Post by: BrunsNick on August 01, 2007, 06:33:05 PM
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 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.AskTheBowler.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Friends don't let friends drink the Kool-Aid!
Edited on 8/2/2007 2:37 AM
Post by: vilecanards on August 02, 2007, 02:57:26 AM
--------------------
r.k.wolfe
Post by: Dan Belcher on August 02, 2007, 07:42:13 AM
RRay, stop being overly defensive and look carefully at what he just said again: CG DOES matter technically... but not that much. When within legal limits, CG isn't going to make but maybe a one board difference in overall hook and maybe a few inches earlier or later roll and hook. To a human bowler who doesn't throw perfectly repeated shots every time, this is a miniscule difference. You're going to make a bigger change in ball reaction by hitting the same ball with some 1500 instead of 2000 abralon. So, in essence, CG just doesn't really matter that much in the real world.
Post by: azguy on August 02, 2007, 07:48:21 AM
Math is a funny thing, one can take math and show just what they want to , given the right starting point. As far as a human being able to make the same exact movement/shot, no we can't. As far as anything being proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, IMO, it has not...however, this is what they make Fords, Chevys, etc...etc.
If one person feels it makes a difference to them, then it does, If one person feels it doesn't matter to them, then it doesn't. What works for one will not for another, always. Take the Presidential elections, one will say he/she has the best plan for something and if that voter feels it will help them, then the other candidate are all wrong.
IMO, if you feel the CG matters, then it does for you and you should drill your stuff accordingly, If you feel it has no bearing on your balls, then forget it and drill it the way you feel helps you the best.
To make it simple, that's also why there are more than one company that makes balls, it matters to some where it doesn't to others. No one will ever agree on this, so I say do what you feel helps you the best and don't give a hoot what someone else thinks on the matter.
As for me, it matters, so I use the CG placement, do I push my feelings onto someone else ? No ! Last time I went bowling I didn't see anyone from either side throwing the ball for me so I'll use what I feel works for me and allow the next guy to use what works for him.
BTW, I own ( or my wife does) a GMC, Plymouth, Dodge and a Mercedes. I'll never own a Ford, but, as with the CG thing, that's MY OPINION and not trying to push my opinion on others.
'nuff said.
--------------------
az guy aka: R & L Bowlers Pro
rlbowlerspro@cox.net
www.rlbowlerspro.com
Post by: Powermachine- on August 02, 2007, 08:24:13 AM
--------------------
yes i sandbag im left handed.
Typical house bowler
Post by: freak761 on August 02, 2007, 08:32:26 AM
Post by: chitown on August 02, 2007, 09:16:02 AM
quote:
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
Nick, I was not OUTLANDISHLY calling you out! Well those were not my intentions. I was calling you and others out from the CG DON'T MATTER group to see what your take was on the USBC findings. I was not trying to bash you guys by any means. I had a wink with a smile on the end of my post.
I brought up the 4ft because it does show that the CG did in fact influence the balls reaction. 4ft is a big difference in showing that. Now does that mean the the CG has a huge influence on the balls OVERALL reaction? No! The pin placement is the major factor when it comes to layouts. Layouts in general don't come close to how the coverstock effects ball reaction.
I deleted my post because it was getting off of the topic I posted. I wanted to read your guys (cg don't matter group) view on the USBC findings and how it may or may not have changed your views. I probably could have worded my post differently to not come across so harsh. I didn't think you or anyone else would have taken it that way. Sorry if I came across harsh.
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!
Post by: chitown on August 02, 2007, 09:19:48 AM
quote:
I have stayed out of this for my own reasons, but, reading all I could from both "sides", this is my opinion.
Math is a funny thing, one can take math and show just what they want to , given the right starting point. As far as a human being able to make the same exact movement/shot, no we can't. As far as anything being proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, IMO, it has not...however, this is what they make Fords, Chevys, etc...etc.
If one person feels it makes a difference to them, then it does, If one person feels it doesn't matter to them, then it doesn't. What works for one will not for another, always. Take the Presidential elections, one will say he/she has the best plan for something and if that voter feels it will help them, then the other candidate are all wrong.
IMO, if you feel the CG matters, then it does for you and you should drill your stuff accordingly, If you feel it has no bearing on your balls, then forget it and drill it the way you feel helps you the best.
To make it simple, that's also why there are more than one company that makes balls, it matters to some where it doesn't to others. No one will ever agree on this, so I say do what you feel helps you the best and don't give a hoot what someone else thinks on the matter.
As for me, it matters, so I use the CG placement, do I push my feelings onto someone else ? No ! Last time I went bowling I didn't see anyone from either side throwing the ball for me so I'll use what I feel works for me and allow the next guy to use what works for him.
