BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: suhoney24 on March 29, 2022, 07:25:21 PM
-
USBC and Storm Products have agreed on a national tournament exclusion rule and ball exchange program for six Storm Products manufactured ball models. The agreement comes after USBC identified the models having a percentage of balls produced below USBC minimum 73D hardness specification. Read more: https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337509
USBC's investigation showed a percentage of these ball models measured below the USBC-required hardness level of the approval samples submitted by Storm. Storm collaborated with USBC after being notified of this testing.
The affected models include: Storm Phaze 4, Storm Electrify Solid, Storm Trend 2, 900 Global Altered Reality, 900 Global Wolverine, Roto Grip UFO Alert
Effective March 30, 2022, these balls models are prohibited from use in USBC national tournaments, including but not limited to, the USBC Masters, U.S. Open, USBC Open Championships, USBC Women's Championships, all PWBA Tour events, USBC Junior Gold and Youth Open Championships, USBC Intercollegiate Championships, USBC Team USA Trials, USBC Senior Masters and USBC Senior Queens.
These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.
USBC has shared this national tournament rule with Storm and has Storm's support. Storm will offer owners of the affected balls the option to exchange their balls for a new product. Information about the exchange program will be published later this week on StormBowling.com.
-
Unreal. What a nightmare for Storm.
-
Unreal. What a nightmare for Storm.
Told y’all there were more balls. This is an absolute disaster.
-
Unreal. What a nightmare for Storm.
Told y’all there were more balls. This is an absolute disaster.
You were spot on. I referenced that in another post on here earlier speculating on Belmos FB post.
-
I find it interesting that USBC stated they wouldn't pursue against other, im guessing slightly older, Storm equipment going forward.
So the actual number is definitely a lot higher. Wonder how long that would be going back on older stuff?
-
.
These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.
.
I don't know what to think about this. Realistically I could continue throwing any of these but then traveling to bowl somewhere else and have an issue if they choose to prohibit their use.
-
I find it interesting that USBC stated they wouldn't pursue against other, im guessing slightly older, Storm equipment going forward.
So the actual number is definitely a lot higher. Wonder how long that would be going back on older stuff?
Sean Rash has to have so much egg on his face that he can open a breakfast restaurant. He’s bitching about about ONE BALL and SPI has SEVEN balls that are about to be lawn ornaments. Because if I’m in league or local tournaments and I see someone using these balls I may raise a stink.
-
.
These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.
.
I don't know what to think about this. Realistically I could continue throwing any of these but then traveling to bowl somewhere else and have an issue if they choose to prohibit their use.
If you’re a house bowler this probably doesn’t change much. I bowl tournaments and I cannot risk driving somewhere and them telling me I cannot use the balls. The Phaze 4 was almost too good, I’m not surprised that ball is on the list. As of now, 3 balls I’ve been using a lot I have to replace. Altered Reality, Wolverine, and Phaze 4.
-
.
These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.
.
I don't know what to think about this. Realistically I could continue throwing any of these but then traveling to bowl somewhere else and have an issue if they choose to prohibit their use.
If you’re a house bowler this probably doesn’t change much. I bowl tournaments and I cannot risk driving somewhere and them telling me I cannot use the balls. The Phaze 4 was almost too good, I’m not surprised that ball is on the list. As of now, 3 balls I’ve been using a lot I have to replace. Altered Reality, Wolverine, and Phaze 4.
The question now becomes if USBC will fast track approval on new replacements for Storm. There's no way Storm can only offer replacements with current balls not affected
-
I find it interesting that USBC stated they wouldn't pursue against other, im guessing slightly older, Storm equipment going forward.
So the actual number is definitely a lot higher. Wonder how long that would be going back on older stuff?
Sean Rash has to have so much egg on his face that he can open a breakfast restaurant. He’s bitching about about ONE BALL and SPI has SEVEN balls that are about to be lawn ornaments. Because if I’m in league or local tournaments and I see someone using these balls I may raise a stink.
There’s no way for Rash or anyone to know this would happen.
Those Hammers getting soft was investigated a bit ago weren’t they?
These Storm products are a lot of their new or recent production runs.
Apples and oranges really.
-
.
These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.
.
I don't know what to think about this. Realistically I could continue throwing any of these but then traveling to bowl somewhere else and have an issue if they choose to prohibit their use.
If you’re a house bowler this probably doesn’t change much. I bowl tournaments and I cannot risk driving somewhere and them telling me I cannot use the balls. The Phaze 4 was almost too good, I’m not surprised that ball is on the list. As of now, 3 balls I’ve been using a lot I have to replace. Altered Reality, Wolverine, and Phaze 4.
The question now becomes if USBC will fast track approval on new replacements for Storm. There's no way Storm can only offer replacements with current balls not affected
There really are no direct replacements. Some are “close†yet far away. Imagine if you’re bowling nationals tomorrow. I’d be livid id probably demand a refund. This is all a mess.
-
I find it interesting that USBC stated they wouldn't pursue against other, im guessing slightly older, Storm equipment going forward.
So the actual number is definitely a lot higher. Wonder how long that would be going back on older stuff?
Sean Rash has to have so much egg on his face that he can open a breakfast restaurant. He’s bitching about about ONE BALL and SPI has SEVEN balls that are about to be lawn ornaments. Because if I’m in league or local tournaments and I see someone using these balls I may raise a stink.
There’s no way for Rash or anyone to know this would happen.
Those Hammers getting soft was investigated a bit ago weren’t they?
These Storm products are a lot of their new or recent production runs.
Apples and oranges really.
My point is worry about your “own house†I know he’s getting a lot of side eyes on tour, as if he wasn’t already. It’s not about him knowing, it’s about the irony of all this.
-
.
These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.
.
I don't know what to think about this. Realistically I could continue throwing any of these but then traveling to bowl somewhere else and have an issue if they choose to prohibit their use.
If you’re a house bowler this probably doesn’t change much. I bowl tournaments and I cannot risk driving somewhere and them telling me I cannot use the balls. The Phaze 4 was almost too good, I’m not surprised that ball is on the list. As of now, 3 balls I’ve been using a lot I have to replace. Altered Reality, Wolverine, and Phaze 4.
The question now becomes if USBC will fast track approval on new replacements for Storm. There's no way Storm can only offer replacements with current balls not affected
There really are no direct replacements. Some are “close†yet far away. Imagine if you’re bowling nationals tomorrow. I’d be livid id probably demand a refund. This is all a mess.
Imagine being at the Masters now, and finding out that the balls you used today can not be used tomorrow. That could easily change the entire outlook of the tournament.
BL.
-
The question now becomes if USBC will fast track approval on new replacements for Storm. There's no way Storm can only offer replacements with current balls not affected
There really are no direct replacements. Some are “close†yet far away. Imagine if you’re bowling nationals tomorrow. I’d be livid id probably demand a refund. This is all a mess.
That's my point.
In terms of the Alert and Altered, there's only the Dark Code, X-2, or Nova which like you mentioned are close but still plenty different. Otherwise you're at stronger covers in the Proton or Reality
There's nothing like the Trend 2
Electrify Solid you at least have the Camo or Burner Solid
-
.
These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.
.
I don't know what to think about this. Realistically I could continue throwing any of these but then traveling to bowl somewhere else and have an issue if they choose to prohibit their use.
If you’re a house bowler this probably doesn’t change much. I bowl tournaments and I cannot risk driving somewhere and them telling me I cannot use the balls. The Phaze 4 was almost too good, I’m not surprised that ball is on the list. As of now, 3 balls I’ve been using a lot I have to replace. Altered Reality, Wolverine, and Phaze 4.
The question now becomes if USBC will fast track approval on new replacements for Storm. There's no way Storm can only offer replacements with current balls not affected
There really are no direct replacements. Some are “close†yet far away. Imagine if you’re bowling nationals tomorrow. I’d be livid id probably demand a refund. This is all a mess.
Imagine being at the Masters now, and finding out that the balls you used today can not be used tomorrow. That could easily change the entire outlook of the tournament.
BL.
If you’re not a staffer or not a “priority†staffer, you’re in a world of trouble right now. I can’t believe USBC doesn’t have the decency to at least let the tournament conclude first.
-
The question now becomes if USBC will fast track approval on new replacements for Storm. There's no way Storm can only offer replacements with current balls not affected
There really are no direct replacements. Some are “close†yet far away. Imagine if you’re bowling nationals tomorrow. I’d be livid id probably demand a refund. This is all a mess.
That's my point.
In terms of the Alert and Altered, there's only the Dark Code, X-2, or Nova which like you mentioned are close but still plenty different. Otherwise you're at stronger covers in the Proton or Reality
There's nothing like the Trend 2
Electrify Solid you at least have the Camo or Burner Solid
Right, the dark code is smoother and forward. The X2 is cleaner and sharper, nova is a totally different ball.
-
The whole situation sucks.
Kinda odd with some of the wording, USBC won't look further into other balls?
So is that the USBC saying that other balls produced didn't have issues?
Or
Is it saying that the punishment on these 7 is enough and it is wide spread?
-
Can you imagine arriving early to bowl Nationals in Vegas, say yesterday or today. Only to find out tomorrow when you walk in to bowl Team Event that 4 or 5 of the balls you brought are banned when you walk in and all you're left with is your spare ball.
-
Man, a bunch of guys in my Nationals group are gonna be scrambling to find replacements of all sorts - myself included. There's nothing like a Trend 2, and I was banking on using it later in both blocks. Uhg, what a mess. I feel for the Masters competitors that may have lost entire bags.
-
Can you imagine arriving early to bowl Nationals in Vegas, say yesterday or today. Only to find out tomorrow when you walk in to bowl Team Event that 4 or 5 of the balls you brought are banned when you walk in and all you're left with is your spare ball.
I’d withdraw and never bowl USBCs again.
-
Man, a bunch of guys in my Nationals group are gonna be scrambling to find replacements of all sorts - myself included. There's nothing like a Trend 2, and I was banking on using it later in both blocks. Uhg, what a mess. I feel for the Masters competitors that may have lost entire bags.
Some free agents, non priority guys are learning a tough lesson about tour politics tonight.
-
The whole situation sucks.
Kinda odd with some of the wording, USBC won't look further into other balls?
So is that the USBC saying that other balls produced didn't have issues?
Or
Is it saying that the punishment on these 7 is enough and it is wide spread?
I think the key words here are "this production issue". If those are taken seriously, then that should make it pertain only to these 6 balls being sin binned. However, that does leave league competition open ended, as they would still be legal there. I'm guessing another announcement will be made on this no later than the end of the season.
I also wouldn't put it past the USBC to keep looking at, say, any ball produced up to 2020 (good even number). We know the complaints are going to continue to fly, prompting more inspections and investigations.
Man, a bunch of guys in my Nationals group are gonna be scrambling to find replacements of all sorts - myself included. There's nothing like a Trend 2, and I was banking on using it later in both blocks. Uhg, what a mess. I feel for the Masters competitors that may have lost entire bags.
Some free agents, non priority guys are learning a tough lesson about tour politics tonight.
Agreed.
Can you imagine arriving early to bowl Nationals in Vegas, say yesterday or today. Only to find out tomorrow when you walk in to bowl Team Event that 4 or 5 of the balls you brought are banned when you walk in and all you're left with is your spare ball.
If I were a betting man, I'd run out to the closest sports book near me and put a bet on this exact thing happening; not only for Nationals, but the Masters as well.
BL.
-
What's also crazy, and angering, is Chris Barnes just threw a monstrous all events total at Nationals, some of it with a Phaze 4. Will his scores be removed from the official scores? Or will Nationals include scores from before and after this event? This is a rough spot to be in.
-
Here is my complaint with the USBC
Just 1 year ago, we were told EVERYONE had to wear a mask although at some point during the tournament, Nevada dropped the mask requirement. Why? USBC said to make it fair for all competitors as some had to wear a mask (early bowlers).
So why, just a year later, are we banning a ball mid-tournament? Yes, Barnes used at least 1 of the banned balls and countless others did as well. How is that fair to ALL bowlers if some got to use any of the newly banned balls (Note I am not Chris Barnes and will never be, so its not like this is costing me an Eagle).
-
The whole situation sucks.
Kinda odd with some of the wording, USBC won't look further into other balls?
So is that the USBC saying that other balls produced didn't have issues?
Or
Is it saying that the punishment on these 7 is enough and it is wide spread?
I think the key words here are "this production issue". If those are taken seriously, then that should make it pertain only to these 6 balls being sin binned. However, that does leave league competition open ended, as they would still be legal there. I'm guessing another announcement will be made on this no later than the end of the season.
I also wouldn't put it past the USBC to keep looking at, say, any ball produced up to 2020 (good even number). We know the complaints are going to continue to fly, prompting more inspections and investigations.
It really looks like they’ve told Storm to not press the issue anymore or they’ll just keep going. That’s the only way to read the lines from their (USBC’s) statement:
As part of the agreement, Storm Products will discontinue sales of the affected balls. USBC has concluded its investigation and will not be taking action on additional balls related to this production issue
It seems like it’s everything they produced. I don’t know how that flies for the other manufacturers though. The USBC is knowingly going to allow other soft bowling balls on the market and to be used?
You have to imagine the Helios is affected and would be a part of any further bannings. That ball has multiple 900s already. If I’m Ebonite, I wouldn’t be happy with knowing that ball is soft but still legal putting up records.
On the flip side, Ebonite better have their entire house in order before saying a word, even in private. The USBC apparently could have bankrupted Storm but stopped at 7 balls when Storm screamed UNCLE. Not sure you want them looking too closely at your stuff right now.
Storm needs to full investigation into what happened on their end and folks need to be fired. Some, if not all of said investigation needs to be made public for their customers sake. There’s a problem and a legit lack of confidence in their product now. Having the greatest balls (fan minds) doesn’t mean squat if they’re illegal and can’t be used when you spend $$$ to travel to the biggest tournaments only to find out your entire arsenal has just been banned.
-
I wonder.....
Turn back the clock 2 years ago. That is when Storm announced the move of 900 Global production to Utah. Storm had recently just completed an expansion, including new machines to pour more balls. The reason why Storm and Global were intertwined to start with is because Storm did not have enough capacity for just their stuff and Roto Grip stuff so they turned to Global to help out.
I wonder if there is an issue with the new production machines compared to the old ones (if they kept the old ones and didn't put in all new machines).
Its weird because the Phaze 4 is R2S pearl. The Hyroad Pearl is R2S pearl. If they are truly the same cover, how can the Phaze 4 be banned but the Hyroad Pearl ok? One thought could be there is a different batch of R2S. I would believe some Hyroad Pearls have recently been poured and would be from the same batch of resin as Phaze 4s....
-
I wonder.....
Turn back the clock 2 years ago. That is when Storm announced the move of 900 Global production to Utah. Storm had recently just completed an expansion, including new machines to pour more balls. The reason why Storm and Global were intertwined to start with is because Storm did not have enough capacity for just their stuff and Roto Grip stuff so they turned to Global to help out.
I wonder if there is an issue with the new production machines compared to the old ones (if they kept the old ones and didn't put in all new machines).
Its weird because the Phaze 4 is R2S pearl. The Hyroad Pearl is R2S pearl. If they are truly the same cover, how can the Phaze 4 be banned but the Hyroad Pearl ok? One thought could be there is a different batch of R2S. I would believe some Hyroad Pearls have recently been poured and would be from the same batch of resin as Phaze 4s....
If I am understanding the USBC article correctly, it seems like there ARE other balls with 'production problems', but the USBC is not pursuing action against them.
I'd wager pretty much every ball coming out of that plant is affected. Look at the Idol Helios - that ball's has at least one 900 already, and I remember the flurry of astronomical 800s when it was first released.
It's a shame USBC is choosing to affect players now. Imagine you were on a plane with 1 or 2 of those balls, headed to Nationals. Some of your arsenal is now illegal. All your practicing, surface prep, preparation - out the window. It's really frustrating me, and I don't bowl Nationals for another 6 weeks!
-
I find it interesting that USBC stated they wouldn't pursue against other, im guessing slightly older, Storm equipment going forward.
So the actual number is definitely a lot higher. Wonder how long that would be going back on older stuff?
Lol...."older stuff" for Storm could be a couple months. They seem to have new rocks constantly & it's been going on for many years.
-
I wonder.....
Turn back the clock 2 years ago. That is when Storm announced the move of 900 Global production to Utah. Storm had recently just completed an expansion, including new machines to pour more balls. The reason why Storm and Global were intertwined to start with is because Storm did not have enough capacity for just their stuff and Roto Grip stuff so they turned to Global to help out.
I wonder if there is an issue with the new production machines compared to the old ones (if they kept the old ones and didn't put in all new machines).
Its weird because the Phaze 4 is R2S pearl. The Hyroad Pearl is R2S pearl. If they are truly the same cover, how can the Phaze 4 be banned but the Hyroad Pearl ok? One thought could be there is a different batch of R2S. I would believe some Hyroad Pearls have recently been poured and would be from the same batch of resin as Phaze 4s....
Ron Hickland was on the Down Lane Podcast after the Spectre mess and said the color additives put in to the covers can potentially affect hardness. If that is the case, the Hy-Road Pearl is a 2-color ball and the Phaze 4 is a 3-color ball. Perhaps that has something to do with why R2S pearl on one might be a different hardness than the other. There are a lot of things that go in to the formulation of these covers, and if one thing is off it can go bad in a hurry.
-
I wonder.....
Turn back the clock 2 years ago. That is when Storm announced the move of 900 Global production to Utah. Storm had recently just completed an expansion, including new machines to pour more balls. The reason why Storm and Global were intertwined to start with is because Storm did not have enough capacity for just their stuff and Roto Grip stuff so they turned to Global to help out.
I wonder if there is an issue with the new production machines compared to the old ones (if they kept the old ones and didn't put in all new machines).
Its weird because the Phaze 4 is R2S pearl. The Hyroad Pearl is R2S pearl. If they are truly the same cover, how can the Phaze 4 be banned but the Hyroad Pearl ok? One thought could be there is a different batch of R2S. I would believe some Hyroad Pearls have recently been poured and would be from the same batch of resin as Phaze 4s....
If I am understanding the USBC article correctly, it seems like there ARE other balls with 'production problems', but the USBC is not pursuing action against them.
I'd wager pretty much every ball coming out of that plant is affected. Look at the Idol Helios - that ball's has at least one 900 already, and I remember the flurry of astronomical 800s when it was first released.
It's a shame USBC is choosing to affect players now. Imagine you were on a plane with 1 or 2 of those balls, headed to Nationals. Some of your arsenal is now illegal. All your practicing, surface prep, preparation - out the window. It's really frustrating me, and I don't bowl Nationals for another 6 weeks!
That’s one of the things I’m stuck on… there are other balls but we stopped here???
While the other companies may not want to risk the ire of the USBC, the Helios is probably going to be an option as an exchange. What happens when even more huge scores come from the ball? They know it’s illegal. But the other companies just have to sit back and watch it tear it up and become even more popular and sell? Or anything else that will be an exchange ball. Sounds like it is/was a wide spread problem in Salt Lake City.
Some many different perspectives with this. Just crazy.
-
I wonder.....
Turn back the clock 2 years ago. That is when Storm announced the move of 900 Global production to Utah. Storm had recently just completed an expansion, including new machines to pour more balls. The reason why Storm and Global were intertwined to start with is because Storm did not have enough capacity for just their stuff and Roto Grip stuff so they turned to Global to help out.
I wonder if there is an issue with the new production machines compared to the old ones (if they kept the old ones and didn't put in all new machines).
Its weird because the Phaze 4 is R2S pearl. The Hyroad Pearl is R2S pearl. If they are truly the same cover, how can the Phaze 4 be banned but the Hyroad Pearl ok? One thought could be there is a different batch of R2S. I would believe some Hyroad Pearls have recently been poured and would be from the same batch of resin as Phaze 4s....
It's a shame USBC is choosing to affect players now. Imagine you were on a plane with 1 or 2 of those balls, headed to Nationals. Some of your arsenal is now illegal. All your practicing, surface prep, preparation - out the window. It's really frustrating me, and I don't bowl Nationals for another 6 weeks!
Two guys I know are out there now, just bowled the Open & one squad of the Masters. The one guy took 6 balls, he's down to 3 now. WTF.
The USBC should have allowed these balls to be used for the remainder of the tournament, then banned them. Not fair to "non staffers" at all.
-
I wonder.....
Turn back the clock 2 years ago. That is when Storm announced the move of 900 Global production to Utah. Storm had recently just completed an expansion, including new machines to pour more balls. The reason why Storm and Global were intertwined to start with is because Storm did not have enough capacity for just their stuff and Roto Grip stuff so they turned to Global to help out.
I wonder if there is an issue with the new production machines compared to the old ones (if they kept the old ones and didn't put in all new machines).
Its weird because the Phaze 4 is R2S pearl. The Hyroad Pearl is R2S pearl. If they are truly the same cover, how can the Phaze 4 be banned but the Hyroad Pearl ok? One thought could be there is a different batch of R2S. I would believe some Hyroad Pearls have recently been poured and would be from the same batch of resin as Phaze 4s....
It's a shame USBC is choosing to affect players now. Imagine you were on a plane with 1 or 2 of those balls, headed to Nationals. Some of your arsenal is now illegal. All your practicing, surface prep, preparation - out the window. It's really frustrating me, and I don't bowl Nationals for another 6 weeks!
