Author Topic: Do we make the game way too complicated? (Read 10250 times)

Russell · « **on:** April 14, 2011, 10:22:25 PM »

I was reading another forum where a ball driller suggested a couple of layouts for a bowler going to nationals. On one it was like a 4 and 3/4" with a couple of degree coordinates. The other ball had the same degree coordinates but the pin distance was listed as 4 and 13/16".

Let's be real....does a 1/16" make any difference when most bowlers aren't tolerant by less than 2" at the breakpoint? I am a "KISS" (Keep It Simple Stupid) kind of guy. I have seen bowling try to go to the space age with core technology over the past few years, and what has it given us?

Most of the super cores roll like crap overall. Mo Pinell has been designing cores that are at the cutting edge of physics for 2 decades, and for the most part his balls roll like a wet turd. I can take a Tornado and sand it to 220 and make it roll like most MoRich balls...and at 1/2 the price. I'm not hating on Mo himself...he's an incredibly bright man, I just question how much technology we REALLY need.

The game is still the same...the pins are 3.5lbs, the ball is 27" around, and the lane is 60' long. Most of the BEST balls over the past years have had simple cores with good stable covers on them:

Gamebreaker

V2

Tour Power

Hyroad

Black Widow (Int Diff wasn't that high)

505C

There are plenty of others, and yes I know there are some balls that people have loved that were highly asymmetrical. Most of those balls end up being condition specific, and very sensitive to release. For example at Nationals this year, very few people seem to be having success with hook monsters, and most are throwing balls that are asymm with weaker covers or symmetrical cores altogether.

I had a fellow ball driller tell me a while back when I had a ball that was baffling me on why it wouldn't hook "oh you should have done a 4" mass bias not a 4.5"....really? 1/2" would make a ball go from hitting flush in the 3/6 pocket to high flush? Have we really convinced ourselves that this stuff matters THAT much?

Am I the only one that feels this way?

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"

rvmark · « **Reply #16 on:** April 15, 2011, 09:18:56 AM »

I think this is an excellent subject and good points have been made on both sides, but when it comes to certain houses I have had better success throwing a Track 300C or Midnight Vibe. In the end it still takes a bowler to repeat shots in order to score consistently game after game week after week. Point in case, we had a bowler start the league season last fall and run up to a 207 ave. they changed the pattern to longer pattern with more oil down the lanes and he barely averaged 180 the last 8-10 weeks of league. I threw the same ball all year and ended up bowling about the same both halves.

Since I decided to focus on my release and timing, and just relax my average has risen, IMO technology can help but it won't make spares for you and carry you when the lanes dry up.

Mark

Juggernaut · « **Reply #17 on:** April 15, 2011, 09:37:01 AM »

Russell,

Many times I tend to disagree with you, but not here. Like you, I know you can't stop technology, but also like you, I question whether it has indeed improved/helped the game or not.

There is no question it has changed the game, the question is, has it helped the game or made it better in some way, and I tend to say no, it hasn't.

Like you, I tend to respect Mo Pinel's intelligence. I just question why bowling ever got to the point that you need an engineer with a cad machine and a man with Mo's intelligence and foresight, just to try to design a bowling ball that will "act right", then spend untold hours developing a drilling system that is sensitive down to the nth degree in order to make said bowling ball function correctly.

Assymetrics may well be more versatile, but when did the focus change from the bowler being versatile to the ball being versatile?

I'll probably be chastised for my opinions, I often am, but I think technology has done more damage than good to this game.

Russell · « **Reply #18 on:** April 15, 2011, 10:00:27 AM »

Tom Hess won the Masters using the Nano (ON TV!)....yay one game? Yes I believe he threw that ball all week, but does that always happen?...or even part of the time?

Of course the new ball gets thrown on TV. The ball reps don't pay bonsuses for them throwing 5 year old technology. It doesn't sell the idea that the new balls are better. Scores are going through the roof...but I think that has more to do with the lane oils now holding up better than ever before. I remember 10 years ago starting league around 12/13 at the arrows and ending left of 4th. Now I start around 12/13 and end around 14/15...maybe one move during the night.

It's just like golf clubs. The companies are coming up with any gimmick that will make people think they can get another 20 yards off the tee. I have a Titleist 983K that I have had for 8 years. Once a year I take it to the local PGA Superstore and try it on the launch monitors against the "latest and greatest"....guess what...it does just as good as they do....most of the time much better. This doesn't stop people from lining up to buy some new $500 driver that is "new".