BTW, I own ( or my wife does) a GMC, Plymouth, Dodge and a Mercedes. I'll never own a Ford, but, as with the CG thing, that's MY OPINION and not trying to push my opinion on others.
'nuff said.
--------------------
az guy aka: R & L Bowlers Pro
rlbowlerspro@cox.net
www.rlbowlerspro.com
Well said Roger!
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!
Post by: storm making it rain on August 02, 2007, 09:23:49 AM
Post by: Eddie M on August 02, 2007, 09:26:02 AM
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
--------------------
Visionary Test Staff 07-08
Post by: KDawg77 on August 02, 2007, 09:41:33 AM
It's time for something decent and military: some precision drilling.
--------------------
Texas is neither southern nor western. Texas is Texas - Senator William Blakley
http://www.myspace.com/lefthandedhammerpride
http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=418&ms=2006&s=2006-2007
Post by: Fluff E Bunnie on August 02, 2007, 09:45:47 AM
CGMADDAHSONLYFORROBOTS.
Post by: on August 02, 2007, 09:51:49 AM
quote:
I would make light of the situation or make a bad joke just to make a few people laugh and the rest roll their eyes as per usual, but I barely made it out of the kiddie table alive.
CGMADDAHSONLYFORROBOTS.
_____________________________________________________________
By the way, Fluff, sorry you got grouped together with me yesterday. I guess our "moronic" posts fell upon sensitive ears. People really need to laugh once in awhile...
But, I would like the above-mentioned T-shirt, should you decide to make them...
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Post by: KDawg77 on August 02, 2007, 09:55:12 AM
quote:quote:
In reading the opening post of this thread, I couldn't help but to be reminded of a quote from someone else who went to great lengths to talk their way out of a losing argument....
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
Maybe Bubba should have told everyone to f-off and continuously cite executive privilege, like the Bush Administration, to get out of having to admit to getting a bj in the oval office, which is oh such a dastardly crime, lol.
Neither comment was germane and one was not factual. Sad.
--------------------
Texas is neither southern nor western. Texas is Texas - Senator William Blakley
http://www.myspace.com/lefthandedhammerpride
http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=418&ms=2006&s=2006-2007
Post by: Fluff E Bunnie on August 02, 2007, 09:59:25 AM
quote:
But, I would like the above-mentioned T-shirt, should you decide to make them...
Hehe, nah that would be a blatant rip-off and I would feel dirty... Half of the joke of the shirt was that it would such a stupid shirt to make. Have an insanely long word on the front etc. No one got the joke. Standard.
For the record, I don't have a side in the debate between the CGicans and the NOMADDAHcrats. I like watching all the test results and seeing everyone insult each other.
Post by: BAPSBill on August 02, 2007, 10:00:32 AM
Not trying to start anything, just asking a question?
Bill
Post by: justdale on August 02, 2007, 10:07:47 AM
BrunsNick, you go right on with your theories and I will be more than happy to listen.
For the rest of some of these people on here, well lets say I don't read alot of your stuff
Post by: KDawg77 on August 02, 2007, 10:09:28 AM
I was going to say "it's not germane or even Tito." I wonder who might have gotten that?
--------------------
Texas is neither southern nor western. Texas is Texas - Senator William Blakley
http://www.myspace.com/lefthandedhammerpride
http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=418&ms=2006&s=2006-2007
Post by: Dan Belcher on August 02, 2007, 10:10:17 AM
quote:
RRay, that's funny.
I was going to say "it's not germane or even Tito." I wonder who might have gotten that?
Brilliant.
Post by: on August 02, 2007, 10:16:28 AM
I was going to say "it's not germane or even Tito." I wonder who might have gotten that?
Quote:
Brilliant.
__________________________________________________________________________
Yes, brilliant! And let's all be greatful that it wasn't HE who had the wardrobe malfunction.
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Post by: justdale on August 02, 2007, 10:21:19 AM
Post by: BrunsNick on August 02, 2007, 10:53:04 AM
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.AskTheBowler.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Friends don't let friends drink the Kool-Aid!
Post by: Tateman on August 02, 2007, 11:03:26 AM
If adjusting the cg gives me even a .000000001% chance better ball reaction, hitting power, etc then I shall take everything I can get
It has been interesting seeing both sides of the arguments, along with the videos
--------------------
Member of F.O.S.
Current Lineup in the Lane#1 6 ball bag:
Black Cherry Bomb, Super Carbide Bomb, Solid Uranium, Crystal Diamond, and Brunswick Raging Inferno
Which will be the next?....