Two guys I know are out there now, just bowled the Open & one squad of the Masters. The one guy took 6 balls, he's down to 3 now. WTF.
The USBC should have allowed these balls to be used for the remainder of the tournament, then banned them. Not fair to "non staffers" at all.
Jeez! That's awful!! I hope the Storm Booth makes good on that mess. Those poor competitors!
On the loyalty side of the house, I'm curious how many regular joes and/or staffers start throwing the Brunswick family. Do we see an uptick in Brunswick gear by the time next fall season starts up?
-
The Storm booth has to be a mess right now. There is no way they can replace all the balls from bowlers coming in today or the next few days, and even if they had the stock, how are they going to drill all those in time.
-
I don't have the technical know-how to speak intelligently on how something like this happens. I just know that for as simple as bowling balls appear on the surface, they are HIGHLY technical when you really get down to it.
When the situation happened with Motiv and the Jackal/Carnage, I was told that something as simple as having changed suppliers of a filler material - even though it was technically the same material - could have been enough to cause later runs of those balls to be out of spec. I know from first-hand experience that although I use the same resin and hardener and follow the same exact procedure every time I plug a ball, sometimes the results vary a little bit in regard to how well the plug sets up.
The point is that variations that seem absolutely minuscule on the surface, even ones that can go completely unnoticed, can cause changes in your output. Add to that the fact that many of the balls these manufacturers are putting out ride the razor's edge in regard to the specification guidelines, and it's not hard to see how something like this can happen. After all, when you're looking to create the latest and greatest, you can't always play it safe and stay well within the lines. You push the envelope and get as close to the edge as you can without going over.
At the end of the day, there are myriad reasons why this could've happened to these SPI balls, but I don't think it likely that any of us has enough verifiable information to really say much here other than it sucks for SPI and for those who currently are at tournaments with those balls in the bag.
Like it or not, bowling is a sport with a governing body that establishes rules and equipment guidelines. We are entitled to our respective opinions on how well or how poorly we think they do that. Nevertheless, if these balls have been deemed non-conforming, then the right thing was done by pulling them out of competition. I was fortunate enough not to own any of the balls that have been flagged, but my opinion would be the same even if I had them all.
-
I don't have the technical know-how to speak intelligently on how something like this happens. I just know that for as simple as bowling balls appear on the surface, they are HIGHLY technical when you really get down to it.
When the situation happened with Motiv and the Jackal/Carnage, I was told that something as simple as having changed suppliers of a filler material - even though it was technically the same material - could have been enough to cause later runs of those balls to be out of spec. I know from first-hand experience that although I use the same resin and hardener and follow the same exact procedure every time I plug a ball, sometimes the results vary a little bit in regard to how well the plug sets up.
The point is that variations that seem absolutely minuscule on the surface, even ones that can go completely unnoticed, can cause changes in your output. Add to that the fact that many of the balls these manufacturers are putting out ride the razor's edge in regard to the specification guidelines, and it's not hard to see how something like this can happen. After all, when you're looking to create the latest and greatest, you can't always play it safe and stay well within the lines. You push the envelope and get as close to the edge as you can without going over.
At the end of the day, there are myriad reasons why this could've happened to these SPI balls, but I don't think it likely that any of us has enough verifiable information to really say much here other than it sucks for SPI and for those who currently are at tournaments with those balls in the bag.
Like it or not, bowling is a sport with a governing body that establishes rules and equipment guidelines. We are entitled to our respective opinions on how well or how poorly we think they do that. Nevertheless, if these balls have been deemed non-conforming, then the right thing was done by pulling them out of competition. I was fortunate enough not to own any of the balls that have been flagged, but my opinion would be the same even if I had them all.
If a ball is illegal, it's illegal. Either ban it in all sanctioned competition or don't ban it at all. Keeping them certified, but then excluding them from certain events makes no sense.
-
If a ball is illegal, it's illegal. Either ban it in all sanctioned competition or don't ban it at all. Keeping them certified, but then excluding them from certain events makes no sense.
I suppose that begs the question why would USBC do this? So I can throw my Trend 2 in league, but not Nationals. That's a head scratcher
-
The bigger head scratcher Noodle is USBC saying local associations can adopt the ban rule if they want.
That means if you bowl in 2 different associations like I do, one may adopt the ban and one may not. Now I need different equipment to bowl in different leagues.
Also what if you want to go to a tourney, but said tourney has adopted the ban. Are you getting new equipment just for the tourney?
Either make them illegal across the board or not....none of this in between gray area BS. All the USBC has done is cause MORE issues at the local level.
-
I don't have the technical know-how to speak intelligently on how something like this happens. I just know that for as simple as bowling balls appear on the surface, they are HIGHLY technical when you really get down to it.
When the situation happened with Motiv and the Jackal/Carnage, I was told that something as simple as having changed suppliers of a filler material - even though it was technically the same material - could have been enough to cause later runs of those balls to be out of spec. I know from first-hand experience that although I use the same resin and hardener and follow the same exact procedure every time I plug a ball, sometimes the results vary a little bit in regard to how well the plug sets up.
The point is that variations that seem absolutely minuscule on the surface, even ones that can go completely unnoticed, can cause changes in your output. Add to that the fact that many of the balls these manufacturers are putting out ride the razor's edge in regard to the specification guidelines, and it's not hard to see how something like this can happen. After all, when you're looking to create the latest and greatest, you can't always play it safe and stay well within the lines. You push the envelope and get as close to the edge as you can without going over.
At the end of the day, there are myriad reasons why this could've happened to these SPI balls, but I don't think it likely that any of us has enough verifiable information to really say much here other than it sucks for SPI and for those who currently are at tournaments with those balls in the bag.
Like it or not, bowling is a sport with a governing body that establishes rules and equipment guidelines. We are entitled to our respective opinions on how well or how poorly we think they do that. Nevertheless, if these balls have been deemed non-conforming, then the right thing was done by pulling them out of competition. I was fortunate enough not to own any of the balls that have been flagged, but my opinion would be the same even if I had them all.
If a ball is illegal, it's illegal. Either ban it in all sanctioned competition or don't ban it at all. Keeping them certified, but then excluding them from certain events makes no sense.
I don't disagree. I found that puzzling as well. Maybe the plan is to let people finish out the league season with them since so many are close to being done at this point anyhow, and then they'll ban them completely thereafter. Granted, if that were the case, I think it would've been easier/better to just say that directly. Also, they could have figured that most bowlers will opt for replacements, which will take the majority of those balls out of play anyhow. I mean, several of them were newer releases, so maybe there aren't hundreds of thousands of them out there at this point anyhow. Regardless, I agree that invoking the tournament legality rule was a strange way to go.
-
I don't have the technical know-how to speak intelligently on how something like this happens. I just know that for as simple as bowling balls appear on the surface, they are HIGHLY technical when you really get down to it.
When the situation happened with Motiv and the Jackal/Carnage, I was told that something as simple as having changed suppliers of a filler material - even though it was technically the same material - could have been enough to cause later runs of those balls to be out of spec. I know from first-hand experience that although I use the same resin and hardener and follow the same exact procedure every time I plug a ball, sometimes the results vary a little bit in regard to how well the plug sets up.
The point is that variations that seem absolutely minuscule on the surface, even ones that can go completely unnoticed, can cause changes in your output. Add to that the fact that many of the balls these manufacturers are putting out ride the razor's edge in regard to the specification guidelines, and it's not hard to see how something like this can happen. After all, when you're looking to create the latest and greatest, you can't always play it safe and stay well within the lines. You push the envelope and get as close to the edge as you can without going over.
At the end of the day, there are myriad reasons why this could've happened to these SPI balls, but I don't think it likely that any of us has enough verifiable information to really say much here other than it sucks for SPI and for those who currently are at tournaments with those balls in the bag.
Like it or not, bowling is a sport with a governing body that establishes rules and equipment guidelines. We are entitled to our respective opinions on how well or how poorly we think they do that. Nevertheless, if these balls have been deemed non-conforming, then the right thing was done by pulling them out of competition. I was fortunate enough not to own any of the balls that have been flagged, but my opinion would be the same even if I had them all.
After the Motiv issue, why in the world don’t they have a full time employee who does constant spec checks for hardness? Constantly test and certify the equipment used for testing. Hell even multiple employees checking each other’s work and product.
To avoid the issue with only one ball would pay for their salary(s) their entire time at Storm as well as the equipment plus certifications. Now it’s 7 balls. You’re talking millions of dollars.
If they have people testing, they better figure out what caused this to be missed.
Are balls softening after a certain period of time just sitting in the warehouse?
I understand things happen, but as a company you must have safeguards in place to catch this stuff ASAP. Depending on how many other balls are affected, this literally could have destroyed Storm. It hit Motiv very hard by all accounts. Motiv was only 2 balls. This sure makes it sound like Storms entire production line was at issue.
-
I wonder.....
Turn back the clock 2 years ago. That is when Storm announced the move of 900 Global production to Utah. Storm had recently just completed an expansion, including new machines to pour more balls. The reason why Storm and Global were intertwined to start with is because Storm did not have enough capacity for just their stuff and Roto Grip stuff so they turned to Global to help out.
I wonder if there is an issue with the new production machines compared to the old ones (if they kept the old ones and didn't put in all new machines).
Its weird because the Phaze 4 is R2S pearl. The Hyroad Pearl is R2S pearl. If they are truly the same cover, how can the Phaze 4 be banned but the Hyroad Pearl ok? One thought could be there is a different batch of R2S. I would believe some Hyroad Pearls have recently been poured and would be from the same batch of resin as Phaze 4s....
It's a shame USBC is choosing to affect players now. Imagine you were on a plane with 1 or 2 of those balls, headed to Nationals. Some of your arsenal is now illegal. All your practicing, surface prep, preparation - out the window. It's really frustrating me, and I don't bowl Nationals for another 6 weeks!
Two guys I know are out there now, just bowled the Open & one squad of the Masters. The one guy took 6 balls, he's down to 3 now. WTF.
The USBC should have allowed these balls to be used for the remainder of the tournament, then banned them. Not fair to "non staffers" at all.
Jeez! That's awful!! I hope the Storm Booth makes good on that mess. Those poor competitors!
On the loyalty side of the house, I'm curious how many regular joes and/or staffers start throwing the Brunswick family. Do we see an uptick in Brunswick gear by the time next fall season starts up?
I think you will, the optics of this is horrible for SPI.
-
Sure feels like USBC cut Storm a deal to help them avoid bankruptcy by not outright banning all of the balls right now. This situation is a mess, but the way they hung Motiv with no help in their situation, I don’t feel overly sorry for Storm since they obviously had a quality control issue.
As a pro shop person though, I absolutely hate this for customers. We had a couple Spectre replacement Wolverines coming in this week, and that ain’t going to fly.
-
Psy - the only argument against the softening of the balls over time is the Phaze 4s are toast and that is the newest (and hottest around here)...these are relatively new balls that wouldn't be sitting that long.
-
The bigger head scratcher Noodle is USBC saying local associations can adopt the ban rule if they want.
That means if you bowl in 2 different associations like I do, one may adopt the ban and one may not. Now I need different equipment to bowl in different leagues.
Also what if you want to go to a tourney, but said tourney has adopted the ban. Are you getting new equipment just for the tourney?
Either make them illegal across the board or not....none of this in between gray area BS. All the USBC has done is cause MORE issues at the local level.
This, especially associations with “good ole boysâ€. They will be able to really
Measure their cocks now.
-
I'm wondering how Storm will handle the "exchange" of the affected balls. With the Spectre, they did not want the ball back but obviously that can't be used in any sanctioned competition.
I have a Trend 2 that is the #1 ball in my bag that I will probably hang on to as long as I can legally use it in local stuff.
Will Storm "exchange" it for a new ball but not want my Trend 2 back or will I have to give it up in order to get it replaced? I'm sure we will find out later this week when Storm announces the exchange program.
-
I'm wondering how Storm will handle the "exchange" of the affected balls. With the Spectre, they did not want the ball back but obviously that can't be used in any sanctioned competition.
I have a Trend 2 that is the #1 ball in my bag that I will probably hang on to as long as I can legally use it in local stuff.
Will Storm "exchange" it for a new ball but not want my Trend 2 back or will I have to give it up in order to get it replaced? I'm sure we will find out later this week when Storm announces the exchange program.
You’ll probably get to keep it. The return shipping on the six balls would be costly in itself for Storm.
-
"Where have you gone Visionary bowling our quality control issues turn their lonely eyes to you, woo woo woo". If I remember correctly, they did everything in house and were really strict on their own quality control.
Brad
-
I'm wondering how Storm will handle the "exchange" of the affected balls. With the Spectre, they did not want the ball back but obviously that can't be used in any sanctioned competition.
I have a Trend 2 that is the #1 ball in my bag that I will probably hang on to as long as I can legally use it in local stuff.
Will Storm "exchange" it for a new ball but not want my Trend 2 back or will I have to give it up in order to get it replaced? I'm sure we will find out later this week when Storm announces the exchange program.
I am also wondering if Storm is going to only replace balls for people bowling in the national tournaments. This situation is slightly different than the Spectre. The Spectre was banned outright from all sanctioned competition. These six additional balls are not [not yet, anyway]. Part of me thinks that was the deal that Storm cut with the USBC on this. Ban it from the tourneys, but don't revoke the certification. We will stop manufacturing/selling these balls and replace all balls for the national tourney bowlers but will not have to for everyone since it can still be used in leagues. Just throwing speculation out there...
-
I'm wondering how Storm will handle the "exchange" of the affected balls. With the Spectre, they did not want the ball back but obviously that can't be used in any sanctioned competition.
I have a Trend 2 that is the #1 ball in my bag that I will probably hang on to as long as I can legally use it in local stuff.
Will Storm "exchange" it for a new ball but not want my Trend 2 back or will I have to give it up in order to get it replaced? I'm sure we will find out later this week when Storm announces the exchange program.
You’ll probably get to keep it. The return shipping on the six balls would be costly in itself for Storm.
That's a great point, if I can use my T2 in local bowling but not Nationals, I would do that too.
-
I am also wondering if Storm is going to only replace balls for people bowling in the national tournaments. This situation is slightly different than the Spectre. The Spectre was banned outright from all sanctioned competition. These six additional balls are not [not yet, anyway]. Part of me thinks that was the deal that Storm cut with the USBC on this. Ban it from the tourneys, but don't revoke the certification. We will stop manufacturing/selling these balls and replace all balls for the national tourney bowlers but will not have to for everyone since it can still be used in leagues. Just throwing speculation out there...
[/quote]
I think this would be even worse than exchanging all the balls. If you tell people that their balls may be illegal in their leagues and tournaments but because they don't attend a large USBC tournament their 3-6 balls won't be replaced will cause a lot of people to walk.
Storm QC is either non-existent or has been sleeping at the switch, there is no way something on this scale should happen to so many balls. Even if it was a supplier issue it shouldn't be so wide spread. If it can be isolated to a supplier or two there may be some recourse if they missed spec.
I think a lot of staffers may be nervous come contract time as this is going to be expensive.
No way Storm wants these balls back, why pay $10-$20 a ball return shipping just to turn around and pay disposal fees.
-
The story gets better. According to Riggs the PBA is going to allow the use of all 6 balls going forward.
-
The story gets better. According to Riggs the PBA is going to allow the use of all 6 balls going forward.
Holy crap.
It just keeps getting worse and worse........
-
Supplier issue or not, there is no way this wasn't a calculated gamble on Storm's part. There is no way you send out balls release after release that press the limit without knowing what is happening and doing it until you get caught. From my experiences the guys from Utah are just that arrogant.
-
Thought of this. Only what 5% of USBC current membership bowls nationals? USBC bans the 6 from nationals. Now only those bowlers need replacements ASAP. Storms can handle that now. Yes a few days of bowlers got screwed by the timing. But banning all 6 from all sanctioned competition immediately, you are screwing over the average league bowler and USBC would prefer not to do that because the average league bowler makes more money for USBC than the nationals bowler. At the end of the season, USBC probably extends the ban to all sanctioned competition, but by then Storm will have been able to pour enough replacement equipment to handle the volume of exchanges for the league bowler.
If you left the 6 balls available to the end of nationals, I can bet hundreds of people will have bought the illegal balls just for nationals making money for Storm in the process.
-
What ever happened to the old PBA hardness rule of 75. Obviously not in effect anymore with all these 72+/- balls out there.
-
CUT AND PASTE FROM PBA WEBSITE:
MARCH 30, 2022 TOM CLARK
Facebook
Twitter
Email
With regards to the USBC decision to ban select bowling balls from different levels of its certified competition, there may be some confusion over what equipment is allowed in the PBA. The following is intended to clarify the situation relative to the PBA.
To review Tuesday’s United States Bowling Congress announcement, the USBC prohibited the following six previously-certified bowling balls from use in USBC national events (including this week’s USBC Masters), but they remain allowed in other USBC competition (including league play): Storm Phaze 4, Storm Electrify Solid, Storm Trend 2, 900 Global Altered Reality, 900 Global Wolverine and Roto Grip UFO Alert.
All six of those bowling balls remain allowed in all PBA competition through the remainder of the 2022 PBA season. The PBA has no data or indication that those USBC certified bowling balls would fail field tests. Again, the six aforementioned bowling balls are allowed in all PBA-conducted competition, including the upcoming PBA Playoffs, PBA Tour Finals, PBA50 National Tour and PBA Regional Tour events.
The timing of Tuesday’s USBC ruling, during the USBC Masters, prompted the PBA to grant its members complimentary drillings on the player services trailer for bowling balls replacing the newly prohibited equipment. While the USBC Masters is a PBA Tour major championship, the event is conducted by the USBC under USBC rules.
-
Im not sure how Chad Murphy is employed. All he does is create mass confusion.
-
I literally had a "what will the PBA do" conversation with someone this morning. That has been answered. What a total mess.
-
I literally had a "what will the PBA do" conversation with someone this morning. That has been answered. What a total mess.
So these balls can be used in the PBA and not the PWBA.
-
Yup Northface, you are correct. USBC put up money for the PWBA to come back.....so...yeah...
-
So these balls can be used in the PBA and not the PWBA.
Wait.., WHAT? :o ???
-
This is how you make things worse, not better… horribly worded and ambiguous press release by Storm:
The ball models mentioned in the official USBC Press Release remain USBC approved.
For those participating in the national events listed we will offer you an exchange. For those who are unaffected by the national tournament exclusion rule, you can continue to use these products in league and approved tournament play.
The models affected by the national tournament exclusion rule include:
– Storm Phaze 4
– Storm Electrify Solid
– Storm Trend 2
– 900 Global Altered Reality
– 900 Global Wolverine
– Roto Grip UFO Alert
Information about the exchange program will be published later this week on stormbowling.com.
Read the full release here: https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337509
-
This is how you make things worse, not better… horrible press release by Storm:
The ball models mentioned in the official USBC Press Release remain USBC approved.
For those participating in the national events listed we will offer you an exchange. For those who are unaffected by the national tournament exclusion rule, you can continue to use these products in league and approved tournament play.
The models affected by the national tournament exclusion rule include:
– Storm Phaze 4
– Storm Electrify Solid
– Storm Trend 2
– 900 Global Altered Reality
– 900 Global Wolverine
– Roto Grip UFO Alert
Information about the exchange program will be published later this week on stormbowling.com.
Read the full release here: https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337509
So You can use them, just not at USBCs?
-
It is interesting that the PBA says they did not see any issues in their testing. Storm says they saw no issues in testing but Storm agrees to everything handed down from USBC.
If the PBA has done all of this testing why would they put a deadline of end of 2022 season vs saying going forward or until our testing shows otherwise etc. Seems like a pass from the PBA to Storm to fix this and allow those who compete on tour not to have to deal with it.
Im guessing the PBA will change their tune going forward after this season on the six in another announcement that somehow makes it seem like they did more follow ups etc before making this new decision later vs at this time.
Im not saying I want to see Storm bankrupt or anything. It just seems there is a lot going on and creating confusion
-
This is how you make things worse, not better… horrible press release by Storm:
The ball models mentioned in the official USBC Press Release remain USBC approved.
For those participating in the national events listed we will offer you an exchange. For those who are unaffected by the national tournament exclusion rule, you can continue to use these products in league and approved tournament play.
The models affected by the national tournament exclusion rule include:
– Storm Phaze 4
– Storm Electrify Solid
– Storm Trend 2
– 900 Global Altered Reality
– 900 Global Wolverine
– Roto Grip UFO Alert
Information about the exchange program will be published later this week on stormbowling.com.
Read the full release here: https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337509
So You can use them, just not at USBCs?
For now, as long as they’re not banned by whomever locally is running what you’re bowling in.
Your league votes to ban, they’re banned. The locally run tourney bans, they’re banned.
-
This is how you make things worse, not better… horribly worded and ambiguous press release by Storm:
The ball models mentioned in the official USBC Press Release remain USBC approved.
For those participating in the national events listed we will offer you an exchange. For those who are unaffected by the national tournament exclusion rule, you can continue to use these products in league and approved tournament play.
