win a ball from

Author Topic: New Standard 2  (Read 9952 times)


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1241
New Standard 2
« on: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM »
Ball NPS Score: 100.00 has the largest selection of bowling balls
Click here to shop.

Coverstock: Diamond

Ball Color: Black/Gold All colors do vary somewhat from the picture shown.

Finish: Sheen

Flare Potential:7" (High)

RG Average: 2.624 (Medium-High) on a scale of 2.43-2.8 Very low-High Break Point

RG Differential: 0.048 (Medium) on a scale of .000-.080 Low-High Flare

Hook Potential: 8 (High) on a scale of 1-10

Recommended Lane Conditions: Heavy Oil

Description: Once in a great while a bowling ball is made with the perfect combination of power, control, and versitility. The New Standard 2 from Legends Bowling is one such ball. Aspire to a higher standard, get a hold of a New Standard 2 from Legends Bowling today.



  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: New Standard 2
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2005, 02:07:47 PM »
this ball is incredible! 2 5/8 pin next to the ring finger.  has more back end then any other particle ball ive ever used.  Im a 19-20 mph mid-hi rev player bowled on a med-heavy shot ball got rollin early then flew on the backend it was unreal.
Morich you can hear the difference!


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: New Standard 2
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2005, 04:53:17 PM »
bought this ball just a few days ago and it hits like a hammer in that 1-3pocket most of the time, leaves quite a lot of 10 pins if it hits too hard,it has a weird reaction sometimes coz it reacts more and less in different cases but overall a good ball/ from 130ave to 160+ave it improved me
 i sulute u legends and carry on to make more great bowling balls


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Re: New Standard 2
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2006, 02:06:25 PM »
Just got this ball and had it drilled stacked leverage. Tried it out during the practice session prior to start of competition. I wasn't prepared for what I saw. The ball did roll early, did rev up quickly, but that's where my expectations ended. I thought the ball would never hook back, but bob oh boy did it! It fairly well leaped toward the 1-3 and then there was this explosive pin action. Shot a 630 set first time out. Can't wait to see what happens when I get comfortable with it. If I can save up enough cash, I'll upgrade my arsenal to be all Lane Masters products.


  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
Re: New Standard 2
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2006, 04:23:26 PM »
This ball hits like a train. Likes to leave the ten pin if it comes in at too little of an angle. I am a high speed, low rev player. So I mainly play down and in. This ball works wonderfully if I slow down and let it do it's job. I had it drilled for length and I would not recommend this drilling with this ball maybe a 4x4, close to Label Leverage would have been better for me and the ball. But otherwise this ball has amazing carry and a very tweakable cover, I play allot of heavy oil long patterns in league and it does ok, better on medium oil though. Have to say thanks to Legends for the included goodies, where else do you find cleaner, polish, and two different scotchbrite buffing pads for upkeep. The "Bigger" ball manufactures better watch out, I know where my money is going next time.
Justin Kluska
Staff A3 Member
Lane Masters/Lord Field

The SuperHitMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1256
Re: New Standard 2
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2006, 02:02:24 AM »
Now that Iv'e put a couple of games on this ball I can speak on it (High and Low 600's mostly High though). Iv'e never thrown a legends ball but from what Iv'e seen and heard about the coverstock actually has some truth to it.  The NS2 hits hard and carries quite well, I threw a shot and it was explosive that I felt it in my eardrum (I'm no legends fanatic so I have no need to hype the ball. OOB the ball is very rolly and hooks less and when you polish the NS2 the reaction you get is more skid snappish (I just made a new word) I drilled mine pin up and to the right w/small wieght hole and to my amazement in its un-polished form it still hooks a ton, until I find enough juice for it to swim in I will keep mine polished up (And its still a beast in its polished form). Its a good ball.

Opponent: Its fun to bowl against  bowlers who just spray the lanes!

K.C.: Thats not my style.

Opponent: Oh but Iv'e seen you play!

K.C.: Then you would make smarter comments.


K.C.: Lets fight


K.C.: I win


K.C.: Lesson learned.

R.I.P Eddie Guerrero Viva La Raza

Win or Go Home...Shwosh-The SuperHitMan

K.C. White II
Motiv Staffer
MotivNation will take a nation to stop.

Bowling is about what the bowler believes it to be, so what is bowling to you friend?