Post by: BOWL119 on August 02, 2007, 11:09:11 AM
Nick, sorry all your posts seem to come down to stupid bickering. Personally I look forward to all your posts. Though I may not agree with them, you explain yourself very well so as to enlighten people who do not understand. There have been things that I thought I knew about, then you would post and I would understand that I was worng in my way of thinking.
THANK YOU NICK...
--------------------
T.J.
BOWLING IS FUN NO MATTER WHAT YOU SCORE. BUT A 300 IS ALWAYS NICE.
Awesome Revs(2), Finish, Fury, Mammoth
GOOD LUCK AND GOOD BOWLING!!!
Support the Military they are the reason we have freedom...
Post by: chitown on August 02, 2007, 11:09:53 AM
quote:
Why a 53' foot pattern? Most of us only bowl on THS patterns that I seriously doubt go that far down the lane. Would a shorter pattern show the same results?
Not trying to start anything, just asking a question?
Bill
I would think the results would be magnified. Maybe i'm wrong but that does seem likely.
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!
Post by: chitown on August 02, 2007, 11:22:08 AM
quote:
I wish I could roll the ball accurately and consistently enough for it to make a difference to me. I love these forums but so often they spin out of control! I am a hotrodder and you wouldn't believe the way threads get off topic in that forum!
I absolutely love Brunsnick's site and find it funny and informative. I have tried different ball manufacturers' equipment but always come back to Big B. That sure doesn't mean that I don't admire and respect the way other guys can throw Storm, Hammer, etc. I don't see many Lane #1 balls in my leagues here in Metro Detroit so I can't judge them. What is this fued between Big B and Lane #1 all about anyway?
Big B used to make the Lane #1 balls. When Brunswick moved their ball making plant to Mexico, Lane #1 went elswhere to get their bowling balls made.
Brunswicks move to Mexico ticked off a lot of bowlers.
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!
Post by: on August 02, 2007, 11:36:42 AM
Quote
c'mon notclay, we know you wanted to see Justin Timberlake's malfunction
_________________________________________________________________________
"I don't think so, Tim." (Al Boreland)
Hey, now that you're a staffer (again) for Columbia, let's experiment on each ball as it arrives... You're kind of like a robot, Mr. Bionic Back!
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Post by: trash heap on August 02, 2007, 12:11:19 PM
Would it be different results if the oil was at 45, 40, or 35 feet?
What if the bowler was not rev dominant?
Just seems like there are so many variables.
Post by: JessN16 on August 02, 2007, 12:16:10 PM
quote:quote:
Why a 53' foot pattern? Most of us only bowl on THS patterns that I seriously doubt go that far down the lane. Would a shorter pattern show the same results?
Not trying to start anything, just asking a question?
Bill
I would think the results would be magnified. Maybe i'm wrong but that does seem likely.
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!
chitown,
I think you've got the right answer. If the robot is being used to eliminate variables from shot to shot, then the inverse should also be true -- inconsistent deliveries will magnify differences between the shots. We know this is true by watching a spray-baller try to hit the same mark over and over with the same ball; delivery breakdowns cause a variety of inaccuracies down lane.
If that's true, there should be more variance, not less, when this is applied to a human standard.
Regardless of whether that's true or not, the people seeking to minimize the robot's results are taking the wrong tact. No human can mimic the robot, and that doesn't just apply to the CG/NOCG argument. But we're already careful not to take that argument to extremes, because to do so would be to invalidate a whole list of ball-drilling techniques on the premise that humans can't throw it well enough to get consistent results.
I've been mostly quiet on this issue, too, because I just want the facts so I know what to do in the future. I don't have emotional or fiduciary ties to the argument. At this point, it's pretty clear to me that CG matters and I'll take that into account accordingly in the future.
Jess
Post by: justdale on August 02, 2007, 12:17:47 PM
I'm OK with throwing my stuff anyway you want, I just don't want you to throw my stuff, you create roll from the ball that no right hander shoud be able to do.
I'll throw mine and you throw yours and let the chips land where they must
Post by: on August 02, 2007, 12:25:50 PM
quote:
notclay, as Rick says "Hump"
I'm OK with throwing my stuff anyway you want, I just don't want you to throw my stuff, you create roll from the ball that no right hander shoud be able to do.
I'll throw mine and you throw yours and let the chips land where they must
_________________________________________________________________________
I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not, but coming from you I will assume, NOT... I struggled last night with a 917 (4 games) or something. My new Blast Zone at 4000 abralon sure rolled nice. There was a little issue called "bowler error" on several frames.
--------------------
notclay
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
"He who dies with the most bowling balls is still dead."
Edited on 8/2/2007 12:27 PM
Post by: Djarum on August 02, 2007, 12:35:56 PM
Dj
--------------------
The views and opinions of Djarum expressed on BallReviews.com do not necessarily state or reflect those of the BallReviews.com.