The models affected by the national tournament exclusion rule include:
– Storm Phaze 4
– Storm Electrify Solid
– Storm Trend 2
– 900 Global Altered Reality
– 900 Global Wolverine
– Roto Grip UFO Alert
Information about the exchange program will be published later this week on stormbowling.com.
Read the full release here: https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337509
So,
Are they going to get Chris Barnes a replacement ball and let him bowl the tournament over?
-
Right. They cannot be used at the following events:
Effective March 30, 2022, these balls models are prohibited from use in USBC national tournaments, including, but not limited to, the USBC Masters, U.S. Open, USBC Open Championships, USBC Women's Championships, all PWBA Tour events, USBC Junior Gold and Youth Open Championships, USBC Intercollegiate Championships, USBC Team USA Trials, USBC Senior Masters and USBC Senior Queens.
But they are still legal at other USBC leagues and USBC sanctioned non-national tournaments. Nothing confusing about that at all :P
-
It’s just easier not to use them at this point. They’re prolonging the inevitable of banning them it seems to me.
-
Right. They cannot be used at the following events:
Effective March 30, 2022, these balls models are prohibited from use in USBC national tournaments, including, but not limited to, the USBC Masters, U.S. Open, USBC Open Championships, USBC Women's Championships, all PWBA Tour events, USBC Junior Gold and Youth Open Championships, USBC Intercollegiate Championships, USBC Team USA Trials, USBC Senior Masters and USBC Senior Queens.
But they are still legal at other USBC leagues and USBC sanctioned non-national tournaments. Nothing confusing about that at all :P
What about qualifying tournaments for any of those National tournaments? Banned for Jr Gold qualifiers? Tournament director discretion?
-
Right. They cannot be used at the following events:
Effective March 30, 2022, these balls models are prohibited from use in USBC national tournaments, including, but not limited to, the USBC Masters, U.S. Open, USBC Open Championships, USBC Women's Championships, all PWBA Tour events, USBC Junior Gold and Youth Open Championships, USBC Intercollegiate Championships, USBC Team USA Trials, USBC Senior Masters and USBC Senior Queens.
But they are still legal at other USBC leagues and USBC sanctioned non-national tournaments. Nothing confusing about that at all :P
What about qualifying tournaments for any of those National tournaments? Banned for Jr Gold qualifiers? Tournament director discretion?
That's the impression I get. It would be up to the state associations and tournament directors to uphold the USBC ban for their own tournaments. Is anyone really going to do that?
-
Interesting and baffling at the same time
USBC ANNOUNCES RULE CHANGE FOR SIX BOWLING BALLS
MARCH 30, 2022 TOM CLARK
Facebook
Twitter
Email
With regards to the USBC decision to ban select bowling balls from different levels of its certified competition, there may be some confusion over what equipment is allowed in the PBA. The following is intended to clarify the situation relative to the PBA.
To review Tuesday’s United States Bowling Congress announcement, the USBC prohibited the following six previously-certified bowling balls from use in USBC national events (including this week’s USBC Masters), but they remain allowed in other USBC competition (including league play): Storm Phaze 4, Storm Electrify Solid, Storm Trend 2, 900 Global Altered Reality, 900 Global Wolverine and Roto Grip UFO Alert.
All six of those bowling balls remain allowed in all PBA competition through the remainder of the 2022 PBA season. The PBA has no data or indication that those USBC certified bowling balls would fail field tests. Again, the six aforementioned bowling balls are allowed in all PBA-conducted competition, including the upcoming PBA Playoffs, PBA Tour Finals, PBA50 National Tour and PBA Regional Tour events.
The timing of Tuesday’s USBC ruling, during the USBC Masters, prompted the PBA to grant its members complimentary drillings on the player services trailer for bowling balls replacing the newly prohibited equipment. While the USBC Masters is a PBA Tour major championship, the event is conducted by the USBC under USBC rules.
-
Right. They cannot be used at the following events:
Effective March 30, 2022, these balls models are prohibited from use in USBC national tournaments, including, but not limited to, the USBC Masters, U.S. Open, USBC Open Championships, USBC Women's Championships, all PWBA Tour events, USBC Junior Gold and Youth Open Championships, USBC Intercollegiate Championships, USBC Team USA Trials, USBC Senior Masters and USBC Senior Queens.
But they are still legal at other USBC leagues and USBC sanctioned non-national tournaments. Nothing confusing about that at all :P
What about qualifying tournaments for any of those National tournaments? Banned for Jr Gold qualifiers? Tournament director discretion?
That's the impression I get. It would be up to the state associations and tournament directors to uphold the USBC ban for their own tournaments. Is anyone really going to do that?
One of the huge local youth associations posted to Facebook, the balls are good for this weekend’s tournament. Then they will revisit the situation. Knowing the association, they’ll ban them all from any future tournaments.
-
CUT AND PASTE FROM PBA WEBSITE:
MARCH 30, 2022 TOM CLARK
Facebook
Twitter
Email
With regards to the USBC decision to ban select bowling balls from different levels of its certified competition, there may be some confusion over what equipment is allowed in the PBA. The following is intended to clarify the situation relative to the PBA.
To review Tuesday’s United States Bowling Congress announcement, the USBC prohibited the following six previously-certified bowling balls from use in USBC national events (including this week’s USBC Masters), but they remain allowed in other USBC competition (including league play): Storm Phaze 4, Storm Electrify Solid, Storm Trend 2, 900 Global Altered Reality, 900 Global Wolverine and Roto Grip UFO Alert.
All six of those bowling balls remain allowed in all PBA competition through the remainder of the 2022 PBA season. The PBA has no data or indication that those USBC certified bowling balls would fail field tests. Again, the six aforementioned bowling balls are allowed in all PBA-conducted competition, including the upcoming PBA Playoffs, PBA Tour Finals, PBA50 National Tour and PBA Regional Tour events.
The timing of Tuesday’s USBC ruling, during the USBC Masters, prompted the PBA to grant its members complimentary drillings on the player services trailer for bowling balls replacing the newly prohibited equipment. While the USBC Masters is a PBA Tour major championship, the event is conducted by the USBC under USBC rules.
This one I can see being a slap in the face to Brunswick/EBI.
One bowler who used Storm equipment to win a tournament complains about hardness of an EBI product, and not only gets it banned from the PBA, but all urethane banned from the PBA from a rolling two years...
... Yet when the same happens to his balls from his company and subsequently get banned by the USBC for the same reason the EBI product gets banned, the PBA effectively looks the other way and allows them to continue to be used? If I were Brunswick, I'd be wanting a meeting with Clark, stat.
BL.
-
Bowling Nationals in a week. I guess I'm throwing old shit and some motiv.
-
CUT AND PASTE FROM PBA WEBSITE:
MARCH 30, 2022 TOM CLARK
Facebook
Twitter
Email
With regards to the USBC decision to ban select bowling balls from different levels of its certified competition, there may be some confusion over what equipment is allowed in the PBA. The following is intended to clarify the situation relative to the PBA.
To review Tuesday’s United States Bowling Congress announcement, the USBC prohibited the following six previously-certified bowling balls from use in USBC national events (including this week’s USBC Masters), but they remain allowed in other USBC competition (including league play): Storm Phaze 4, Storm Electrify Solid, Storm Trend 2, 900 Global Altered Reality, 900 Global Wolverine and Roto Grip UFO Alert.
All six of those bowling balls remain allowed in all PBA competition through the remainder of the 2022 PBA season. The PBA has no data or indication that those USBC certified bowling balls would fail field tests. Again, the six aforementioned bowling balls are allowed in all PBA-conducted competition, including the upcoming PBA Playoffs, PBA Tour Finals, PBA50 National Tour and PBA Regional Tour events.
The timing of Tuesday’s USBC ruling, during the USBC Masters, prompted the PBA to grant its members complimentary drillings on the player services trailer for bowling balls replacing the newly prohibited equipment. While the USBC Masters is a PBA Tour major championship, the event is conducted by the USBC under USBC rules.
This one I can see being a slap in the face to Brunswick/EBI.
One bowler who used Storm equipment to win a tournament complains about hardness of an EBI product, and not only gets it banned from the PBA, but all urethane banned from the PBA from a rolling two years...
... Yet when the same happens to his balls from his company and subsequently get banned by the USBC for the same reason the EBI product gets banned, the PBA effectively looks the other way and allows them to continue to be used? If I were Brunswick, I'd be wanting a meeting with Clark, stat.
BL.
If I were Brunswick, I would thank my lucky stars that I only have 1 ball that I need to replace for people and not potentially 7. Also, as the official lane maintenance company of the PBA as well, I would stay out of it and let Storm, the USBC, and the PBA just sort it all out amongst themselves.
-
I realize this is 9 months ahead of time....but....with all this fallout and if there is significant losses on Storm's side, I wonder how this will impact their staffers going forward when its time for contracts to renew at the end of 2022? If substantial losses occur, I could see fringe staffers being let go in mass.
-
Not that I'm bowling either, how does it work with those that have already bowled the USBC Open and used those balls, are they allowed to cash since going forward, those balls can't be used now. How is that going to be handled.
-
Chris Barnes used 3 balls, including a Phaze 4 when he took the Doubles and All Events lead. Yep, he is still leading today and going forward, those scores will stand. However, I will not be able to use the Phaze 4......so.....
-
There is no difference in Chris Barnes using a ball you now can't than there is you using a ball that is released after he bowls.
-
What is unfortunate is the fact that I just dropped in weight(finally) because of physical issues from 16 pounds to 14 pounds and in the 6 weeks since doing so have picked up 10 or 11 new and used 14 pounders so far, one being a used electrify solid that just had plugged and drilled this week and tried it out for the first time today. I already had the pearl version--one of the first 14's I bought and liked that...hopefully they don't come after that one too.
Brad
-
What's the over/under on these 6 balls making it to the show?
I mean, the Masters is still going on, and per everyone's talking from 2 weeks ago, while the Masters is a USBC event, the telecast is a PBA event. Would this then mean that the PBA's rules hold sway for the show, making those 6 balls eligible for an appearance, despite the USBC's ruling?
If so, then this latest incident has already become a farce for both the PBA as a private company, and the USBC altogether.
BL.
-
What's the over/under on these 6 balls making it to the show?
I mean, the Masters is still going on, and per everyone's talking from 2 weeks ago, while the Masters is a USBC event, the telecast is a PBA event. Would this then mean that the PBA's rules hold sway for the show, making those 6 balls eligible for an appearance, despite the USBC's ruling?
If so, then this latest incident has already become a farce for both the PBA as a private company, and the USBC altogether.
BL.
The show is still a USBC Event, PBA just honors it as a title. You won’t see them on the show.
-
What's the over/under on these 6 balls making it to the show?
I mean, the Masters is still going on, and per everyone's talking from 2 weeks ago, while the Masters is a USBC event, the telecast is a PBA event. Would this then mean that the PBA's rules hold sway for the show, making those 6 balls eligible for an appearance, despite the USBC's ruling?
If so, then this latest incident has already become a farce for both the PBA as a private company, and the USBC altogether.
BL.
The Masters is a USBC event, so the balls aren't allowed. The PBA stated such in their statement.
"To review Tuesday’s United States Bowling Congress announcement, the USBC prohibited the following six previously-certified bowling balls from use in USBC national events (including this week’s USBC Masters)...
The timing of Tuesday’s USBC ruling, during the USBC Masters, prompted the PBA to grant its members complimentary drillings on the player services trailer for bowling balls replacing the newly prohibited equipment. While the USBC Masters is a PBA Tour major championship, the event is conducted by the USBC under USBC rules."
If any of these balls end up on the show, someone will have some serious explaining to do...
-
What's the over/under on these 6 balls making it to the show?
I mean, the Masters is still going on, and per everyone's talking from 2 weeks ago, while the Masters is a USBC event, the telecast is a PBA event. Would this then mean that the PBA's rules hold sway for the show, making those 6 balls eligible for an appearance, despite the USBC's ruling?
If so, then this latest incident has already become a farce for both the PBA as a private company, and the USBC altogether.
BL.
The show is still a USBC Event, PBA just honors it as a title. You won’t see them on the show.
What's the over/under on these 6 balls making it to the show?
I mean, the Masters is still going on, and per everyone's talking from 2 weeks ago, while the Masters is a USBC event, the telecast is a PBA event. Would this then mean that the PBA's rules hold sway for the show, making those 6 balls eligible for an appearance, despite the USBC's ruling?
If so, then this latest incident has already become a farce for both the PBA as a private company, and the USBC altogether.
BL.
The Masters is a USBC event, so the balls aren't allowed. The PBA stated such in their statement.
"To review Tuesday’s United States Bowling Congress announcement, the USBC prohibited the following six previously-certified bowling balls from use in USBC national events (including this week’s USBC Masters)...
The timing of Tuesday’s USBC ruling, during the USBC Masters, prompted the PBA to grant its members complimentary drillings on the player services trailer for bowling balls replacing the newly prohibited equipment. While the USBC Masters is a PBA Tour major championship, the event is conducted by the USBC under USBC rules."
If any of these balls end up on the show, someone will have some serious explaining to do...
So if that is the case and it's a USBC event all the way through, then a Fab Blue or Burgundy Hammer should have no problem making the show, let alone a 5 year old Pitch Black.
I mean, I personally don't have a dog in this fight unless I try to enter the US Open or the Masters, but I'm trying to point out the ambiguity of the separation of rules here. Do both the PBA's rules and the USBC's rules hold sway here? If it's a USBC event, then does the rolling 2-year urethane ban get overruled?
There is so much confusion here, that neither entity can have things both ways for this tournament.
BL.
-
Don't try to make it so hard. Just go on bowl.com and read the rules if it really makes a difference to you.
-
If a ball is illegal, it's illegal. Either ban it in all sanctioned competition or don't ban it at all. Keeping them certified, but then excluding them from certain events makes no sense.
I suppose that begs the question why would USBC do this? So I can throw my Trend 2 in league, but not Nationals. That's a head scratcher
Another head scratcher is that the banned balls are ok for the PBA tour, but NOT acceptable to use on the PWBA tour. Then again this is the USBC that we're talking about here where many of their decisions are very questionable. It makes me wonder in some cases if the USBC is actually botching testing.
-
If a ball is illegal, it's illegal. Either ban it in all sanctioned competition or don't ban it at all. Keeping them certified, but then excluding them from certain events makes no sense.
I suppose that begs the question why would USBC do this? So I can throw my Trend 2 in league, but not Nationals. That's a head scratcher
Another head scratcher is that the banned balls are ok for the PBA tour, but NOT acceptable to use on the PWBA tour. Then again this is the USBC that we're talking about here where many of their decisions are very questionable. It makes me wonder in some cases if the USBC is actually botching testing.
The PWBA tour not using these makes sense, as the PWBA is owned and run by the USBC, while the PBA is a separate entity altogether.
BL.
-
Way past my competitive days so none of this directly impacts me anymore. However as a guy who bowled 29 nationals several Masters and a few PBA regionals this has gotten totally out of hand.
-
Way past my competitive days so none of this directly impacts me anymore. However as a guy who bowled 29 nationals several Masters and a few PBA regionals this has gotten totally out of hand.
Not just in regards to this decision but many others like the balance holes, just to name one.....Chad Murphy and the USBC are a bunch of idiots!
-
Way past my competitive days so none of this directly impacts me anymore. However as a guy who bowled 29 nationals several Masters and a few PBA regionals this has gotten totally out of hand.
Not just in regards to this decision but many others like the balance holes, just to name one.....Chad Murphy and the USBC are a bunch of idiots!
Maybe Chad is trying to make up for lack of hardness somewhere else.
-
Way past my competitive days so none of this directly impacts me anymore. However as a guy who bowled 29 nationals several Masters and a few PBA regionals this has gotten totally out of hand.
Not just in regards to this decision but many others like the balance holes, just to name one.....Chad Murphy and the USBC are a bunch of idiots!
Maybe Chad is trying to make up for lack of hardness somewhere else.
(https://c.tenor.com/2i_-hFqpsgEAAAAd/animaniacs-yakko-warner.gif)
BL.
-
What's the over/under on these 6 balls making it to the show?
I mean, the Masters is still going on, and per everyone's talking from 2 weeks ago, while the Masters is a USBC event, the telecast is a PBA event. Would this then mean that the PBA's rules hold sway for the show, making those 6 balls eligible for an appearance, despite the USBC's ruling?
If so, then this latest incident has already become a farce for both the PBA as a private company, and the USBC altogether.
BL.
The show is still a USBC Event, PBA just honors it as a title. You won’t see them on the show.
What's the over/under on these 6 balls making it to the show?
I mean, the Masters is still going on, and per everyone's talking from 2 weeks ago, while the Masters is a USBC event, the telecast is a PBA event. Would this then mean that the PBA's rules hold sway for the show, making those 6 balls eligible for an appearance, despite the USBC's ruling?
If so, then this latest incident has already become a farce for both the PBA as a private company, and the USBC altogether.
BL.
The Masters is a USBC event, so the balls aren't allowed. The PBA stated such in their statement.
"To review Tuesday’s United States Bowling Congress announcement, the USBC prohibited the following six previously-certified bowling balls from use in USBC national events (including this week’s USBC Masters)...
The timing of Tuesday’s USBC ruling, during the USBC Masters, prompted the PBA to grant its members complimentary drillings on the player services trailer for bowling balls replacing the newly prohibited equipment. While the USBC Masters is a PBA Tour major championship, the event is conducted by the USBC under USBC rules."
If any of these balls end up on the show, someone will have some serious explaining to do...
So if that is the case and it's a USBC event all the way through, then a Fab Blue or Burgundy Hammer should have no problem making the show, let alone a 5 year old Pitch Black.
I mean, I personally don't have a dog in this fight unless I try to enter the US Open or the Masters, but I'm trying to point out the ambiguity of the separation of rules here. Do both the PBA's rules and the USBC's rules hold sway here? If it's a USBC event, then does the rolling 2-year urethane ban get overruled?
There is so much confusion here, that neither entity can have things both ways for this tournament.
BL.
Tournaments conducted by the USBC follow USBC rules. The 2-year urethane rule is a PBA rule and doesn't apply. The only urethane exclusion for USBC events is the "6" and "7" serial number Purple Hammers.
Tournaments conducted by the PBA follow PBA rules. The 2-year urethane ban applies since that is a PBA rule, but the Storm ban isn't being upheld by the PBA (similar to how local associations and leagues can choose to uphold the Storm ban or not, since the equipment is currently still certified.)
I personally have an issue with the PBA piggy-backing onto and using USBC events as major titles, but that is a whole different conversation.
-
Tournaments conducted by the USBC follow USBC rules. The 2-year urethane rule is a PBA rule and doesn't apply. The only urethane exclusion for USBC events is the "6" and "7" serial number Purple Hammers.
Tournaments conducted by the PBA follow PBA rules. The 2-year urethane ban applies since that is a PBA rule, but the Storm ban isn't being upheld by the PBA (similar to how local associations and leagues can choose to uphold the Storm ban or not, since the equipment is currently still certified.)
I personally have an issue with the PBA piggy-backing onto and using USBC events as major titles, but that is a whole different conversation.
Exactly. So if someone happens to make the show, and they throw a Fab Blue Pearl or a Burgundy or a Sumo, no other bowlers should have the right to complain.
BL.
-
Tournaments conducted by the USBC follow USBC rules. The 2-year urethane rule is a PBA rule and doesn't apply. The only urethane exclusion for USBC events is the "6" and "7" serial number Purple Hammers.
Tournaments conducted by the PBA follow PBA rules. The 2-year urethane ban applies since that is a PBA rule, but the Storm ban isn't being upheld by the PBA (similar to how local associations and leagues can choose to uphold the Storm ban or not, since the equipment is currently still certified.)
I personally have an issue with the PBA piggy-backing onto and using USBC events as major titles, but that is a whole different conversation.
Exactly. So if someone happens to make the show, and they throw a Fab Blue Pearl or a Burgundy or a Sumo, no other bowlers should have the right to complain.
BL.
30 years old and perfectly legal at a USBC event.
-
If someone actually wins this event throwing a Fab Blue Pearl for strikes, they deserve the entire purse not just the 1st place money ;D
Seriously though, Simo's Grenade could make an appearance, who knows.
-
If someone actually wins this event throwing a Fab Blue Pearl for strikes, they deserve the entire purse not just the 1st place money ;D
Seriously though, Simo's Grenade could make an appearance, who knows.
GG3 was close but then had a bad last block this morning to miss the cut. He's got a couple Black Beauty's and had one of them on his scorecard for day 1
-
The "voluntary exchange program" for the six balls has been posted online.
This will be fun to watch...
-
The "voluntary exchange program" for the six balls has been posted online.
This will be fun to watch...
Okay...
So for what I see, it looks like the options are the Electrify Pearl, Hustle Wine, Hyped Pearl, Phaze 3, Dark Code, Nova, Zen, Reality, RST X-2, and the Gem.
I admit that I know absolutely nothing about these balls, as I don't throw anything Storm, so I'll leave it up to all of you to discuss if any of these are anywhere near equivalent let alone in the realm of the balls under scrutiny, let alone the Spectre.
BL.
-
According to the release - if you choose to exchange the affected balls, you are required to ship the balls to Storm on your own dime.
That’s not going to sit well for the people bowling Nationals and are affected by this or for anyone bowling somewhere that adopted the ban.