Moose Nugget

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: New Standard 2
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2006, 09:45:44 PM »
Had this ball for 6 months now and still haven't found a shot where I can use it.  It seems to be very inconsistent.  I have now began to just use it for experimentation.  I have plugged and redrilled with a pin axis layout just trying to get it to pick up a good roll.  When it has worked I would rate the carry above average.  This ball carries shots it has no business carrying.  Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a condition this ball will work.  Ball just doens't match up well for me.  The black and gold colors look horible rolling down the lane also.
Bandit Lanes Pro Shop
Ellsworth AFB South Dakota


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: New Standard 2
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2006, 06:04:25 PM »
I am a tweener with 15.3 mph ball speed. Ball is laid out stacked 4x4 with pin in the early position (under the ring finger).

With the out the box finish you must have heavy oil. I only need this ball once or twice a month. It can handle all the oil that you could possibly encounter. The ball is very perdictable. Never a hint of over or under reaction.

I have experimented with the finish in order to use on varied conditions but I setled with the box finsih for heavy oil use.

Pat Patterson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1852
Re: New Standard 2
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2007, 07:06:40 PM »
Got ball drilled on May 31, 2007 by Mike Miller at Ten Pins and More in Rio Rancho, NM. Before drilling ball was 15lbs. 4oz. with 3.25 oz of TW and a 3.5" Pin. Ball was drilled with the Pin right of the ring finger with the CG kicked out right with a weight hole. Ball is an absolute monster and it's alot more aggressive on the backend on my typical house pattern(38" buffed to 45" synthetic using CONTROL oil)then I was expecting, it really digs in and transitions hard into the pocket. In it's current condition (OOB-Sheen)it is currently about 5 boards stronger than my Legends - Black Pearl(OOB-3.0" pin above and right of ring finger with a similar lay-out). I don't know what else to say about the Legends/Lanemasters line of balls, other than the pin reaction is much livelier and messengers come from all over the place.  There is nothing else out there that even compares to these balls.

Excellent ball from Legends/Lanemasters!

Here are a couple of actual pictures:

Pat Patterson
Pat Patterson


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
Re: New Standard 2
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2007, 11:17:32 AM »
I've had this ball about 2 months now so it's time to review it.  This ball quickly became my favorite Lanemasters ball.  Like all my LM/L balls it carries through the heads with ease.  What makes the NS2 so great is that even though it gets into a pretty heavy roll fairly quickly, it doesn't grab too hard in the mids...and once it makes it's turn there is no stopping it.  Because it is such a strong arcing ball, carry down is rarely a problem.    Although I'm a stroker and just a fair bowler, I threw my first 800 series using this ball the first and second game (closed out the series with the Big Kahuna).  If you have to deal with a lot of oil this ball is an absolute must have.  Check out the vid:

Great ball!!!!


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7605
Re: New Standard 2
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2008, 10:38:35 AM »
Lanemasters' New Standard², a .k. a. NS2, in a nutshell:
  • A classic particle piece: arcing, reads the lane well, moves as if on tracks
  • Despite the sheen OOB surface lots of traction
  • Useable on a wide range of conditions of medium and up
  • A simple ball: responds well to hand and speed changes, easy to handle
  • Oil? What oil?

    Why this ball?
    The NS2 became a spontaneaous choice. Revamping my arsenal for the next season, I found - especially with a new Brunswick lane surface and a 42' oil pattern at my club house - that my 2 current strongest balls, my Frankie May Gryphon at 2.000 Abralon for medium-to medium-oily shots and my Fuze Eliminator, currently at 1.000 grit matte and with lots of games on the clock, would probably be not enoug anymore. While the Eliminator fills my oil ball gap perfectly, it ages and I decided to add another oil ball to my arsenal, as a fall-back option and as a future replacement, just in case... Looking for a potential ball, the NS2 came into play as I stumbled across a special offer from a pro shop located in Berlin.

    I had never tried a Lanemasters ball before, but had them on the radar since their introduction because I never heard anything truly negative about them, and I have seem many LM balls in action around here which simply looked good on the lanes. A Yeah, Baby! would have been a favorite, the original New Standard or a Big Kahuna. I just was not sure if the different design would fit my game - and a NIB LM ball would cost more than $300 here, drilling excluded... too much for experiments! But now, with the offer to get an NS2 for about $200, I decided to give the ball and the brand a try.

    From descriptions and other reviews, the NS2 would IMHO be a good basis for my needs: high particle load, sheen surface (with room for future adjustments) and, for LM balls, a rather high differential which would create a good move.

    At this place I want to thank some fellows for their input on the NS2. Many thanks and credits to charlest, scotts33, Graaille and zone, enlightening me and providing vital recommendations. Your support was and is highly appreciated!