Post by: purduepaul on August 02, 2007, 12:47:14 PM
A 53' pattern was used for a couple of reasons, its perfectly flat so as to accentuate what the ball actually does. A longer, flatter pattern is better mathematically modeled than a typical house pattern due to a typical patterns, wet/dry dynamic. Also the length is longer so that our test balls sanded to 1000 grit abralon like the wrath SFs were can complete its ball motion before 53 feet which sometimes happens and sometimes does not.
Regarding the fact of both balls being the same. Before drilling both bowling balls, I took a sample of both to our Fourier Transfer Infrared Spectoscopy machine to see if they had the same chemical makeup they were 99.95% the same. Our threshold for that currently on bowling balls is estimated at 99.2%. They are the same ball.
Paul
Post by: Urethane Game on August 02, 2007, 01:29:37 PM
Methinks that gold membership wasn't such a bad idea afterall.
Post by: leftehh- LG on August 02, 2007, 01:34:45 PM
quote:quote:
Why a 53' foot pattern? Most of us only bowl on THS patterns that I seriously doubt go that far down the lane. Would a shorter pattern show the same results?
Not trying to start anything, just asking a question?
Bill
I would think the results would be magnified. Maybe i'm wrong but that does seem likely.
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!
seems likely, but u have no clue..
--------------------
Bowl to Win!
Reynoso
Post by: JessN16 on August 02, 2007, 02:23:17 PM
quote:quote:
Big B used to make the Lane #1 balls. When Brunswick moved their ball making plant to Mexico, Lane #1 went elswhere to get their bowling balls made.
Brunswicks move to Mexico ticked off a lot of bowlers.
Please do not make posts you do not know about. This is a false statement.
--------------------
Ric Hamlin
Pacific Northwest Product Specialist
Brunswick Bowling
AKA "Rico" and L.I.M.O.M.
Ric how do you know this is not a true statement? I don't remember a questionaire being sent out to get everyones thoughts on the move. Around the centers in this area it is a true statement.
--------------------
Speak the Truth
Nothing against Brunswick, but I was also confused by the statement about that post being non-factual. I'd like to know which part was unfactual; the only one I could see was the circumstances by which Lane #1 left Brunswick (i.e., was it Lane #1's decision or Brunswick's).
As far as the statement about some people being upset with the move to Mexico, that is very much true. My ball driller at the time was furious. For awhile, he didn't even want to carry Big B stuff in his shop. He wasn't the only one, either.
Maybe that decision didn't affect attitudes in other parts of the country, but where I lived at the time it was a big thing. Maybe the poster will clarify what he meant.
Jess
Post by: 1MechEng on August 02, 2007, 02:44:29 PM
Can you answer a couple of more questions about the testing:
1.) Do you know if the amount of CG difference has a linear effect on the test results (in terms of # of boards of movement)? E.g. - If 2.5oz. of CG difference makes 2 total boards of difference, does 1 oz. of CG difference make less than 1 board of difference between identical balls?
2.) Has testing been done at other revs./min. to determine if the effect of a combination of CG and ball rotation speed make a difference? By association, does CG placement make more of a difference to a high rev bowler vs. low rev?
3.) Were the paths of both test balls after the break point similar, or did they exhibit significantly different shapes? (Leading to the question as to whether or not the 53' pattern affected the results compared to a 35'-40' THS).
Thanks for (hopefully) indulging my requests for more information on the test results.
Regards -
--------------------
======================
Dan
======================
Engineering * Bowling = a fun and practical application of rotational kinematics.
Post by: purduepaul on August 02, 2007, 02:48:55 PM
1) No we have no determined if the relationship between CG amount is linear with every other factor, again this is an initial tests, a full in depth test will be conducted in the beginning of 2008 after the ball motion study part II is completed.
2) Again initial test with a more detailed test coming in the beginning of 2008.
3) The shape of the hook region if you are reading the article is determined by the A value which is in table four. Mathematically it is the A coefficent value of the binomal equation that defines the hook region. Basically, the larger the a value the earlier and sharper the curve is.
Thanks for reading, brunsnick took some video at our facility today...should be interesting.
Paul
Post by: Strapper_Squared on August 02, 2007, 02:59:20 PM
As for this question...
quote:
If realistically humans can't tell the difference, then why do so many take it into consideration when they have their balls drilled? Why do so many pro shops take it into consideration when drilling customers balls?
Maybe the same reason why 75% of the bowlers who walk into our shop have a span that is too long... or why 75% of the shops in our local area have no clue what a PAP is, how to measure one, or how to use it in a layout. The modern game is much different than that of 20 years ago.
