of their pieces roll similarly. Too similarly. You need to generate different looks on Tour, and Lane#1 just can't provide that. Perhaps it's the lack of core variety, perhaps it's a lack of coverstock variation, perhaps it's a combination of the two, but either way you slice it, one of the big knocks on Lane#1 is everything they have rolls basically the same way. And having 20 balls in the bag that all do the same thing doesn't add up to a paycheck at the end of the week when you're duking it out with the best in the world.
--------------------
"Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein."

-Broadcasting Extraordinaire and Mensa Member Joe Theismann

JessN16 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 31, 2009, 01:30:27 PM »

Crusty,

Remember that for a lot of those years, Lane #1 wasn't product-registered, either.

I see a similar discussion going on right now about Elite now that Robert Smith dropped them (and they will apparently drop their registration at year's end). Some people are talking about Elite being "junk." If Elite is junk, so is Brunswick, because that's pretty much what those balls are. Elite is way overpriced, but is not junk.

The versatility argument is fair. In the Brunswick days, you had two basic looks, the roll-heavy look from the Diamond cores and the more angular look from the Bomb cores.

I think the versatility is greater now that they've moved to 900Global for coverstocks, based on what I've seen from what I've drilled recently. They now have six different cores in production if the XP is still being made. So I expect that to get better.

Jess

Steven · « **Reply #19 on:** March 31, 2009, 01:38:27 PM »

quote:
Personally, I think the major problem with Lane#1 is versatility (or a lack thereof). A lot of people I know who throw Lane#1 (and this is stright from the horse's mouth, so to speak) say that nearly all of their pieces roll similarly. Too similarly.

Crusty: That says more about the 'people you know' who throw Lane#1 than about the equipment itself.

For instance, anyone who suggests that Carbide Plus (Buzzsaw/C2 core) with a higher pin drill reacts similarly to a Solid Uranium with a lower pin drill really needs lessons or eye glasses. There are many other L#1 ball combinations that produce vastly different reaction combinations that could be listed.

It's myths like what you stated that keep old wives tales alive.

Uncle Crusty · « **Reply #20 on:** March 31, 2009, 01:53:35 PM »

quote:
It's myths like what you stated that keep old wives tales alive.

I know a variety of bowlers who throw Lane#1, varying anywhere from house mouses to multi-time state champs. And the common denominator between most of them is the observation that most Lane#1 stuff rolls alike. That's not a myth, bro, that's their observation. If they never threw the equipment, never tried different pills, never varied surfaces or layouts and still said everything rolled the same, then you'd have yourself a myth. But some of the guys I reference are people who have a vast knowledge of different layouts and understand the fundamentals of ball reaction and know how to shape ball reaction to suit their needs, and they still reached the same conclusion. So that, for them at least, is fact, not myth.

It's well beyond obvious that you match up well with Lane#1, and there's nothing better than finding a brand that suits your game perfectly. But you just cannot expect everyone to match up by playing with layouts and surfaces, because some people just don't match up with a company, period. And my whole point is that no one on Tour matches up to the look Lane#1 offers (and the look you love), because if they did, they'd be throwing Saws.
--------------------
"Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein."

-Broadcasting Extraordinaire and Mensa Member Joe Theismann

Steven · « **Reply #21 on:** March 31, 2009, 02:21:29 PM »

quote:
I know a variety of bowlers who throw Lane#1, varying anywhere from house mouses to multi-time state champs. And the common denominator between most of them is the observation that most Lane#1 stuff rolls alike. That's not a myth, bro, that's their observation.

Crusty: Look at this from a logical level. Compare just 2 Lane#1 balls that would likely be used by better bowlers:

Carbide Plus ---> RGMIN=2.515 RGMAX=2.558
Uranium -------> RGMIN=2.450 RGMAX=2.493

From a physics point of view, how are these two balls going to roll the same, assuming the same drill? The RG's are worlds different. My Uranium is early rolling while my Carbide+ has a definite skid/snap reaction (which one would expect from the numbers). Why would anyone experience anything different?

quote:
But you just cannot expect everyone to match up by playing with layouts and surfaces, because some people just don't match up with a company, period. And my whole point is that no one on Tour matches up to the look Lane#1 offers (and the look you love), because if they did, they'd be throwing Saws.