    About me:
    Style = Stroker/mild Tweener, right-handed
    Speed = ~14 mph
    PAP = 5" & 7/8" up
    Axis tilt = 18,7°
    Revs = ~275 RPM at release
    For more details, check out my profile, please.

    The ball and its setup:
    From the balls in store (all pin-outs with 3 ounces and more TW) I settled on a specimen with:
  • 15.3 lbs. gross weight
  • 3.75” pin distanc
  • 3 ounces top weight

    Originally I wanted a low pin distance in order to put the pin under the fingers in a strong position and swing the CG out at 45° towards my PAP - an arcing setup that would make the ball roll violently and early (4x3, similar to my Fuze Eliminator).
    But listening to warning voices from fellows and only having larger pin distances to chose from the setup plan changed to putting the pin above the fingers, in order to push the ball down the lane. Favorites were either a 4x4 stacked drilling, or something that would come close to a label leverage drilling (CG in palm, pin next to the ring finger at about 4" from PAP).

    My choice finally fell on the label setup, kind of 4x5 or 120° layout, because I wanted the ball to have a good mid lane read on oily shots and for deep lines, but a rather mellow back end to avoid burnout through long ways on dry back ends and to enhance controllability. I did not care so much for a big hook, rather an effective ball reaction that would make the ball finish its hook before it would enter the pins.

    After discussing my plans at my pro shop of trust, with Brunswick's amateur staffer Michael Kraemer at his pro shop in Duisburg, I got my plans confirmed by the expert and the ball was drilled up accordingly - many thanks to Michael for his support and advice!


    * = Pin (in ring finger hole position)
    # = CG

    With the CG almost in the palm (1/2" towards PAP), no x-hole was necessary. Black oval grips plus a black urethane thumb slug completed the setup. I left the surface as it was, "sheen", which looks to me like a 1.500 grit wet sanded finish.

    The testing program:

    A) Fresh 35' THS, 2004 Qubica synth surface:
    The NS2's maiden flight took place at Treff Bowling in Duisburg, the pro shop’s location, immediately after drilling it up. I was sceptical at first, because of the simple and ratrher short pattern. But the first shot left me in awe: this baby moves! And hits hard! Wow.
    I was expecting the ball to be somewhat strong with the 4x5 label drilling and rather arcing, but I did not expect the ball to get thorugh the heads that easy, then rev up brutally in the midlane in a wide curve and finally roll forward with authority into the pins, pushing any resistance aside. This looked VERY effective, even on the THS

    I made a total of 3 games and experimented with various lines and hand positions, just to get a feel for the ball. The NS2 reacted well to hand position changes and allowed me various lines:

    With maximum hand (totally cupped wrist) I could stand on 31st board and send the ball across 16th board at the arrows far out to the gutter, breaking at 4-5th board, breaking and arcing pretty early, and finally roll almost dead staright from the gutter into the pocket - still having lots of power in the pins due to the tame back end reaction. Lots of hook, I had to keep my speed up to prevent the ball fromm going Brooklyn, and in the 3rd game it left some 10 pins due to the steep entry angle I created with this aggressive line.

    Another line that proved very successful was standing at 27th board and send the ball across 13th board at the arrows, with my hand in normal straight position, on a tighter and less dramatic line. Still, the ball would break early and start rolling with lots of power left, despite the THS and the sheen surface, but it would cover considerably less boards and carry even better - a 211 was the test games highest results.

    Playing closer to the gutter was more or less impossible - the ball would grab the lane too early, unless I'd play it with a suitcase release for maximum skid.

    On the THS I expected the NS2 to have burnout trouble, but it did not look like it at all! Another thing that pleased me was the balls controllability - the NS 2 moved the whole time as if on tracks, tribute to the particle coverstock that evens out any over/under trouble.
    As a side note, the ball makes a funny sound when it is silent and it enters the dry back end area - there it makes a fine scratching sound, like sand paper...

    B) 39' fresh medium-oily 5:1 ratio shot, 23 ml, 2008 Brunswick AnvilLane:
    Next test in my club house/home alley in Duesseldorf, where the lanes reveiced a brand new surface a couple of weeks ago.
    This time I took the ball to normal training routine, to see how it would fare with the more demanding oil pattern as well as more traffic - 6 players on a pair of lanes, oil still in virgin condition but already applied 2 hours before (the oil graph can be seen in the video below).