S^2
--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The perfect qb/receiver combo in Miami:
Ginn & Juice
(Ted Ginn Jr and Cleo Lemon)
Post by: Crankenstein300 on August 02, 2007, 03:10:07 PM
Post by: chitown on August 02, 2007, 03:16:34 PM
quote:
Big B used to make the Lane #1 balls. When Brunswick moved their ball making plant to Mexico, Lane #1 went elswhere to get their bowling balls made.
Brunswicks move to Mexico ticked off a lot of bowlers.
Please do not make posts you do not know about. This is a false statement.
--------------------
Ric Hamlin
Pacific Northwest Product Specialist
Brunswick Bowling
AKA "Rico" and L.I.M.O.M.
Ric did Brunswick move to Mexico?
Ric did Lane #1 leave brunswick?
Ric were bowlers ticked off by Brunswicks move to Mexico?
Yes, yes, yes!
How did I make false statements? I'm not trying to fight and argue with you but please don't try and say i'm making false statements when there not.
Do I know or did I say why Lane #1 left Brunswick? No I didn't!
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!
Post by: chitown on August 02, 2007, 03:42:12 PM
quote:quote:
It is still to my amazement that some continue to argue with Rray. How can you have a good technical bowling discussion with someone who averages 197 these days. That's like really averaging 160.
Ric you are above that and you don't need to defend yourself against him.
And they call me an idiot? lol
Not that I care but 197 is like averaging 160? Care to explain that?
I don't think 197 is to bad being back only a year and a half from wrist surgery and two surgeries on my arm, after being off almost 2 years, lol.
And please explain what someones average has to do with their technical knowledge? Do you think every single person in the bowling industry is a bowler?
--------------------
New Lineup in Bag:
15lb Evolution - Pin in Ring
15lb Nebula - Pin under Ring
15lb Cranberry - 1:30 Label
15lb Enriched Uranium - Pin in Ring
15lb Black Cherry Bomb - 1:30 Label
I have to agree with RRAY on this. Why are you putting him down and using his avg. as the reason why?
I mean listen to yourself! You say that one can't have a good technical conversation with him because his avg. is 197? WHAT? What does avg. have to do with it? Plus do you know what conditions he plays on? I bowl at a league that puts out very difficult patterns. The avg. in this league is a lot lower than you find other places. Yet, many of these bowlers would toast a lot of the higher avg. bowlers in the area. Yet this still has nothing to do with technical conversations.
It seems to me this guy is being attacked because others don't like his opinions.
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!
Post by: BeansProShop on August 02, 2007, 05:26:46 PM
You should try my polish for your testing of CG matter or Nomaddah.....LOL!
Just a shameless plug!!!
Beans
--------------------
www.beansproshop.com
--------------------
Thomas "Beans" Biniek Jr.
PBA Member and Lane#1 Buzzhead
Thanks for reading and be sure to check out my current eBay auctions at:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=bowling_with_leah
Official Pro Shop of "ALL" F.O.S. Members!!!
Post by: JessN16 on August 02, 2007, 05:43:42 PM
quote:quote:quote:
It is still to my amazement that some continue to argue with Rray. How can you have a good technical bowling discussion with someone who averages 197 these days. That's like really averaging 160.
Ric you are above that and you don't need to defend yourself against him.
And they call me an idiot? lol
Not that I care but 197 is like averaging 160? Care to explain that?
I don't think 197 is to bad being back only a year and a half from wrist surgery and two surgeries on my arm, after being off almost 2 years, lol.
And please explain what someones average has to do with their technical knowledge? Do you think every single person in the bowling industry is a bowler?
--------------------
New Lineup in Bag:
15lb Evolution - Pin in Ring
15lb Nebula - Pin under Ring
15lb Cranberry - 1:30 Label
15lb Enriched Uranium - Pin in Ring
15lb Black Cherry Bomb - 1:30 Label
I have to agree with RRAY on this. Why are you putting him down and using his avg. as the reason why?
I mean listen to yourself! You say that one can't have a good technical conversation with him because his avg. is 197? WHAT? What does avg. have to do with it? Plus do you know what conditions he plays on? I bowl at a league that puts out very difficult patterns. The avg. in this league is a lot lower than you find other places. Yet, many of these bowlers would toast a lot of the higher avg. bowlers in the area. Yet this still has nothing to do with technical conversations.
It seems to me this guy is being attacked because others don't like his opinions.
--------------------
This fall it's Raw Hammer Time!
Same here. Average is irrelevant as to whether someone knows what they're talking about. I know plenty of people who average 200+, some even as high as 220, that have no clue. I know plenty of others below 200 that not only know their stuff, but can teach it.
A person's physical ability and their mental ability to understand something are not necessarily related.