I don't expect everyone would choose a L#1 as their first ball out of the bag. I'm just disturbed by the suggestion that all Lane#1 balls roll the same -- they don't.

The reasons Lane#1 is not used more on the tour has more to do with free or reduced priced major company equipment that better players have available. Even at the proshop level, any operator worth his salt is given 'freebies' by distributors and reps to try out with the hope they'll be pushed to customers. That just doesn't happen as often with the smaller companies.

Steven · « **Reply #22 on:** March 31, 2009, 02:38:21 PM »

quote:
HOWEVER, at the end of the day, if you need to spend $300 in equipment that SEEMS to work for those winnng titles (or even cashing) vs. getting "free stuff" that's not getting you the desired results, small market or not, you'll spend it.

Inverted: First, the investment isn't $300, it's much more -- probably in the thousands. If you're going to jump into another company playpen (and pay for it), you're going to need many balls, including multiple of the same ball to experiment with different drills/surfaces. That's a major investment for guys even at the highest levels who share rooms/beds at Motel 6 to keep expenses affordable.

Given this, it's reasonable to assume they'll continue to error on the side of experimenting with a line they're using. That's exactly the behavior you see.

quote:
Pro's don't pay full price for the equipment and I believe it's around $30 to put holes in them.

Exactly. And that's a lot of incentive to stay with a line they're comfortable with rather than pay full price for what might be a dead end.

quote:
So, by what you're saying, they would rather use free stuff that may or may not work vs. spending a few bucks for a ball that their peers are scoring lights out with? Sure, they are. Let me know when Elvis get's here..

I'm not sure what you're saying above. Of course they would rather use free stuff that's working -- always option#1. However, their peers aren't using Lane#1 (for reasons covered), so I'm not sure it's time to wait around for Elvis to get here.

buzzaussie299 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 31, 2009, 02:39:53 PM »

well after reading all this it seems to me that the main point is being missed all together . I believe the pros over there in the united states should be able and i believe are able to throw anything they like and will still score with it . It comes down to money , if you were offered x amount of dollars to throw someones gear on tv , would you do it ? I belive most would . If you got shut out early you know you have some cash coming in either way . Take belmonte for instance . He was throwing a plastic in the finals on the pba and still won the title . Storm or starburst or white dot , i dont think it would of mattered much . Dont forget a bad tradesman always blames his tools . If you have the skill , the tools should not matter much . My opinion here guys . Thats all .
--------------------
black raspberry saw
emerald saw
cranberry c buzzsaw
enriched uranium stacked
enriched uranium label
pearl uranium
pearl carbide
pearl cherry bomb
solid cobalt bomb
xxxl starburst
h20 buzzsaw
liberator
solid uranium
clear diamond
bullet buzzsaw
tsunami
uranium hrg
blueberry buzzsaw 14lb
supernova solid
enriched uranium cg out

wanted single drill right hand blueberry 15 lb
wanted single drill right hand silver diamond 15lb

Uncle Crusty · « **Reply #24 on:** March 31, 2009, 02:41:08 PM »

quote:
Crusty: Look at this from a logical level. Compare just 2 Lane#1 balls that would likely be used by better bowlers:

Carbide Plus ---> RGMIN=2.515 RGMAX=2.558
Uranium -------> RGMIN=2.450 RGMAX=2.493

From a physics point of view, how are these two balls going to roll the same, assuming the same drill? The RG's are worlds different. My Uranium is early rolling while my Carbide+ has a definite skid/snap reaction (which one would expect from the numbers). Why would anyone experience anything different?

