win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC  (Read 17107 times)

Luke Rosdahl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1093
A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« on: December 18, 2017, 11:33:23 AM »
First of all, personally I don't care.  If it's legal, I'll bowl with it, if it's not, I won't, don't care.  I think USBC is missing a chance to differentiate recreation from sport though.  The average bowler doesn't get patterns.  Yeah the blue oil looks cool on the PBA shows, but there's no blue oil at league, so they have no basis for comparison.  You can show them lane graphs and pictures, but until they actually see it AND bowl on it, they're not going to get it or understand.  HOWEVER, it's really easy to understand the difference between college baseball players using aluminum bats and the pros using wood, and it's nothing that has to be explained to be understood.  All you have to say is that the pros have equipment restrictions, they can't use the balls that make it "easier" to score like league bowlers can, because when people see pros using the same balls they do bowling on lanes that look the same as theirs, they see no difference. 

Now the issue for the manufacturers becomes that they lose advertisement for balls that aren't legal for use on the PBA, but I really don't think the PBA has much influence on ball purchases anymore.  Literally not once in the last three years have I had anyone come into the shop and say, "I want the ball -insert random pro- won with the other day."  I could be wrong, but 10-15 years ago, that happened all the time.  Somebody would win with a ball on a Sunday, and Monday I'd have people in there wanting one.  Now it seems to be primarily consumer and manufacturer driven. 

This idea makes sense to me, continue with the current specs, but put spec restrictions on equipment for use in higher level competition.  The funny thing is it doesn't even matter, most people I know use equipment that's inside the new rumored specs anyway, not going to hurt my feelings, but it could hurt manufacturers who all the sudden lose maybe a couple ball lines, and more limited specs means more limited reactions which means more limited choices which means less revenue most likely.  There NEEDS to be a bolder line between recreation and sport, and it needs to be achieved without adjusting the recreation side. 
Storm Amateur Staff
Turbo Regional Staff
www.stormbowling.com
www.turbogrips.com
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/LukeRosdahl
Twitter: @LukeRosdahl

 

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2017, 06:27:34 PM »
From a manufacture stand point this is PURE GOLD!!!!

Hypothetically speaking lets say the idea of having a 5 year grace period is enacted for bowling balls to meet the criteria before being considered illegal. Lets say the magic number for bowling ball DIFF is .045

So not only are all bowlers going to have to buy new equipment (because so many bowling balls are .045 or higher on diff in most weights) but bowlers with "gems" are going to have a worthless collection of bowling balls.

I recently sold a NIB Track Synergy pearl which core is "illegal" to make under todays specs but when the ball itself is drilled and compared to todays equipment  wouldn't be passed midline in any performance series at best.

Now all of these manufactures and distributors are going to have to start watching quantities on what they make or order because you do not want to get stuck with a bunch of bowling balls that are worthless.




Exactly. And let us not forget, Chad "douchebag" Murphy has roots in the ball manufacturing industry. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a payoff being discussed.

I literally thought I was suffering from Alzheimer’s when I read this comment from miloraferty disparaging our illustrious Executive Director so I had to go back and read his previous posts defending all things USBC. Fortunately for me, no Alzheimer’s, I found all those past comments so I have to ask...what changed your mind about the Executive “Douchebag” Director?

Chad Murphy isn't USBC. I know, I know, it's a concept that you can't comprehend, but USBC is a lot more than that idiot.
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

"If you don't stand for our flag, then don't expect me to give a damn about your feelings."

leftybowler70

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2017, 06:35:06 PM »
.045 Diff once the grace period is over who is going to enforce it. Leagues , tournaments? You would have to have stats on every ball then weight them. Diff by weights may vary and may or may not be within limits Take the Hy-Road 16 is.058 15 is .046 14 is .037. Track Logix 16 is .040 15 is .046 and 14 is .048.  So some weights are legal some are not. Just to suggest a Diff limit .045 and give a grace period is  crazy.