Jess
Post by: Derek on August 02, 2007, 06:23:01 PM
all things equal....are humans going to hear it and be able to point it out....nope.
Post by: laneman on August 02, 2007, 10:54:48 PM
He averaged 198 in 2002-2003 and knows the game probably more than anyone on this site.A high average doesnt equal high knowledge about the game.
Edited on 8/2/2007 11:02 PM
Post by: qstick777 on August 02, 2007, 11:55:39 PM
quote:
I wish I could roll the ball accurately and consistently enough for it to make a difference to me. I love these forums but so often they spin out of control! I am a hotrodder and you wouldn't believe the way threads get off topic in that forum!
I absolutely love Brunsnick's site and find it funny and informative. I have tried different ball manufacturers' equipment but always come back to Big B. That sure doesn't mean that I don't admire and respect the way other guys can throw Storm, Hammer, etc. I don't see many Lane #1 balls in my leagues here in Metro Detroit so I can't judge them. What is this fued between Big B and Lane #1 all about anyway?
Not sure exactly about the feud, but I think it goes something like this:
One side said: Hey, CG doesn't really matter. Use it for planning a x-hole to fine tune your reaction. CG layouts shouldn't be used as they were in the past, the degree system is a much better way of laying out equipment.
Another side said: Hey, CG is very important to laying out your equipment and has a significant affect on ball reaction. Our balls are better than everybody elses, will make your scores go up, etc.
Then the CGNOMADDAH side said: Wake up and smell the coffee. It's no longer the dark ages. CG doesn't matter at all! You're a dinosaur if you are still drilling based on CG. Use the degree layout system!
The other side responded by saying: Our balls are the best. Drill your stuff using the CG system, it works.
The CGNOMADDAH side responds: You guys are cult fanatics. You must be drinking some funky kool-aid! Why don't you all gather around, drink some kool-aid and wait for the space ship to pick you up!
Rinse and repeat.
--------------------
Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")
Search Ballreviews entire database here (http://"http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html")
Post by: qstick777 on August 03, 2007, 12:25:51 AM
quote:quote:
I'm curious to see if the balls tested were exactly the same.
I have seen two "identical" balls with very similar drillings provide dramitaclly different reactions.
For example my two Hot Rod Hybrids both pin up with with the Cg kicked
to 45 degrees one 2.5 inch pin other 3 inch. Also very close top weights.
Before I put the x-holes in them the reactions were very differnt.
Due to different x hole placements it is impossible for me to tell if the reactions were the same afterwards.
I'm unbiased in regards to the issue just throwing in some personal experiance.
The thing is that this is not an X-hole experiment. Nick has videos on X-hole...
Remember that the X-hole video only pertains to Brunswick balls, as Ric pointed out that they manufacture their balls differently than everybody else
Seriously, Ebonite used to tell you to draw a line from grip center through CG and place x-hole on VAL. Columbia300 used to say the same thing, or 2" past PAP for earlier reaction. AMF used to recommend 4 1/2" from grip center on the mid-line, or some specified distance beyond midplane (VAL).
I'm a firm believer that you should follow the manufacturer's recommendations - unless you know what you (or your driller) know what you are doing. The manufacturers make the product and the instructions - they probably know what they are doing!
--------------------
Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")
Search Ballreviews entire database here (http://"http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html")
Post by: RevZiLLa on August 03, 2007, 12:33:10 AM
Quote from: BRUNSNICK
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.
A CLEAN SLATE IS A GREAT IDEA. IN ORDER TO CLEAN THE SLATE I, HERE AND NOW, APOLOGIZE TO ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY I MAY HAVE OFFENDED IN THE COURSE OF THIS DISCUSSION.
WILL YOU DO THE SAME, NICK? YOU LAUGHED AT PEOPLE AND ACCUSED THEM OF DRINKING KOOL AID. YOU YELLED, "ZOLTAN!". YOU MADE A BUBBLE WRAP SUIT AND SAID PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T AGREE WITH YOU NEEDED TO WEAR ONE...ZOLTAN!
EFFECTIVE AND MATURE DEBATE IS NOT BUILT UPON RIDICULE...PEOPLE RESPOND IN KIND...MINDS CLOSE.
I AM SO PROUD TO SEE YOU TAKING A DIFFERENT TACK NOW.
I DO NOT INTEND THIS AS AN ATTACK, SO I APOLOGIZE A 2ND TIME FOR POINTING THIS OUT.
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 alterer 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.
AN ACCURATE SUMMARY. LET'S REMEMBER THE ABOVE NUMBERS.
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.