    The NS2 repeated its good performance from the THS, even topped it. When the lane was still fresh, I quickly found a line deep with some extra hand, standing on 29th board and sending the ball out across 3rd arrow. The back end proved to be very clean, and it allowed a lot of room for error - no wonder I strung up a 185-278-222-194 series (repeating my personal 278 high game record), including 3 Clean Games in a row (a new personal best)!

    During the 3rd game I felt the original line burning up, and other players with polished equipment started facing carrydown problems. Therefore I moved my feet and my target to the right (feet at 26th board, target at 12th at the arrows) and reduced my hand - and stayed in business for almost 2 more games. Just towards the end of the 4th game I felt that there was not enough oil out there for the NS2 anymore. The ball was losing hitting power and I had to force it down the lane - switching to a weaker piece was a better option.

    What amazed me once more was the NS2's predictable reaction: The heavy particle load worked very well: lots of traction in the midlane, no over/under problems at all, and surprisingly much room to play with in the breakpoint area.

    Compared with other balls in the training session, e .g. a Cell or a Kinetic Energy, my NS2 showed the steadiest performance. The Cell suffered from serious burn out symptoms already in the 3rd game, and the Kinetic Energy only allowed one single, rather direct line across 2nd arrow.

    C) Medium THS, probably only 37’, 2007 Brunswick AnvilLane:
    In preparation for the upcoming league in late September I made a trip to SuperBowl at Dinslaken, 30 miles from home - a house I have never been before, 24 lanes, 2007 Brunswick AnvilLaner surfaces. Very clean and well-tended, but rather for entertainment purposes - noone on staff could tell me for sure how much and how long the oil was.

    Well, the NS2 proved to be way too much ball for the situation. At first I thought the lane surface wouldbe very slick, since the ball did not move much. But after several lines and trials with line sclose to the gutter and at 3rd arrow, I was sure that it simply "died" after 50' down the lane. Only with 90° side roll I was able to get the ball well down the lane on this pattern (What I considered a 37' house shot with am Xmas tree pattern, and not much overall oil, I guess 18ml or even less), but with no effective back end.
    Other (potentially weaker) balls I had with me worked much better, e .g. my Frankie May Gryphon at 2.000 Abralon or my brand new Smash Zone which made its maiden flight. The latter proved to be the best choice of the 3, with enough length due to its polished OOB surface. The NS2, though, was simply too much ball in any way for me - a 136 an 151 game were the poor result
    But this si not to blame on the ball - it just shows the limits of this piece. The ball needs oil in the heads to perform, it grabs the lane very well and early. I just did not expect it to have that much trouble on the lighter conditition.

    Lane reactions, utility and comparison video:
    The NS2 is smooth, and its OOB surface makes it very versatile and a very good choice on medium to oily shots - but IMHO not for less. Do not get fooled by the sheen looks. The overall package appears very versatile: the resin coverstock base does not seem to be overly strong, the ball creates much of its good traction actually/mainly through the particle additives.
    The OOB "sheen" surface is already enough to make the ball work even on oily shots. This also means that you get the ball very good through the heads as long as there is oil left, but once things dry up, better watch out.

    After some experience with the ball I am happy that I put a tamer label drill on it, because with a stronger stacked layout I'd have had more control trouble in the back end. With the label drill the ball shines in the mid lane area, playing it between 2nd and 3rd arrow with a good swing is where it feels at home even on longer patterns.
    A stacked layout could be an option for bowlers with higher speeds/lower revs, though, and as another observation, the strong label drilling also does not allow very deeper lines, e. g. beyond 3rd arrow, whatever the oil might be. The reason is the ball's lack of back end with the label setup. Even with lots of hand - but a strong stacked drilling would certainly allow true cross-lane lines (This is not a ball flaw, just an observation with my setup!).
    The label drilling distributes the ball's energy very well: it revs up early and offers very good mid lane control. The rest of the energy is then spent in (or better: saved for) the rather tame and rolly end phase. This way, the ball does not lose much power through a late and wide hook, which would IMHO be quite dangerous with such a grippy surface.

    With the label setup, the NS2 has the earliest break point in my arsenal and shows a unique reaction shape - just what I wanted from it. Even at OOB it superbly fits to its intended role as an oil ball. It also proved to be a great control piece on fresh lanes, it will just quit if the track area burns up as well as on short oil, but that's not what it was designed and in my case drilled for.

