BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Remmah on April 21, 2022, 08:03:45 PM
-
It appears the ball issue between Storm and USBC is far from over
-
Social media blitz by Storm and Belmo.
The new Storm video would imply others should have failed as well not just Storm. Or it's them deflecting to say this isn't our fault
-
Storm put out a video, demonstrating how you can get different readings from different durometers, even when they are both “in calibrationâ€.
Also how you get different reading with different surface finishes. And temperatures.
And anything else they could think of.
https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo
-
Storm should be suing the USBC blind for this.
-
Notice how there's no mention of how the banned Storm balls compared to other balls that tested within spec in the Storm brand(s) or brands of other companies? Let's just say that the banned balls tested at 73D, yet every other ball was 75D or higher. That would still be a massive red flag. Even if the durometer wasn't calibrated exactly "correctly", context still matters. This video does nothing to address that in any way.
-
I don't claim to be smart or know much, but am I the only one that when the two durometers were compared--the clear button was hit one had clr on the dial the other had 2er on it? Why wouldn't they 'read' the same thing?
-
It appears the ball issue between Storm and USBC is far from over
As it appears that your participation in this forum is far from over...
.. or is this just more of your contributions of nonsense to this forum? I can't tell.
BL.
-
Notice how there's no mention of how the banned Storm balls compared to other balls that tested within spec in the Storm brand(s) or brands of other companies? Let's just say that the banned balls tested at 73D, yet every other ball was 75D or higher. That would still be a massive red flag. Even if the durometer wasn't calibrated exactly "correctly", context still matters. This video does nothing to address that in any way.
What the video addresses for me is we're making multi-million-dollar decisions and imperiling ball companies based on arcane ball specs that give no real advantage to bad bowlers and do nothing but drive away bowlers and companies, both, in addition to being beyond the level of competency of either the testers or the rule-writers to come up with something that can't be screwed up. That is *crystal* clear to me. And it needs to stop.
-
Notice how there's no mention of how the banned Storm balls compared to other balls that tested within spec in the Storm brand(s) or brands of other companies? Let's just say that the banned balls tested at 73D, yet every other ball was 75D or higher. That would still be a massive red flag. Even if the durometer wasn't calibrated exactly "correctly", context still matters. This video does nothing to address that in any way.
What the video addresses for me is we're making multi-million-dollar decisions and imperiling ball companies based on arcane ball specs that give no real advantage to bad bowlers and do nothing but drive away bowlers and companies, both, in addition to being beyond the level of competency of either the testers or the rule-writers to come up with something that can't be screwed up. That is *crystal* clear to me. And it needs to stop.
I agree. This is now becoming a proverbial and financial tit-for-tat between Storm and the USBC, and is dragging the PBA into it. Now granted, you're having the face of both Storm and the PBA whinging about this, and the USBC responding to them in likewise manner, which isn't helping either of their stances. Again, what they should do is one company take the higher road, and do something similar to a potential banned substance being used by an athlete.
Let's hypothetically say that caffeine is a banned substance when measured at more than 750mg in a person's body. An athlete with prior and well documented diagnoses of migraines takes 2 250mg of Excedrine + Migraine overnight, then the following morning, while thinking they ordered decaffeinated coffee, they were served caffeinated coffee with about 300mg of caffeine going into their body. They come in to test, and find out that they have too much of a banned substance in their body and are banned.
If this were in the USA, that athlete could appeal the banning to USADA to get their judgment. USADA overturns that banning. The powers that be then appeal to WADA, and get the ban reinstated. The athlete then appeals to the CAS, who is the final authority.
Wash/rinse/repeat for this issue. Either Storm or the USBC appeals this to the WTBA, let them conduct their investigation, ask the questions, and be the final authority to adjudicate over this. What their decision is will be final, and sticks for every other bowling governing body.
Tons better than going war of words all over Facebook.
BL.
-
I agree. This is now becoming a proverbial and financial tit-for-tat between Storm and the USBC, and is dragging the PBA into it. Now granted, you're having the face of both Storm and the PBA whinging about this, and the USBC responding to them in likewise manner, which isn't helping either of their stances. Again, what they should do is one company take the higher road, and do something similar to a potential banned substance being used by an athlete.
Here's the issue with that: There are not two "companies" here. There is a private, for-profit company, and then there is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation that purports to represent not only the company (and others like it) that is "in the wrong" in this case, but also purports to represent me, and other bowlers -- and just happens to enjoy a their-way-or-the-highway regulatory position.