-
Also USBC released some data today. Said the Altered Reality tested at an average of 71.1 hardness and 100% would be illegal.
Yikes
-
Also USBC released some data today. Said the Altered Reality tested at an average of 71.1 hardness and 100% would be illegal.
Yikes
The Altered is the one I 100% believe more than the Spectre. All of the Altereds I've seen around me have hooked more than I expected
-
Looks like the offer to exchange ends June 1, 2022.
Makes you wonder what happens if all the local factions ban these balls starting in the fall season? Is everyone screwed?
Sure as hell looks that way.
Way to look out for the bowlers there Chad. Awesome agreement. Bowlers have to pay to return and no assurance of ball legality or exchangeablility after June 1 if you decline to swap befor the fall season. Euro direction from National for the local USBC
-
Looks like the offer to exchange ends June 1, 2022.
Makes you wonder what happens if all the local factions ban these balls starting in the fall season? Is everyone screwed?
Sure as hell looks that way.
Way to look out for the bowlers there Chad. Awesome agreement. Bowlers have to pay to return and no assurance of ball legality or exchangeablility after June 1 if you decline to swap befor the fall season. Euro direction from National for the local USBC
That time period to exchange is on Storm, not Chad. Now that data is out there it sure looks like a manufacturing issue by Storm, which is unfortunate. USBC seems to have cut a deal to not bankrupt storm by full yanking all of those balls from the approved list immediately.
Worst thing is and it gets mentioned in posts around here is the casual bowler and all the pro shops deal with the most pain from this whole situation. I'm already dealing with a PO'd customer that had a Spectre, picked the Wolverine as replacement, that shipment from Storm got canceled and we haven't got anything on how to pick another ball yet.
-
A storm newsletter.
http://publicftp.stormbowling.com/SPIExcangeTermsConditions.pdf
So it looks like balls have to be returned and shipping paid by the bowler to receive an exchange ball.
Looks like they are banking on the balls remaining legal for local league and tournament play and bowlers will want to keep them for that.
-
Looks like the offer to exchange ends June 1, 2022.
Makes you wonder what happens if all the local factions ban these balls starting in the fall season? Is everyone screwed?
Sure as hell looks that way.
Way to look out for the bowlers there Chad. Awesome agreement. Bowlers have to pay to return and no assurance of ball legality or exchangeablility after June 1 if you decline to swap befor the fall season. Euro direction from National for the local USBC
That time period to exchange is on Storm, not Chad. Now that data is out there it sure looks like a manufacturing issue by Storm, which is unfortunate. USBC seems to have cut a deal to not bankrupt storm by full yanking all of those balls from the approved list immediately.
Worst thing is and it gets mentioned in posts around here is the casual bowler and all the pro shops deal with the most pain from this whole situation. I'm already dealing with a PO'd customer that had a Spectre, picked the Wolverine as replacement, that shipment from Storm got canceled and we haven't got anything on how to pick another ball yet.
It’s Chad’s responsibility to look out for the bowlers interest in this. Kinda what we pay dues for isn’t it?
It’s also on Chad that the decision isn’t more definitive. Make them legal for leagues plus local and state tournaments. Make it from the top to emote any doubt about what might happen come the fall once we’re past the exchange date.
My big fear is the bowlers getting screwed on this even more than they already are. Everyone will wait until past June1 to ban them and bowlers will have zero recourse because it’s past the date. Enjoy your new doorstop.
-
Hold on one got damn minute, I have to pay to have it shipped and redrilled?
-
Looks like the offer to exchange ends June 1, 2022.
Makes you wonder what happens if all the local factions ban these balls starting in the fall season? Is everyone screwed?
Sure as hell looks that way.
Way to look out for the bowlers there Chad. Awesome agreement. Bowlers have to pay to return and no assurance of ball legality or exchangeablility after June 1 if you decline to swap befor the fall season. Euro direction from National for the local USBC
That time period to exchange is on Storm, not Chad. Now that data is out there it sure looks like a manufacturing issue by Storm, which is unfortunate. USBC seems to have cut a deal to not bankrupt storm by full yanking all of those balls from the approved list immediately.
Worst thing is and it gets mentioned in posts around here is the casual bowler and all the pro shops deal with the most pain from this whole situation. I'm already dealing with a PO'd customer that had a Spectre, picked the Wolverine as replacement, that shipment from Storm got canceled and we haven't got anything on how to pick another ball yet.
It’s Chad’s responsibility to look out for the bowlers interest in this. Kinda what we pay dues for isn’t it?
It’s also on Chad that the decision isn’t more definitive. Make them legal for leagues plus local and state tournaments. Make it from the top to emote any doubt about what might happen come the fall once we’re past the exchange date.
My big fear is the bowlers getting screwed on this even more than they already are. Everyone will wait until past June1 to ban them and bowlers will have zero recourse because it’s past the date. Enjoy your new doorstop.
I think what he is trying to do is get the balls through the current season, then see where they are at over the summer. That gives the bowlers time to use them, and then figure out what their next step is going to be.
What I'm more interested to see is how Tom Clark is going to handle this, given his statement. Is he already going to go back on it and eat the crow? If so, then that puts PBA at a bit of a lesser standard than the USBC.
BL.
-
Looks like the offer to exchange ends June 1, 2022.
Makes you wonder what happens if all the local factions ban these balls starting in the fall season? Is everyone screwed?
Sure as hell looks that way.
Way to look out for the bowlers there Chad. Awesome agreement. Bowlers have to pay to return and no assurance of ball legality or exchangeablility after June 1 if you decline to swap befor the fall season. Euro direction from National for the local USBC
That time period to exchange is on Storm, not Chad. Now that data is out there it sure looks like a manufacturing issue by Storm, which is unfortunate. USBC seems to have cut a deal to not bankrupt storm by full yanking all of those balls from the approved list immediately.
Worst thing is and it gets mentioned in posts around here is the casual bowler and all the pro shops deal with the most pain from this whole situation. I'm already dealing with a PO'd customer that had a Spectre, picked the Wolverine as replacement, that shipment from Storm got canceled and we haven't got anything on how to pick another ball yet.
It’s Chad’s responsibility to look out for the bowlers interest in this. Kinda what we pay dues for isn’t it?
It’s also on Chad that the decision isn’t more definitive. Make them legal for leagues plus local and state tournaments. Make it from the top to emote any doubt about what might happen come the fall once we’re past the exchange date.
My big fear is the bowlers getting screwed on this even more than they already are. Everyone will wait until past June1 to ban them and bowlers will have zero recourse because it’s past the date. Enjoy your new doorstop.
I think what he is trying to do is get the balls through the current season, then see where they are at over the summer. That gives the bowlers time to use them, and then figure out what their next step is going to be.
What I'm more interested to see is how Tom Clark is going to handle this, given his statement. Is he already going to go back on it and eat the crow? If so, then that puts PBA at a bit of a lesser standard than the USBC.
BL.
I hope you’re right. I can see them saying, you used them for a season. You could have exchanged but decided you didn’t want to. We can’t leave the exchange window open indefinitely.
-
Looks like the offer to exchange ends June 1, 2022.
Makes you wonder what happens if all the local factions ban these balls starting in the fall season? Is everyone screwed?
Sure as hell looks that way.
Way to look out for the bowlers there Chad. Awesome agreement. Bowlers have to pay to return and no assurance of ball legality or exchangeablility after June 1 if you decline to swap befor the fall season. Euro direction from National for the local USBC
That time period to exchange is on Storm, not Chad. Now that data is out there it sure looks like a manufacturing issue by Storm, which is unfortunate. USBC seems to have cut a deal to not bankrupt storm by full yanking all of those balls from the approved list immediately.
Worst thing is and it gets mentioned in posts around here is the casual bowler and all the pro shops deal with the most pain from this whole situation. I'm already dealing with a PO'd customer that had a Spectre, picked the Wolverine as replacement, that shipment from Storm got canceled and we haven't got anything on how to pick another ball yet.
It’s Chad’s responsibility to look out for the bowlers interest in this. Kinda what we pay dues for isn’t it?
It’s also on Chad that the decision isn’t more definitive. Make them legal for leagues plus local and state tournaments. Make it from the top to emote any doubt about what might happen come the fall once we’re past the exchange date.
My big fear is the bowlers getting screwed on this even more than they already are. Everyone will wait until past June1 to ban them and bowlers will have zero recourse because it’s past the date. Enjoy your new doorstop.
I think what he is trying to do is get the balls through the current season, then see where they are at over the summer. That gives the bowlers time to use them, and then figure out what their next step is going to be.
What I'm more interested to see is how Tom Clark is going to handle this, given his statement. Is he already going to go back on it and eat the crow? If so, then that puts PBA at a bit of a lesser standard than the USBC.
BL.
I hope you’re right. I can see them saying, you used them for a season. You could have exchanged but decided you didn’t want to. We can’t leave the exchange window open indefinitely.
I would actually think that they'd get you through the season, and even through bowling the summer. Come the next fall season, they get full sin bin. However, Storm should leave the exchange window open until either the end of the calendar year or the end of next bowling season. After that, those who didn't exchange have lost their opportunity and are stuck with a bowling ball ladybug for their backyard or garden.
That leaves Storm also with the option of getting the latest tech into the bowler's hands, whether through the summer releases, the fall releases, or the late winter releases. That would be the most optimal to Storm, but I don't want to guess how costly that would be, given that new releases are moneygrabbers, plus dealing with Black Friday.
BL.
-
Looks like the offer to exchange ends June 1, 2022.
Makes you wonder what happens if all the local factions ban these balls starting in the fall season? Is everyone screwed?
Sure as hell looks that way.
Way to look out for the bowlers there Chad. Awesome agreement. Bowlers have to pay to return and no assurance of ball legality or exchangeablility after June 1 if you decline to swap befor the fall season. Euro direction from National for the local USBC
That time period to exchange is on Storm, not Chad. Now that data is out there it sure looks like a manufacturing issue by Storm, which is unfortunate. USBC seems to have cut a deal to not bankrupt storm by full yanking all of those balls from the approved list immediately.
Worst thing is and it gets mentioned in posts around here is the casual bowler and all the pro shops deal with the most pain from this whole situation. I'm already dealing with a PO'd customer that had a Spectre, picked the Wolverine as replacement, that shipment from Storm got canceled and we haven't got anything on how to pick another ball yet.
It’s Chad’s responsibility to look out for the bowlers interest in this. Kinda what we pay dues for isn’t it?
It’s also on Chad that the decision isn’t more definitive. Make them legal for leagues plus local and state tournaments. Make it from the top to emote any doubt about what might happen come the fall once we’re past the exchange date.
My big fear is the bowlers getting screwed on this even more than they already are. Everyone will wait until past June1 to ban them and bowlers will have zero recourse because it’s past the date. Enjoy your new doorstop.
I think what he is trying to do is get the balls through the current season, then see where they are at over the summer. That gives the bowlers time to use them, and then figure out what their next step is going to be.
What I'm more interested to see is how Tom Clark is going to handle this, given his statement. Is he already going to go back on it and eat the crow? If so, then that puts PBA at a bit of a lesser standard than the USBC.
BL.
I hope you’re right. I can see them saying, you used them for a season. You could have exchanged but decided you didn’t want to. We can’t leave the exchange window open indefinitely.
I would actually think that they'd get you through the season, and even through bowling the summer. Come the next fall season, they get full sin bin. However, Storm should leave the exchange window open until either the end of the calendar year or the end of next bowling season. After that, those who didn't exchange have lost their opportunity and are stuck with a bowling ball ladybug for their backyard or garden.
That leaves Storm also with the option of getting the latest tech into the bowler's hands, whether through the summer releases, the fall releases, or the late winter releases. That would be the most optimal to Storm, but I don't want to guess how costly that would be, given that new releases are moneygrabbers, plus dealing with Black Friday.
BL.
See, your solution makes sense. But it’s not what’s currently happening.
I expect the full sin bin treatment this fall. I just see Storm saying too bad unless there enormous pushback now. USBC National isn’t going to back the bowlers at all.
-
See, your solution makes sense. But it’s not what’s currently happening.
I expect the full sin bin treatment this fall. I just see Storm saying too bad unless there enormous pushback now. USBC National isn’t going to back the bowlers at all.
There isn't much more that the USBC can do on this one. If they have the numbers and are able to publish them, then everything goes back into Storm's court. The USBC can talk to Storm about what they can do as far as getting the balls through to the end of this season and possibly the summer, but after that, it's all on Storm and if they can renegotiate another agreement with the USBC.
Right now, out of all of the entire fiascos, the ones in the best seats are the ones with the 2016-2017 Purple Hammers and the Spectre.. Obviously Brunswick is going to get the Hammer bowlers a new ball from any of the 7 brands, but those who still have their Spectres need to hold onto them, at least until the fall. I don't know if there is a trade-by date for the Spectre, but they'll get the best deal in getting a free ball without any financial conditions. The ones in the worst shape are those who turned in their Spectre and got one of these 6 balls, as now they have to pay (in one form or another) to get a replacement, whereas if they held on to their Spectre, they'd be able to at least get something for free.
BL.
-
See, your solution makes sense. But it’s not what’s currently happening.
I expect the full sin bin treatment this fall. I just see Storm saying too bad unless there enormous pushback now. USBC National isn’t going to back the bowlers at all.
There isn't much more that the USBC can do on this one. If they have the numbers and are able to publish them, then everything goes back into Storm's court. The USBC can talk to Storm about what they can do as far as getting the balls through to the end of this season and possibly the summer, but after that, it's all on Storm and if they can renegotiate another agreement with the USBC.
Right now, out of all of the entire fiascos, the ones in the best seats are the ones with the 2016-2017 Purple Hammers and the Spectre.. Obviously Brunswick is going to get the Hammer bowlers a new ball from any of the 7 brands, but those who still have their Spectres need to hold onto them, at least until the fall. I don't know if there is a trade-by date for the Spectre, but they'll get the best deal in getting a free ball without any financial conditions. The ones in the worst shape are those who turned in their Spectre and got one of these 6 balls, as now they have to pay (in one form or another) to get a replacement, whereas if they held on to their Spectre, they'd be able to at least get something for free.
BL.
It should have been part of the agreement as to the length of time the window stays open for the exchanges. Something that benefits the bowlers.
-
See, your solution makes sense. But it’s not what’s currently happening.
I expect the full sin bin treatment this fall. I just see Storm saying too bad unless there enormous pushback now. USBC National isn’t going to back the bowlers at all.
There isn't much more that the USBC can do on this one. If they have the numbers and are able to publish them, then everything goes back into Storm's court. The USBC can talk to Storm about what they can do as far as getting the balls through to the end of this season and possibly the summer, but after that, it's all on Storm and if they can renegotiate another agreement with the USBC.
Right now, out of all of the entire fiascos, the ones in the best seats are the ones with the 2016-2017 Purple Hammers and the Spectre.. Obviously Brunswick is going to get the Hammer bowlers a new ball from any of the 7 brands, but those who still have their Spectres need to hold onto them, at least until the fall. I don't know if there is a trade-by date for the Spectre, but they'll get the best deal in getting a free ball without any financial conditions. The ones in the worst shape are those who turned in their Spectre and got one of these 6 balls, as now they have to pay (in one form or another) to get a replacement, whereas if they held on to their Spectre, they'd be able to at least get something for free.
BL.
It should have been part of the agreement as to the length of time the window stays open for the exchanges. Something that benefits the bowlers.
Totally agree here. They should have put an eligibility period in for all of these, especially to save those from milking the program. I mean, imagine how many people are trying to Ebay for a 2016-2017 Purple Hammer to exchange for a new ball on the cheap?
The same right now could apply with the Spectre. Someone out there goes to buy them up on the cheap, trades them in, and gets something free from Storm with all of those $50 drilling vouchers.
That's why they need begin and end dates on those exchange periods.
BL.
-
That's a good thought, the last Spectre I saw on ebay was going for close to $500. I don't see that happening with the "infamous 6" because they're not technically banned. I wouldn't vote to ban them from the leagues I bowl in and I'm not a Storm fan. Do we know how soft the ones that failed were? Are we talking they averaged 68-70 or could you use them to write on a chalk board? As far as that goes it's as relevant as static weights. I think the USBC worked out with Storm something that wouldn't absolutely destroy the company. We're just coming of covid and no company made any money the last almost 2 years. Most of those balls were in the same reaction category and unless you find some recent discontinued pieces, Storm doesn't have good replacements (reaction shape wise) for the phaze 4, ufo, spectre. And as far as I know, Storm self reported on the initial issue with the spectre.
Unfortunately the USBC didn't have a good play here. They either bend over a ton of bowlers and one of if not the biggest manufacturer by sales, or they bury the issue and take heat when it would eventually come out. I don't think it's cool to dump the onus on individual tournaments and associations and make them be villains by enforcing the ban. And for those asking about those who already put up numbers (looking at you Barnes), they had no way of knowing their balls may or may not have been legal. And most of those bowlers would put up numbers in competition no matter what they were throwing. It's a bad deal for Storm and the USBC no matter what punishment gets handed down. Check out Brad and Kyle's YouTube and they're obviously put in a bind along with other staffers. Again, not a Storm fan, I just read it like I'm reading Latin. But their company has been dominant and done a lot for bowling. Let's see where their #weather the Storm videos go.....
-
That's a good thought, the last Spectre I saw on ebay was going for close to $500. I don't see that happening with the "infamous 6" because they're not technically banned. I wouldn't vote to ban them from the leagues I bowl in and I'm not a Storm fan. Do we know how soft the ones that failed were? Are we talking they averaged 68-70 or could you use them to write on a chalk board?
If we went off of Ron Hickland's numbers, a lot of what he had tested came out in the mid 72s, but weren't going to be of a group that would have been grandfathered in from being at 72D specifications before a certain point. I want to say that that date was sometime in December 2020. The Spectre was certified in December 2021, so it would have had to conform to to 73D, so it was definitely under.
As far as that goes it's as relevant as static weights. I think the USBC worked out with Storm something that wouldn't absolutely destroy the company. We're just coming of covid and no company made any money the last almost 2 years. Most of those balls were in the same reaction category and unless you find some recent discontinued pieces, Storm doesn't have good replacements (reaction shape wise) for the phaze 4, ufo, spectre. And as far as I know, Storm self reported on the initial issue with the spectre.
This is why I was giving a window of December of this year, so that they could have something coming out that could be a replacement for them. Granted they don't have the time to speed up production for the replacement of 7 balls, but at least something. Perhaps they should make it rolling. I'd give till the end of the year on the free Spectre replacement, and then the beginning of the fall 2023 season for the replacement of the other 6. That way no-one has time to milk the system in place on the Spectre; in fact, that would only give them this summer's releases and the early fall releases to capitalize on the Spectre replacement program, as the bowler would be losing value on a ball they chose when they hit Black Friday going into the holiday season. At that point, they would have missed their chance for the best value.
For the remaining 6, they get sin binned for the Fall 2022 season, and then have until the end of the fall 2022/2023 season to replace them. That gives the bowler and Storm time to push through their production pipeline to get balls out.
Unfortunately the USBC didn't have a good play here. They either bend over a ton of bowlers and one of if not the biggest manufacturer by sales, or they bury the issue and take heat when it would eventually come out. I don't think it's cool to dump the onus on individual tournaments and associations and make them be villains by enforcing the ban. And for those asking about those who already put up numbers (looking at you Barnes), they had no way of knowing their balls may or may not have been legal. And most of those bowlers would put up numbers in competition no matter what they were throwing. It's a bad deal for Storm and the USBC no matter what punishment gets handed down. Check out Brad and Kyle's YouTube and they're obviously put in a bind along with other staffers. Again, not a Storm fan, I just read it like I'm reading Latin. But their company has been dominant and done a lot for bowling. Let's see where their #weather the Storm videos go.....
This is why I was saying that while Rash can walk away proudly with the title that he won throwing the Spectre, he doesn't have much room to talk about integrity anymore because he's complained about a certain ball being that should have been banned (and subsequently was) while bowling with just as bad a ball that was also subsequently banned.
Again, I'm less concerned with the USBC and their statement on it, and more interested in how Clark is going to handle revisiting his statement now that data is coming out to justify the USBC's decision.
BL.
-
And in another set of conspiracy theories news I'm hearing this from a few people who while they say they have no dog in the fight, one could see a slight bit of taking sides..
Clark is throwing Storm a bone. He knows that Storm is going to lose a lot on this, especially considering that Motiv reportedly lost a good $2-3 million out of the Jackal when it got sacked. So in keeping the balls eligible for use on the PBA, that will cause the balls to sell there. If the USBC is revoking them for tournament use and leaving them for league play, then it makes the bowler not only confused, but wonder WTH to do when their City or State tournaments come up. They either have to take chance that they will be allowed, make sure they have enough room for other gear, or not take them at all. Huge risk there.
So with them being valid for the PBA, Clark is essentially allowing the pros to buy up all of the stock of those balls, as that would be the only place they could effectively be used, generating revenue for Storm and allowing them to keep producing gear without taking a loss.
This is also in conjunction with apparently the USBC doing its job, further scrutinizing that part of their job, Storm getting caught with their proverbial hand in the cookie jar, lawsuits resulting in this "agreement" that is still relatively rough, and ultimately showing why our sport isn't ready for the olympics. If we can't keep our certification standards in check just for our sport, how can we show that on the world stage.