I don't know what to tell you, Steven. I really don't. I guess I could suggest that numbers don't translate out to the wood for garbage. Maybe I could tell you I know a bunch of habitual liars, which is pretty close to what you seem to want to insinuate. All I know is what I'm told, and *multiple* bowlers with varying styles and different knowledge bases all told me the same thing: that Lane#1 has a very characteristic roll that all the equipment they put out tends to gravitate towards. That is their experience, and for you to sit at your computer, having never seen them bowl or conversed with them, and spew numbers to prove them wrong is self-serving at best.

I'm a nuclear engineer, I understand physics with the best of them, but I also understand that idealized numbers don't always nicely translate to real life. If they did, balls like the Blue Vibe wouldn't have outhooked 90% of balls on the market at the time of their release.

quote:
The reasons Lane#1 is not used more on the tour has more to do with free or reduced priced major company equipment that better players have available. Even at the proshop level, any operator worth his salt is given 'freebies' by distributors and reps to try out with the hope they'll be pushed to customers. That just doesn't happen as often with the smaller companies.

Is the reason Lane#1 is a smaller company due to the fact that demand just isn't as high as other companies? Is it possible that people just don't want to throw Lane#1 because they don't match up, including pros? Is that sensical train of thought even remotely possible?

I'm not asking you to hate on Lane#1 with the rest of the bashers, and I'm not asking you to admit you're throwing "inferior" equipment. But it never hurt anyone to call a spade a spade, and in this case, that would be admitting Lane#1 isn't as popular because a lot of people just haven't found success with it and can't match up with it, yourself excluded.
--------------------
"Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein."

-Broadcasting Extraordinaire and Mensa Member Joe Theismann

Edited on 3/31/2009 2:42 PM

Steven · « **Reply #25 on:** March 31, 2009, 02:57:05 PM »

Crusty: First, I'm not trying to call anyone a liar. I don't know your bowling associates, so I can't make any comments regarding their observation. That's why I gave you some real world numbers to consider, so we're talking the same language. I do think it's interesting that you believe Lane#1 balls somehow defy all rules of physics and must somehow all gravitate to a common roll.

quote:

Is the reason Lane#1 is a smaller company due to the fact that demand just isn't as high as other companies? Is it possible that people just don't want to throw Lane#1 because they don't match up, including pros? Is that sensical train of thought even remotely possible?

I'm not asking you to hate on Lane#1 with the rest of the bashers, and I'm not asking you to admit you're throwing "inferior" equipment. But it never hurt anyone to call a spade a spade, and in this case, that would be admitting Lane#1 isn't as popular because a lot of people just haven't found success with it and can't match up with it, yourself excluded.

My personal opinion is that Lane#1 isn't popular because:

1) It's harder to get. Until recently proshops had to deal directly with Lane#1 to place orders which is just plain more work for the proshop. My proshop guy still digs at me for having him go to Lane#1 instead of simply taking something off the wall.

2) Traditionally, they have cost more. That's going to scare 90% of your market away from the get-go.

Look, I also throw Columbia and Hammer, so I appreciate there is a lot of good equipment out there. Given this, bowlers are always going to gravitate to what's easiest and cheapest to buy, and unfortunately that's not Lane#1.

SLunsford · « **Reply #26 on:** March 31, 2009, 03:51:52 PM »

I will throw my .02 cents in...sorry if this is repeated from somebody else.

Guys on tour don't use Lane 1 because it's not readily available to them. If there were a ball rep around during practice session talking to the guys (not tied to contracts) offering support,comps, and any other thing that bowlers find useful...some guys would try a ball or two. But the exempt players aren't going to take a chance on a ball that they are not familiar with. Remember, this is their job!! Their living!!

However, when most all the other ball companies do have somebody out there to rep, the balls and knowledge are more accessible...hence people will try things in practice.
Chris Schlemmer(sp?) from Storm (also overlooks Roto-Grip) is the most visible rep on tour. That's why you see more and more guys throwing their stuff. Plus his knowledge is unbelievable and the guys on tour know this.

As for Morich....All their eggs are in Walter. No room for another big contract. This is identical to Columbia with Barnes. Ken Abner does throw Morich on contract. Jack Jurek is very comfortable with some of their equipment, but will throw what he feels will give him the best chance.