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"

Dan Belcher · « **Reply #19 on:** April 15, 2011, 10:02:36 AM »

As long as technology and knowledge improve in the world in general, it's going to apply to sports as well. Every little bit of extra improvement that can be made will be made. The key is knowing HOW and WHEN to use that technology to your advantage. There are times when I can use a stronger asymmetric like a Nano to put up some great scores, and there are times when I'm going to have a better look throwing a Tropical Heat with a simple lightbulb with a flip block core. As long as there are still times when that strong asymmetric can be beneficial, it's going to be a part of the game. The question just comes down to what's between the ears on the guy throwing the ball.

(And for the record, I'm one of those guys who will lay out a ball, see the pin is really close to the fingers, and will move it a quarter or even half inch and not really think about what exact difference that will make in my ball reaction. All I'm looking for is a basic reaction shape because that's all I can ever get without making a ball so ridiculously condition-specific that it won't work on 99% of lanes I see)

Sikfish · « **Reply #20 on:** April 15, 2011, 12:09:31 PM »

Balls that are designed to do certain things, as Dan said, know when to use it. If you are a serious bowler (pot games and tourny guy) are you going to try and fill a gap between your Vibe and Victory Road.....probably. If you are a 2 night a week bowler, will you try and fill the gap.....no. I am in agreeance with what one of you said about throwing strikes with a NANO versus something else...I believe that statement to be true...on a ths. You never really see the true potential of the new stuff on a THS....these balls are not designed for that.....I have to agree that all the new "hook monsters" I see at the local centers are being thrown by people that do not have a clue, just that it's the latest ball....I for one, try and put my people in a good overall mid range ball and see what happens, if they like it and show improvement, then its up to them to buy a new piece or just expand on what they currently have.... So, to answer the question, "are we making it to complicated?"......No, the manufactures are..........

Brian

MOTIV Staff

www.motivbowling.com

BowlingChat · « **Reply #21 on:** April 15, 2011, 12:23:52 PM »

Russell,

I think you just need to get over it dude.

Technology is here to stay whether you approve of it or not.

This seems like a personal beef more than anything else.

You've side stepped most of my points, so I'll just go back into the shadows for now.

http://www.bowlingchat.net/banner.png" alt="" />

Juggernaut · « **Reply #22 on:** April 15, 2011, 12:33:12 PM »

Don't feel bad BC.net, you can argue with me. It is obvious that you are of the opinion that we are NOT over complicating things. It is my opinion that we are.

BowlingChat wrote on 4/15/2011 12:23 PM:
Russell,

I think you just need to get over it dude.

Technology is here to stay whether you approve of it or not.

This seems like a personal beef more than anything else.

You've side stepped most of my points, so I'll just go back into the shadows for now.

http://www.bowlingchat.net/banner.png" />

BowlingChat · « **Reply #23 on:** April 15, 2011, 12:51:09 PM »

Jug,

I think in general, if you educate yourself on some of the modern techniques involved in layouts as well as the ability to tune with a Determinator, the concepts from some manufacturers are a little easier to grasp.

If you walk into a gunfight blindfolded you're going to get shot.

You cant just start slapping the same layout on different balls and expect it all to pan out the same.

There are very few genuine turds manufactured today, just poor matchups from poor layout decisions or using the wrong ball on the wrong conditiion or the wrong part of the lane.

Once people are educated en masse on these cutting edge techniques, you'll see more: "Oh, wow, thats what he meant".

I think we're on the front end of the era of enlightenment, the truly elite minds understand the meaning of this new cover and core technology, and how to leverage it.

Its their responsibility as creators to communicate effectively with the people buying and drilling these creations so they do exactly what the customer wants.

Once the public understands the whys and hows, I think the embrace of this technology will happen. Most are resistant to change and new ideas, think you're seeing this now.

http://www.bowlingchat.net/banner.png" alt="" />

DON DRAPER · « **Reply #24 on:** April 15, 2011, 01:01:49 PM »

I too think this is an excellent article. In many ways it has become too complicated. I use two basic drilling patterns on my equipment and adjust the surfaces as needed. The rest of it is up to me by changing angle of attack, axis rotation, speed control, etc.

NoseofRI · « **Reply #25 on:** April 15, 2011, 01:01:55 PM »

Hey Meva,

I believe you are completely missing the point that Russell is attempting to make. The fact is for 90+ % of bowlers this stuff just does not matter. If you flag your breakpoint by 8 left or right, an ideal spin differential isn't gonna matter diddly.

I know quite a few guys that are 210-220 on house shots, and 170-180 on sports shots. Guess what, it's not the lack of the perfect layout that's causing this drastic difference, it's their inability to consistently make decent shots.

I believe if you had done as I did and actually read all of Russell's original post, instead of instantly coming to Mo's defense you may have picked up on this point.