Again, all conspiracy theory talk while at youth leagues and talking to a few PSOs..
BL.
-
So dis functional you kids are
-
Moving a few balls to PBA guys is the least of Storm’s worries. They need to figure out their covers for a catalog of balls for 3 brands that don’t roll like a big turd with a new formulation
-
Moving a few balls to PBA guys is the least of Storm’s worries. They need to figure out their covers for a catalog of balls for 3 brands that don’t roll like a big turd with a new formulation
All while navigating the massive holes in the catalog now.
-
Numbers have been dropped.
Wolverine comes in at 71.8.
Altered Reality: 71.1.
Phaze 4: 71.8
UFO Alert: 72.3.
Trend 2: 72.5.
Electrify Solid: 72.7.
More so, these are apparently the tests at OOB finish; removing the polish makes them harder.
More info here, including why they did this during the middle of the Masters, the Belmo incident, and the reasons for the curtain:
http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/AnnouncementFAQ.pdf
BL.
-
We dropped off my son’s Electrify today for shipment back to Storm for the exchange. He didn’t really want to get rid of the Electrify, but being prohibited in Jr. Gold swayed him on doing the exchange. Plus, our local youth program coordinator recommended doing the exchange for any of her bowlers that have the 6 excluded balls.
We figured he’d be restricted to similar pricepoint balls for the exchange (e.g. a Hustle or Hyped) but the exchange portal allowed any of the offered balls to be exchanged for the excluded ones. He picked a Rotogrip Gem. Felt a little guilty about getting a higher cost ball back. But, it was almost $50 to ship through USPS so we consider it a wash.
Local shop still had an Altered Reality, Wolverine, Phase 4 and Trend 2 on the wall for sale this afternoon. Got an earful from the kid working there about his opinion of the USBC.
-
Not exactly. It does explain the curtain and why people aren't allowed to watch. It doesn't explain anything about how Belmo was approached. It was supposedly about voluntary checking of urethane equipment, not spot checking of Storm equipment (urethane or reactive).
Someone made a point earlier about the possibility of Storm maybe getting their new resins from a different supplier. This could make some sense. Even if a new supplier's product meets their requirements there's lots of little things in the "inactive ingredients" that could possibly cause problems. We all know how important the curing process is to these balls. It could be that either the new resins cured slower and spot checking after manufacturing showed everything in spec, or the resins continued to cure longer instead of having a natural stopping point. than the previous material.
-
At what point does the +/- 2 accuracy get taken into account?
Does anyone know if the numbers the USBC is putting out are from their spot / on site testing at the Masters?
They’re going to call a table behind a curtain a controlled environment and gloss over the +/- 2 variable since they’ve left their hopefully static environment at headquarters for these tests?
-
My Lord, there are a lot of people that are mad at the USBC for finally doing their job. It seems pretty simple. The balls are illegal by the USBC standards of 73D. Most of them are not illegal using the PBA's 70D standards. However, to protect SPI, Tom Clark issued a statement with a false equivalency comparing the USBC's data to the PBA's as if they found different results. They didn't; they just have different thresholds for what constitutes "illegal".
Also, the health of the bowling industry worldwide (and especially the PBA) is currently dependent on Storm's viability, production, and support. Therefore, they will do what they have to in order to protect Storm's financial well-being so that the industry will not suffer.
In short, the balls are illegal, the timing of the announcement/exclusion was awful and flat-out wrong, the USBC did its job, and the PBA is protecting a major sponsor and hoping that nobody notices their hypocrisy. Importantly, it's all being done for the greater good of keeping the bowling industry going strong instead of having it potentially fall apart. Chad Murphy is being used as a scapegoat, which is easy because he legitimately screwed up the timing of the announcement/enforcement of the ban/exclusion. However, Tom Clark's statement is infinitely more shady and bullcrap than anything Chad Murphy has done, but he had to do it to protect a huge sponsor.
-
tl;dr: Storm too big to fail.
-
Go tell that to EBI.
-
My Lord, there are a lot of people that are mad at the USBC for finally doing their job. It seems pretty simple. The balls are illegal by the USBC standards of 73D. Most of them are not illegal using the PBA's 70D standards. However, to protect SPI, Tom Clark issued a statement with a false equivalency comparing the USBC's data to the PBA's as if they found different results. They didn't; they just have different thresholds for what constitutes "illegal".
Also, the health of the bowling industry worldwide (and especially the PBA) is currently dependent on Storm's viability, production, and support. Therefore, they will do what they have to in order to protect Storm's financial well-being so that the industry will not suffer.
In short, the balls are illegal, the timing of the announcement/exclusion was awful and flat-out wrong, the USBC did its job, and the PBA is protecting a major sponsor and hoping that nobody notices their hypocrisy. Importantly, it's all being done for the greater good of keeping the bowling industry going strong instead of having it potentially fall apart. Chad Murphy is being used as a scapegoat, which is easy because he legitimately screwed up the timing of the announcement/enforcement of the ban/exclusion. However, Tom Clark's statement is infinitely more shady and bullcrap than anything Chad Murphy has done, but he had to do it to protect a huge sponsor.
USBC finally doing their jobs?
They’re the ones who created this crapfest with the timing of their decision as well as the decisiveness as a topper.
You agree the timing is horrible.
Thoughts on the USBC totally abdicating their responsibility on making a decision on the balls for all bowlers? Leaving it to local associations and tournaments was stupid.
If they wanted to keep them legal for use outside of those exclusion tournaments, them make the executive decision and be done with it. Be the governing body and provide leadership and certainty for your membership as to what’s going to happen with those balls come the start of fall 2022 season.
All they did was kick the responsibility to someone else. Allow folks to blame someone else for a decision. Decisions that will not be made until after Storm’s exchange window closes on the affected bowling balls. Well after.
A total crapfest if and/or when those balls start being banned for local use for the Fall 2022 season and bowlers are stuck with $150+ door stops because of no exchange option.
-
USBC finally doing their jobs?
They’re the ones who created this crapfest with the timing of their decision as well as the decisiveness as a topper.
You agree the timing is horrible.
Thoughts on the USBC totally abdicating their responsibility on making a decision on the balls for all bowlers? Leaving it to local associations and tournaments was stupid.
If they wanted to keep them legal for use outside of those exclusion tournaments, them make the executive decision and be done with it. Be the governing body and provide leadership and certainty for your membership as to what’s going to happen with those balls come the start of fall 2022 season.
All they did was kick the responsibility to someone else. Allow folks to blame someone else for a decision. Decisions that will not be made until after Storm’s exchange window closes on the affected bowling balls. Well after.
A total crapfest if and/or when those balls start being banned for local use for the Fall 2022 season and bowlers are stuck with $150+ door stops because of no exchange option.
I 100% agree with all of your points. That doesn't make any of my points wrong. You'll also notice I didn't say that USBC did their jobs well. They didn't, but at least they identified a major problem and attempted to address it. As you very well explained, they screwed up the way they handled it six ways from Sunday, but at least they're trying to navigate an incredibly delicate situation. That's better to me than the PBA handling the issue like Kevin Bacon at the end of Animal House and pretending it doesn't exist.
-
I should say that I disagree on one point, but only partially. Storm created the crapfest by putting illegal balls out into the market, not the USBC. The USBC made it much worse because of all of the things you mentioned, but that's still better than putting their heads in the sand and pretending the original problem doesn't exist.
-
On a different note, I will admit that I'm pretty pissed off that I have to spend $75 in shipping and drilling costs (even after the $50 coupon) to downgrade from a ball I loved to another ball that I probably won't like quite as much from a company I'm having a hard time trusting right now. Many of us are spending a pretty decent chunk of change to make sure that we haven't completely wasted our initial investment, making the replacement balls the most expensive ones we will have ever owned by far. Thanks a bunch, Storm.
-
Want to know why bowling is such a mess ... look no further than the USBC.
They tested balls yes ..... BUT THEY DID NOT ADHERE TO THEIR OWN POLICY !!!!
All balls must be sanded to 500 grit before testing -- THEY DIDN'T DO THIS !!!!!!
This ruling has ZERO integrity behind it ! -- It's pathetic that the governing body behind bowling at the national level has less integrity than a condo owners association.
Who hires these idiots?
-
I would like to see some data on balls of varying hardness. Specifically what impact does hardness have on coefficient of friction (COF) . my guess is that it is minimal. Surface prep has a much bigger impact yet no problem taking a ball down to 360.
-
One question that came up for me when I received my replacement balls(for the Spectre). The Phase 4 is R2S Pearl, which is "somewhat" banned. I received a Hy-Road Pearl as a replacement, also R2S Pearl. The inspection date(On the box) for the Hy-Road is 3/22/2022. How can one be legal and not the other when they both use the same cover with the same box finish?
Is it the color? Maybe the scent?
-
Milo-plea deal. Storm cried uncle so they would stop testing.
-
2 responses:
1. Avabob - Ron Hickland (Creating the Difference CTD) already did the varying degree of hardness. There is actually a noticable difference. I saw the video on Youtube. Go check it out.
2. Milo - I asked the same question. Answer I got was the Hyroad is probably illegal too (speculation). However, when USBC said we are at 6 balls and counting, my hunch (speculation) is Storm waived the white flag and said stop before we are bankrupt. Imagine how many Hyroads would need replaced (pearl and hybrid original) if found illegal? That is why USBC said there would be no other balls found illegal in the news release (speculation yet again).
-
One question that came up for me when I received my replacement balls(for the Spectre). The Phase 4 is R2S Pearl, which is "somewhat" banned. I received a Hy-Road Pearl as a replacement, also R2S Pearl. The inspection date(On the box) for the Hy-Road is 3/22/2022. How can one be legal and not the other when they both use the same cover with the same box finish?
Is it the color? Maybe the scent?
I think Ron Hickland also mentioned that color can play a difference in hardness
-
Milo-plea deal. Storm cried uncle so they would stop testing.
That would make sense.
-
It’s not like Storm negotiated with USBC who can do whatever they want…the manufacturer has to abide by the ruling of the governing body if they want to sell balls in the USA.
-
On a different note, I will admit that I'm pretty pissed off that I have to spend $75 in shipping and drilling costs (even after the $50 coupon) to downgrade from a ball I loved to another ball that I probably won't like quite as much from a company I'm having a hard time trusting right now. Many of us are spending a pretty decent chunk of change to make sure that we haven't completely wasted our initial investment, making the replacement balls the most expensive ones we will have ever owned by far. Thanks a bunch, Storm.
My household is in the same boat. We have three excluded balls here. Would love to keep them just for the local league and tournament aspect. Do I have a freaking clue if we’ll be able to use them come fall - hell no…
That I have a severe problem with.
-
USBC finally doing their jobs?
They’re the ones who created this crapfest with the timing of their decision as well as the decisiveness as a topper.
You agree the timing is horrible.
Thoughts on the USBC totally abdicating their responsibility on making a decision on the balls for all bowlers? Leaving it to local associations and tournaments was stupid.
If they wanted to keep them legal for use outside of those exclusion tournaments, them make the executive decision and be done with it. Be the governing body and provide leadership and certainty for your membership as to what’s going to happen with those balls come the start of fall 2022 season.
All they did was kick the responsibility to someone else. Allow folks to blame someone else for a decision. Decisions that will not be made until after Storm’s exchange window closes on the affected bowling balls. Well after.
A total crapfest if and/or when those balls start being banned for local use for the Fall 2022 season and bowlers are stuck with $150+ door stops because of no exchange option.
I 100% agree with all of your points. That doesn't make any of my points wrong. You'll also notice I didn't say that USBC did their jobs well. They didn't, but at least they identified a major problem and attempted to address it. As you very well explained, they screwed up the way they handled it six ways from Sunday, but at least they're trying to navigate an incredibly delicate situation. That's better to me than the PBA handling the issue like Kevin Bacon at the end of Animal House and pretending it doesn't exist.
Honestly, I’d almost wish they’d (USBC) had ignored it right now. They pooched the handling of this so bad.
The PBA knows they pooched this. It’s easy to side with the bowlers.
-
Want to know why bowling is such a mess ... look no further than the USBC.
They tested balls yes ..... BUT THEY DID NOT ADHERE TO THEIR OWN POLICY !!!!
All balls must be sanded to 500 grit before testing -- THEY DIDN'T DO THIS !!!!!!
This ruling has ZERO integrity behind it ! -- It's pathetic that the governing body behind bowling at the national level has less integrity than a condo owners association.
Who hires these idiots?
Wait.. You're expecting the USBC to take balls out from the field, resand them to 500 grit, then retest? Completely ignoring the fact that taking the polish off the ball results in them becoming harder again, as well as conversely the fact that adding polish can soften the surface of the ball?
What happened to at the point of testing, that the balls submitted to the USBC MUST ALREADY BE AT 500 GRIT BEFORE BEING HANDED TO THE USBC FOR TESTING!??
Who didn't do their job at that point? The USBC, or the manufacturer? JR Raymond even mentioned that it is up to the ball company to take them right off the lines at 500 grit and get them over to the USBC for testing. That isn't the USBC's problem, but the manufacturer's problem.
BL.
-
Want to know why bowling is such a mess ... look no further than the USBC.
They tested balls yes ..... BUT THEY DID NOT ADHERE TO THEIR OWN POLICY !!!!
All balls must be sanded to 500 grit before testing -- THEY DIDN'T DO THIS !!!!!!
This ruling has ZERO integrity behind it ! -- It's pathetic that the governing body behind bowling at the national level has less integrity than a condo owners association.
Who hires these idiots?
Wait.. You're expecting the USBC to take balls out from the field, resand them to 500 grit, then retest? Completely ignoring the fact that taking the polish off the ball results in them becoming harder again, as well as conversely the fact that adding polish can soften the surface of the ball?
What happened to at the point of testing, that the balls submitted to the USBC MUST ALREADY BE AT 500 GRIT BEFORE BEING HANDED TO THE USBC FOR TESTING!??
Who didn't do their job at that point? The USBC, or the manufacturer? JR Raymond even mentioned that it is up to the ball company to take them right off the lines at 500 grit and get them over to the USBC for testing. That isn't the USBC's problem, but the manufacturer's problem.
BL.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
I'm confused by the FAQ saying that "spot check balls are purchased from distribution". Assuming they tested the balls at OOB finish, that would be polished for all of the 6(7 if you include the Spectre).
But initial approval testing is done at 500 grit? That seems to be contradictory and initial approval testing should be done on balls at the manufacturer out of box finish.
-
Can you say FIASCO.
-
Want to know why bowling is such a mess ... look no further than the USBC.
They tested balls yes ..... BUT THEY DID NOT ADHERE TO THEIR OWN POLICY !!!!
All balls must be sanded to 500 grit before testing -- THEY DIDN'T DO THIS !!!!!!
This ruling has ZERO integrity behind it ! -- It's pathetic that the governing body behind bowling at the national level has less integrity than a condo owners association.
Who hires these idiots?
Wait.. You're expecting the USBC to take balls out from the field, resand them to 500 grit, then retest? Completely ignoring the fact that taking the polish off the ball results in them becoming harder again, as well as conversely the fact that adding polish can soften the surface of the ball?
What happened to at the point of testing, that the balls submitted to the USBC MUST ALREADY BE AT 500 GRIT BEFORE BEING HANDED TO THE USBC FOR TESTING!??
Who didn't do their job at that point? The USBC, or the manufacturer? JR Raymond even mentioned that it is up to the ball company to take them right off the lines at 500 grit and get them over to the USBC for testing. That isn't the USBC's problem, but the manufacturer's problem.
BL.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
I'm confused by the FAQ saying that "spot check balls are purchased from distribution". Assuming they tested the balls at OOB finish, that would be polished for all of the 6(7 if you include the Spectre).
But initial approval testing is done at 500 grit? That seems to be contradictory and initial approval testing should be done on balls at the manufacturer out of box finish.
Nope.. not being sarcastic. It had been mentioned in a few sources more knowledgeable in the process that when the balls are produced for inspection, they are presented to the USBC at 500-grit, and that is what the USBC uses for testing. If it passes then, they're good. If it doesn't, there's a problem. What was being called into scrutiny about integrity is if the USBC tested them at 500 grit, meaning either that when the balls were submitted, they were not at 500 grit, and that it is the USBC's responsibility to return them to 500 grit prior to testing. That isn't the USBC's responsibility to do. The ball manufacturer needs to submit it to the USBC at that condition (500 grit) so that the USBC can not be called into scrutiny for modifying a ball prior to testing, therefore contaminating their own process for certification of a ball.
Further, in a video posted by JR Raymond, it was even surmised that the balls going to the USBC for testing are ones that would come straight off the line and go directly to the USBC for testing.
Now to address if the ball should be at OOB finish, that's where we come into an even bigger problem - which actually might be the crux of the matter - as we know that not only does color affect the hardness of the ball, but polish does as well. From the FAQ:
USBC testing does confirm that removing the surface finish polish by sanding will cause the balls to measure harder.
If a ball is at 500 grit for its testing and passes that test, then is taken to OOB finish, when it hits OOB finish, it could fall under spec, causing it to get subsequently revoked. If at OOB finish for its testing, the ball should pass. if it doesn't, revoke them, and fix the problem. But either way, it is not the USBC's responsibility to take the ball to 500 for the test, nor take it to OOB finish for its test. That responsibility should fall to the ball company.
BL.
-
If the USBC tests at 500 grit then the balls they're testing and holding storm to should be at.
This is probably why storm wants those back, if they sanded them back to 500 grit...and they ALL test above 73.... Who's at fault here.
Definitely screwy.
-
You know what?
How much does a point (or two) of hardness REALLY make at the level most of us bowl? I get that the balls are "out of spec", but having a ball check out at 71.1 isn't that far from the 73D required.
USBC could've just quietly gone to Storm and said "Hey, were finding quite a few of your balls getting out of spec. You need to fix that, and we'll be watching. In the mean time, we're going to put out a statement that we found a problem, and are working with the manufacturer to ensure that it gets corrected.
Nothing gets banned, nothing gets kicked out, bowlers continue to use their stuff happily, and Storm just gets to come out with a new lineup "out of season" so to speak.
If I can put up with some of the CRAP that USBC does, surely I could survive bowling against other amateur bowlers using a ball that's only 71 hardness, right?
-
You know what?
How much does a point (or two) of hardness REALLY make at the level most of us bowl? I get that the balls are "out of spec", but having a ball check out at 71.1 isn't that far from the 73D required.
USBC could've just quietly gone to Storm and said "Hey, were finding quite a few of your balls getting out of spec. You need to fix that, and we'll be watching. In the mean time, we're going to put out a statement that we found a problem, and are working with the manufacturer to ensure that it gets corrected.
Nothing gets banned, nothing gets kicked out, bowlers continue to use their stuff happily, and Storm just gets to come out with a new lineup "out of season" so to speak.
If I can put up with some of the CRAP that USBC does, surely I could survive bowling against other amateur bowlers using a ball that's only 71 hardness, right?
Agreed.
In the urethane world it might mean a lil more movement but in the world of reactives...I don't think so much.
-
You know what?
How much does a point (or two) of hardness REALLY make at the level most of us bowl? I get that the balls are "out of spec", but having a ball check out at 71.1 isn't that far from the 73D required.
USBC could've just quietly gone to Storm and said "Hey, were finding quite a few of your balls getting out of spec. You need to fix that, and we'll be watching. In the mean time, we're going to put out a statement that we found a problem, and are working with the manufacturer to ensure that it gets corrected.
Nothing gets banned, nothing gets kicked out, bowlers continue to use their stuff happily, and Storm just gets to come out with a new lineup "out of season" so to speak.
If I can put up with some of the CRAP that USBC does, surely I could survive bowling against other amateur bowlers using a ball that's only 71 hardness, right?
I agree and disagree.
The rules are the rules that every one has to follow. 3 of the balls were measuring under 72D and 3 were measuring over 72D.
I think I would have had leniency on the 3 that were still over 72D, but again everyone is supposed to be following the rules/specifications.
-
There was a video posted by CTD (creating the difference) that showed what difference softness makes. Don't have a link to it currently but I am guessing it's on YouTube somewhere. Watch that video and see if you still say softness doesn't matter. A tough sport pattern was made to look like an easy house shot with a soft ball.
-
I am sure a soft ball could make a given pattern play easier than a hard ball. However I could find a resin ball with the right surface prep and within the hardness rules do the same thing. This isn't like the 70s where polyester balls were all that was available and softness was the only variable option. I had a 67 hardness Sur D at the 1976 ABC tourney in OK City. I shot 693 on the burn but died on the carry down on the fresh pattern the next day. Give me even a first generation resin ball and I would have shot 730 on the burn and gutted out 600s on the fresh.
Resin and surface prep are more important than hardness in today's environment.
-
I am sure a soft ball could make a given pattern play easier than a hard ball. However I could find a resin ball with the right surface prep and within the hardness rules do the same thing. This isn't like the 70s where polyester balls were all that was available and softness was the only variable option. I had a 67 hardness Sur D at the 1976 ABC tourney in OK City. I shot 693 on the burn but died on the carry down on the fresh pattern the next day. Give me even a first generation resin ball and I would have shot 730 on the burn and gutted out 600s on the fresh.