The corporation has the power, but I'm a stakeholder just as anyone else is who buys a membership card, and that entity just made a decision that -- all at the same time: (a) conducted tests without oversight, (b) took equipment out of the bags of its stakeholders, and (c) caused financial harm to SPI (and Motiv before them) in an industry where margins are probably pretty thin in the first place.
The PBA coming out and basically saying to the USBC that they're going to continue to use this stuff because we basically can't replicate the USBC's results is just damning. This isn't a spat between two private individuals, or even two private companies, where someone could, as you say, "take the high road" and garner some PR in the move. In this case, the company is bent over a barrel by the corporation of members, and meanwhile the members can't be assured they can trust the decision in the first place, to say nothing of whatever loss they incur in the process.
Not talking about it doesn't solve the problem going forward, and considering we've now had action taken against all three of the major ball companies (Motiv, Hammer/B7, SPI), it appears it's going to keep happening until someone stands up and asks USBC leadership whether 42 consecutive years of declining membership can be solved by going to war on the equipment side of the game. Rip that band-aid off and let's take care of the underlying problem for once.
-
And in case the USBC isn't petty enough: Jason Belmonte questioned the testing process -- simply QUESTIONED it -- and got fined:
https://twitter.com/JeffRichgels/status/1517338687880708096
-
It appears the ball issue between Storm and USBC is far from over
As it appears that your participation in this forum is far from over...
.. or is this just more of your contributions of nonsense to this forum? I can't tell.
BL.
Brad,
Funny how he likes trying to make others look stupid and then immediately posts something like this. How does he think trying to be relevant without substance isnt making himself look stupid? Every forum site has that guy and Remmah is at the top of the list on this one.
Back to the topic though. I am not a Storm guy and never really thrown one but I was really interested in the Spectre and was bummed to hear it was banned. Funny thing about all this, is you cant seem to purchase any of the other 6 anymore yet are still allowed to be used in league and local tournament competition. Makes zero sense to me.
-
It seems pretty obvious Storm was pushing the limit manufacturing balls so close to the spec and got caught. When they submit a ball for approval they are agreeing to the USBC rules and specifications. There is only one durometer you have to satisfy and that's the one sitting in the room in Texas. If you want to argue about a +/- 1 on the readings you should be manufacturing factoring in that variance. Unlike avabob, they must believe that hardness makes a difference in performance, even in reactive equipment.
They could always manufacture whatever they want and convince all their customers to bowl non USBC sanctioned leagues and tournaments.
-
Letting the balls be used but no be able to be purchased us them letting Storm off on this rule of having to make the customers whole-
Penalty for balls found to be outside of any speci cation-
Up to $8,000 ne; manufacturer must also pay full restitu- tion to consumers who purchase nonconforming balls; 1-year probation.
That's how they are replacing balls but making the consumer pay the shipping, so most people won't send them back.
-
I really don't have an issue with the Storm balls being removed from the market, yet still be acceptable for use in leagues and local/state tournaments. It is really no different than a ball simply being discontinued. Bowlers will continue to use discontinued balls for years after they are discontinued.
Let's not give the USBC any ammunition to implement an "expiration date" for bowling balls. I can see it now. "USBC studies show that balls get softer with age and fall dramatically below the minimum hardness requirement over time. As a result, the USBC approval for bowling balls is automatically revoked as soon as any bowling ball reaches six(6) years from the date of manufacture." I wouldn't put it past them at this point.
The USBC currently has two hardness standards in play. Balls used to be required to meet a minimum hardness of 72D. Then in 2020 that was revised to 73D. As of 7/31/22 all new equipment that is manufactured must be 73D. Balls previously approved at the 72D standard that are still being manufactured can no longer be manufactured at 72D as of that date later this year. The USBC claims 3 of these SPI balls were not only testing below 73D, but were also testing below 72D which made them illegal under both minimums. That still doesn't mean there weren't errors in testing.
The UFO Alert, Trend 2, and Electrify Solid samples were 72.3 to 72.7. That is close enough to 73D that I think the test could easily be within some sort of margin of error and shouldn't have been excluded at all.
As far as Belmonte being fined by the USBC...what right does the USBC [a 501c3 non-profit organization] have to levy monetary fines against any bowler? I get there is a provision in the rules for the Masters that fines of $250/$500/$1000 can be assessed for violations of the Code of Conduct. They also specifically state that social media cannot be used to question the integrity of the USBC. Yes, Belmonte did violate that rule. However, assessing a monetary fine is just ridiculous. If they are going to stoop to that level then they need to scrub Facebook for all posts complaining about the lane conditions, scheduling issues, comments about tournament staff, etc. that any person that bowled the Masters made and fine them as well. A non-profit assessing monetary fines...sheesh. What's next...monetary fines at the local/state level and in leagues?
The USBC needs to find new leadership that can come in and get it back on the right course. It is a hot mess.
-
The Masters is the showcase event for the USBC with $205,000 added to the prize fund above the tournament entry fees. Participation is a privilege. The most high profile bowler in the world thought his opinion was more important than the rules he agreed to play by. He can choose to not participate if he doesn't like the rules.
-
The Masters is the showcase event for the USBC with $205,000 added to the prize fund above the tournament entry fees. Participation is a privilege. The most high profile bowler in the world thought his opinion was more important than the rules he agreed to play by. He can choose to not participate if he doesn't like the rules.
I don't disagree. I just don't think the USBC should be assessing monetary fines unless they are putting them directly back in to the prize fund of the event.
-
What USBC rule exactly was broken? Testing was voluntary as I understand it and I see no problem with a player questioning the complete lack of transparency by the governing body of our sport.
-
The Masters is the showcase event for the USBC with $205,000 added to the prize fund above the tournament entry fees. Participation is a privilege. The most high profile bowler in the world thought his opinion was more important than the rules he agreed to play by. He can choose to not participate if he doesn't like the rules.
The sanctioning body that we all pay dues to, conducts tests out of the public eye, publishes incomplete data that no one can replicate, declares balls illegal that were duly submitted AND DECLARED LEGAL ALREADY and in your eyes, it's all Storm's fault for flying too close to the sun, and the bowlers should just shut up and take it?
Try thinking about this from the other direction -- an organization with the power to be arbitrary and capricious with its own rules and the enforcement thereof, which then decides to silence all criticism of its actions. I can't imagine anyone defending that unless they themselves had a vested interest in perpetuating this sham.
As for the individual tests themselves, Storm's video is evidence that the testing procedure itself is so helter-skelter that it's not reliable. The balls were already legal, so any other testing organization worth a damn would first delve into the process to see what was causing subsequent tests (on polished balls) to "fail" before endangering the health of a flagship company AND hurting bowlers in the process.
It's time for some major shakeup at USBC.
-
Storm accepted the results and cried uncle so they would stop testing. Besides people going to OC, which is about 50k out of 2 million, this has very little effect on the average USBC member.
-
What USBC rule exactly was broken? Testing was voluntary as I understand it and I see no problem with a player questioning the complete lack of transparency by the governing body of our sport.
The USBC Masters has a rule that states participants cannot go on social media such as Facebook and make any posts questioning the integrity of the USBC. When Belmonte made the infamous "black curtain" post the USBC saw that as a violation of the rules.
I don't disagree that he blatantly violated that rule. Non-profit organizations issuing monetary fines, though? That's really pushing it too far.
-
I have no skin in the game or inside information, but think about this for a minute. Let’s say Storm went ahead and sued the USBC, I suspect the only thing that would happen is that the USBC would be forced to declare bankruptcy which creates even more chaos in the industry that ultimately is of no benefit to Storm. Also this concept that Storm “agreed†is laughable, USBC can do whatever it wants as the governing body in the U.S. end of story.
-
What USBC rule exactly was broken? Testing was voluntary as I understand it and I see no problem with a player questioning the complete lack of transparency by the governing body of our sport.
The USBC Masters has a rule that states participants cannot go on social media such as Facebook and make any posts questioning the integrity of the USBC. When Belmonte made the infamous "black curtain" post the USBC saw that as a violation of the rules.
I don't disagree that he blatantly violated that rule. Non-profit organizations issuing monetary fines, though? That's really pushing it too far.
Executive Director Murphy doesn’t like to be questioned…imagine that.
-
Storm accepted the results and cried uncle so they would stop testing. Besides people going to OC, which is about 50k out of 2 million, this has very little effect on the average USBC member.
From what I'm hearing from people who actually know the particulars of what went on, I think that description is very ... simplistic.
For starters, the language the USBC used in its release may not match up to what Storm actually told them, or what Storm actually did. We definitely got the USBC's perspective on it, but did we actually get the truth?
As for trying to gauge how many are affected -- and it's not 2 million, the USBC's own financials put the max number at 1.4 million (which was almost 2 years ago now) and there has been a 6-10% bleed-off per year since then, so the real number is closer to 1.2 million now -- that's not what you need to be looking at. You need to consider whether the organization is doing what's in the best interest of its members. There are people in my local leagues who do not bowl Nationals who are very upset, in part because some tournaments are opting in to the USBC's ruling. But it goes even deeper than that: If the organization is not acting in an above-board way, it doesn't matter how many are or aren't affected. It matters whether the organization can be trusted.
You apparently believe it can be, while I'm not so sure. I was listening to a podcast the other night where one of the people on the podcast was reporting a couple of leagues in their area were going unsanctioned next year as a direct result of this. The USBC should be doing whatever it can do to GROW the sport. This does not grow it.
-
I put on my tinfoil hat and started to wonder if they're all in it together?
Make the rule balls older than 5 years are banned from league or tournament use.
Looks to me like a big sales opportunity for ball manufacturers
I'll be taking off my hat now and returning to earth.
-
I put on my tinfoil hat and started to wonder if they're all in it together?
Make the rule balls older than 5 years are banned from league or tournament use.
Looks to me like a big sales opportunity for ball manufacturers
I'll be taking off my hat now and returning to earth.
Except the recall is costing Storm millions. The number is not mine to release; just pay attention to the stories that will be coming out.
The Motiv Jackal thing -- the ball had a diff of .601 rather than .600 -- nearly bankrupted that company to fix. It's all ridiculous.
-
The whole USBC structure is broken from the top down. USBC National "governs" the sport. Then you have the state associations. Then you have the local associations. Then the leagues can establish their own by-laws.
National says "these balls are excluded from our tournaments...but we will leave it up to the state and locals to do what they wish." The state associations may say "Meh, these balls are allowed in the state tournament." Then the local says "You know what, these are excluded from local association tournaments, but we will let individual leagues decide for themselves." Then league A says "we don't care...keep using them." League B says "We do care and they are excluded."
It is so asinine for it to be so convoluted. You end up with a situation where John/Jane Doe has a ball they can't use at Nationals, but can use at States. They go to the local Association tournament and can't use it, then go to Monday night league and it can be used, but then Thursday night league says no you can't.
I know the USBC prides themselves in creating a flexible environment where by-laws can be fine tuned to give bowlers the "experience" that best suits them. However this ball fiasco is a perfect example of an organization that just doesn't know what they are doing or just doesn't want to make a decision. It's crazy.
-
New post by Storm just put up. Looks like 1500 polished factory finish isn't going to be used so much like it has been.
Based on recent developments in the industry, we’re excited to introduce our new 4K - Fast finish.
Innovation and technology are at the heart of our core values. Recently our R&D Team was offered the opportunity to dig deep into our process and develop technology that makes the finishing of our coverstocks more manipulatable which allows for enhanced customization for every bowler.
The 4K - Fast finish is the purest finish we’ve ever created. No foreign materials are added to the process resulting in the true coverstock making contact with the lane.
We’re excited to rollout this finishing process immediately. You’ll see it in new products as well as some historic, existing products. In the next few weeks, we will be sharing more tests and tips from our team about the best ways to care for the products that you choose to bowl your best on the lanes.
-
That was unexpected from Storm.
-
Video says smoother breakpoint, less angularity. Storm fans who love that Storm big backend motion may start to complain if the difference is that noticeable. It will be interesting to see as these new finish balls start hitting the market.
-
Smart.
Blitz social media attacking the testing process and blaming the needle being contaminated with polish. Create disdain with usbc in the court of public opinion.
Then make a video for doing away with your most popular ball finish.
Id love to see Alex next do a durometer video testing the 6 along with the Specter for transparency.
Or in a response to Storm a video from usbc showing them testing the 6 plus the Spectre. That would be funny
-
Smart.
Blitz social media attacking the testing process and blaming the needle being contaminated with polish. Create disdain with usbc in the court of public opinion.
Then make a video for doing away with your most popular ball finish.
Id love to see Alex next do a durometer video testing the 6 along with the Specter for transparency.
Or in a response to Storm a video from usbc showing them testing the 6 plus the Spectre. That would be funny
Therein lies the elephant in the room! The biggest problem that exists is lack of transparency when they did the damn testing!
No way in hell I can back the USBC when they are doing testing behind a black curtain with neither a Storm rep nor the owner of the balls being tested, available and accounted for to view said testing.
-
Id love to see Alex next do a durometer video testing the 6 along with the Specter for transparency.
Or in a response to Storm a video from usbc showing them testing the 6 plus the Spectre. That would be funny
I'd pay for both of these to happen
-
I'm all for at least indulging in conspiracy theories unless they're beyond stupid ( sorry flat earth and fake moon landing folks). I can't figure out what the USBC had to gain by tossing these balls. People love scoring and seeing their balls cross way too many boards. You'd think they would look the other way because it. I can't think that someone in Michigan threw a fit because 1 of theirs got tossed and threw some under the table $ to make sure the other primary company got hit too.
However, the whole blacked out testing with no witnesses, now Belmo draws a fine for simply taking a pic of the testing area and posting it...... someone has some 'splanin to do....
-
I would like to see how much friction is actually increased by a couple of points reduction in hardness. Even more so I would like to see where any increased friction is of any benefit in the current environment.
-
Video says smoother breakpoint, less angularity. Storm fans who love that Storm big backend motion may start to complain if the difference is that noticeable. It will be interesting to see as these new finish balls start hitting the market.
Eh, how many other Storm fans always say 'it was over under until I hit it with a 3000 pad'? Maybe now they won't have to.
-
Smart.
Blitz social media attacking the testing process and blaming the needle being contaminated with polish. Create disdain with usbc in the court of public opinion.
Then make a video for doing away with your most popular ball finish.
Id love to see Alex next do a durometer video testing the 6 along with the Specter for transparency.
Or in a response to Storm a video from usbc showing them testing the 6 plus the Spectre. That would be funny
Therein lies the elephant in the room! The biggest problem that exists is lack of transparency when they did the damn testing!
No way in hell I can back the USBC when they are doing testing behind a black curtain with neither a Storm rep nor the owner of the balls being tested, available and accounted for to view said testing.
I think you are confusing testing done at the usbc master vs the overall testing involving Storm. It's two different incidents.
-
Definitely two different things. I am decidedly in favor of holding Storm accountable for manufacturing errors resulting in illegal balls. I also think that it's perfectly OK to criticize the USBC's process. However, testing on multiple balls by multiple people at multiple locations have proven that the balls in question consistently test at approximately 1.5D to 2D lower than every other USBC-approved ball in the marketplace. This is a big problem and I'm glad the USBC flagged it, even if their methods and decision-making were often flawed. Arguing over the details and severity of how poorly the USBC handled the situation does not change the essential and evident fact that Storm was making illegal balls.
The Belmo situation is very different. There were multiple transparency issues that appear to be needless and troublesome, and the USBC was clearly in the wrong. Belmo was absolutely within his rights to call the USBC out for those problems and I support his actions without reservation.
-
Definitely two different things. I am decidedly in favor of holding Storm accountable for manufacturing errors resulting in illegal balls. I also think that it's perfectly OK to criticize the USBC's process. However, testing on multiple balls by multiple people at multiple locations have proven that the balls in question consistently test at approximately 1.5D to 2D lower than every other USBC-approved ball in the marketplace. This is a big problem and I'm glad the USBC flagged it, even if their methods and decision-making were often flawed. Arguing over the details and severity of how poorly the USBC handled the situation does not change the essential and evident fact that Storm was making illegal balls.
The Belmo situation is very different. There were multiple transparency issues that appear to be needless and troublesome, and the USBC was clearly in the wrong. Belmo was absolutely within his rights to call the USBC out for those problems and I support his actions without reservation.
The problem with others testing at other locations and getting different results is that it should be expected to happen. Based on the words from the company that manufactures the device being used to do said testing.
It’s not some made up information. It’s coming from the manufacturer of the durometers that there is will probably be variance even between two properly calibrated devices. Even if used in the same location, on the same ball, at the same temperature.
Storm should be provided with the data sets and records that the USBC has generated to ban the Spectre and exclude the other 6.
-
Separate from how the USBC has handled this situation and others like it (that would be poorly, and heavy-handed), the issue with durometer testing of softness has an issue that is separate from Storm or the USBC or anyone else: When the equipment used to make these multi-million-dollar decisions cannot itself be calibrated to show the same results every time in every application, you have to devise a new test, or throw that standard out, or give a very wide range of acceptable results.
The USBC tests balls for approval at 500 sanded. The easiest thing would be to require ALL balls, even those spot-checked, to be taken to 500 and then tested so as to remove that variable. Otherwise, you can develop a two-stage testing solution where the ball has to test at 73 when at 500 sanded but is allowed a wider (3-4) variance in the durometer to allow for polishing. If you won't do that, then the entire standard has to be moved up to a higher number so that polished equipment doesn't punch below 73 -- but that's a legislative issue for the USBC and would have to be voted upon at some future date.
What the USBC chose to do was do a spot check on equipment under different circumstances than other tests that showed the balls to be in compliance, and that is wrong. There were so many other ways to handle this that would have been fairer to the bowlers and the company both, but the USBC didn't take those routes. I'm also disappointed to see some people standing up for the USBC, right or wrong. An organization that can't operate with fairness, logic and transparency is not worthy of our support.
-
Another blatant issue they created AGAIN…
They conducted voluntary spot testing at the Masters.
What did they do to any ball they tested and found to be out of spec?
Was it allowed to be used or did the bowler have to remove said ball?
The answer tells you all that is wrong with entire situation.
-
https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo
This is very interesting and educational. It does appear that USBC testing is a joke and masks an underlying motive to throw sand in our eyes due to the lack of USBC transparency on faulty hardness testing.
-
https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo
This is very interesting and educational. It does appear that USBC testing is a joke and masks an underlying motive to throw sand in our eyes due to the lack of USBC transparency on faulty hardness testing.
Posting a link directly from the manufacturer who can easily be claimed as biased (because they are a direct party in the matter) does not make what the USBC has done a joke. Again, a 3rd party needs to conduct tests using both the manufacturer’s equipment as well as the USBC’s equipment, then their own and compare the metrics.
Outside of that, of course the manufacturer is going to paint their equipment in holy light; and by saying that the USBC’s testing is a joke, your own bias is being shown.
BL.
-
Ok. So you are saying what is presented in the video is a joke?
Why can’t I watch video of USBC testing (dues paid for 50 years)? They refuse to allow it.
Why can’t I see all the data, test results, conditions, location etc., of the USBC testing?
They refuse to provide it. Call them and ask, I have.
Why wasn’t the purple hammer urethane banned in 2018????
That is the big question. USBC knew and overlooked!
-
https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo
This is very interesting and educational. It does appear that USBC testing is a joke and masks an underlying motive to throw sand in our eyes due to the lack of USBC transparency on faulty hardness testing.
Posting a link directly from the manufacturer who can easily be claimed as biased (because they are a direct party in the matter) does not make what the USBC has done a joke. Again, a 3rd party needs to conduct tests using both the manufacturer’s equipment as well as the USBC’s equipment, then their own and compare the metrics.
Outside of that, of course the manufacturer is going to paint their equipment in holy light; and by saying that the USBC’s testing is a joke, your own bias is being shown.
BL.
I don't have a problem with what you suggest, but the USBC won't even publicly tell its own members how it did the tests. Do you think they're going to let a third party go to Arlington and use the USBC's own equipment to do stand-alone tests?
Something about beach property for sale in Wyoming may apply here.
Among the various issues we have going here is people aren't focusing on what you and I, as card-carrying USBC members, are entitled to as far as information is concerned. I've been the executive director of a 501(c)(3) before and am pretty familiar with what the general public is allowed to know, to say nothing of the members.
On another note, specific to the USBC, there has been a longstanding attitude that prevails among a lot of the bowlers that just because a bowler is high-level, it entitles them to certain information or standing that other members don't have, and that's not how this is supposed to work. A discussion of performance-based merit is applicable when discussing things like Hall of Fame credentials, or membership in an ability-based subgroup like the PWBA. But when it comes to the financials and questions of how the organization is run, the 85-year-old granny who averages 115 on Friday mornings is on dead par with Pete Weber and Jason Belmonte. The USBC has never really acted that way.
When I was at the helm of the organization I referenced about, I had a board of 17 members and several government entities that were treated as constituents, and I was expected to respond to all of their requests so long as they were legal and ethical. This situation is being treated as a vanity play for and by some at the top of the USBC heap.
-
Read the bylaws. By becoming a USBC member you have agreed to this-
Upon obtaining membership in USBC each member agrees to be bound by all final decisions of USBC concerning application or interpretation of USBC Bylaws, playing rules, and all other matters relating to the sport of bowling as governed by USBC.
-
https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo
This is very interesting and educational. It does appear that USBC testing is a joke and masks an underlying motive to throw sand in our eyes due to the lack of USBC transparency on faulty hardness testing.
The test maybe garbage but the USBC and PBA used it for years and Storm had no issues passing previously. They even had a ball pass in their own smear campaign video with a 74. Storm even post the numbers for all of their equipment on their website. 73-75, 74-76 etc. So they must have some idea of how it works to be in compliance.
USBC then post a link with their testing procedures and how manufactures are allowed to match their testing equipment to USBC device blah blah blah to get the same results etc.
Once again if no other manufactures are failing and it is just Strom, which has now been running their smear campaign in the court of public opinion online, Im starting to think Storm screwed up and is playing the bitter ex girlfriend roll.
Then the following day Storm gets rid of their most popular ball finish using polish. Which polish was one of the excuses they gave for why their equipment was failing. Im not a Storm guy so maybe I dont feel personally attacked like others. Storm is taking a huge hit in this which sucks. That is a very very expensive problem to deal with.
https://www.bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337531
-
https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo
This is very interesting and educational. It does appear that USBC testing is a joke and masks an underlying motive to throw sand in our eyes due to the lack of USBC transparency on faulty hardness testing.
