Post by: 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"
Post by: on April 15, 2011, 06:54:22 AM
To answer your question, YES!
Understand that when the ball encounters adequate friction it will travel in the direction of it's rotation, and then you can learn and become very adept at reading ball reaction. It really is that simple. Fail to learn that and you will become another member of the "Ball of the Month Club". Always searching for that magic pill and never quite finding it.
Work on sound body mechanics so you can repeat a shot and you won't need to memorize the RG, Differential, and Mass Bias numbers of every ball you own, plus a few that you don't.
Become content with rolling the ball your way instead of trying to be someone you are not. Face it. We bowl on house shots 99% of the time using "grenades". It should not be overly complicated.
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
Brunswick Pro Shop Staff
www.brunswickbowling.com
The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer and not of Brunswick Corporation.
Post by: BowlingChat on April 15, 2011, 06:58:07 AM
" Mo Pinel 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. "
Pretty bold statement, sounds like you're one of the many that do not understand the difference between symmetricals and asymmetricals in terms of layouts and how balls roll.
There is a significant difference, which I will not get into here.
I'd be willing to bet your pin to pap distances on asymmetrics are too long.
Education is key to understanding technology, unfortunately bowlers, and the current generation expect instant gratification. Even proshops rest on their laurels. Take the time to educate yourself, and you'll have a better understanding of technology.
You can start here:
http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:DualAngle.pdf
http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:01DualAngleSweetSpot.pdf
http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:Trackflarechart.JPG
http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:Differential-Mo_Pinel-Nov_10.pdf
http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:GradientLine.pdf
http://wiki.bowlingchat.net/wiki/index.php?title=Gradient_Line_Balance_Hole
Its not as difficult as you're making it out to be.
Post by: Russell on April 15, 2011, 07:18:30 AM
Or maybe I'm one of the few that understand good bowlers make balls strike, not cores?
I understand core dynamics, and have no issues laying out high tech balls. I just don't see anything about these balls that makes them "better". They don't carry better, or hook more, or anything "BETTER" than symmetrical balls. I have drilled 2 Taboos that roll just fine...but when given the option I'll reach for my Hyroad or Gamebreaker almost every time. I have no issues getting those balls to hook, and can control the downlane motion with them MUCH better.
If high tech cores are so wonderful, why are most pros throwing midline balls during the week? Why weren't pros lining up in the truck to throw Morich balls when they were available? Why weren't they seen on tv more than once or twice a year?....
I think a lot of it is placebo effect. We convince ourselves these balls are better, so we strike more with them. Same way companies like Mona Vie and Limu dupe MILLIONS of people into buying $50 bottles of fruit juice. The same way Brunswick is selling people bracelets with magnets that "help balance"....how many times are people going to buy into crap like that before they realize there are no magic cures?
Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"
Post by: BowlingChat on April 15, 2011, 07:29:00 AM
I think, you're making my point here.
Get to know spin time and intermediate differential.
You can achieve lower spin times with asymmetrics than symmetrics everyday of the week.
Spin time is a measure of how fast a ball will respond to friction and change direction.
The tunability of asymmetrics far surpases symmetrics.
You probably like symmetrics because they're hard to screw up in terms of layouts.
However, the ceiling of tunability is much higher in asymmetrics.
I was like you a few years ago, I just wouldnt touch asymmetrics, I thought they just werent for me. I just didnt understand the tecnology, now over 1/2 my drilled balls are asymmetrics.
Let me help you here, you're a smart guy, you know your stuff and your specs.
Come over to BowlingChat.net and post your specs on the Mo & Friends forum, get your Dual Angle sweet spot from Mo himself, and find out how close it is to what you have on your current asymmetrics.
However, the ceiling of tunability is much higher in asymmetrics.
I was like you a few years ago, I just wouldnt touch asymmetrics, I thought they just werent for me. I just didnt understand the tecnology, now over 1/2 my drilled balls are asymmetrics.
Let me help you here, you're a smart guy, you know your stuff and your specs.
Come over to BowlingChat.net and post your specs on the Mo & Friends forum, get your Dual Angle sweet spot from Mo himself, and find out how close it is to what you have on your current asymmetrics.
They really have this stuff down, and are willing to help anyone.
Post by: storm making it rain on April 15, 2011, 07:47:11 AM
I believe the topic you're talking about is from the Storm forum about a layout for Nationals.
The reply from Chris Forry @ Buddies Pro Shop indicates the measurements you're speaking of. I for one would with out a doubt trust Forry's knowledge of ball drilling and ball dynamics. Before I started drilling my own equipment he drilled all my stuff and Inever had a problem with finding a reaction I was looking for. And I'm willing to bet there's 1000's of other people that feel the same way!
Post by: Russell on April 15, 2011, 07:49:43 AM
I've had stuff laid out from Mo...and disciples of his. I have never liked the motion they make down the lane. I know what my "sweet spot" is...I completely understand that asymmetrics are more "tunable" than symmetrics....but my question....
Is it really necessary?
Are we really helping advance the game of bowling by convincing people that the new "hook in a box" that is going to die in 40 games is the answer to their game? Do we need a "sweet spot" drilling pattern? To me when we quantify everything we get away from what makes good players good....FEEL.
Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"
Post by: Russell on April 15, 2011, 07:52:37 AM
You're right it is....but I'm not trying to question his knowledge as I know of him and know he is extremely good at what he does. Please understand I'm just questioning the environment we have all created where these fine lines are "needed".
Let me be clear in saying that I am not trying to specifically call him out...that's why I chose a new topic to question this. There are tons of examples that is just one I saw recently.
Another is in that forum right now where someone wants a ball to fit between the Midnight Vibe and Victory Road. Those balls really aren't that different (yes their different....but the gap is pretty small)....yet they need a ball to fit between them. We just make things much more complicated than they need to be.
Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"
Post by: BowlingChat on April 15, 2011, 07:56:56 AM
Dual Angle Sweetspots gives everyone a layout ranger that will best suit their game.
I think layouts are less about advancing the game and more about matching up.
If you've been participating or watching tournaments, its more about matching up now than purely talent. We're not all throwing LT-48's and Black Beauty's.
If you want to start talking about advancing the game, discuss getting rid of these awful house shots and put in a playable lower ratio shot.
You cant stop technology.
Post by: storm making it rain on April 15, 2011, 08:00:06 AM
I agree with you're statement here, alot of time these bowlers would rather just switch to a different ball than actually have to move their feet, target, hand position, etc. On most modern lane condition a good bowler could get by with a 3 ball arsenal, yet some people on here have a 10 ball league arsenal. I didn't mean to call you out either just expressing my opinion.
Post by: Urethane Game on April 15, 2011, 08:00:17 AM
I agree with your post Russell. Your only mistake was referencing the allmighty Mo Pinel in your post. :)
It seems to me some bowlers want to make bowling like fishing. I don't fish myself but when I accidentally end up on a fishing show on ESPN they are always talking about all the little tricks they use to catch fish.
Classic Rock and Blues Net Radio
Post by: Russell on April 15, 2011, 08:29:14 AM
I agree....you can't stop technology...but is it really helping the game?
People buy Taboos, Nanos, World Beaters, etc...and what do they all do...they quit hooking after 100 games at most. Even if kept clean the newer covers don't last more than a league season.
Bowling used to be the game that the blue collar player could do. Now it is more expensive than golf for a remotely competitive bowler. If you bowl a few tournaments a year you need to have a 4 or 5 ball arsenal at $180-$200 a piece. Most of those balls have to be replaced every 12 to 18 months, at a cost of another $1000.
I think most bowlers get lost in it now and eventually give up. Rather than finding ways to help advance the game, ball companies just keep throwing stuff against the wall trying to get it to stick to the average consumer. All the while alienating more and more people from the game.
Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"
Post by: BowlingChat on April 15, 2011, 08:43:11 AM
On THS? No.
On sport compliant? Yes, I think there is an advantage to having more friction at your disposal. Wouldnt you agree? Line up on a medium length sport compliant shot with an Absolute Inferno, roll and game, the switch to an Alpha Max and tell me its not helping.
"Stop hooking" meaning oil soaked?
You probably spent $200+ on a super cover ball, why not spend 10 bucks and put it in a revivor oven at your local proshop, and reset the oil clock?
Seems easy enough, and will be the new standard for longevity with these sponges.
Post by: Russell on April 15, 2011, 08:58:42 AM
We'll just have to disagree here...I rarely see anything where I think "god I wish I had a lot of hook in my hand". Most bowlers I see using Alpha Max's and Nano's could strike just as much with less ball in their hands. I just think there is a lot of Kool Aid being swallowed by the industry now....
Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"
Post by: BowlingChat on April 15, 2011, 09:05:24 AM
On THS or Sport?
Those are 2 different worlds of bowling.
Tom Hess won the Masters with the VG Nano.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at with all of this discussion.
I think you just want to argue just for the sake of argument.
Now you've got one.
Remember, we're not all like you Russell, whats good for you may not be good for someone else.
Edited by BowlingChat on 4/15/2011 at 9:07 AM
Post by: rvmark 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
Post by: Juggernaut 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.
Post by: Russell 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"
Post by: Dan Belcher 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)
Post by: Sikfish 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
Post by: BowlingChat 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.
Post by: Juggernaut 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.
Post by: BowlingChat 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.
Post by: DON DRAPER on April 15, 2011, 01:01:49 PM
Post by: NoseofRI 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
Post by: DON DRAPER on April 15, 2011, 01:07:23 PM
Post by: Steven on April 15, 2011, 01:15:55 PM
Nose: +1, well said......
Post by: Walking E 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
Post by: chatnboy 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!!!
Post by: BowlingChat 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.
Post by: The Stroke on April 15, 2011, 01:36:49 PM
well i'm sure someday you would like to average 215 with all your so- called knowledge. Until then, keep posting shots and using the broomstick technique.
Toodles
Post by: Juggernaut on April 15, 2011, 01:42:42 PM
BC.net,
I get all that. And, while not nearly the mind that Mo and some are, I am rather intelligent and understand what they are doing. What I fail to see is how it ISN'T over-complicating things that shouldn't need to be, or how it makes things better.
It's great that somebodies VG Nano can hook through those special condition designed specifically to make scoring harder, but if we had left things alone, we wouldn't NEED the VG Nano because we wouldn't HAVE special sport conditions, because you don't have to artificially create hard conditions unless the equipment helps bowlers more than it should.
The ball companies are the main culprits, preying on those who could never get their physical game to the levels they wanted, so when equipment became available that would allow them to do things they couldn't before (like hook it 15 boards and carry), they rushed to the manufacturers door. Once this began, it became a micro-culture of "latest,greatest, ball-of-the-week, better than ever" bowling equipment, which we have been struggling to keep up with ever since.
When you need to know:
1. Speed to within 1 mph
2. Tilt to within one degree
3. Axis rotation within one degree
4. Rotation speed within 5 revlolutions
5. Lane topography
6. oil type
7. oil pattern
just to get a drill pattern for your recreational league bowling ball, it is TOO COMPLICATED.
We now have $250 balls that are designed to last 5 (YES, FIVE) games before they start losing reaction, because after that point they begin to get oil soaking and loss of Ra and Rs values, which must be brought back to normal at significant cost, ESPECIALLY if you intend to try to use this ball for an entire season.
I'm not a guru, and Mo, admittedly by me, is. Thing is, when you NEED a guru, just to help understand how to drill a ball, it is FAR TOO COMPLICATED.
Post by: NoseofRI on April 15, 2011, 01:50:40 PM
Again, you are missing the point being made and instead specifically picking a phrase or two out of an entire statement and breaking it down.
I do know what I am talking about, and was trying to make a generalized point.
But, even if you do know this vast amount more than I do, why am I 20 pins better than you?
I fully undestand matching up is still important. But again, matching up mainly starts with just selecting the correct ball, and NOT taking just any ball and using all the drilling knowledge out there and getting a specific reaction. I have bowled plenty of tournaments where a matchup has been a 20 pin a game difference. But again, that's for me, and guys like me bowling many tournaments.
But I'm sorry a 215 league bowler is 215 for a reason and it's not match up. It's mainly spare shooting, 2-3 bad shots a game, and very inconsistent ball roll, not to mention most likely a lack of making adjustments.
I will address this again. A bowler who's physical game is bad will NOT benefit from all this layout fine tuning. The fine tuning that Russell is speaking of if more for high end tournament players looking for specific reactions. SO again, 90+% of bowlers won't benefit at all, no matter how much you fine tune their equipment. If this was the case then Mo would have gotten you to the 220-230s by now.
Post by: northface28 on April 15, 2011, 01:59:01 PM
Pretentious much???
*˙ǝɟıן ɹnoʎ ɟo spuoɔǝs ǝʌıɟ ʇsoן ʇsnɾ ǝʌɐɥ noʎ ʇɐɥʇ ʎɐs oʇ ʎɹɹos ɯɐ ı sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ noʎ ɟı
Post by: NoseofRI on April 15, 2011, 02:34:05 PM
Oh and Meva,
I do fully understand your point here. But using the racecar anology, you wouldn't give a racecar to a brand new driver, nor would you sell the fuel for racecars at a regular gas station.
Post by: BowlingChat on April 15, 2011, 03:41:58 PM
Let me make this clear, I am only representing my thoughts on this, I have only mentioned Asymmetrics in this, and I am not speaking on Mr Pinel's behalf, he speaks for himself.
Jug,
I will address you, since you're obviously here for the conversation and not personal jabs. (Who cares who has a higher average in this conversation, c'mon grow up.)
I think a lot of what you're saying may seem more complex, only because we have learned more about ball motion and ball reaction in the past few years than what we knew in 2 decades previous.
What you're seeing now is science, not guess and try operation, and guess what caused a difference like the eras previous.
Science has methods and proven reasons for outcomes.
In order to get to these outcomes you need precise input information and a defined process to get expected results.
CAD is used to get a reasonably close to real life model of expected results without trial and error.
Ball companies produce balls with the highest scoring potential possible within the bounds of USBC and the technology at the time. I wouldnt blame them for anything, they're trying to make money, I dont think their intent is to ruin the scoring environment.
What you view as "special" sport environments should have been the oil condition requirements response from the USBC when the technology boom started in the 1990's to keep the sport a sport and not a jewelry contest. Sport conditions should be viewed as a more realistic reflection of a bowler than the scores on a house shot. Do you honestly think ball companies target the less physically gifted bowlers with their products? Why are the pros using these products, scoring and winning titles?
I think ball companies target anyone that would purchase their product.
If you could get what you want, what would it be?
You think bowling would be better off if the cat went back in the bag, and we all throw LT-48's and Black Beauties with pancake cores again?
Unfortnately its not going to happen, and I dont think we'll be any better off, there will always be someone looking for an edge.
It happened then and it would happen again.
Post by: NoseofRI on April 15, 2011, 04:06:42 PM
Meva,
You are right it was a jab, but it's not being childish, nor was it meant as a "I'm better than you statement." In fact it is actually a very valid question.
As you have stated, matchup and fine tuning a layout can maximize the potential for the bowler and help to improve their average. You clearly have talked to Mo, quite a bit and picked up on a lot of what he is teaching. But when it comes down to it, why is it that myself or others in your league, or others that you know, may consistently score better than you? Is it because I always have a better matchup or more finely tuned layout? I highly doubt that considering you have Mo right there giving you layouts to use.
Back to the original question asked, "Do we make the game way too complicated?" My answer to this question is for 90 or % of bowlers, including a lot of guys on here, we absolutely do. My whole point in this conversation is, some practice and lessons for a lot of these 180-210 bowlers is going to go much, MUCH further than them having their Dual Angle Sweetspot. A 180 bowler can be turned into a 200 bowler with practice AND matchup, not matchup alone. And I mean actually be a 200 "bowler" not just "average" 200, very big difference there.
Just to close, I am absolutely for advancement of technology and the knowledge we have, but as always there are those that rely of that instead of just actually learning how to bowl.
Post by: BowlingChat on April 15, 2011, 04:26:14 PM
Post by: Juggernaut on April 15, 2011, 04:33:35 PM
BC.net,
Of course I am here for the conversation. Personal jabs only hurt feelings, and sidetrack anything that might've been constructive.
That being said, we are obviously trying to discuss a topic that we will NEVER see in the same light, because you cannot seem to get over how this is now a science, and how perfect the system is becoming because of the great minds working on it, while I'm trying to tell you that that very science, and the need for it in the first place, is OVERKILL on a MASSIVE scale, and should never have been made necessary, at least not nearly to the degree that it is.
You talk about needing precise input to calculate precise results, thing is, we are ALL human, and NOBODY is that precise. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human to perform within such detailed and minute parameters.
You talk about ball manufacturers producing balls with the highest scoring potential within the bounds of the rules, and I agree. THE RULES ARE ONE THING I DISAGREE WITH STRONGLY. They should've been much stricter and much more restrictive, but they weren't. And, the ball companies could care less about the "scoring pace", they're only interested in lining their pockets by over inflating the artificial market that they created. They don't care if you SCORE, only that you BUY.
And conditions. Yes, conditions should've kept up with technology, but to now have two different factions (sport and recreational) of bowlers is ridiculous. ALL BOWLING SHOULD BE DONE ON EQUITABLE LANE CONDITIONS THAT ARE THE SAME FOR ALL.
I don't believe the ball companies intentionallt targetted the lower level bowlers initially, but that is where the great majority of the market sprang from, so that is the sector they soon started to target and model for, and sell to, and those factors have worked together to get us the results we see today. As for the pros, what choice do they have with the way things are. I have no argument that the new stuff performs at a superior pace, what I'm saying is that that uplifted pace is far more than was ever needed, and far too technical for the average bowler. Even the pros now have special "ball reps" whose job it is to follow the pros around and figure out their ball problems for them, something few, if any, amatuers has.
No, I'm not talking about going THAT far back (but it would be ok), what I'm talking about is limits that should be put in place, FAR stricter than what we have now. Cut the differential limits in half, going toward the high end, and set tight limits on the core dynamics with MB limits in the .020 range for the max. Limit frictional capabilities of coverstocks to about half of what it currently is, and limit oil absorption capabilities to significantly lower levels.
And don't stop there. MANDATE AND ENFORCE LANE CONDITIONS. U.S.B.C. always claims that they certify lane playing conditions, but that is hogwash, and you know it. Have an upper limit of 4:1 ratio.
And KILL THESE EMPTY, HOLLOW, EASILY KNOCKED OVER PINS. Bring them up to 4lbs and remove all voids.
Sadly, I know these things will never happen. The horse is out of the barn, and too many people would suffer and go broke if it did now. Thing is, it should've happened back when it still could've, and it just didn't, so now weve ended up with this over complicated, artificially inflated, self fulfilling environment we have now.
Post by: NoseofRI on April 15, 2011, 04:34:06 PM
Ok BowlingChat,
I have asked one question of you in this discussion. As your point was that all this is necessary as people want to average 225 not 215, I made a point regarding why myself or others may consistently perform better than you on the lanes when you clearly have more finely tuned layouts?
I am attempting to have a valid discussion regarding the question that Russell has asked, and my last post was basically everything from my side of the debate, so I would like to hear your responses to the things I specifically addressed.
Post by: BowlingChat on April 15, 2011, 05:17:41 PM
This science is not perfect, no science is, but its better than what we had. Which was mostly guess work and trial and error. Providing bowler release specs and target conditions will give an accurate as possible result in terms of layout. This science will offer the most consistent results we can give at this moment.
You and I both know we dont need super covers unless the oils change, which they have. League bowlers still buy these bombers, and try to bring them to 50 year old wood houses and wonder why they roll forward at 25 feet. It happens without education of the product.
I agree with you on a personal level about the restrictions on RA, differential, but RG has less effect on ball reaction than you think. Even at .020 total differential, you can raise the value quite a bit with a double thumb layout or P4 hole. Until there are limitations on equipment specifications, you will see technology continue to evolve at this pace.
So are you going to eliminate weight holes too? static weight limitations?
In terms of lane conditions being equal for all, unfortunately lane topography is different in every house, and that alone has a drastic impact on scoring pace.
I can agree with 4:1 or 5:1, higher unit minimum with a 40 foot minimum.
I can agree with 4:1 or 5:1, higher unit minimum with a 40 foot minimum.
Heavier pins wont happen, as even the gold pins damaged some pinsetters.
Im not sure if we're beyond the point of no return here, I still think one thing holds true, balls still dont hook in oil, flatten these patterns out, lengthen them, and we'll see what happens.
Thanks for the conversation.
Post by: BowlingChat on April 15, 2011, 05:33:07 PM
OK,
Nowhere did I say layouts make you a 215-225 average bowler, I just made a reference to how much layouts can affect your game. Poorly executed layouts or surface prep can dip your scoring potential. It can be the difference between 215 and 225. League bowlers want to average as high as possible, you're not competitive if you done.
Why are you obsessed with me as a bowler? Im not sure that has anything to do with this conversation.
I didnt bowl league this year due to major changes in my game, you have no idea what I average now.
I have arthritis in my slide knee that restricts me to bowling once per week including practice, and I have other obligations to business, family, fitness, my home, and 2 websites that take up my time. Giving back to bowling is more important to me than becoming a better bowler.
There are other people that work with Mo (including prominent pros) that average much higher after working with him, so im not sure what your point is here.
Dedicating yourself to the game should be the first step in becoming a good bowler, I'll never argue that, that passion goes farthest in any endeavor.
We're off track here, my original point was, dont give asymmetrics a bad rap because yourself or your ball driller do not understand them.
They are what they are, and you or your ball driller should honestly understand how they work, for the benefit of your own game, they can give you a look symmetrics cant.
We're off track here, my original point was, dont give asymmetrics a bad rap because yourself or your ball driller do not understand them.
They are what they are, and you or your ball driller should honestly understand how they work, for the benefit of your own game, they can give you a look symmetrics cant.
Manufacturers dont make bad balls anymore, poor layouts and uses make bad balls.
Post by: Juggernaut on April 15, 2011, 06:48:49 PM
BC.net,
I don't think we are far apart on what we should be seeing now, just differ on how it should've come about and what we should be doing now.
I think we should still be using, at the most, balls made from aggressive urethane with NO reactives. I also think that core technology should've stopped with the most basic of two piece technology similar to the old Hammers, Cobras, and Turbos of the day.
Then, to top that off, we should have conditions that will put a premium on well made shots and repetitiveness of those.
Create static limits on balls to be enforced POST drilling. Alongside those, create DYNAMIC limits as well.
We both feel that bowling well and scoring well should be something that you earn through practice and personal effort, not something you can do by purchasing equipment that allows you to artificially bolster you past your own true ability level.
I feel we should've handled this in the past and remained at that level. You feel like we should just keep adding oil and making the shots harder and harder to overpower no matter what equipment is used. The difference, to me, is this. My way we can keep the game relatively easy and simple while still controling the scoring pace while your way makes things intentionally hard and demanding in order to prevent people from being able to hit the shot/condition.
In essence, I think SCORING should be hard while you think BOWLING ITSSELF should be hard and challenging, thus making scores go down.
If bowling is easy and uncomplicated, it can attract many. If it gets like Chinese algebra, many are likely to find alternatives for their recreation.
CONTROL THE SCORING. If that means going back to hard rubber balls and wooden pins with oil put out merely to protect the lane surface, then let it be so.
I think my way is simple. I think yours is over complicated. I think they both do about the same thing.
Post by: Russell on April 15, 2011, 08:25:09 PM
BC,
Talking down to me about my "lack of knowledge" is really getting you nowhere to proving a point. I'd like to know what it is in my original post that remotely told you:
- I drill everything with long pins
- I have low tilt
- I don't know how to lay out asymmetricals
- I am using antiquated drilling techniques
You're a condescending little prude that thinks you know it all. I know plenty about ball motion and layouts, and I know enough about the real world of bowling to know that the best on the planet don't complicate things this much. You're kidding yourself if you think that the truly elite players out there really give 1/2 of one s**t whether the pin is 1/8" closer to their PAP, or the spin time of the new ball that comes out.
I just don't drink your kool aid, or Mo's. If he's so great at the technical side of bowling WHY DOES MORICH RELEASE TURD AFTER TURD AFTER TURD AFTER TURD? I know Mo is a genius...but the practical application of rocket science to a simple game with some huge variables is just unnecessary.
Now go ahead and tell me how little I know. I'll go back to making my customers happy with my "old school" layouts that seem to keep working.
Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"
Post by: scotts33 on April 15, 2011, 08:29:08 PM
I'll add to this thread slightly. I believe most refer back to the THS. That's the base line....let's face it most do not bowl on anything more than THS league conditions even the hacks that post on here myself included. Most with average ball speed 14 to 15 at the deck and average hand 300-325 on a wet/dry THS of 38 to 40 feet don't need high tech balls. So, be it purchase your low entry level ball and that performance will be above what you need if you have any hand.
Ball manuafcturers are not going to be making as much $$$ selling entry level pieces and we all know that. It's a chicken before the egg ,etc.
I've proved that to myself by purchasing medium to higher end balls...I don't need them expect for flatter conditions. BUT, most that post on these forums are not Joe Bowlers in our expectations or we are looking for the next best equation. That's where Russell's discussion comes in....you bowl on a THS use a low cost entry level piece line up and use it. No high end pieces are needed. That's the difference between high end and low end.....we don't need them and yes I understand the layout/surface/lane topography thingy. Most that use high end stuff lay them out weak to use them or have stats. that are way above most of us Joe Bowlers.
Scott
Post by: BowlingChat on April 15, 2011, 08:37:59 PM
Typical BR, resort to name calling.
Im not going to retaliate, if you think Mo makes turds, you obviously dont know as much as you think about asymmetrics.
Good luck.
Post by: Russell on April 15, 2011, 09:07:12 PM
Yes Morich balls are great...because you say so. Why didn't the best in the world fight over them on the truck? I asked the same question of Lane 1 a few years ago. If they're THAT good...wouldn't everyone be throwing them. I mean if my living depended on my ability to strike...wouldn't I use everything at my disposal to do it more than anyone else?
EVERY Morich ball hasn't sucked...let me make that clear. An overwhelming number of them have underperformed. This is not coming from me but from peer after peer that thinks so.
What's funny to me is that when I get around people that believe the kool aid...they lay everything out the same. I see ball after ball with the pin in the same area on the ball. They believe that numbers are more important than reality.
Yes me calling you condescending was "name calling"...lol..(if the shoe fits)..nice cop-out.
Have a nice day.
Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"
Post by: BowlingChat on April 15, 2011, 09:36:58 PM
Your kool aid talk is nauseating Russell, dont pin that crap on me.
Im not paid or given any products by Mo or MoRich.
I never said they were the end-all to all products.
You do realize MoRich has been a part of multiple titles on tour right?
Besides, I've been talking about asymmetrics in general during the majority of this topic.
I own 0 MoRich balls in the current lineup, but have an understanding of how hard Mo works at getting the best product out there.
And not just that, but all of the work he does with IBPSIA and communications via magazines as well as all of the research he does. He pours his heart into everything he does with this sport, including his products. You think hes just some jamoke releasing balls without any research, good or bad? Sorry, hes definitely not that guy.
He's got too much pride and emotional investment in bowling.
Just because you have peers, doesnt mean they know how to drill those products either. Im amazed by how many ball drillers treat these strong asymmetrics as any other symmetric.
You would think time after time these MoRich products arent working for you it would be some sort of indication that *possibly* its *you* not doing something right?
Who would have thought?
Post by: Juggernaut on April 16, 2011, 05:19:23 AM
BC.net,
I think what Russell is saying is that having someone like Mo designing bowling balls is like having a demolitions expert designing fire crackers. The guy is going to just continue to develop stuff FAR past what's necessary, all the while preaching the sermon of more, bigger, better because that is what HE does, making bigger and bigger, and shouting "better and better" all the time. Bigger and stronger IS NOT always better.
Mo is, undoubtedly, very smart at what he does. Thing is, he, and others like him, should be using their intelligence and resources on something people really need instead of wasting it all designing bowling equipment that is technologically developed FAR past what was EVER needed.
Back before the "Great technological Revolution", the game you saw on TV wasn't that far removed from the one you could go down and play yourself. The difference was in your ability to make the pins fall over like those guys on TV, and it was REAL EASY to see the difference with no explanation of "how much harder their shot is" or "how much better and gifted they are" being necessary.
I know you don't understand my points fully, because you can't. You weren't there to see it all happen, and I've chased it all the way from the yellow dot, to urethane, to two piece technology, to reactive resin, all the way through to today. Along the way, we went from having an easy to play/hard to master SPORT, to an overdeveloped and ridiculously hard to learn GAME, rife with complex formulas that are hard to understand, yet necessary if you really expect your $250 investment to work for all 10 games it was designed to work for, then spend even more on it just to get it to work 10 more games, keeping in mind you can only do this 5 times, then must drop another $250 to replace it.
This is good HOW?
Post by: BowlingChat on April 16, 2011, 05:30:38 AM
Jug,
I fully understand what you're saying, unfortunately we are where we are now with technology and going back to uniform equipment and coverstocks just isnt possible.
I really dont want to veer away from the original topic anymore, I think I've made it pretty clear what my points are with education of consumers and proshops necessary to ensure a product is delivered as intended.
Post by: Juggernaut on April 16, 2011, 06:11:44 AM
BC.net,
I understand. Heck, things being what they are, I even agree. I just think, as per the original subject, that yes, we have complicated things way past what was necessary.
Now that we are where we are, yea, we have to utilize all available to us to keep up. I just wish all this stuff had never happened.
You guys would've loved it, I promise. Just you and your simple ball, drilled to fit your hand (most important factor in drilling was the fit), against an unknown foe(oil conditions) and those ten white pins with the challenge of being good enough to knock over more than your technologically equal opponent.
NO worries about RG's, RA's, spin time, flare rate, oil absorption, or ANY of the concerns of many modern bowlers. Just you, a ball, a reaction, and your ability to manipulate it better than your opponent.
Man, THAT was GREAT!
Post by: CHawk15 on April 16, 2011, 09:59:16 AM
The short answer is yes, we do make it too difficult.
Post by: Juggernaut on April 16, 2011, 10:08:51 AM
Dang CHawk15, you're taking all the fun out of it with those short, concise, and insightive answers.
Post by: RevZiLLa on April 16, 2011, 10:34:09 AM
Short answer....YES, we make things more complicated than we need to when it comes to the majority of bowlers. Take someone in the PBA who can actually repeat shots and read transitions and the edge that industry innovators can provide becomes meaningful. Example - The plastic ball tournament where 1st and 2nd place used a drilling that Mo derived using science.
Don't judge coaches by whether their students become PBA material, judge them by whether they can help someone improve within their limitations and better enjoy Bowling. Mo Pinel, Del Warren, Richie Sposato, Dale Nimeala, and other top coaches have helped me out of kindness and genuine joy in helping others and seeing them succeed. Not everyone that gets great coaching has the potential to be a great bowler, but the fact that they seek help and love our sport makes them worth the effort. Mo can not make me 19 years old gain. He can not bring back my 20/10 vision or put my diabetes into remission. He can not mend my broken elbow or make me lose weight...though he encourages it. I will never be a great bowler, but I will always love bowing and what Mo can do is give advice on my physical game and help with ball selection and drillings to compensate for my slow speed.
Don't judge coaches by whether their students become PBA material, judge them by whether they can help someone improve within their limitations and better enjoy Bowling. Mo Pinel, Del Warren, Richie Sposato, Dale Nimeala, and other top coaches have helped me out of kindness and genuine joy in helping others and seeing them succeed. Not everyone that gets great coaching has the potential to be a great bowler, but the fact that they seek help and love our sport makes them worth the effort. Mo can not make me 19 years old gain. He can not bring back my 20/10 vision or put my diabetes into remission. He can not mend my broken elbow or make me lose weight...though he encourages it. I will never be a great bowler, but I will always love bowing and what Mo can do is give advice on my physical game and help with ball selection and drillings to compensate for my slow speed.
I am proud to call bowlers and people who care enough to help bowlers my friends.
RevZ=======================
\I/
Post by: six pack on April 16, 2011, 04:37:28 PM
Thinking about this topic as I read is throughout my years of bowling I've done my best with asymetrical equipment.
but then again,what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander.BTW,I loved the Awesome series MoRich put out.
The harder I try the harder they fall
Post by: Russell on April 16, 2011, 04:44:36 PM
Yes multiple titles....how many were by someone OTHER than Walter Ray?...who could have won titles with a Yellow Dot during that timeframe.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I know what I see....and you can assume all day, but you don't know me...or what I know...or how I drill. I remember being told the need for all of these hook monsters was to help the fudge knuckle bowlers get hook...now you're telling me that it's to help the "players"...all that I know throw weak stuff by the way.
It's like trying to discuss economics with a progressive...they talk from both sides of their mouth and never make any sense. When you catch them they just say "well you just don't understand"....and that's the catch-all rebuttal.
Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"
Post by: AlBundy33 on April 18, 2011, 04:22:21 AM
Going back to Randy's original post, I do think we make the game more complicated than it really should be at times. After being away from the game more or less for about five years (returning in the fall), when I finally decided to get some newer stuff drilled (due to the reason that none of my old stuff fit my hand) I basically went over mentally what drillings and RGs have worked over the years.....and what hasn't worked.
As for dual angles, PAP and some of that other crap.....I was blown away with what the "supposed science of drilling" has gone on with my time away from the game. To me, it's all about if you can execute the shot or not. If you can, you will score. If not, you won't simple as that.
As for MoRich stuff, years ago I threw a buddy's Minotaur and was convinced that it was the worst hitting ball that I've ever seen in my life. The only stuff I can even can compare it to is some of the early Hammer stuff that Ebonite made when they took over from Faball.
"Pretty women make us buy beer, ugly women make us drink beer"
Post by: Russell on April 18, 2011, 05:03:20 AM
al,
That just means you don't understand, like me...most 900s have been thrown with older balls (or with older technology). The best in the world use simple layouts on simple cores...but we just don't understand.
Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"
Post by: NoseofRI on April 18, 2011, 07:23:18 AM
BC.net,
My point had nothing regarding being obsessed with your game. You had stated in an earlier post
"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."
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."
So from that my point was simply a better matchup will not get the typical league bowler from 215 to 225, which you had clearly implied. I will agree that a guy who is at 215 may benefit from the right ball and layout to the point that maybe he gets to 220, but he's just scoring better, not actually becoming better. When it all comes down to it, there's something besides matchup that has kept this person at 215. So when I referred to you and your average, I was bacially asking how much you have improved from better layouts alone. Judging by your statement below regarding making major changes to your game, I would say the answer is not that much and my point was proven.
Because, again, my point is for people to get to that next level, they must practice and work on their game rather than relying strictly on matchup and layout.
All this is why I was in agreement with Russell in the fact that yes, we make things way to complicated. And I even took it slightly further to specifically say for 90 or so % of bowlers. I absolutely agree that with the way the game has changed, at times all this technology and knowledge is needed. But for the 160-170 bowler, why do they need some finely tuned asymetric HP bowling ball, when there's so much of the game they should be learning first?
All this is why I was in agreement with Russell in the fact that yes, we make things way to complicated. And I even took it slightly further to specifically say for 90 or so % of bowlers. I absolutely agree that with the way the game has changed, at times all this technology and knowledge is needed. But for the 160-170 bowler, why do they need some finely tuned asymetric HP bowling ball, when there's so much of the game they should be learning first?
You are right, there really aren't any bad balls made anymore, as everything has it's place on a certain condition with a certain bowler. But I will also add that besides poor layouts and uses, bad bowlers also make bad bowling balls.
Post by: Sunshine n Lollipops on April 18, 2011, 06:46:18 PM
Now, THIS is a funny post. True, but funny. Why does some guy from another website come on here and put BR members down. Just joined this site and from what I have read from Mr. "BowlingChat", I don't think I'll ever be checking out that site.
BTW, answer to the OP is YES, some clowns make this sport waaaaaay too complicated and are just deluding themselves into thinking a drilling is somehow going to magically transform their game from crap to gold.
Turn that frown upside down!
Post by: kidlost2000 on April 18, 2011, 07:33:18 PM
Late to this but have skimmed through it some.
Simple layouts are relative to the persons understanding of bowling. Dual angles if nothing else is a very easy way to layout your equipment exact from one ball to the next. Also from one bowler to the next. If we all picked up and threw the same bowling ball, our different styles would have some different reactions from that one bowling ball. The reason being is the balls pin to pap is different for each bowler even thought it is the same ball.
Now in terms of does a half inch or inch make a difference when dealing with pin locations on a bowling ball?
Yes.
It will also depend on the bowling ball. In general with your mid to higher end bowling balls and the aggressiveness of the core, every bit the pin is moved will have a larger effect then on something like a Slingshot.
That being said I prefer simple. I found after drilling many many bowling balls that I have about four main layouts that I use consistently and thats it. Occasionally I will try something outside of the box for something specific, but by in large I go with a standard four patterns and let the BALL be the DIFFERENCE. It is simple.
Be good, or be good at it.
Post by: Russell on April 18, 2011, 07:46:27 PM
kidlost,
I am not saying that 1/2" doesn't matter....I said 1/8". I agree dual angle is a good layout technique. I prefer to place pin and mb by coordinate method (ex 4.5" pin 5" mb 3" above midline). In the grand scheme of things they end up the same, as the higher the pin, the more dramatic the move downlane....same as low angle dual layouts.
Doesn't make dual angle wrong....just not running out and changing everything I have ever done because of the new flavor of the month. I talk to people that think because something new comes out that everything done before that point is wrong. I find it funny that a couple of the tour reps don't even use dual angle....you would think that if it were the gospel they would use it for the best on the planet.
Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"
Post by: on April 19, 2011, 09:37:56 AM
Those that want to worry about every 1/8 of an inch on their layout will always do so. They want to have something to talk endlessly about after league as to why they did (or did not) score that night.
The rest of the bowling population will do their best to execute shots, and after league probably blame themselves whether they did (or did not) score that night.
I have been cornered many times by the former asking the endless questions about their equipment, etc., when in actuality their physical and mental games need improvement. It's true that the science of the sport isn't going away. I just don't think I need to know ALL of it to enjoy the game.
To those who love the technical side of the sport I say knock yourselves out. Read anything and everything you can get your hands on. We are not all the same, so if it appeals to you then keep after it. In the event that you find that magical layout that doesn't require that you come near your target on a regular basis I will be all ears. Until then I will trust that execution and surface preparation are the key and I will keep working on them. Good luck to all of us as we move forward. It has been fun hearing both sides of this question.
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
Brunswick Pro Shop Staff
www.brunswickbowling.com
The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer and not of Brunswick Corporation.
Edited by notclay on 4/19/2011 at 9:39 AM
Post by: Coolerman on April 19, 2011, 09:59:38 AM
With so much time and energy being spent on telling us that we should be
concerned about layouts and dynamics,just the opposite is true.Ball cover
and surface adjustments are key to matching up to the pattern in front of you.
When us bowlers or PBA members are not matching up,the first thing we
look for is matching up with the right ball that has the correct coverstock
strength, and the correct cover adjustment to the surface.
If you are using a plastic ball on a 46' heavily oiled flat surface,and the
ball is not working,are you going to go get another plastic ball we a
dynamic drilling that transitions sooner.Or are you going to get a different
ball with a stronger coverstock and the proper cover adjustment.Keep it simple.
Post by: kidlost2000 on April 19, 2011, 07:39:32 PM
1/8" does make a difference in the respects of what it does to the ball. Is it noticeable to us? Not likely. I agree that in the scheme of things after the ball is drilled it all comes down to surface.
The problem with most of the Morich LevRG series in my opinion was that most of the balls in that series had strong duller covers. When I added polish to my LevRG and N'tense LevRG they went from being so so to amazing. Only one house that I came across had enough oil for the N'tense to be used OOB. I know many people including myself had the same problem with the Hammer Jigsaw. OBB was a turd, but after some polish was the most amazing ball I've seen in a while. Even then it still was too much ball to use more then a game and a half most nights of league.
Only time I get concerned with small fraction changes in pin distance is when trying to keep the pin away from finger holes. I prefer a little bit of a buffer.(thats just me)
Be good, or be good at it.
Post by: completebowler on April 20, 2011, 08:50:45 AM
I think the "hook monsters" are very important. They allow a speed dominant player to see more motion that helps them carry more corners. They also help a power tweener like myself step left and carry. It is just fact. When watching other guys scoring well in a squad playing 5-10 boards deeper it gives me a clue where the pattern should be attacked. I can tell you now, I won't be stepping in there with a Tropical or Freeze. Now, I could continue playing my 10-8 little belly but not all of us are Norm Duke or Walter Ray.
The layout techniques to me are reserved for the best players. I don't bother getting a PAP off a 160-170 bowler who I am going to go out and coach after I drill the ball.
Russell and Jug I definitely see your points and many times agree but this topic got skewed a bit. We all want to score better....not just bowl better. And every ball, every technology has a place in today game to help us in that pursuit.
ALL STAR BOWLING & TROPHY
LANGAN'S ALL STAR LANES
IBPSIA MEMBER
WALLED LAKE MI
LANGAN'S ALL STAR LANES
IBPSIA MEMBER
WALLED LAKE MI
Post by: kidlost2000 on April 20, 2011, 09:01:00 AM
Reminds me of something I've learned while bowling as well.
When your bowling good the ball doesn't matter.
When your bowling bad the ball doesn't matter.
Be good, or be good at it.
Post by: completebowler on April 20, 2011, 09:03:07 AM
ALL STAR BOWLING & TROPHY
LANGAN'S ALL STAR LANES
IBPSIA MEMBER
WALLED LAKE MI
LANGAN'S ALL STAR LANES
IBPSIA MEMBER
WALLED LAKE MI
Post by: Russell on April 20, 2011, 09:52:03 AM
Complete I agree with your points...and yes the technology is different. I honestly don't think the scoring boom of the past few years is due to ball technology. I went and looked up balls used by guys that have shot 900...and there are VERY few high end balls on the list. Most of them are midline...or even older balls. I think it has more to do with the changes in lane oil.
I remember bowling second shift leagues a few years ago starting around 5th arrow and ending the night sliding in the left ditch. Now you make one...maybe two moves a night and never change balls....or speeds...just a quick 4 and 2 left and you're back on the strike train. I started bowling at the end of last year after taking most of the year off. I threw it horrible and one night shot 770...I remember I didn't feel like I had bowled well at all...I just never had to move one time. I started looking 14 at the arrows...and ended looking 14 at the arrows. That was unheard of 10 years ago.
I think that has more to do with the scoring than cores....just my opinion.
Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"
Post by: kidlost2000 on April 20, 2011, 10:03:08 AM
It would be hard to shoot 900(with any ball) or with many of the high end balls because of the covers. They break down the lanes/lines quickly and you would have to move a lot through the course of three games. With most of the midline and less equipment you can go a whole night and make much smaller moves.
There is a lot of talk about this new oil but I haven't seen it. During league we rarely see a heavy oiled shot and most tournaments are the same. Maybe it does exist somewhere besides nationals or maybe it is relative to your style of bowling.
Be good, or be good at it.
Post by: Dan Belcher on April 20, 2011, 10:44:10 AM
It seems like I have to move more now than I used to just five years ago. I've had plenty of nights this past season where I started with a baby swing of 10 at the arrows to 8 at the breakpoint, and by the end of the 3rd game I was playing 20 at the arrows to 10 at the breakpoint with a weaker ball. On the other hand, I've also had a few nights at the same house where I got to camp out and move only 2 and 1 left the entire night. (Not coincidentally, almost all of my best series came on those nights.) Almost all of those were cases of me being one of only two or three people playing anywhere close to that part of the lane.