Resin and surface prep are more important than hardness in today's environment.
Even USBC's FAQ says that they have hardness as only the 9th most important factor out of 13 performance characteristics. This was added on their explanation of only banning the balls from national competitions, since 97% of leagues are on house shot conditions.
14. Why is this not as impactful as on typical USBC league house condition?
Ongoing USBC testing among ball performance has identified 13 categories that impact
reaction characteristics. Hardness is number nine on that list, which has less impact overall.
House conditions inherently are more forgiving. The area a player has is greater on house
conditions, and the reaction of a ball is more predictable from a variety of angles. The
impact of a bowling ball being softer is not as great.
On demanding Sport conditions, where down lane reaction is more severe, a bowling ball
which is softer may provide a more predictable reaction, and potentially an advantage.
-
There was a video posted by CTD (creating the difference) that showed what difference softness makes. Don't have a link to it currently but I am guessing it's on YouTube somewhere. Watch that video and see if you still say softness doesn't matter. A tough sport pattern was made to look like an easy house shot with a soft ball.
From the Spectre thread:
BL.
-
You know what?
How much does a point (or two) of hardness REALLY make at the level most of us bowl? I get that the balls are "out of spec", but having a ball check out at 71.1 isn't that far from the 73D required.
USBC could've just quietly gone to Storm and said "Hey, were finding quite a few of your balls getting out of spec. You need to fix that, and we'll be watching. In the mean time, we're going to put out a statement that we found a problem, and are working with the manufacturer to ensure that it gets corrected.
Nothing gets banned, nothing gets kicked out, bowlers continue to use their stuff happily, and Storm just gets to come out with a new lineup "out of season" so to speak.
If I can put up with some of the CRAP that USBC does, surely I could survive bowling against other amateur bowlers using a ball that's only 71 hardness, right?
This is exactly how it should have been handled. The USBC could have gone to Storm and had them fix this even mid-run and no one would have known. The USBC even admits this is how it should have been handled by its very "solution" to the problem -- allowing the balls to stay in play in league and smaller tournament formats. There was never a reason to ban any of these balls including the Spectre.
People who are playing the "rules are rules" card aren't thinking past the end of their nose. We are a niche sport and if the USBC had continued to test Storm's entire catalog and shut the company down, that would have potentially been a killer for both the USBC and the PBA. Sometimes you have to be able to read the room, and the USBC has done a very poor job of it, as have a lot of bowlers. This isn't 1970 and the ABC (USBC) can't act unilaterally anymore because we simply don't have the league numbers anymore to expect the muscle our will through in any given situation. If you think we do, go to some of your corporate-owned centers right now and try to swing your stick around regarding pinspotting tolerances or lane topography. Then be ready to be put in your place.
I'd also like to mention something that I've seen alluded to a couple of places, Luke Rosdahl's YouTube feed being one of them, regarding how deep into a bowling ball a durometer actually plunges to get a reading. My thoughts on this are that polish may not really make a ball soft; rather, the durometer itself may be "fooled" by the layer of polish already on the ball. This is why we have a 500 sanded standard for certification in the first place, and if this is the source for the disagreement (meaning the USBC spot-checked polished balls) then this whole process is ridiculous on its face and a bare minimum, the testing statute needs to be rewritten entirely.
-
Interesting, I always thought of "polish" as the condition(peaks and valleys) of the surface being taken down to a very smooth level, not a coating applied to the surface of the ball like when a car is waxed.
-
You know what?
How much does a point (or two) of hardness REALLY make at the level most of us bowl? I get that the balls are "out of spec", but having a ball check out at 71.1 isn't that far from the 73D required.
USBC could've just quietly gone to Storm and said "Hey, were finding quite a few of your balls getting out of spec. You need to fix that, and we'll be watching. In the mean time, we're going to put out a statement that we found a problem, and are working with the manufacturer to ensure that it gets corrected.
Nothing gets banned, nothing gets kicked out, bowlers continue to use their stuff happily, and Storm just gets to come out with a new lineup "out of season" so to speak.
If I can put up with some of the CRAP that USBC does, surely I could survive bowling against other amateur bowlers using a ball that's only 71 hardness, right?
This is exactly how it should have been handled. The USBC could have gone to Storm and had them fix this even mid-run and no one would have known. The USBC even admits this is how it should have been handled by its very "solution" to the problem -- allowing the balls to stay in play in league and smaller tournament formats. There was never a reason to ban any of these balls including the Spectre.
People who are playing the "rules are rules" card aren't thinking past the end of their nose. We are a niche sport and if the USBC had continued to test Storm's entire catalog and shut the company down, that would have potentially been a killer for both the USBC and the PBA. Sometimes you have to be able to read the room, and the USBC has done a very poor job of it, as have a lot of bowlers. This isn't 1970 and the ABC (USBC) can't act unilaterally anymore because we simply don't have the league numbers anymore to expect the muscle our will through in any given situation. If you think we do, go to some of your corporate-owned centers right now and try to swing your stick around regarding pinspotting tolerances or lane topography. Then be ready to be put in your place.
I'd also like to mention something that I've seen alluded to a couple of places, Luke Rosdahl's YouTube feed being one of them, regarding how deep into a bowling ball a durometer actually plunges to get a reading. My thoughts on this are that polish may not really make a ball soft; rather, the durometer itself may be "fooled" by the layer of polish already on the ball. This is why we have a 500 sanded standard for certification in the first place, and if this is the source for the disagreement (meaning the USBC spot-checked polished balls) then this whole process is ridiculous on its face and a bare minimum, the testing statute needs to be rewritten entirely.
While I agree in premise, the problem remaining is that the USBC is the authority only for the USA, and as these balls are produced for worldwide consumption, the the USBC's handling of it wouldn't affect any other bowling governing body, let alone the WTBA. If the USBC took their findings to the WTBA, and let the WTBA deal with this incident and Storm directly, this would have been handled worldwide, and every bowling governing body would then have the guidelines which to abide.
BL.
-
Milo-You are correct about the surface. They are "polished" using fine grits of buffing compound. A coated ball wouldn't absorb oil.
-
While I agree in premise, the problem remaining is that the USBC is the authority only for the USA, and as these balls are produced for worldwide consumption, the the USBC's handling of it wouldn't affect any other bowling governing body, let alone the WTBA. If the USBC took their findings to the WTBA, and let the WTBA deal with this incident and Storm directly, this would have been handled worldwide, and every bowling governing body would then have the guidelines which to abide.
BL.
And since we can't seem to find anyone who can independently corroborate the USBC's findings yet, the logical assumption is the case would have died on the WTBA's doorstep. But since it didn't, there's either corroborating evidence out there that isn't being shared with us (even though there is no reason at this point to hide it, if there ever was reason in the first place) or the USBC just basically told Storm that they were going to act no matter what, and that feels wrong to me.
Interesting, I always thought of "polish" as the condition(peaks and valleys) of the surface being taken down to a very smooth level, not a coating applied to the surface of the ball like when a car is waxed.
Milo-You are correct about the surface. They are "polished" using fine grits of buffing compound. A coated ball wouldn't absorb oil.
That would depend on what is being used. There are a lot of polishes that have residue in suspension. Then there are slip agents, specifically designed to eliminate ball read on the lanes. One of the debates on this very site over polishing techniques is raw grit (i.e., 4000) vs. grit-plus-agent (4000 + polish) with advocates of pad-only surface changes claiming one of the benefits is the pores of the ball not becoming clogged by polishing material. Then the question becomes what formulation the manufacturers are using to get the showroom shine on the ball for sales purposes. We've all been told if you don't like the way a ball reacts out of the box, either use it for 5-10 games and/or knock the polish off with a pad, so that you can work through the "shine."
-
While I agree in premise, the problem remaining is that the USBC is the authority only for the USA, and as these balls are produced for worldwide consumption, the the USBC's handling of it wouldn't affect any other bowling governing body, let alone the WTBA. If the USBC took their findings to the WTBA, and let the WTBA deal with this incident and Storm directly, this would have been handled worldwide, and every bowling governing body would then have the guidelines which to abide.
BL.
And since we can't seem to find anyone who can independently corroborate the USBC's findings yet, the logical assumption is the case would have died on the WTBA's doorstep. But since it didn't, there's either corroborating evidence out there that isn't being shared with us (even though there is no reason at this point to hide it, if there ever was reason in the first place) or the USBC just basically told Storm that they were going to act no matter what, and that feels wrong to me.
That is another good point. No one has been asked to corroborate this, let alone independently corroborate it. That is the biggest reason why the USBC should have gone to the WTBA about it instead of going it alone. The WTBA could have that independent party that could have backed up the USBC's claims on this. If the USBC wants to take the higher ground on this, they should have had that party back up their claim, then with that backing, would be on solid ground to make the decision they made, and no-one could dispute it.
BL.
-
Storm booth is independent I am pretty sure and it's like $64,000 to have it there. For the tournament....
The whole situation sucks, btw, that u definitely have right.
-
Didn’t realize the cost to be there. Gotta make up that $64,000 overhead.
Like many things in life, we have no control over but still affects us.
Wish someone would tell us the real background story since it is so bizarre.
-
Didn’t realize the cost to be there. Gotta make up that $64,000 overhead.
Like many things in life, we have no control over but still affects us.
Wish someone would tell us the real background story since it is so bizarre.
Keep in mind that you're not just limited to the booth there. K&K has 4 shops there (Orleans, Gold Coast, Sam's Town, Suncoast), Bowlersmart is all over town (Texas Station, Redrock, Santa Fe Station, Sunset Station), as well as a few independents (JB Pro Shop, owned by John Burroughs and Paul Renteria) would all love to have your business, and could probably get you something faster than the booth could.
No one wants to believe Storm bowling products manufactured and cleared 7 bowling balls that are illegal. Sean Rash says that the hammer purple urethane is a cheater ball. Aren’t these cheater balls?
This is why I was saying that Rash doesn't have any room to talk now. It can be said that the Spectre he used was a cheater ball, and subsequently banned. One can not and should not complain about someone else's yard, especially if their own yard isn't clean up and looking better themselves.
BL.
-
Still remind everyone about Rash. Although I still do not condone the manner he went about expressing his frustrations....
The 2016/2017 Purple Hammers had previously been testing soft and some were confiscated. It was KNOWN by all that some were soft. Yet, the PBA and USBC still permitted the use.
When Sean was using the Spectre....he did not know they were soft at that point. Nobody did (that we know of). Once they were found to be soft, poof, everyone outlawed the Spectres. I don't remember anyone allowing the use of the Spectre after it was found to be soft....
So....its a slightly different scenario
-
Still remind everyone about Rash. Although I still do not condone the manner he went about expressing his frustrations....
The 2016/2017 Purple Hammers had previously been testing soft and some were confiscated. It was KNOWN by all that some were soft. Yet, the PBA and USBC still permitted the use.
When Sean was using the Spectre....he did not know they were soft at that point. Nobody did (that we know of). Once they were found to be soft, poof, everyone outlawed the Spectres. I don't remember anyone allowing the use of the Spectre after it was found to be soft....
So....its a slightly different scenario
Wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out Mr. Rash is at the heart of all of this.
Think about it for a minute.
Rash was with Big B. Rash leaves Big B for 900G (a Storm subsidiary)
Rash complains that one of Big B's subsidiaries is putting out an illegal, sub-standard product.
Product gets looked into, partially banned, and Brunswick is out lots of money trying to make things right to the consumer.
Brunswick thinks fair is fair, and tit for tat, and repays the favor by getting some Storm stuff looked into and checked, already having done so themselves (so they know it's out of spec too).
Now, Storm gets some stuff partially banned, and is going to be out a lot more money because it isn't just one ball, it's seven.
Conspiracy theory or what? (Yeah, that one is Radical). ::)
-
So, did we actually land on the Moon, or not? ::)
-
Want to know why bowling is such a mess ... look no further than the USBC.
They tested balls yes ..... BUT THEY DID NOT ADHERE TO THEIR OWN POLICY !!!!
All balls must be sanded to 500 grit before testing -- THEY DIDN'T DO THIS !!!!!!
This ruling has ZERO integrity behind it ! -- It's pathetic that the governing body behind bowling at the national level has less integrity than a condo owners association.
Who hires these idiots?
Wait.. You're expecting the USBC to take balls out from the field, resand them to 500 grit, then retest? Completely ignoring the fact that taking the polish off the ball results in them becoming harder again, as well as conversely the fact that adding polish can soften the surface of the ball?
What happened to at the point of testing, that the balls submitted to the USBC MUST ALREADY BE AT 500 GRIT BEFORE BEING HANDED TO THE USBC FOR TESTING!??
Who didn't do their job at that point? The USBC, or the manufacturer? JR Raymond even mentioned that it is up to the ball company to take them right off the lines at 500 grit and get them over to the USBC for testing. That isn't the USBC's problem, but the manufacturer's problem.
BL.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
I'm confused by the FAQ saying that "spot check balls are purchased from distribution". Assuming they tested the balls at OOB finish, that would be polished for all of the 6(7 if you include the Spectre).
But initial approval testing is done at 500 grit? That seems to be contradictory and initial approval testing should be done on balls at the manufacturer out of box finish.
Nope.. not being sarcastic. It had been mentioned in a few sources more knowledgeable in the process that when the balls are produced for inspection, they are presented to the USBC at 500-grit, and that is what the USBC uses for testing. If it passes then, they're good. If it doesn't, there's a problem. What was being called into scrutiny about integrity is if the USBC tested them at 500 grit, meaning either that when the balls were submitted, they were not at 500 grit, and that it is the USBC's responsibility to return them to 500 grit prior to testing. That isn't the USBC's responsibility to do. The ball manufacturer needs to submit it to the USBC at that condition (500 grit) so that the USBC can not be called into scrutiny for modifying a ball prior to testing, therefore contaminating their own process for certification of a ball.
Further, in a video posted by JR Raymond, it was even surmised that the balls going to the USBC for testing are ones that would come straight off the line and go directly to the USBC for testing.
Now to address if the ball should be at OOB finish, that's where we come into an even bigger problem - which actually might be the crux of the matter - as we know that not only does color affect the hardness of the ball, but polish does as well. From the FAQ:
USBC testing does confirm that removing the surface finish polish by sanding will cause the balls to measure harder.
If a ball is at 500 grit for its testing and passes that test, then is taken to OOB finish, when it hits OOB finish, it could fall under spec, causing it to get subsequently revoked. If at OOB finish for its testing, the ball should pass. if it doesn't, revoke them, and fix the problem. But either way, it is not the USBC's responsibility to take the ball to 500 for the test, nor take it to OOB finish for its test. That responsibility should fall to the ball company.
BL.
The initial balls submitted for approval are provided by the company. Thus the company is responsible for getting the surface to 500.
Where did these other balls come from? Directly from Storm or where they purchased from the open market to spot check?
If just purchased from the open market, it’s on the USBC to sand them. Storm didn’t provide them directly. They may not even know they’re being checked.
Sorry, you can’t say sanding would make them harder, then say it wouldn’t have made a difference. Some of the balls tested 72.8. How much harder does sanding make them? 0.2 maybe?
How about actually sanding them and testing? Or at least say how much of a difference sanding makes. They brought it up themselves.
I do agree..
FIASCO
-
Still remind everyone about Rash. Although I still do not condone the manner he went about expressing his frustrations....
The 2016/2017 Purple Hammers had previously been testing soft and some were confiscated. It was KNOWN by all that some were soft. Yet, the PBA and USBC still permitted the use.
When Sean was using the Spectre....he did not know they were soft at that point. Nobody did (that we know of). Once they were found to be soft, poof, everyone outlawed the Spectres. I don't remember anyone allowing the use of the Spectre after it was found to be soft....
So....its a slightly different scenario
We get that. But the point here - that needs to be repeated - is that he doesn't have the right to talk about softness now, unless he wants to be outed on his hypocrisy for using a ball that was found to be just as illegal as the ball he was complaining about.
In fact, the only softness he has to worry about is his mental game, where urethane tends to live rent free in his head.
BL.
-
So, did we actually land on the Moon, or not? ::)
Yes, but we can't go back. THEY told us not to...................
-
The initial balls submitted for approval are provided by the company. Thus the company is responsible for getting the surface to 500.
Where did these other balls come from? Directly from Storm or where they purchased from the open market to spot check?
From the FAQ:
The manual states: “It is the manufacturers responsibility to ensure that all USBC approved balls comply with all specifications at time of manufacture.†The manual also states that spot-checking balls will be purchased from distribution. Manufacturers know balls will be tested out of the box.
So these balls come from the distributors' warehouses, not directly from the manufacturer, the PSO, or the bowler. These should all be new undrilled balls, at OOB finish.
If just purchased from the open market, it’s on the USBC to sand them. Storm didn’t provide them directly. They may not even know they’re being checked.
Sorry, you can’t say sanding would make them harder, then say it wouldn’t have made a difference. Some of the balls tested 72.8. How much harder does sanding make them? 0.2 maybe?
Think about it from the opposite way: If a ball came in at 72.7 at 500 grit, then sanding it up to 360 grit to bring it up to 73.2 isn't going to make a difference if the ball came in under 73D regardless.
How about actually sanding them and testing? Or at least say how much of a difference sanding makes. They brought it up themselves.
I do agree..
FIASCO
Ron Hickland/Creating the Difference just dropped another video talking about all of this as well, and gives a really good explanation as to what happened and relative to the numbers.
BL.
-
It does seem as if sanding the balls to increase hardness would not have enough of an impact on the Altered Reality, Phaze 4, or Wolverine to influence the data in any meaningful way. With sanding, the UFO Alert might have a shot at testing within legal specs occasionally, but probably not with any regularity.
-
Also, the Spectre had a projected out-of-spec rate of 98.6%. That's actually BETTER than the Altered Reality and Phaze 4, and virtually identical to the Wolverine. Just saying.
-
The initial balls submitted for approval are provided by the company. Thus the company is responsible for getting the surface to 500.
Where did these other balls come from? Directly from Storm or where they purchased from the open market to spot check?
From the FAQ:
The manual states: “It is the manufacturers responsibility to ensure that all USBC approved balls comply with all specifications at time of manufacture.†The manual also states that spot-checking balls will be purchased from distribution. Manufacturers know balls will be tested out of the box.
So these balls come from the distributors' warehouses, not directly from the manufacturer, the PSO, or the bowler. These should all be new undrilled balls, at OOB finish.
If just purchased from the open market, it’s on the USBC to sand them. Storm didn’t provide them directly. They may not even know they’re being checked.
Sorry, you can’t say sanding would make them harder, then say it wouldn’t have made a difference. Some of the balls tested 72.8. How much harder does sanding make them? 0.2 maybe?
Think about it from the opposite way: If a ball came in at 72.7 at 500 grit, then sanding it up to 360 grit to bring it up to 73.2 isn't going to make a difference if the ball came in under 73D regardless.
How about actually sanding them and testing? Or at least say how much of a difference sanding makes. They brought it up themselves.
I do agree..
FIASCO
Ron Hickland/Creating the Difference just dropped another video talking about all of this as well, and gives a really good explanation as to what happened and relative to the numbers.
BL.
You’ve missed the point that these balls weren’t sanded at all. All tested at OOB finish. Contrary to what is supposed to be done for testing.
Sanded 500 surface = Ball tested for approval by everyone per spec
Ball tested at OOB finish = how these were tested to decide to exclude
Their own procedures say they needed to be sanded.
The USBC excluded sic bowling balls mid tournament. It was too much to ask to perform a proper test so the results were as accurate and reflective as possible?
They say it makes no difference. How about just sand the damn thing and retest, publicly. At least record it with Storm reps present.
It’s not that hard to alleviate a ton of the remaining issues on this.
You never recover from the stupidity of making the move after day one of the Masters. They can try to spin all they want. That was a complete clusterfudge.
-
Balls don't need to be sanded during spot checks. They only need to be sanded to 500 grit for certification approval. I don't disagree that to keep things as consistent as possible, testing at 500 grit during all tests would be advisable. However, balls used for spot checks could not go back into inventory at that point, which would be very costly. The USBC isn't being contradictory, but there is a lack of consistency. Unfortunately, the solution is expensive and the USBC has tried to be cognizant of that. The easy, obvious answer does have that large caveat of excessive cost.
The timing of the announcement was still awful, though. No way around that one.
-
You’ve missed the point that these balls weren’t sanded at all. All tested at OOB finish. Contrary to what is supposed to be done for testing.
Sanded 500 surface = Ball tested for approval by everyone per spec
Ball tested at OOB finish = how these were tested to decide to exclude
Their own procedures say they needed to be sanded.
The USBC excluded sic bowling balls mid tournament. It was too much to ask to perform a proper test so the results were as accurate and reflective as possible?
They say it makes no difference. How about just sand the damn thing and retest, publicly. At least record it with Storm reps present.
It’s not that hard to alleviate a ton of the remaining issues on this.
You never recover from the stupidity of making the move after day one of the Masters. They can try to spin all they want. That was a complete clusterfudge.
Balls don't need to be sanded during spot checks. They only need to be sanded to 500 grit for certification approval. I don't disagree that to keep things as consistent as possible, testing at 500 grit during all tests would be advisable. However, balls used for spot checks could not go back into inventory at that point, which would be very costly. The USBC isn't being contradictory, but there is a lack of consistency. Unfortunately, the solution is expensive and the USBC has tried to be cognizant of that. The easy, obvious answer does have that large caveat of excessive cost.