ROLL DOES NOT EQUAL HOOK...OK....ROLL EQUALS ROLL. THE BALL GETS INTO A ROLL 4 FEET SOONER. THAT CAN BE A USEFUL TOOL! THAT CAN AFFECT CARRY. SAYING ROLL DOES NOT EQUAL HOOK DOES NOT MAKE A 4 FOOT EARLIER ROLL IRRELEVANT.
WHETHER CHITOWN HAS EVER ASKED YOU FOR ADVICE IS IRRELEVANT. SAYING WHAT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED ABOVE IS INFLAMMATORY AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO MATURE DEBATE.
2. Two boards is not as much as it sounds over the course of 60 feet.
TWO BOARDS OUT OF 39 ON THE LANE IS NOT INSIGNIFICANT. ON PATTERNS OF DIFFERENT VOLUME OR LENGTH IT COULD BE MORE OR LESS. ON A WALL SHOT IT COULD BE MORE OR LESS.
LET'S NOT FORGET THAT 4 FEET WHILE WE DISCUSS THIS...
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.
YES, USBC WILL DO MORE TESTING, AND WHAT WONDERFUL FUN WE WILL HAVE DISCUSSING IT!
3. Core orientation is not affected.
THE CORRECT STATEMENT WOULD BE "CORE ORIENATION IS NOT AFFECTED MUCH". IN BRUNSWICK'S VIDEO THE CORE IS SWUNG IN A "TRANSPARANT" BALL AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT MOVES A LITTLE. NOT MUCH...BUT MORE THAN NOT AT ALL.
WATCH THE BRUNSWICK VIDEO AND YOU WILL SEE THEY DO NOT TALK N ABSOLUTES. BRUNSWICK NEVER SAID STATICS AND CG'S MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE. THEY SAID THEY MAKE A SMALL DIFFERENCE...MAYBE 5%...
THAT WAS HONEST
BRUNSWICK NEVER SAID THAT CORE ORIENTATION IS TOTALLY UNCHANGED BY SWINGING CG. THEY SAID THERE IS ONLY A SMALL DIFFERENCE...AND THEY SHOWED IT IN THEIR VID.
THAT WAS HONEST
THOSE WHO THINK THEY SPEAK FOR BRUNSWICK AND OVERSATATE THE ARGUMENT AND USE ABSOLUTES MAKE BRUNSWICK LOOK BAD.
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.
WAS ZOLTAN! A THEORY?
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.
AND THANK YOU FOR READING TOO, NICK. LET'S CONTINUE TO DISCUSS WITH OPEN MINDS IN A MATURE MANNER. IF SOMEONE STEPS IN AND CALLS NAMES, PLEASE RISE ABOVE IT AND CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THE REAL ISSUE WITH INTELLIGENCE AND CALM. IF YOU FALL INTO THE NAME CALLING, YOU DECREASE YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.AskTheBowler.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Friends don't let friends drink the Kool-Aid!
Edited on 8/2/2007 2:37 AM
--------------------
RevZ=======================
\I/
Edited on 8/3/2007 0:37 AM
Post by: BrunsNick on August 03, 2007, 12:36:14 AM
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.AskTheBowler.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Friends don't let friends drink the Kool-Aid!
Post by: RevZiLLa on August 03, 2007, 12:43:48 AM
--------------------
RevZ=======================
\I/
Post by: leftehh- LG on August 03, 2007, 12:56:23 AM
Nick, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!
Bowl to win!
--------------------
Bowl to Win!
Reynoso
Edited on 8/3/2007 0:57 AM
Edited on 8/3/2007 0:58 AM
Post by: JessN16 on August 03, 2007, 01:22:13 AM
quote:
lol nick im wearing ur fury shirt that i won while i am reading this.
Nick, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!
Bowl to win!
--------------------
Bowl to Win!
Reynoso
Edited on 8/3/2007 0:57 AM
Edited on 8/3/2007 0:58 AM
Not to belabor this point, but if the USBC has scientifically verifiable data, there's no "leading to water/making them drink" to this. Data is data.
This isn't religion; whether CG "maddahs" or not isn't up for interpretation via belief. It is either proven or disproven by science, and once we have a verdict, then we can go about the exercise of finding out to what extend it affects the pro bowler, the house bowler, the recreational bowler, etc.
As it stands now, the USBC tests have shown some level of difference exists. If backed up by a second test, CG "maddahs" no "maddah" what. The only thing left to discern will be to the degree it "maddahs."
Jess
Post by: BrunsNick on August 03, 2007, 02:04:13 AM
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.AskTheBowler.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
Friends don't let friends drink the Kool-Aid!
Post by: leftehh- LG on August 03, 2007, 02:20:49 AM
quote:quote:
lol nick im wearing ur fury shirt that i won while i am reading this.
Nick, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!
Bowl to win!