This times 1000 ^^^

HackJandy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1321
  • On to greener pastures
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2017, 06:42:49 PM »
All you need to know about the USBC is water is not on their approved chemical/cleaner list.  Those dishwasher baths are illegal.  Also don't you dare dilute that simple green with water either even in your own home cleaning your own equipment or the sport of bowling will never recover.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2017, 06:58:07 PM by HackJandy »
Kind of noob when made this account so take advice with grain of salt.

morpheus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 595
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2017, 06:46:46 PM »
From a manufacture stand point this is PURE GOLD!!!!

Hypothetically speaking lets say the idea of having a 5 year grace period is enacted for bowling balls to meet the criteria before being considered illegal. Lets say the magic number for bowling ball DIFF is .045

So not only are all bowlers going to have to buy new equipment (because so many bowling balls are .045 or higher on diff in most weights) but bowlers with "gems" are going to have a worthless collection of bowling balls.

I recently sold a NIB Track Synergy pearl which core is "illegal" to make under todays specs but when the ball itself is drilled and compared to todays equipment  wouldn't be passed midline in any performance series at best.

Now all of these manufactures and distributors are going to have to start watching quantities on what they make or order because you do not want to get stuck with a bunch of bowling balls that are worthless.




Exactly. And let us not forget, Chad "douchebag" Murphy has roots in the ball manufacturing industry. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a payoff being discussed.

I literally thought I was suffering from Alzheimer’s when I read this comment from miloraferty disparaging our illustrious Executive Director so I had to go back and read his previous posts defending all things USBC. Fortunately for me, no Alzheimer’s, I found all those past comments so I have to ask...what changed your mind about the Executive “Douchebag” Director?

Chad Murphy isn't USBC. I know, I know, it's a concept that you can't comprehend, but USBC is a lot more than that idiot.

Actually Chad is the USBC...just ask him
#AFutureForMembership #WhoDoesUSBCWorkFor

HackJandy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1321
  • On to greener pastures
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #50 on: December 19, 2017, 06:55:11 PM »
From a manufacture stand point this is PURE GOLD!!!!

Hypothetically speaking lets say the idea of having a 5 year grace period is enacted for bowling balls to meet the criteria before being considered illegal. Lets say the magic number for bowling ball DIFF is .045

So not only are all bowlers going to have to buy new equipment (because so many bowling balls are .045 or higher on diff in most weights) but bowlers with "gems" are going to have a worthless collection of bowling balls.

I recently sold a NIB Track Synergy pearl which core is "illegal" to make under todays specs but when the ball itself is drilled and compared to todays equipment  wouldn't be passed midline in any performance series at best.

Now all of these manufactures and distributors are going to have to start watching quantities on what they make or order because you do not want to get stuck with a bunch of bowling balls that are worthless.




Exactly. And let us not forget, Chad "douchebag" Murphy has roots in the ball manufacturing industry. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a payoff being discussed.

I literally thought I was suffering from Alzheimer’s when I read this comment from miloraferty disparaging our illustrious Executive Director so I had to go back and read his previous posts defending all things USBC. Fortunately for me, no Alzheimer’s, I found all those past comments so I have to ask...what changed your mind about the Executive “Douchebag” Director?

Chad Murphy isn't USBC. I know, I know, it's a concept that you can't comprehend, but USBC is a lot more than that idiot.

Actually Chad is the USBC...just ask him

"I am the law."  - Chad staring naked in front of his mirror.
Kind of noob when made this account so take advice with grain of salt.

leftybowler70

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2017, 07:03:22 PM »
Hack- too funny.  ;D

HackJandy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1321
  • On to greener pastures
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2017, 07:29:07 PM »
Shouldn't make it personal but guy doesn't seem very accountable.  His bad ideas don't stay only his bad ideas sadly.  Still think medium term all these changes do is push more leagues to go non USBC sanctioned.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2017, 07:33:47 PM by HackJandy »
Kind of noob when made this account so take advice with grain of salt.

ignitebowling

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 984
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #53 on: December 19, 2017, 07:55:09 PM »
If making a 5 year grace period one of the possibilities would be to create a new USBC approved logo. Every ball going forawrd would have to have this logo to be USBC compliant.

So if 2022 was the end of the grace period and the new diff regulation was .045 then no matter what the ball must have this new logo even if it meets the specs criteria from 16 years earlier.

So say it starts as early as 2018, manufactures could start making bowling balls that meet this criteria and get the new logo of USBC2022 and weed some of the older stuff out and eliminate the confusion.

Once again, a lot of undrilled rare and not so rare bowling balls would be worthless at that point and a lot of people would be forced to buy new equipment. Since the easier solution would be to address the oil requirements, and the lack of ability to do so likely because of the BPAA the next option is the equipment. #priceless
« Last Edit: December 19, 2017, 08:42:15 PM by ignitebowling »
Ignite your game, and set the lanes on fire. www.facebook.com/ignitebowling  or @ignite_bowling

six pack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2799
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #54 on: December 19, 2017, 08:03:39 PM »
They should make just one ball legal with your choice of color,olive drab green or do do brown.
The harder I try the harder they fall

ignitebowling

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 984
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #55 on: December 19, 2017, 08:49:50 PM »
They should make just one ball legal with your choice of color,olive drab green or do do brown.

What about a camouflage one as well? You know so many have to have a "hybrid" option as well.
Ignite your game, and set the lanes on fire. www.facebook.com/ignitebowling  or @ignite_bowling

giddyupddp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #56 on: December 19, 2017, 08:52:57 PM »
Shouldn't make it personal but guy doesn't seem very accountable.  His bad ideas don't stay only his bad ideas sadly.  Still think medium term all these changes do is push more leagues to go non USBC sanctioned.

Could not agree more. Personally I bowl 2 leagues in which the decision to sanction was a close vote in each and I think if the dopes at the USBC go forward with this and alienate members with any proposals to make balls illegal quite a few bowlers like myself will vote the other way next season. Most members don't get jack shit from being a USBC member and think the sanction fee is a waste of money now and if you add to that number that is the fast lane to making the USBC obsolete.

six pack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2799
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #57 on: December 19, 2017, 09:28:53 PM »
They should make just one ball legal with your choice of color,olive drab green or do do brown.

What about a camouflage one as well? You know so many have to have a "hybrid" option as well.

I like it!
The harder I try the harder they fall

MI 2 AZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8152
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #58 on: December 20, 2017, 01:55:38 AM »
I just saw the diff on the new plastic ball I bought and realized it would be banned under this new limit.  Widow Spare.

I never thought to check the specs on it before.  I just wanted a plastic ball with a real core after leaving so many 5 pins with my White Dot.  This Widow Spare does carry a lot better.

« Last Edit: December 20, 2017, 01:58:20 AM by MI 2 AZ »
_________________________________________
Six decades of league bowling and still learning.

ABC/USBC Lifetime Member since Aug 1995.

Juggernaut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • Former good bowler, now 3 games a week house hack.
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #59 on: December 20, 2017, 08:34:22 AM »
Dale Jenkins.  “They’re ruining bowling”.
 
Nuff said.
Learn to laugh, and love, and smile, cause we’re only here for a little while.

HackJandy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1321
  • On to greener pastures
Re: A thought on the proposed ball specs adjustment by USBC
« Reply #60 on: December 20, 2017, 10:27:07 AM »
I just saw the diff on the new plastic ball I bought and realized it would be banned under this new limit.  Widow Spare.

I never thought to check the specs on it before.  I just wanted a plastic ball with a real core after leaving so many 5 pins with my White Dot.  This Widow Spare does carry a lot better.

But if it has a big core its ruining bowling regardless of cover stock.  Ban it and that Hot Cell as well.  Bet the ball makers are going to be happy to see everyone put the brakes on buying balls to see what Chad does. 
Kind of noob when made this account so take advice with grain of salt.