The timing of the announcement was still awful, though. No way around that one.
The bold is the answer. the 500-grit is only at the certification process. At spot check, they are at OOB finish. The samples were at OOB finish. From the FAQ as well:
The spot-checking process then identified that six additional models of Storm Products
manufactured balls measured out of USBC specifications. USBC shared this information with Storm.
Plus, crossed with the fact that they needed to be at 73D or harder at the time of manufacture, the testing of them sanded to 500-grit to pass wouldn't have mattered. In this case, they needed to be at 73D or harder, at OOB finish, 500-grit, 300-grit, 50 grit, sand and rock, or otherwise. If it wasn't above 73D at the manufacturing process, then there was the problem.
Now I get that timing was off and really bad, but if the balls were out of spec at the manufacturing process, that isn't the USBC's fault.
BL.
-
You’ve missed the point that these balls weren’t sanded at all. All tested at OOB finish. Contrary to what is supposed to be done for testing.
Sanded 500 surface = Ball tested for approval by everyone per spec
Ball tested at OOB finish = how these were tested to decide to exclude
Their own procedures say they needed to be sanded.
The USBC excluded sic bowling balls mid tournament. It was too much to ask to perform a proper test so the results were as accurate and reflective as possible?
They say it makes no difference. How about just sand the damn thing and retest, publicly. At least record it with Storm reps present.
It’s not that hard to alleviate a ton of the remaining issues on this.
You never recover from the stupidity of making the move after day one of the Masters. They can try to spin all they want. That was a complete clusterfudge.
Balls don't need to be sanded during spot checks. They only need to be sanded to 500 grit for certification approval. I don't disagree that to keep things as consistent as possible, testing at 500 grit during all tests would be advisable. However, balls used for spot checks could not go back into inventory at that point, which would be very costly. The USBC isn't being contradictory, but there is a lack of consistency. Unfortunately, the solution is expensive and the USBC has tried to be cognizant of that. The easy, obvious answer does have that large caveat of excessive cost.
The timing of the announcement was still awful, though. No way around that one.
The bold is the answer. the 500-grit is only at the certification process. At spot check, they are at OOB finish. The samples were at OOB finish. From the FAQ as well:
The spot-checking process then identified that six additional models of Storm Products
manufactured balls measured out of USBC specifications. USBC shared this information with Storm.
Plus, crossed with the fact that they needed to be at 73D or harder at the time of manufacture, the testing of them sanded to 500-grit to pass wouldn't have mattered. In this case, they needed to be at 73D or harder, at OOB finish, 500-grit, 300-grit, 50 grit, sand and rock, or otherwise. If it wasn't above 73D at the manufacturing process, then there was the problem.
Now I get that timing was off and really bad, but if the balls were out of spec at the manufacturing process, that isn't the USBC's fault.
BL.
It’s a freaking spot check. To ban/exclude they should be reverting to their own standards used for approval.
Instead, you have them using a second durometer, outside of their own lab controlled environment, under different surface conditions.
To decide to cost a company millions of dollars and bowlers (who they’re supposed to represent) major headaches.
Again, it should be hard to ban balls that have been approved and are in production. There should be transparency with the company involved and to the bowling populous overall.
-
Wow, certainly can't tell who the Storm guys are by the comments. Once a ball is made, it has to stay legal. I've never seen a lab controlled alley that doesn't have humidity and temperature variables. Knowing the USBC, I doubt their testing lab does either. With one exception, I don't know anyone that throws anything 500 grit. That is a continuity thing, polishes and different grits have zero to do with hardness. Once a company develops a ball, they are supposed to test extensively. I've thrown test balls before, and it's not "Hey this is coming out in a month, try it out". It's try it for a month, here's a survey of what information we need along with dates, scores, locations, and when you're done we might need the ball back.
Does anyone remember Motiv's Jackel debacle? That one was approved and in stores and on tour. Throwbot doesn't use holes, and when they actually tested one with holes, the core was way out of spec. No one with Motiv had melt downs ( granted it was 1 ball), they dropped it and moved on. Now I believe they should let guys throw them until August when Storm has had a chance to roll replacements out and since people have already thrown them, and since they're still legal in most tournaments and leagues. But it was a compromise to try not to screw over a bunch of people.
-
But it was a compromise to try not to screw over a bunch of people.
That's EXACTLY what it was. The USBC would have banned the six balls, but they realized that if they did that on top of the Spectre being banned, they would financially cripple one of the two biggest suppliers in the industry (and a really good sponsor as well). They also knew that Storm guys would throw up a massive stink no matter what since people these days only believe what they want to believe. So, the USBC and Storm worked out a compromise together to try and minimize the impact of the announcement while simultaneously admitting the problem. The net result was a ton of confusion, but it was all done to try and help Storm, not hurt them.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that none of this would be happening if Storm didn't release illegal balls into the marketplace. That is Storm's fault, nobody else's. Everything else is just an offshoot of the massive problem they created.
-
Meanwhile no spoilers, but these balls are definitely in play on today's PBA show.
-
Wow, certainly can't tell who the Storm guys are by the comments. Once a ball is made, it has to stay legal. I've never seen a lab controlled alley that doesn't have humidity and temperature variables. Knowing the USBC, I doubt their testing lab does either. With one exception, I don't know anyone that throws anything 500 grit. That is a continuity thing, polishes and different grits have zero to do with hardness. Once a company develops a ball, they are supposed to test extensively. I've thrown test balls before, and it's not "Hey this is coming out in a month, try it out". It's try it for a month, here's a survey of what information we need along with dates, scores, locations, and when you're done we might need the ball back.
Does anyone remember Motiv's Jackel debacle? That one was approved and in stores and on tour. Throwbot doesn't use holes, and when they actually tested one with holes, the core was way out of spec. No one with Motiv had melt downs ( granted it was 1 ball), they dropped it and moved on. Now I believe they should let guys throw them until August when Storm has had a chance to roll replacements out and since people have already thrown them, and since they're still legal in most tournaments and leagues. But it was a compromise to try not to screw over a bunch of people.
Drilled balls can end up over the .060 diff limit, the Jackal issue was for the undrilled diff being over the limit.
The issue people are having right now is that this is for 7 balls. 6 of the 7 are still legal everywhere outside of USBC national events. USBC added the caveat that any league can choose to restrict use of these 6, which would take a 100% vote to implement during a season. However, when leagues startup again for the fall it'll only take a majority vote.
To get a replacement, Storm's deadline is June 1st but people could be affected after that deadline. I have no dog in the race not owning any of the 7 balls.
-
Wow, certainly can't tell who the Storm guys are by the comments. Once a ball is made, it has to stay legal. I've never seen a lab controlled alley that doesn't have humidity and temperature variables. Knowing the USBC, I doubt their testing lab does either. With one exception, I don't know anyone that throws anything 500 grit. That is a continuity thing, polishes and different grits have zero to do with hardness. Once a company develops a ball, they are supposed to test extensively. I've thrown test balls before, and it's not "Hey this is coming out in a month, try it out". It's try it for a month, here's a survey of what information we need along with dates, scores, locations, and when you're done we might need the ball back.
Does anyone remember Motiv's Jackel debacle? That one was approved and in stores and on tour. Throwbot doesn't use holes, and when they actually tested one with holes, the core was way out of spec. No one with Motiv had melt downs ( granted it was 1 ball), they dropped it and moved on. Now I believe they should let guys throw them until August when Storm has had a chance to roll replacements out and since people have already thrown them, and since they're still legal in most tournaments and leagues. But it was a compromise to try not to screw over a bunch of people.
About Motiv, it was two balls. It almost took them out financially. People were pissed.
https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622326199
-
But it was a compromise to try not to screw over a bunch of people.
That's EXACTLY what it was. The USBC would have banned the six balls, but they realized that if they did that on top of the Spectre being banned, they would financially cripple one of the two biggest suppliers in the industry (and a really good sponsor as well). They also knew that Storm guys would throw up a massive stink no matter what since people these days only believe what they want to believe. So, the USBC and Storm worked out a compromise together to try and minimize the impact of the announcement while simultaneously admitting the problem. The net result was a ton of confusion, but it was all done to try and help Storm, not hurt them.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that none of this would be happening if Storm didn't release illegal balls into the marketplace. That is Storm's fault, nobody else's. Everything else is just an offshoot of the massive problem they created.
Compromise? They did what they had to to make sure the company survived
The Spectre was full ban. If they full banned these 6 p,yes kept going? They could have put Storm out of business. Storm could fight it in the courts, but that can, and most probably would, take years.
Is it much of a compromise to accept a finding that lets you stay in business?
Yes, there are affected Storm balls in my household. Haven’t hidden that fact. Doesn’t actually change my opinion on the timing of the exclusion and transparency. Add my issue with consistency on the procedures for testing in regards to banning.
Both of those are on the USBC.
-
But it was a compromise to try not to screw over a bunch of people.
That's EXACTLY what it was. The USBC would have banned the six balls, but they realized that if they did that on top of the Spectre being banned, they would financially cripple one of the two biggest suppliers in the industry (and a really good sponsor as well). They also knew that Storm guys would throw up a massive stink no matter what since people these days only believe what they want to believe. So, the USBC and Storm worked out a compromise together to try and minimize the impact of the announcement while simultaneously admitting the problem. The net result was a ton of confusion, but it was all done to try and help Storm, not hurt them.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that none of this would be happening if Storm didn't release illegal balls into the marketplace. That is Storm's fault, nobody else's. Everything else is just an offshoot of the massive problem they created.
Compromise? They did what they had to to make sure the company survived
The Spectre was full ban. If they full banned these 6 p,yes kept going? They could have put Storm out of business. Storm could fight it in the courts, but that can, and most probably would, take years.
Is it much of a compromise to accept a finding that lets you stay in business?
Yes, there are affected Storm balls in my household. Haven’t hidden that fact. Doesn’t actually change my opinion on the timing of the exclusion and transparency. Add my issue with consistency on the procedures for testing in regards to banning.
Both of those are on the USBC.
As I've said before (and most folks here probably agree), the timing of the announcement was terrible. No question about that. I don't have a problem with the USBC spot-checking at OOB finish, as that's the condition most balls will be used at in competition. In a perfect world, balls would be tested at both OOB finish and 500 grit for accuracy and consistency.
None of this changes the fact that Storm did this to themselves. If the USBC didn't call them out on the problem, it would be negligence on the USBC's part. Also, I have one of the balls affected. It sucks, but I'm not blaming the USBC because in the long run they did the right thing. They did the right thing in the wrong way, especially as it pertains to the timing of the announcement, but they wouldn't have had to do it at all if Storm didn't make a massive mistake.
-
But it was a compromise to try not to screw over a bunch of people.
That's EXACTLY what it was. The USBC would have banned the six balls, but they realized that if they did that on top of the Spectre being banned, they would financially cripple one of the two biggest suppliers in the industry (and a really good sponsor as well). They also knew that Storm guys would throw up a massive stink no matter what since people these days only believe what they want to believe. So, the USBC and Storm worked out a compromise together to try and minimize the impact of the announcement while simultaneously admitting the problem. The net result was a ton of confusion, but it was all done to try and help Storm, not hurt them.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that none of this would be happening if Storm didn't release illegal balls into the marketplace. That is Storm's fault, nobody else's. Everything else is just an offshoot of the massive problem they created.
Compromise? They did what they had to to make sure the company survived
The Spectre was full ban. If they full banned these 6 p,yes kept going? They could have put Storm out of business. Storm could fight it in the courts, but that can, and most probably would, take years.
Is it much of a compromise to accept a finding that lets you stay in business?
Yes, there are affected Storm balls in my household. Haven’t hidden that fact. Doesn’t actually change my opinion on the timing of the exclusion and transparency. Add my issue with consistency on the procedures for testing in regards to banning.
Both of those are on the USBC.
As I've said before (and most folks here probably agree), the timing of the announcement was terrible. No question about that. I don't have a problem with the USBC spot-checking at OOB finish, as that's the condition most balls will be used at in competition. In a perfect world, balls would be tested at both OOB finish and 500 grit for accuracy and consistency.
None of this changes the fact that Storm did this to themselves. If the USBC didn't call them out on the problem, it would be negligence on the USBC's part. Also, I have one of the balls affected. It sucks, but I'm not blaming the USBC because in the long run they did the right thing. They did the right thing in the wrong way, especially as it pertains to the timing of the announcement, but they wouldn't have had to do it at all if Storm didn't make a massive mistake.
Spot check at OOB, fine. To determine if excluded/banned, testing should be performed identical to what was done to approve the ball in the first place.
What would be so horrible about doing a spot check. Finding that the balls are doing out soft at OOB.
THEN
Taking those same balls. Transport them to USBC testing lab. Contact Storm, make them aware of a possible issue, and have them come and view the testing to determine ban/exclusion.
Sand said balls to 500 as they are for initial approval.
Test balls. Record testing for all.
Make determination of pass/fail.
Do that and what least they can say: here is everything we did.
Out in the open.
The balls are approved without polish. I’m saying use the same procedure to determine pass/fail once in production as you did to approve in the first place.
-
But it was a compromise to try not to screw over a bunch of people.
That's EXACTLY what it was. The USBC would have banned the six balls, but they realized that if they did that on top of the Spectre being banned, they would financially cripple one of the two biggest suppliers in the industry (and a really good sponsor as well). They also knew that Storm guys would throw up a massive stink no matter what since people these days only believe what they want to believe. So, the USBC and Storm worked out a compromise together to try and minimize the impact of the announcement while simultaneously admitting the problem. The net result was a ton of confusion, but it was all done to try and help Storm, not hurt them.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that none of this would be happening if Storm didn't release illegal balls into the marketplace. That is Storm's fault, nobody else's. Everything else is just an offshoot of the massive problem they created.
Compromise? They did what they had to to make sure the company survived
The Spectre was full ban. If they full banned these 6 p,yes kept going? They could have put Storm out of business. Storm could fight it in the courts, but that can, and most probably would, take years.
Is it much of a compromise to accept a finding that lets you stay in business?
Yes, there are affected Storm balls in my household. Haven’t hidden that fact. Doesn’t actually change my opinion on the timing of the exclusion and transparency. Add my issue with consistency on the procedures for testing in regards to banning.
Both of those are on the USBC.
As I've said before (and most folks here probably agree), the timing of the announcement was terrible. No question about that. I don't have a problem with the USBC spot-checking at OOB finish, as that's the condition most balls will be used at in competition. In a perfect world, balls would be tested at both OOB finish and 500 grit for accuracy and consistency.
None of this changes the fact that Storm did this to themselves. If the USBC didn't call them out on the problem, it would be negligence on the USBC's part. Also, I have one of the balls affected. It sucks, but I'm not blaming the USBC because in the long run they did the right thing. They did the right thing in the wrong way, especially as it pertains to the timing of the announcement, but they wouldn't have had to do it at all if Storm didn't make a massive mistake.
Spot check at OOB, fine. To determine if excluded/banned, testing should be performed identical to what was done to approve the ball in the first place.
What would be so horrible about doing a spot check. Finding that the balls are doing out soft at OOB.
THEN
Taking those same balls. Transport them to USBC testing lab. Contact Storm, make them aware of a possible issue, and have them come and view the testing to determine ban/exclusion.
Sand said balls to 500 as they are for initial approval.
Test balls. Record testing for all.
Make determination of pass/fail.
Do that and what least they can say: here is everything we did.
Out in the open.
The balls are approved without polish. I’m saying use the same procedure to determine pass/fail once in production as you did to approve in the first place.
OK, say the USBC does all of what you're suggesting. What do you do if a company finds a way to make their OOB hardness readings way below legal due to their polishing process (maybe they use a specific chemical during polishing that causes it, for example)? Say at 500 grit their balls measure at about 74D, yet at OOB they're consistently 69D or so? If you only use the 500 grit measurement as the definitive one, then highly illegal balls will be used in competitive situations with no recourse. That's certainly not acceptable, yet what you're proposing doesn't account in any way for that possibility.
-
Also, who's to say that the USBC didn't contact Storm, make them aware that there was a potential issue, and let them view the testing as more balls were tested? I agree that would be good protocol, and that might be exactly what happened.
Your point about transparency is a good one, as it is always preferable to put consumers' minds at ease and develop trust. However, just because we all wish they were more transparent with us as consumers doesn't mean they weren't transparent with Storm as the testing was happening. I can't prove anything either way, but I have a hard time believing that the USBC didn't loop Storm in on the potential issue months ago.
-
Also, who's to say that the USBC didn't contact Storm, make them aware that there was a potential issue, and let them view the testing as more balls were tested? I agree that would be good protocol, and that might be exactly what happened.
Your point about transparency is a good one, as it is always preferable to put consumers' minds at ease and develop trust. However, just because we all wish they were more transparent with us as consumers doesn't mean they weren't transparent with Storm as the testing was happening. I can't prove anything either way, but I have a hard time believing that the USBC didn't loop Storm in on the potential issue months ago.
It’s simple. Storm would have said that they were made aware awhile ago. They would have said they saw the testing. You know damn well the USBC would have yelled to the moon if they had.
You really think if they’d had Storm there for the testing, they wouldn’t have given themselves that shelter of just saying, Storm viewed the testing we did?
-
Balls are sanded to 500 for the oil absorption test. Nowhere in the testing manual or the testing SOP’s does it say anything about sanding for hardness testing.
Storm accepted the results. That pretty much sums it up. USBC cut them a break by not making the balls nonconforming. Part of the fine for nonconforming balls is restitution to all consumers that purchased a nonconforming ball.
-
Meanwhile no spoilers, but these balls are definitely in play on today's PBA show.
Of course; because when you think about it, the PBA is actually using a LOWER STANDARD than the USBC. So thinking about it more, what does that say about the Professional Bowlers Association, in comparison to, say, the PWBA or Collegiates?
You would think they should be the higher standard, if not the peak, but if they are allowing these, let alone (from what I hear), allowing balls as low as 70D, what does that say about the PBA?
BL.
-
The horse has been dead for at least five pages...
-
The PBA is a business and Storm is heavily involved in that business.
-
The PBA is a business and Storm is heavily involved in that business.
Oh, I get that, and get that the PBA is a private organization.
I guess what I am saying is that if the PBA is using a lower standard than the USBC, it would be safe to question their status as the echelon and pinnacle of the sport of bowling, just based on their standards alone. If something like Collegiates and the PWBA are held to higher standards, can people still call the PBA the best? Until they get their standards in order regarding ball specifications, a black cloud will linger over the PBA's proverbial head, in fealty to a single ball company.
BL.
-
The PBA is a business and Storm is heavily involved in that business.
Oh, I get that, and get that the PBA is a private organization.
I guess what I am saying is that if the PBA is using a lower standard than the USBC, it would be safe to question their status as the echelon and pinnacle of the sport of bowling, just based on their standards alone. If something like Collegiates and the PWBA are held to higher standards, can people still call the PBA the best? Until they get their standards in order regarding ball specifications, a black cloud will linger over the PBA's proverbial head, in fealty to a single ball company.
BL.
This why I highly doubt you’ll see bowling in the Olympics. It’s a clown show.
-
Meanwhile no spoilers, but these balls are definitely in play on today's PBA show.
Of course; because when you think about it, the PBA is actually using a LOWER STANDARD than the USBC. So thinking about it more, what does that say about the Professional Bowlers Association, in comparison to, say, the PWBA or Collegiates?
You would think they should be the higher standard, if not the peak, but if they are allowing these, let alone (from what I hear), allowing balls as low as 70D, what does that say about the PBA?
BL.
What it says to me is the PBA understands what's important and what's not, better than the USBC does. And that doesn't just go for hardness specs.
This why I highly doubt you’ll see bowling in the Olympics. It’s a clown show.
While it's a joke that bowling isn't in the Olympics when other "sports" are, we've spent enough time and money on that futile pursuit as it is. I joined the USBC in 1990 and we were talking about it 32 years ago. It's not going to be a sport because (a) bowling probably doesn't have enough $$$ to wine and dine the IOC and (b) it's a sport likely to be dominated by Americans, and the IOC doesn't want to add anymore of those than is absolutely necessary. The excuse that bowling doesn't have "one governing body" has been addressed for years. As a USBC member I'm tired to seeing my sanctioning fees get spent on that pursuit.
-
Meanwhile no spoilers, but these balls are definitely in play on today's PBA show.
Of course; because when you think about it, the PBA is actually using a LOWER STANDARD than the USBC. So thinking about it more, what does that say about the Professional Bowlers Association, in comparison to, say, the PWBA or Collegiates?
You would think they should be the higher standard, if not the peak, but if they are allowing these, let alone (from what I hear), allowing balls as low as 70D, what does that say about the PBA?
BL.
What it says to me is the PBA understands what's important and what's not, better than the USBC does. And that doesn't just go for hardness specs.
So kowtowing to a company and having softer equipment out there for people to take advantage of and a 2-year rolling ban on urethane because a certain bowler can't handle it symbolizes the epitome of integrity. Got it. ::)
This why I highly doubt you’ll see bowling in the Olympics. It’s a clown show.