Edited by NoseofRI on 4/15/2011 at 1:05 PM

Edited by NoseofRI on 4/15/2011 at 1:08 PM

DON DRAPER · « **Reply #26 on:** April 15, 2011, 01:07:23 PM »

I couldn't agree more. On a tougher oil pattern execution of the shot and ball surface is far more important than an exotic ball drilling.

Steven · « **Reply #27 on:** April 15, 2011, 01:15:55 PM »

Nose: +1, well said......

NoseofRI wrote on 4/15/2011 1:01 PM:
Hey Meva,

I believe you are completely missing the point that Russell is attempting to make. The fact is for 90+ % of bowlers this stuff just does not matter. If you flag your breakpoint by 8 left or right, an ideal spin differential isn't gonna matter diddly.

I know quite a few guys that are 210-220 on house shots, and 170-180 on sports shots. Guess what, it's not the lack of the perfect layout that's causing this drastic difference, it's their inability to consistently make decent shots.

I believe if you had done as I did and actually read all of Russell's original post, instead of instantly coming to Mo's defense you may have picked up on this point.

Walking E · « **Reply #28 on:** April 15, 2011, 01:17:01 PM »

Interesting topic Russell, and I agree with most of your points. Some of the finer differences in equipment and layout just don't seem that important to me. I mean, the most important part of bowling is the bowler. If I were in a betting situation, I'd take a great bowler with average equipment over an average bowler with great equipment any day. And I'd take a great bowler who knows nothing about ball reactions and layouts over an average bowler who knows pin placements, PAPs, VALs, etc. You still have to be able to throw the ball - anything else is secondary.

From numerous topics I've read over the years, I get the sense that some folks think - for instance - that a ball that hooks two feet sooner than another ball is a big difference. Or that a ball that hooks two boards more or less than another ball is a big difference. I don't think these are big differences at all, and nothing that a simple hand, foot or ball speed adjustment can't overcome 90+ percent of the time. Not to mention that most league bowlers - even the good ones - are imprecise enough to not notice the difference between minor equipment variations and their own mistake shots. Heck, I can miss by mark by 1-2 boards on any given shot, so why should I care if one ball hooks a board or two more than the other one?

For PBA guys who repeat shots very well, these can be more important variations, but I just can't believe that they are dramtically important to the rest of us mere mortals.

And as for bowlers on THS conditions, these differences are even less important. A good bowler on top of his game can score with practically ANY ball on a THS, so they might as well pick the ball that is good looking or is the best price since a THS will make any ball look good in terms of ball reaction.

All that being said, I am trying to learn more about pin placements and layouts and the differences between symmetrics and asymmetrics, though more so from a curiosity perspective. I just don't know that knowing these things will make much of a difference in my game.

Official Member of the BrunsTrackColumStormHammEboRotoBuzzAMF Nation!

Also a member of ROB STONE NATION

chatnboy · « **Reply #29 on:** April 15, 2011, 01:19:16 PM »

noseofRI...Russell mentioned something concerning Mo so i think this guy has a right to let him know about mo's views or way of doing things.if Russell just stuck to the things about less is more than that is different!!!yes i believe in the keep it simple stupid mantra also...but thats not going to stop people from buying hook monsters until they realize they need to work on their bowling game and refine their fundemantals if they truly wanna get better!!!

Go hard or go home!!!!!Bowl your best...ALWAYS!!!

BowlingChat · « **Reply #30 on:** April 15, 2011, 01:22:49 PM »

spin differential? What is that? You mean spin time?

You dont even know what you're talking about.

I addressed the fact that Russell's original post is riddled with evidence that many antiquated drillers do not know how to leverage *new* technology with their archaic drilling techniques. This is bleeding into a bowlers arsenal.

Its the ball drillers that stay on the cusp of technology with Advanced IBPSIA HOTS and other high level training courses that truly understad how to leverage these types balls.

Matching up is more important than you're leading on, even for league bowlers.

Does a league bowler want to average 225 or 215, you tell me.

Give him a strong asymmetric with a long pin to pap and no tilt, and I guarantee he wont be happy with the reaction, no matter how good he is.

These new balls coming out with strong cores need to be tuned just as much as a race car does. Are you going to run a serious race car on 87 octane? To get its full potential, I'd hope not.

Education is key here, get it, or get left behind.

Keep your customers happy, its good for business.

Have a nice day.

http://www.bowlingchat.net/banner.png" alt="" />

Author Topic: Do we make the game way too complicated? (Read 10250 times)

Russell

Do we make the game way too complicated?

rvmark

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Juggernaut

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Russell

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Dan Belcher

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Sikfish

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

BowlingChat

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Juggernaut

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

BowlingChat

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

DON DRAPER

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

NoseofRI

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

DON DRAPER

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Steven

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

Walking E

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

chatnboy

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?

BowlingChat

Re: Do we make the game way too complicated?