--------------------
Bowl to Win!
Reynoso
Edited on 8/3/2007 0:57 AM
Edited on 8/3/2007 0:58 AM
Not to belabor this point, but if the USBC has scientifically verifiable data, there's no "leading to water/making them drink" to this. Data is data.
This isn't religion; whether CG "maddahs" or not isn't up for interpretation via belief. It is either proven or disproven by science, and once we have a verdict, then we can go about the exercise of finding out to what extend it affects the pro bowler, the house bowler, the recreational bowler, etc.
As it stands now, the USBC tests have shown some level of difference exists. If backed up by a second test, CG "maddahs" no "maddah" what. The only thing left to discern will be to the degree it "maddahs."
Jess
but its true...
--------------------
Bowl to Win!
Reynoso
Post by: ElectricLeftSlider on August 03, 2007, 03:59:42 AM
Post by: dpunky on August 03, 2007, 08:19:34 AM
Just have Krista in a CGNOMADDAH video and all will be good
To me, CG placement is just one element of bowling dynamics. You need to consider ball surface preparation, ball speed, ball trajectory, lane surface, lane conditions, environmental conditions,etc.
I go to league to hopefully win games and get strikes, not worry about CG placement.
--------------------
Ken - aka "dpunky"
"Now rolling Hammer and Storm"
Too Cool for School
Post by: dogman666 on August 03, 2007, 08:54:43 AM
Post by: dogman666 on August 03, 2007, 09:16:32 AM
Post by: laneman on August 03, 2007, 09:50:16 AM
quote:
Fred Borden is a coach not a R&D person.
Someone please show me anywhere on the web where Fred Borden has a vast knowledge of bowling ball physics and design and I will apologize. Until then, I stand by my statement.quote:
^^^ Fred Borden would be one that comes to mind.
He averaged 198 in 2002-2003 and knows the game probably more than anyone on this site.A high average doesnt equal high knowledge about the game.
Edited on 8/2/2007 11:02 PM
He works with lanemasters designing balls with Sam Bacca.
Post by: laneman on August 03, 2007, 10:04:02 AM
If you would like to find out what his part is designing bowling balls feel free to call him at Stonehenge Family Fun center in Akron,Ohio
Post by: RevZiLLa on August 03, 2007, 10:20:50 AM
quote:
Why does all this matter anyway?
Drill the ball the way you like it, get the SURFACE dialed in and go win the big bucks !!! You're all making this WAY to complicated.
--------------------
Righty
Speed: 17.0 (Quibica)
Revs: med-high to high
Axis: 5-3/4" w/ 0' tilt ( hi-track )
See Profile for arsenal
--------------------
RevZ=======================
\I/
Post by: Steven on August 03, 2007, 10:54:12 AM
When the USBC results came out, Brunsric's response was the following:
quote:
Secondly, they tested 2 Columbia balls. They did not test 2 Brunswick bowling balls or Ebonite or any other company for that matter. Therefore, how can you state anything more than the CG apparently matters in Columbia bowling balls, nothing else. All companies manufacture bowling balls differently, including infrastructure.
It is a valid test in reference to Columbia balls and really nothing else.
His statement was a nice clean response to reconcile a solid USBC conclusion that goes directly against Brunswick's position.
But if you go back to the Brunswick video regarding the proposed (and now aborted) 1†CG-distance rule, Brunswick stated the following:
quote:
Brunswick believes that this presentation demonstrates and explains why there is little or no change to ball reaction, hook potential or angularity when the CG is placed at different locations on the surface of the ball, and that the proposed 1†CG-distance rule will result in no significant change to the scoring environment, and therefore have little or no effect on any objective measurement of credibility or integrity in our sport.
Brunswick was implicitly talking on behalf all manufacturers when making their case that CGNOMADDAH. There was never any disclaimer that their presentation pertained to "Brunswick balls only".
So Brunswick was apparently trying to talk on behalf of bowling industry when they pronounced CGNOMADDAH, even though their test was only with Brunswick balls.
But Brunsric says the USBC conclusion that CGMADDAH only counts for Columbia balls, because that's all they tested.
It doesn't make sense.....
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: laneman on August 03, 2007, 11:05:11 AM
quote:
If I turst you then I will trust you know him. Therefore I will give you the benefit of the doubt. An internet debate is not worth calling a bowling legend over.
I stand by my word, I apologize.quote:
He also worked with Columbia designing the "vector" series,trust me,he knows about bowling balls.
If you would like to find out what his part is designing bowling balls feel free to call him at Stonehenge Family Fun center in Akron,Ohio
NP
Just thought he was a good example to use.
Post by: Rileybowler on August 04, 2007, 11:24:42 AM
--------------------
Carl