While it's a joke that bowling isn't in the Olympics when other "sports" are, we've spent enough time and money on that futile pursuit as it is. I joined the USBC in 1990 and we were talking about it 32 years ago. It's not going to be a sport because (a) bowling probably doesn't have enough $$$ to wine and dine the IOC and (b) it's a sport likely to be dominated by Americans, and the IOC doesn't want to add anymore of those than is absolutely necessary. The excuse that bowling doesn't have "one governing body" has been addressed for years. As a USBC member I'm tired to seeing my sanctioning fees get spent on that pursuit.
Spoken like someone who hasn't seen any bowling outside of the US, and I'm not just talking about bowlers you see on the PBA. If you'd seen the bowlers in the JPBA, KPBA, the WTBA (which is the world governing body, despite what people in the USA think), the European leagues, Singapore, and others, you'd see how competitive bowling is.
Do this: go romp through BowlTV's Youtube page for any of the QubicaAMF World Cup tournaments. You'll see how competitive it is, even to where some of those bowlers from the PBA don't win, despite thinking that the USA would simply "dominate" the sport.
BL.
-
No offense intended, but if I didn't have anything better to do than watch bowling on Youtube I would shoot my damn self.
But to each their own...
-
So kowtowing to a company and having softer equipment out there for people to take advantage of and a 2-year rolling ban on urethane because a certain bowler can't handle it symbolizes the epitome of integrity. Got it. ::)
Whose position do you want me to argue, exactly? The professional league's summation that 70 is just as fine as 72? I personally don't care if the standard is 40. Or 20. What I do care about here is that I trust the PBA far more than the USBC to determine what's an appropriate standard, what's fair, and how to adjudicate it.
Do I think Sean Rash has anything to do with this? Not something this big -- and if so, given its his company that is suffering the most, I reject any notion that the USBC is "kowtowing" to Rash or anybody else. If anything, it would suggest the USBC is kowtowing to someone from the B7 family out of revenge.
Yet, not even that makes sense. The Purple Hammer problem has been a known issue for awhile now. And yet, it affected just two production years. There is a shelf life of usability for all bowling balls, a fact that by itself makes it even more ridiculous for the USBC to piecemeal the Storm ban in this way. I'll give my solution at the end, but I want to address the other comment first:
Spoken like someone who hasn't seen any bowling outside of the US, and I'm not just talking about bowlers you see on the PBA. If you'd seen the bowlers in the JPBA, KPBA, the WTBA (which is the world governing body, despite what people in the USA think), the European leagues, Singapore, and others, you'd see how competitive bowling is.
I know it's competitive outside the US but I also know the PBA is still the gold standard for competitiveness and prestige across the sport. It's the sport equivalent of "going to Nashville" for a country music singer. We can argue about whether economics or the lack of desire to be away from one's family for four months keeps more foreign bowlers off the PBA tour, or maybe it's the depth of the field, I don't know. The two best bowlers at the moment are international guys -- Belmonte and Barrett -- so it's not like there's some magical prohibition against international talent in the PBA.
But that's not the only thing the IOC is looking at. Take a look at baseball, a sport played worldwide, and very well in numerous countries, especially those in Latin America. It was first added in 1992 and then eliminated from the Olympics in 2005 before returning in 2020. The IOC said it was because the best players weren't playing, which was not entirely true. MLB players didn't play during that period, but minor leaguers did, and the prohibition of MLB players from playing affected all countries. I had a friend on the first team, a guy who still holds the strikeout record for Olympic baseball (B.J. Wallace) and if anyone doesn't remember the IOC politics and "concerns" about USA having an inherent edge in the sport, I'll be happy to remind you. Despite not having "access to the best talent," 16 of the 20 U.S. players in '92 made the bigs including Jason Varitek, Nomar Garciaparra and Jason Giambi. Anyone who has been around bowling can tell you that getting it through the IOC has been like pushing a rope. And that's even with the ABC/WIBC/YABA merger to USBC basically calling the IOC's bluff about a single governing agency. The WTBA thing is non sequitur; again, baseball has the MLB in America and the NPB in Japan, etc.
Now, briefly back to the balls:
The *right* way to have fixed the Jackal issue for Motiv, the Purple Hammer issue for B7 and the seven Storm balls would have been for the USBC to notify the companies quietly, audit their current production, make the changes to all future balls and move on. We simply are not a big enough sport to justify endangering the livelihood of companies (especially Motiv) with multi-million-dollar "fixes" unless the companies were found to have purposefully deceived the USBC. Given that ball performance degrades relatively quickly, within a year or two anything you'd be able to buy off the shelf would have outperformed any of these pieces. As for Nationals, the USBC's decision was especially egregious and should have gone into effect only at the conclusion of the tournament. It wouldn't have been a perfect solution, but it would at least have not come across as the USBC trying to swing its (stick) around just because it could.
If Sean Rash was able to set all of this into motion with one comment, I feel sorry for the state of our sport and its leaders.
-
Great observations Jess. A lot of this started with the purple hammer. It is now becoming obvious that the purple hammer is still out performing the other urethane equipment regardless of hardness. As for the resin balls being banned it clearly should have been a case of "no harm no foul".
-
I am curious if Sean Rash complaining on the PBA is what started the PBA checking equipment more, especially urethane and eventually resin to find what was going on.
It would seem the PBA is the only one that was checking the equipment and someone with that information about the softness of Storm equipment not meeting USBC spec then notified USBC. Just my guess on the situation. Especially since USBC isn't out looking for this stuff unless someone brings it to them and drops it on their lap.
If in the end a lot of this was started because of Rash and it ends up affecting his company the most that is a hard pill to swallow.
-
Interesting thoughts psy....
Here is another. If the PBA was doing hardness checks on everything....wouldn't they have known these balls were soft (meaning the 6 new ones and the Spectre)? If so, I wonder why the PBA never said anything previously.....
My assumption about the entire scenario is someone from a rival company (theres only a few) got a burr in their saddle about the Purples being banned and urethanes older than 2 years old being banned, so they started going over everything and here we are.
-
Interesting thoughts psy....
Here is another. If the PBA was doing hardness checks on everything....wouldn't they have known these balls were soft (meaning the 6 new ones and the Spectre)? If so, I wonder why the PBA never said anything previously.....
My assumption about the entire scenario is someone from a rival company (theres only a few) got a burr in their saddle about the Purples being banned and urethanes older than 2 years old being banned, so they started going over everything and here we are.
The urethane two year ban item, that only affects the PBA and it’s tournaments correct?
Not sure why that would matter to much to the companies. The balls as a line aren’t banned, just the serial numbers that relate to balls being two years old correct?
I mean, Brunswick can keep producing Purple Hammers for as long as they want, they just can’t be from production ages older than two years to be used in the PBA?
I can see where the complete ban on 16 & 17 Purples might upset Brunswick. They are the ones who have to cover the replacement costs. But they knew about that issue when they bought Ebonite. Maybe they presumed the issue was completely resolved and are pissed it was brought back up?
-
Who knows psy...
All I know is I remember back to the Jackal situation. If I recall correctly, a case of Jackal's showed up at the USBC doorstep with a note that said "spin me". That led to the Jackals being found with a diff out of spec for exceeding .060.
I don't think a regular joe/pro shop would have done that. Probably not a PBA bowler either.
-
The urethane two year ban item, that only affects the PBA and it’s tournaments correct?
That's correct, yes.
Not sure why that would matter to much to the companies. The balls as a line aren’t banned, just the serial numbers that relate to balls being two years old correct?
I mean, Brunswick can keep producing Purple Hammers for as long as they want, they just can’t be from production ages older than two years to be used in the PBA?
To a degree. Since it is a rolling two years, then in 2023, the 20 and 21 serial number ages can't be used. Wash/rinse/repeat each year that goes by. But, yes, Brunswick can keep producing Purple Hammers as long as they want.
I can see where the complete ban on 16 & 17 Purples might upset Brunswick. They are the ones who have to cover the replacement costs. But they knew about that issue when they bought Ebonite. Maybe they presumed the issue was completely resolved and are pissed it was brought back up?
I can see them being upset it was brought back up, as they thought it was resolved as well, with the Jakob Buttruff situation 3 years before they bought EBI.
BL.
-
The other issue with the 16-17 Hammers is that one of the rumors that continues to float out there is that someone at the plant at the time knew they were bad and shipped them anyway. If so, it probably wasn't about trying to sneak great performance into the hands of bowlers, but something far more mundane like trying to control inventory waste on a balance sheet. Regardless, **IF TRUE** -- big caveat there -- then that is a case of deception, which fits neither the Motiv nor (at this point, as far as we know) the Storm scenarios and thus would justify a more retributive punishment.
-
The other issue with the 16-17 Hammers is that one of the rumors that continues to float out there is that someone at the plant at the time knew they were bad and shipped them anyway. If so, it probably wasn't about trying to sneak great performance into the hands of bowlers, but something far more mundane like trying to control inventory waste on a balance sheet. Regardless, **IF TRUE** -- big caveat there -- then that is a case of deception, which fits neither the Motiv nor (at this point, as far as we know) the Storm scenarios and thus would justify a more retributive punishment.
That rumor tends to keep going around, but seeing that Ron Hickland himself was interviewed by the USBC for reasons of him working at EBI (but not at the time those were made) he would have more insight into what was known when those were made and what didn't happen. The USBC even put out themselves that no-one intentionally made these under spec and sent them out anyway. At that point with the USBC themselves debunking that rumor, you have to question the people spreading that rumor, let alone the source of that rumor, because this sounds like a simple case of one camp versus another camp because one may or may not like the other.
Ron's video:
This was already talked about and debunked in the Purple Hammer thread in this forum as well.
BL.
-
brad you are basing your comments on the March 7 2022 ruling.
However, the updated March 21 2022 ruling does specifically state that 4 additional interviews were done by the USBC and in those interviews "former Ebonite employees, including ones with first hand knowledge, provided detailed statements to USBC outlining how processes in 2016 and 2017 led to some Purple Hammers being produced and sent to the field below 72D. Multiple former Ebonite employees confirm that a production change took place in 2017 to raise the hardness of Purple Hammers produced in 2018 and 2019."
If that isn't the USBC saying yes, Ebonite knew they were bad and shipped them anyway, I don't know what is.
Here is the link to the article:
https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337464
-
It reads as they’re splitting the difference on it. They weren’t produced intentionally to be soft. But it appears that it was known when they were produced, they came out soft. Shipped them anyways. A very fine distinction.
The issue causing the softness was corrected in subsequent production runs.
Now, had the issue about the Purples from back then not been brought back to the forefront, would the USBC just have let Storm correct the issue going forward like the purples (they weren’t permanent-banned until now)? Who knows, but you need to really wonder about it.
-
Keep feeding the beast on the newest notification for distributors to stop selling the 6 going forward or they will be upgraded to banned as well.
Do bowlers now hoard whats in shops or available online before they are gone?
-
Saw this update.
Makes zero sense. Storm is not selling them. They were already present in the distribution chain. Their “agreement†allows for them to be sold.
What’s the line?
I’m altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.
-
Keep feeding the beast on the newest notification for distributors to stop selling the 6 going forward or they will be upgraded to banned as well.
Do bowlers now hoard whats in shops or available online before they are gone?
Saw this update.
Makes zero sense. Storm is not selling them. They were already present in the distribution chain. Their “agreement†allows for them to be sold.
What’s the line?
I’m altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.
Disclaimer: I have not read this update nor seen it; I am not a distributor or PSO of any kind, so I am only going off of the above quoted posts.
What this tells me that may happen is that the balls are going to be banned. Here is why. If the distributors can't sell the balls to the PSOs, then the Pros will be able to buy them, either from the last stock that Storm directly has, or from those distributors, because the PBA is effectively the only place they can use them now.
In short, those balls already out in the field can not be replaced by any of those same balls, as if so, the USBC will move to outright ban them. So that leaves the only place for them to be sold and used is the PBA. However, if the distributor sells them to Pros in the PBA, then they will also risk having those balls be outright banned, because they technically are still selling the ball.
So what does that leave the distributor to do? The PSO is getting them back to the distributor, so their hands are washed clean, but the distributor is stuck on what to do.
Again, just my thoughts from the outside looking in, without knowing a single thing of what is contained in the update that went to the distributors.
BL.
-
After reading the release, my point of view is this. USBC threw Storm a bone and said we will let you keep the balls already in circulation approved other than the USBC tourneys etc. However, USBC didn't want any more balls sold.
Here is where it gets murky. I was told by my distributor it was okay to order what they had in stock. So I guess this is a matter of semantics. USBC said no more sales. Storm took that as no more sales to distributors....or wanted to take it that way. However, USBC obviously meant no more sales from distributors to pro shops.
So now Storm is going to have to eat a heck of a lot of balls from distributors too.
-
After reading the release, my point of view is this. USBC threw Storm a bone and said we will let you keep the balls already in circulation approved other than the USBC tourneys etc. However, USBC didn't want any more balls sold.
Here is where it gets murky. I was told by my distributor it was okay to order what they had in stock. So I guess this is a matter of semantics. USBC said no more sales. Storm took that as no more sales to distributors....or wanted to take it that way. However, USBC obviously meant no more sales from distributors to pro shops.
So now Storm is going to have to eat a heck of a lot of balls from distributors too.
I agree. And that’s going to be a LOT of product.
-
After reading the release, my point of view is this. USBC threw Storm a bone and said we will let you keep the balls already in circulation approved other than the USBC tourneys etc. However, USBC didn't want any more balls sold.
Here is where it gets murky. I was told by my distributor it was okay to order what they had in stock. So I guess this is a matter of semantics. USBC said no more sales. Storm took that as no more sales to distributors....or wanted to take it that way. However, USBC obviously meant no more sales from distributors to pro shops.
So now Storm is going to have to eat a heck of a lot of balls from distributors too.
Oh, this definitely will come down to semantics, and a bit of legalese as well. Case in point: would the PBA be considered a "distributor"? If so, could the sales from the PBA to its members be considered a "sale", according to the USBC? If not, then the PBA is the only place they can be sold, which goes back to my previous post.
If the PBA is considered a distributor by the USBC, then Storm is in trouble and has to eat all of that product; If it is not considered a distributor, then Storm has an out.
BL.
-
After reading the release, my point of view is this. USBC threw Storm a bone and said we will let you keep the balls already in circulation approved other than the USBC tourneys etc. However, USBC didn't want any more balls sold.
Here is where it gets murky. I was told by my distributor it was okay to order what they had in stock. So I guess this is a matter of semantics. USBC said no more sales. Storm took that as no more sales to distributors....or wanted to take it that way. However, USBC obviously meant no more sales from distributors to pro shops.
So now Storm is going to have to eat a heck of a lot of balls from distributors too.
Oh, this definitely will come down to semantics, and a bit of legalese as well. Case in point: would the PBA be considered a "distributor"? If so, could the sales from the PBA to its members be considered a "sale", according to the USBC? If not, then the PBA is the only place they can be sold, which goes back to my previous post.
If the PBA is considered a distributor by the USBC, then Storm is in trouble and has to eat all of that product; If it is not considered a distributor, then Storm has an out.
BL.
Not sure if the PBA is a big enough avenue to help Storm.
It’s all the product that had been purchased and delivered to the bowling distributors in the USA that’s the issue. Sitting in their warehouses and not Storms.
The letter of the “agreementâ€. Says it’s fine to sell. Storm is not selling anything.
Add in, what about the mega online dealers? Are they allowed to sell? Bowlersmart, Bowlingball.com, Buddies to name a few.
If the USBC gets upset and perma-bans it all, then Storm has big issues.
Bad enough to have to eat all that sitting stock (if forced to accept returns from those distributors at this point.
Perms-ban means they have to swap everything for everyone, just like the a Spectre. They aren’t going to want to pay for shipping all that stuff back to them either…
Looking at anther total mess yet again.
-
Yep total mess. There has to be thousands sitting in various distributor warehouses currently. Thousands of each ball. I know Ace Mitchell had over 700 Phaze 4s alone a week or 2 ago. How about Classic? Grand Prix? DiLaura? Island? The list goes on and on.
As for the PBA….they may take a few but definitely not enough to dent the thousands Storm will have to eat from distributors.
-
Yep total mess. There has to be thousands sitting in various distributor warehouses currently. Thousands of each ball. I know Ace Mitchell had over 700 Phaze 4s alone a week or 2 ago. How about Classic? Grand Prix? DiLaura? Island? The list goes on and on.
I know Steve Cook has a lot of these sitting in his warehouse, as he's the only distributor for Norcal/Northern Nevada, and quite possibly the PNW. I can't remember if it is Classic or Grand Prix that supplies Bowlersmart (it may be another; I saw the map of distributors once), but I know for sure Cook has a lot sitting in his warehouse.
As for the PBA….they may take a few but definitely not enough to dent the thousands Storm will have to eat from distributors.
I see. So the PBA is also effectively throwing Storm a bone to help buffer the cost they'll be eating, but not enough. It's going to be interesting this coming fall season, especially after July or whenever the Spectre trade-in window closes.
BL.
-
Bradl...
The part about the PBA....there are only so many PBA Storm guys....or guys who are not on anyones staff that can throw Storm....so there is a very limited number of balls that can be sold/distributed there. Have you ever been on the PBA truck or seen inside the PBA truck...the shelf space is limited and there is shelf space for every company that paid the fee to be eligible to be used on the PBA....so you have space for Lord Field (Swag), Big Bowling, Motiv, Brunswick's 7 brands and Storm's 3 brands....plus accessories etc.. How and where would Storm send a sufficient amount of product to the truck? They still have to have room for the other product that didn't get banned too....
Because the USBC has a direct hand in the PWBA, that is out. So distribution opportunities for the banned balls is very limited for Storm if distributors can't sell to pro shops.
-
The PBA truck doesn't work that way. Any member can't just walk in and buy a ball off the shelf. I've seen low level staff guys get told no they can't drill a ball when there was only a couple of balls of a specific model because one of the poster boys may make the show and want to drill one.
PBA members get offers to buy balls directly from the manufacturers at discount rates when the balls are released, usually for a limited time. The few balls Storm would sell to PBA members isn't worth rocking the boat even more.
-
Oh I know how the truck works. Unfortunately :o
-
At the end of the day it is going to be USBC that comes out the worst in all this. How do they think league bowlers headed to nationals are going to feel knowing that they can't use what the pros use every week on TV.
I an a 29 year participant in the national tournament. I will be going thru Vegas in a couple of weeks and not even interested on getting my 30th in. When I think what nationals has become compared to 20 years ago it makes me sad.
-
I think Bill Chrisman will have a little different feeling about that.
-
Avabob posts: “At the end of the day it is going to be USBC that comes out the worst in all this. How do they think league bowlers headed to nationals are going to feel knowing that they can't use what the pros use every week on TV.
I an a 29 year participant in the national tournament. I will be going thru Vegas in a couple of weeks and not even interested on getting my 30th in. When I think what nationals has become compared to 20 years ago it makes me sad.â€
I Agree 100% with Ava Bob. USBC seems to be playing games here going back a long ways to overlooking too soft purple hammers in 2018 2019 and Jacob Butturf purple hammer from 2020. Storm ruling is too bizarre to be anything but Obfuscation by the USBC.
Also, there appears to be no real way for me as a lower avg bowler to improve since the USBC hides everything from nationals. No live on BowlTV. I paid to film our team but I can’t get it until the end of July when the tournament is over. And, I am a Classified bowler. Don’t try to help the classified learn when it comes to nationals. I think it’s very very sad.
-
Just a note about purple hammers. The new harder ones are still making all the other urethane look bad. Tommy Jones thrashed Kyle Sherman last night. Kyle never even tried a pitch black because he probably knew it wouldn't hit compared the purple. I understand rules are rules but the hardness rule today is not having any impact on ball performance. The new purples ate hitting just as good as the banned ones . likewise the banned Storm balls aren't any better for being a couple of points too soft.
-
https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo
Watch and learn.
-
https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo
Watch and learn.
The problem with this is that it is posted by one side in the fight with this, so it can’t be seen or proven with any level of impartiality. Another unbiased 3rd party (in particular, a governing body) needs to perform this test and show their results. Someone like, oh, I dunno… the WTBA?
BL.
-
I was just trying to educate Bowlers. But it is unfortunate that so many people are close minded. Not you, mind you. You were totally open minded about the issue and I’m sure you have as I have, I contacted USB-C to see all the Rod data results as well as view the conditions of testing. They refuse. It doesn’t matter whether I’m a member of the USB-C or have been a member for 50 years. Secrecy is the best
-
I was just trying to educate Bowlers. But it is unfortunate that so many people are close minded. Not you, mind you. You were totally open minded about the issue and I’m sure you have as I have, I contacted USB-C to see all the Rod data results as well as view the conditions of testing. They refuse. It doesn’t matter whether I’m a member of the USB-C or have been a member for 50 years. Secrecy is the best
One thing that people don’t tend to also realize is that the USBC and PBA are not the be all/end all of Bowling. We know that other countries have their own governing bodies, and their rules hold sway. We know Canada is following the USBC’s path, but there is still Japan, Korea, Singapore, China, etc. on top of that there is also the JPBA and KPBA tours, so Storm still has plenty of ways to sell these balls overseas, since they haven’t been banned there. The only problem they’d have is if a bowler from there came to bowl the Masters or got an invite to the US Open, then they’d be stuck.
BL.