    Lane utility for tested ball at OOB surface (pattern length vs. oil volume):

    |S M L
    |h e o
    |o d n
    |r . g
    |0 0 +| Light volume
    |0 X X| Medium volume
    |+ X X| Heavy volume

    X = Best suited with effective control & carry
    + = Fairly suited (works, somehow, but can lack control and effectiveness)
    0 = Unsuited (ineffective, either slips helplessly or burns up)

    The chart concept is borrowed from Storm's 2003 print catalogue. Surface prep and drillings may change the results, it is just personal experience with the reviewed ball

    The NS2 in action:
    The following video was taken at my club house, with the 39' pattern mentioned under B) above, but when totally fresh. The NS2 played well on a slightly tighter line than mentioned above (feet at 26th board, aiming across 13th board at the arrows, with the break point close to the gutter in the 5th board area), but the overall reaction was the same.


    To have a benchmark, I pitted the NS2 against my Frankie May Gryphon - a strong pure solid reactive ball with a 2.000 Abralon surface (standing at 25th board and aiming for 12th board at the arrows, with a break pouint close to the gutter, too). In the video comparison of these 2 balls you cannot really make it out well, since both balls played a very similar line. But the FMG went much easier through the heads and showed a later breakpoint than the NS2, with much more back end reaction, thanks to its stacked layout.

    4:05 min. of ball data, oil graph, performance footage and direct comparison on 39’ pattern.

    The NS2, nicely to behold in the back end close-ups, has with its label drilling more of a hook-set reaction. It curves in the midlane area, the core aligns to its stable axis, but the ball still drives forward and creates lots of power in the pin deck. On the 39' pattern you can see that the ball has still potential to handle longer patterns and still finish with a good forward roll - 42' or Shark should be no problem, I think it will even handle soupy 45' and more.
    In overall strength, the FMG appeared only to be only close behind the NS2 - but the lane was not that slick that I'd consider the FMG to be struggling. It worked very well, too, the NS2 just showed much earlier traction and breakpoint, achiveing the same result just by different means.

    Some conclusions:
    Overall, I am very impressed. The NS2 has been new terrain for me in many ways: my first Lanemasters ball and my first true high load particle ball. But it convinced me from the start with a very good performance, and a freshly drilled ball which egalizes or even shatters personal records before it has 10 games on the clock, creates a good feeling

    What I love about the NS2 is its very good traction on any occasion that I tried it so far. It moves like a tank, as if on tracks, relentlessly - this creates confidence. It just needs some oil to work. What I also like about how the ball "works" is that it creates this good traction and predictablility through the particle additives, not an overly strong coverstock base. This should also improve durability, and in fact the ball shows no signs of tracking out so far - but it is too early to draw long-term conclusions.

    Tthe ball seems to have a very well-balanced overall design of core, coverstock and surface, which makes it a very simple ball to handle.
    It reacts very well to hand position or speed changes, and through its almost stoical reaction it is also very easy to read - similar to my Frankie May Gryphon which I love for this easy handling, too.

    So far I cannot say anything negative about the ball, I rate it very high and it should work for a wide range of player stiles and lane conditions. It is IMHO a very good ball, a solid performer and not as exotic as one could expect. Therefore I rate it an overall 10 out of 10.

    Finally... the looks:
    The jury is still out whether this ball is stylish or ugly. "Black/gold" sounds good as a color combo, and on the pictures with good light the NS2 looks pretty. But under the neon lights of reality and bowling centers, the NS2 looks rather... mottled and murky. Not bad, bit it is not the flashiest piece on the rack, even though I like the overall look (it looks like a partner to my Fuze Igniter!). The design matches its high end aspiration, and performance is what finally counts

    Futher thoughts:
    As an addendum or general comment.... Playing the ball I remember a recent discussion on about the decline of particle additives to coverstocks, and who would need them, anyway. IMHO, nothing beats the mechanical extra traction you create through hard particles. My NS2 just confirmed this. Modern high end reactives might have reached similar traction properties through advanced science and surface texturing - but the classic smooth particle reaction has still its right. I'd prefer it anytime to a spongy pure reactive which will certainly not hold up as well as a milder resin base coverstock with added particles. Additionally, the strong ercatives seem to become more and more a "hit or miss" relationship for their users - either they match up well, or not at all.
    With their design philosophy, Lanemasters' balls stands out in today's business because of their (still) frequent use of carbide particles as well as "simple" symmetric cores - a design philosophy I highly appreciate. It might be "old school", but it creates damn good balls
    DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

    Confused by bowling?
    Check out''s vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section
    Secrets revealed: What''s a fugu?


    Edited on 26.09.2011 at 7:23 AM


    Edited on 26.09.2011 at 7:25 AM
    Edited on 26.10.2011 at 4:07 AM
    DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany