Author Topic: Is it the ball technology?? (Read 3669 times)

J_w73 · « **on:** February 16, 2010, 07:53:11 AM »

Everyone talks about how the equipment today is high scoring and makes the game way easier. Is it the equipment? Or is it the lane maintanence?
Yeah the coverstocks and cores have something to do with it but has the advances in the lane machines made the shot easier. They can strip every drop off the lane and put the oil exactly where you want it and at the volume you want. Back in the old days you had to clean/strip the lanes by hand. I doubt that was done consistantly. You also had oil metering that wasn't very accurate or consistant as far as volume and placement.

I just ask because I see guys tearing up house shots with older technology urethane. We had a guy average 222 with his plastic spare ball last year.
He would have been a god in the 60's , 70's, and 80's if he averaged 220 with a yellow dot.

I'm not an expert how things used to be done so if anyone has any input that would be great..
--------------------
18 mph,350 rpm,PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8up, 15 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
HighGame 300 x 4, High Series 808
Book Average 205,PBA Xperience 185

JustRico · « **Reply #1 on:** February 16, 2010, 04:01:44 PM »

Did the egg come first or the chicken...or was it the eggplant?
--------------------
Formerly BrunsRico

Skizriz · « **Reply #2 on:** February 16, 2010, 04:15:33 PM »

Just a thought here,but nobody ever mentions how the age of the internet has helped increased bowling scores.
Take me for example. I have learned more from this site alone than most bowlers in the "golden age" could learn in a lifetime.
I couldn't imagine how little my game would have progressed since I started if I would have had to figure out everything through trial and error. I know it will never compare to a flesh and blood quality coach, but that is pretty much unavailable to me.

Just a little food for thought. And a thanks to the people on sites like this willing to help out others like me.

--------------------
"I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather....Not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car"

leftyinsnellville · « **Reply #3 on:** February 16, 2010, 04:34:56 PM »

I also think that, in general, top level bowlers are better than they used to be back in the 50s through the 80s. There was a day that only a few guys could really put the revs on the ball, and most of them didn't have great control. It's pretty common these days to see higher rev players with pretty good accuracy. It may be that more and more bowlers have better releases than they used to...I regularly see bowlers throw with really high rev rates but they don't contort their body like the high rev bowlers used to back in the day.
--------------------
I wanna be a house hack when I grow up.

http://averagebowlersballreviews.com/

Bluff · « **Reply #4 on:** February 16, 2010, 04:53:03 PM »

Left Side is not bowling
Right side is the Only Way
--------------------
"A man with no skills can be taught. A man with no honor, has nothing."

leftyinsnellville · « **Reply #5 on:** February 16, 2010, 05:14:23 PM »

quote:
quote:
I also think that, in general, top level bowlers are better than they used to be back in the 50s through the 80s. There was a day that only a few guys could really put the revs on the ball, and most of them didn't have great control. It's pretty common these days to see higher rev players with pretty good accuracy. It may be that more and more bowlers have better releases than they used to...I regularly see bowlers throw with really high rev rates but they don't contort their body like the high rev bowlers used to back in the day.
--------------------
I wanna be a house hack when I grow up.

http://averagebowlersballreviews.com/

bowlers today are nowhere near as good as they were back inthe day.in the early days a premium was placed on shot making,nowadays anybody who can hit a 6 board area can average 220 on a ths. even in the pba who wins the guys who can split boards,thats why we see wrw jr and chris barnes every week ,and mike devaney is lucky to make one show a year
--------------------
KING OF THE WALLED UP HOUSE SHOT 300!!!!!!

I don't buy it. How is it that in every other sport players have gotten better and better as the years go by, but bowlers today aren't near as good as they used to be? I'm not saying that the conditions and the equipment haven't improved (as they have in just about every other sport also), but I've been bowling for 37 years and I've watched top end bowlers get better and better as the years go by.

J_w73 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 16, 2010, 05:30:16 PM »

I would think that if the conditions are easier and give you a bigger margin of error and the equipment gives you a larger margin of error then even though there have been advancements in the sport the overall skill level could be less. Just like taking a guy that hooks the lane and has only ever seen a wall where he can just throw right and watch the ball come back into the pocket..
put him on on a flat patern and more than likely he isn't going to be within 50 pins of his average. If you grow up with that you don't know what a tough shot is or how to handle it.

--------------------
18 mph,350 rpm,PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8up, 15 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
HighGame 300 x 4, High Series 808
Book Average 205,PBA Xperience 185

bighook69 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 16, 2010, 06:51:27 PM »

I had talked to Billy O about his working with Carmen Salvino on the development of the C System... and in talking about it Billy mentioned that Carmen felt that bowlers today are better than bowlers from "back in the day", and that scores are higher now because of advanced equipment but also because bowlers are also at a higher level.

Obviously this does not apply to guys who average 220 at one house where they have 5+ boards of room... but if you look at a lot of the "top" bowlers in their respective leagues they usually have a good grasp on the "modern games" mechanics and speaking about crankers in specific (because it was a almost non-existent style in the 50''s-60''s) the whole idea about putting revolutions on the ball is to extend your mistake room in the pocket... so if you say (just random numbers) someone from the 50''s era might have only had 1.5-2 boards mistake room to strike... a modern cranker may have 3-4 boards on that same shot with the same ball...

I believe the "modern game" which is usually a reliance on high entry angle to the pins makes the majority of high caliber bowlers today better than the bowlers of the same caliber from decades ago, even using old equipment, because modern bowlers simply have a physical advantage with the rev rates and speed... accuracy is huge in bowling but "power" is a great way to get around it (to X amount obviously).

Edited on 2/16/2010 7:53 PM

Tondo · « **Reply #8 on:** March 20, 2010, 03:35:50 AM »

Sorry to burst most everyone's bubble, but having been through all of the technology changes from rubber to plastic to urethane to reactives to reactives with dynamic cores I can definitely tell you it is purely the ball that is making the difference. I know guys that I bowled with in the late 80's that were 185 to 190, but put reactive in their hand and they are now 215 to 220. Put reactive with a dynamic core in their hand and now they are 225 plus.
I also bowled against guys who had the newest balls out and I had stuff that was 1 to 2 yrs old. Mind you they were 5 to 10 pins behind me and they caught up to me with their new stuff. Technology is making up the difference not the bowlers being better. Another dynamic is coming into play, the price of lineage keeps going up. So most people do not practice as much as they did say in the 70's and 80's.

J_w73 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 20, 2010, 03:45:14 AM »

quote:
Sorry to burst most everyone's bubble, but having been through all of the technology changes from rubber to plastic to urethane to reactives to reactives with dynamic cores I can definitely tell you it is purely the ball that is making the difference. I know guys that I bowled with in the late 80's that were 185 to 190, but put reactive in their hand and they are now 215 to 220. Put reactive with a dynamic core in their hand and now they are 225 plus.
I also bowled against guys who had the newest balls out and I had stuff that was 1 to 2 yrs old. Mind you they were 5 to 10 pins behind me and they caught up to me with their new stuff. Technology is making up the difference not the bowlers being better. Another dynamic is coming into play, the price of lineage keeps going up. So most people do not practice as much as they did say in the 70's and 80's.

How do you account for guys averaging 220 plus with plastic.. we had a guy do that all last year..
averaging 220 back in the plastic era was pretty much unheard of wasn't it..
that was top pro quality... granted this is a house shot but I don't know what year the pro shot started becoming alot different than what the standard bowler saw in league..
--------------------
18 mph,350 rpm,PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8up, 15 deg axis tilt, varied rotational axis deg.. usually 45+
HighGame 300 x 4, High Series 808
Book Average 205,PBA Xperience 185

Tondo · « **Reply #10 on:** March 20, 2010, 05:54:26 AM »

quote:
How do you account for guys averaging 220 plus with plastic.. we had a guy do that all last year..
averaging 220 back in the plastic era was pretty much unheard of wasn't it..
that was top pro quality... granted this is a house shot but I don't know what year the pro shot started becoming alot different than what the standard bowler saw in league..

I guess you are missing the point. I never said a person could not average 220 now days with plastic, did I? It is a matter of matching up. Massive wet/ dry throw bullets up the first arrow. My father and another guy averaged over 250 in a summer league with rubber in 1978 or 1979. Massive wet/dry.
My point is more people are scoring higher now than in the past. Just look at the rise in 300 games per year since the balls have become more aggressive. Everybody and their brother can now shoot 300. Also a good bowler is a good bowler no matter the equipment. Look ay WRW he has won on tour with plastic. Yes, plastic, he won using plastic when Ebonite wanted him to use the lastest resin. He won with urethane and he has won with all types oh resins. Get the point?

ambi1 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 20, 2010, 06:03:41 AM »

MHO:

For the average guy, playing in THS, most of the improvement has been thru technology. Not to say there is a small percentage of house bowlers who aren't good enough to start with. But today I see so many wrong styles of swing, timing, releases and yet the carry compared to urethane in the 80's is phenomenal.
Low track releases that would leave a 5-7 split before still have a decent chance to carry today. And right there and then is aleady a 10 to 20 pins difference, depending on the previous frames.

For the pro level, I would say the skill level is about the same, but maybe on different areas of emphasis.
--------------------

DARK BEER IT IS THEN!

JohnP · « **Reply #12 on:** March 20, 2010, 11:20:16 AM »

quote:
Sorry to burst most everyone's bubble, but having been through all of the technology changes from rubber to plastic to urethane to reactives to reactives with dynamic cores I can definitely tell you it is purely the ball that is making the difference. I know guys that I bowled with in the late 80's that were 185 to 190, but put reactive in their hand and they are now 215 to 220. Put reactive with a dynamic core in their hand and now they are 225 plus.

Let me set the oil pattern and I'll bring every one of them back to below that 180 - 190 average! The balls do play a part in the high scores, but the lane man still rules./ -- JohnP

trash heap · « **Reply #13 on:** March 20, 2010, 11:56:23 AM »

quote:
I had talked to Billy O about his working with Carmen Salvino on the development of the C System... and in talking about it Billy mentioned that Carmen felt that bowlers today are better than bowlers from "back in the day", and that scores are higher now because of advanced equipment but also because bowlers are also at a higher level.

The research and development going into this sport is NOT NEEDED. Most of this R&D has just increased price. Why do we need this Chemical Friction (C System) garbage in bowling balls? The huge leaps in the modern bowling ball have been made. They are selling you small little improvements now and charging you big $$$$ for it.

I really believe as a Society we have become so trained (like monkeys) that we automatically believe NEW is BETTER. If someone else has the NEW then we need something NEWER to be better. Forget about practice and hard work.

Everyone is looking for an edge. For those that have the high skills and abilities the little improvements (technology) will work for them. But this looking for the edge concept has come down into amateur level. Reasoning: "if it works with the professional, it should work for me".

Fishing is starting to become that way now. I know someone who goes to professional tournaments. Its all about who has the latest gadgets. They will sit and discuss all the latest toys to come out for the current year. Getting down to the specifics of things. Some how it's now about what you have in your boat instead of the success you have in the competition. Sound Familiar??

Golf is the same way. Who care's what you are shooting? It's about showing everyone that new set of clubs you got. Look how pretty they are (Shiny, you can see your face in that huge Driver head). These clubs are supposed to be better than the new ones you bought last year because some pro tells you the metal and high tech design (it took them four years to develop it) will get your ball out on the fairway farther than you ever could. What happens. You shoot the same scores as you did last year.

--------------------
Always the last one to POST!

TamerBowling · « **Reply #14 on:** March 20, 2010, 01:02:27 PM »

I like Bob's thoughts. I agree, the conditions have been created to make it as easy as possible for a THB to score, i.e., the "funnel effect". One of the reasons I love the urethane equipment is that it is consistent. I have a slightly higher average with urethane at about 230, yet have very few honor scores to show for it. The more aggressive reactive equipment can rarely be used for a whole set without giving you a completely different reaction. Some of this comes to the houses with THS putting very little volume of oil in the track and thus breaks down quickly.
--------------------
www.TamerBowling.com
USBC Certified Level I

Author Topic: Is it the ball technology?? (Read 3669 times)

J_w73

Is it the ball technology??

JustRico

Re: Is it the ball technology??

Skizriz

Re: Is it the ball technology??

leftyinsnellville

Re: Is it the ball technology??

Bluff

Re: Is it the ball technology??

leftyinsnellville

Re: Is it the ball technology??

J_w73

Re: Is it the ball technology??

bighook69

Re: Is it the ball technology??

Tondo

Re: Is it the ball technology??

J_w73

Re: Is it the ball technology??

Tondo

Re: Is it the ball technology??

ambi1

Re: Is it the ball technology??

JohnP

Re: Is it the ball technology??

trash heap

Re: Is it the ball technology??

TamerBowling

Re: Is it the ball technology??