Whoever said(previous poster) that the players will use whatever for the endorsements or tv money - this is completely wrong. The endorsements aren't good enough to risk a chance at winning a title. Awhile ago, the endorsements were equivalent to the show money. The year Walter made $400k on tour, there is the possibility he matched that in endorsements. Those days are gone. People use to wear the old Dick Weber wrist braces and take the metal plate out...there was huge incentives to wear it on tv. Plenty more...I can go on and on.

Steven · « **Reply #27 on:** March 31, 2009, 04:16:55 PM »

Inverted: We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. The smaller companies (including Lane#1) can't compete with the free and reduced price equipment available from the majors.

If you've grown up in the bowling world using Ebonite, Storm, Brunswick (and their umbrella companies), you're getting their equipment for free and/or at a reduced cost, and you have and on-site rep to help you lay the equipment out, that's the path you're going to continue down. You can talk about an idealistic world where players change companies at a whim, but all bets are off when a change realistically means thousands of dollars out of your own pocket, with little or no rep support. And that's what a decision to a smaller company like Lane#1 can mean.

Edited on 3/31/2009 5:08 PM

holland1945 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 31, 2009, 07:53:14 PM »

quote:
quote:
Crusty: Look at this from a logical level. Compare just 2 Lane#1 balls that would likely be used by better bowlers:

Carbide Plus ---> RGMIN=2.515 RGMAX=2.558
Uranium -------> RGMIN=2.450 RGMAX=2.493

From a physics point of view, how are these two balls going to roll the same, assuming the same drill? The RG's are worlds different. My Uranium is early rolling while my Carbide+ has a definite skid/snap reaction (which one would expect from the numbers). Why would anyone experience anything different?

I don't know what to tell you, Steven. I really don't. I guess I could suggest that numbers don't translate out to the wood for garbage. Maybe I could tell you I know a bunch of habitual liars, which is pretty close to what you seem to want to insinuate. All I know is what I'm told, and *multiple* bowlers with varying styles and different knowledge bases all told me the same thing: that Lane#1 has a very characteristic roll that all the equipment they put out tends to gravitate towards. That is their experience, and for you to sit at your computer, having never seen them bowl or conversed with them, and spew numbers to prove them wrong is self-serving at best.

I'm a nuclear engineer, I understand physics with the best of them, but I also understand that idealized numbers don't always nicely translate to real life. If they did, balls like the Blue Vibe wouldn't have outhooked 90% of balls on the market at the time of their release.

quote:
The reasons Lane#1 is not used more on the tour has more to do with free or reduced priced major company equipment that better players have available. Even at the proshop level, any operator worth his salt is given 'freebies' by distributors and reps to try out with the hope they'll be pushed to customers. That just doesn't happen as often with the smaller companies.

Is the reason Lane#1 is a smaller company due to the fact that demand just isn't as high as other companies? Is it possible that people just don't want to throw Lane#1 because they don't match up, including pros? Is that sensical train of thought even remotely possible?

I'm not asking you to hate on Lane#1 with the rest of the bashers, and I'm not asking you to admit you're throwing "inferior" equipment. But it never hurt anyone to call a spade a spade, and in this case, that would be admitting Lane#1 isn't as popular because a lot of people just haven't found success with it and can't match up with it, yourself excluded.
--------------------
"Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein."

-Broadcasting Extraordinaire and Mensa Member Joe Theismann

Edited on 3/31/2009 2:42 PM

Dude, haven't you realized yet? No matter what Steven says or how "objective" he tries to be perceived, he's a HUGE Lane #1 homer. You're arguing with a fanboy, this is like Nintendo vs. Sega in the 90's, you will never get him to concede a point that even remotely shines a less-than-positive light on HIS company obsession. The best I have ever seen him do is say "well, bomb cores don't match up with my game".