The test maybe garbage but the USBC and PBA used it for years and Storm had no issues passing previously. They even had a ball pass in their own smear campaign video with a 74. Storm even post the numbers for all of their equipment on their website. 73-75, 74-76 etc. So they must have some idea of how it works to be in compliance.
USBC then post a link with their testing procedures and how manufactures are allowed to match their testing equipment to USBC device blah blah blah to get the same results etc.
Once again if no other manufactures are failing and it is just Strom, which has now been running their smear campaign in the court of public opinion online, Im starting to think Storm screwed up and is playing the bitter ex girlfriend roll.
Then the following day Storm gets rid of their most popular ball finish using polish. Which polish was one of the excuses they gave for why their equipment was failing. Im not a Storm guy so maybe I dont feel personally attacked like others. Storm is taking a huge hit in this which sucks. That is a very very expensive problem to deal with.
https://www.bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337531
Maybe it’s as simple as the USBC is using one testing process for approvals and a second for spot checks.
Balls for approval are submitted at 500 grit sanded.
Spot checks are at out of box finish. The USBC used the spot checks to determine out of conformity.
That right there is an inconsistency. Their own processes should be the same for approval as well as determine final conformity.
Why wasn’t it a problem before, ask the USBC how many balls they’ve spot checked before that tested below 73D did they let go and continue to be usd in tournaments?new they using an unwritten “allowance†that wasn’t in the rules for spot checks vs approvals? We don’t know. They will not share any data pints or sets.
The few public instances they have say they’ve let stuff go in the last. See the original purple hammer saga. In its entirety.
That’s what prompted all of this. Their bungling of that matter. Their continued bungling of that matter until they ban hammered it all. Then it became about making a point.
Tell me it doesn’t look like the USBC decide to now to get petty and test for exact conformity.
They almost bankrupted Motiv. Seems like they went lenient on Hammer because of that. Of course, Ebonite ended up sold of, so you have to believe that factored into the decision as well. Because of all the backlash about Hammer, they decided to go scorched earth with Storm.
-
https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo
This is very interesting and educational. It does appear that USBC testing is a joke and masks an underlying motive to throw sand in our eyes due to the lack of USBC transparency on faulty hardness testing.
Posting a link directly from the manufacturer who can easily be claimed as biased (because they are a direct party in the matter) does not make what the USBC has done a joke. Again, a 3rd party needs to conduct tests using both the manufacturer’s equipment as well as the USBC’s equipment, then their own and compare the metrics.
Outside of that, of course the manufacturer is going to paint their equipment in holy light; and by saying that the USBC’s testing is a joke, your own bias is being shown.
BL.
The manufacturer of the durometer is the one telling folks there will be variances between properly calibrated units. In the same room, testing the same item. Please allow for that.
-
https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo
This is very interesting and educational. It does appear that USBC testing is a joke and masks an underlying motive to throw sand in our eyes due to the lack of USBC transparency on faulty hardness testing.
Posting a link directly from the manufacturer who can easily be claimed as biased (because they are a direct party in the matter) does not make what the USBC has done a joke. Again, a 3rd party needs to conduct tests using both the manufacturer’s equipment as well as the USBC’s equipment, then their own and compare the metrics.
Outside of that, of course the manufacturer is going to paint their equipment in holy light; and by saying that the USBC’s testing is a joke, your own bias is being shown.
BL.
The manufacturer of the durometer is the one telling folks there will be variances between properly calibrated units. In the same room, testing the same item. Please allow for that.
The same can be said for Storm's manufacturing process. Account for durometer variance. It's naive to think they weren't manufacturing balls pushing the legal limit because they performed better. If they rolled the same at 76 or 77 there would be no reason to manufacture at 73. And from all my dealing with them they are arrogant enough to think they would never be caught if they were too soft.
-
http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/AnnouncementFAQ.pdf
From USBC on Storm issues
The manual states: “It is the manufacturers responsibility to ensure that all USBC approved balls comply with all specifications at time of manufacture.†The manual also states that spot-checking balls will be purchased from distribution.
Manufacturers know balls will be tested out of the box. The manufacturer is solely responsible for the surface finishing process and any influence surface finishing may have on specification measurement.
If a manufacturer believes its finishing process will cause variance in specification measurement, then it’s the manufacturer’s responsibility to account for the variance.
