In light of the recent topics, I have decided to provide a clean slate for a new discussion. The pointless jabbing and having my name called out was expected, and more often than not, comical.
First and foremost, the testing that Paul at USBC has performed is a great step in the right direction. He is a brilliant person to talk with, and an all around good guy. His information is without alterior motivation, never deviating from delivering pure and raw data to the general public. With that being said, the reason Paul, Brunswick, Lane #1 and myself used test balls with a radical variance in CG placement is to show the absolute maximum amount of difference in reaction.
Onward.
With the USBC test, two balls were used with over 2 1/2oz difference in sideweight, thrown by Harry, the robotic wonder. (thrown on a 53' flat pattern 17mph with 375RPMS) This would be considered a "Rev-Dominant" player. Now in this controlled experiment, Harry was able to find about a foot difference in actual breakpoint, with 4 feet of difference between the skid/roll phase. Along with that data, 2 boards of backend hook was found.
So what does this mean to me?
1. Roll does not equal hook.
A ball transitioning from skid to roll does not mean the ball is starting its hook phase. Chitown, you have outlandishly called me out in your thread (now deleted for whatever reason) without regard for the countless times in the past you have messaged me looking for information, layout help, etc. You have absolutely no merit, no first-hand knowledge and only know what you are spoon fed. You were quick to point out how 4 feet was such a gigantic and huge finding, yet, you don't quite understand what you're saying.
2. Two boards is not as much as it sounds over the course of 60 feet.
If you're using Harry set to 17mph/375rpm, who always repeats shots perfectly, using two rough bowling balls with over 2 1/2oz difference in side weight, 53' pattern in a controlled environment test and you only see 2 boards of difference, then how do you apply that to the human game with USBC specification? You can't, you can only theorize. I can give my own opinion on the results of another test, this time using more plausible CG placements in the current game. (i.e. - CG in palm vs CG "kicked" to give 3/4oz pos) USBC will post more findings, taking this into account.
3. Core orientation is not affected.
Notice the post-drilling numbers of the two balls. (nobody has yet to mention this) Not much of any measurable difference even with the radical swing in layouts. Maybe there would be absolutely zero difference if the two fingerholes were drilled to equal depth, but once again, I am just theorizing.
To sum it up, does the CG matter?
Mathematically? Yes, Paul's data shows that.
Realistically? Not by any human. One would be better suited applying this overanalytical attitude to the mechanics and execution in their bowling game. CGNOMADDAH is a
theory, and apparently, is one that makes sense to quite a few people. My CGNOMADDAH video has sparked the curiousity of our governing body, and that by itself is exciting! This will not be the end of CG testing, as confirmed by the USBC. I also intend to make an additional video on the subject, with different variables in place. Basically, the best anyone can do is make a decision based on their first hand experiences, and the information presented to them.
Thanks for reading.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07http://www.BrunsNick.comhttp://www.AskTheBowler.comhttp://www.BigBapparel.comFriends don't let friends drink the Kool-Aid!Edited on 8/2/2007 2:37 AM