This has been one of the most reasonable and thought-out discussions from the anti-Lane #1 side (not saying they're bad, but that it's something they're doing or not doing that is causing their lack of success) and they keep running behind their "small company" status as a defense for everything. "No, it can't be that there's more to bowling than RG numbers and transference of energy from the core to the pins! It's the fact that we don't comp balls to pros!"

Loeschetter (sp?) was on TV with an Enriched Uranium I remember, and it looked like absolute crap. That's a shame because it's a good ball. Did he, and other pros, shy away from the brand because of that (apparently there's been a few telecasts I haven't seen with Lane #1 equipment)? Doubtful. It is as many are saying on this thread...pros on PBA conditions do not match up with Lane #1 cores, period. Lane #1 makes Brunswick stuff look skid/snap by comparison, and Brunswick is (in general) much rollier than other companies. And the bottom line is that they really do have only 1 core with some variations...it has a characteristic roll because the shape is the same regardless of the RG. The RG differences in different balls will make them roll less or more but the look is the same. Bomb vs. diamond may effect strength and angularity, but the roll is still the same. On the other hand, there's a WORLD of difference between how a BVP Rampage and an Original Inferno roll (just as one example). Different core shape, different RG, different coverstock, but for similar conditions and situations. And in the case of MoRich, their core is so adjustable through drilling, you can make 1 ball do about 6 significantly different things. The symmetrical cored Lane #1 balls do not allow that and the "asymmetrical" version was a joke, almost no asymmetry, and I'm guessing that's why there's no ball in production with it anymore.
--------------------
*** MoRich, Quantum, Brunswick 15# for sale - http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=231393&ForumID=26&CategoryID=12 ***

Support REAL change and REAL conservative politics in America:

http://www.mises.org - learn
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ - activism
http://www.breakthematrix.com/ - video
http://www.rationalreview.com/ and http://www.antiwar.com/ - news

Steven · « **Reply #29 on:** April 01, 2009, 09:58:49 AM »

quote:
Dude, haven't you realized yet? No matter what Steven says or how "objective" he tries to be perceived, he's a HUGE Lane #1 homer. You're arguing with a fanboy, this is like Nintendo vs. Sega in the 90's, you will never get him to concede a point that even remotely shines a less-than-positive light on HIS company obsession. The best I have ever seen him do is say "well, bomb cores don't match up with my game".

Holland/THB: Every time you get a virtual spanking for your trolling (not just me, but others), you reply with a boo-hoo response like that above. Grow some skin and man up. Better yet, strive to be a real contributor. Ballreviews is not the ideal place to hone your pure fiction skills.

quote:

I'd like to know where you get the "thousand of dollars" figure..

If I'm a pro and want to try a new ball, I don't buy a dozen of them, I buy one and see how it's working for me. If it doesn't work, then you go back to what you were using. End of story.

Inverted: True, you're probably going to try one to start. Not a big initial outlay. But if you like it, that where the cash meter starts. You could very well end up buying a dozen if you decide to make the switch. That's about $2,000 out of the gate, and a lot of money for a guy just trying to make expenses and stay on tour.

IEQ's response above outlines it well.

Jeffrevs · « **Reply #30 on:** April 01, 2009, 10:47:16 AM »

Ok, ...so why is this just a Lane 1 argument, because it's on the forum?

You can discuss this with ANY smaller company and get the same results....Lane1 just so happens to have a cult following

And, NO, I'm not a Lane1 basher...just pointing out the obvious.

p.s. I've never seen so much converstation about a ball company than Lane1. You bring their stuff up and BOOM....the thread goes nuts!
--------------------
Jeff
The Revless Wonder and King Douchebag!

Author Topic: Lane 1 and the PBA (Read 8491 times)

Gixer

Lane 1 and the PBA

Steven

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

Uncle Crusty

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

JessN16

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

Steven

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

Uncle Crusty

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

Steven

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

Steven

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

buzzaussie299

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

Uncle Crusty

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

Steven

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

SLunsford

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

Steven

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

holland1945

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

Steven

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA

Jeffrevs

Re: Lane 1 and the PBA