Even if surface finish alone caused a ball to measure out of specification, per the manual, the ball is out of specification and subject to removal.
USBC testing does confirm that removing the surface finish polish by sanding will cause the balls to measure harder. However, even if the manual called for sanding balls for hardness testing, (which it does not) the hardness measurement does not increase enough to bring all samples to within specification.
-
Could be as simple as:
Ball: *is 74*
Storm: *measures with +2 durometer* 76! Awesome!
USBC: *measures with -2 durometer* 72 >:( BANNED
Storm: wtf
LOL I didn't actually mean to post that but +/- 2 being considered acceptable durometer variance is kind of a lot it seems to me (who tests stuff for a living, not hardness though)
-
I’m betting we get a “no comment†from his royal highness…
https://www.11thframe.com/news/article/13513/Experts-say-variance-factors-in-testing-mean-USBC-ball-hardness-tests-shouldnt?fbclid=IwAR28-BzWNO1vgusOCcszQFTdkXDoC-qPwSFKrq2DG5FA2hzp3tUiDVHQMkE
-
Someone want to copy and paste the article im not paying to read that lol
-
http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/AnnouncementFAQ.pdf
From USBC on Storm issues
The manual states: “It is the manufacturers responsibility to ensure that all USBC approved balls comply with all specifications at time of manufacture.†The manual also states that spot-checking balls will be purchased from distribution.
Manufacturers know balls will be tested out of the box. The manufacturer is solely responsible for the surface finishing process and any influence surface finishing may have on specification measurement.
If a manufacturer believes its finishing process will cause variance in specification measurement, then it’s the manufacturer’s responsibility to account for the variance.
Even if surface finish alone caused a ball to measure out of specification, per the manual, the ball is out of specification and subject to removal.
USBC testing does confirm that removing the surface finish polish by sanding will cause the balls to measure harder. However, even if the manual called for sanding balls for hardness testing, (which it does not) the hardness measurement does not increase enough to bring all samples to within specification.
Sorry.
It’s fine to check for as a spot check at box.
To ban them, you should have to return them to the surface that you approved them at.
It’s in the 11th Frame article, polish doesn’t change the actual hardness of the coverstock, it just causes the reading to be soft, since you’re reading polish, not bowling ball.
It probably hasn’t come up to really define the manual on a fair and proper procedure to follow to ban balls since it hasn’t happened much.
Motiv’s issue wasn’t coverstock related.
The Purples, well I believe those were very very soft. And getting softer.
Some use of common sense would be nice here.
Yes, the rules are the rules. As written. But somehow, I don’t think anyone foresaw the perms-ban one one ball and the exclusion from national tournaments of 6 others (more probably, but they stopped testing) as a thing when writing them.
For all testing to be hidden. No datasets to be provided to the manufacturer. Or public. No recourse but to fight it in court if they want, but face bankruptcy if they dared to upset the USBC any further.
See the threat to permanently ban the 6 if the USBC didn’t get what they wanted, even though Storm was abiding by their “agreementâ€.
-
An awful lot of Storm lovers out there. Everybody must be scared Santa in the brown truck is gonna stop showing up when cutbacks are necessary.
-
I’m not a Storm lover, but here’s the deal from my perspective. If the USBC was doing a great job and transparent about everything they’re doing, maybe they get the benefit of the doubt…but they are not transparent, they’re incompetent and it starts at the top.
-
An awful lot of Storm lovers out there. Everybody must be scared Santa in the brown truck is gonna stop showing up when cutbacks are necessary.
I like SPI products that’s well known. However, Jeff Richgels is NOT a guy I would listen to. He oozes bias and agenda in his “reporting†and I use the term very loosely.
-
This is a loooooooooooose analogy, but one nonetheless.
If you did your taxes and the Government accepted it, you are good to go, right?
What if X amount of time later the IRS came back and said nope, we think this is wrong and blah blah blah and you owe X amount back. But we aren't going to show you how we got to that calculation and well, you owe it because that is what we say. Bottom line, you owe it because we say so. Would you be like, ok, no problem I will pay it? NO WAY......
You would be pissed too.
Give us transparency, show us your testing results. Until then, yeah, people are not going to side with the USBC.
-
Where has it been said Storm didn’t get the test results?
-
I don't have a dog in the fight/debate, as I don't own any of the balls (still I have all 900 Global).
I saw the Storm video, and only one other poster mentioned the same as I observed. The two durometers were suspect to me. IF both were IDENTICAL and calibrated, WHY did one show "Clr" after each punch, while the other displayed "Zero"? There is even a dot on the display that is different from one another. Additionally, there are random numbers displayed after each clear/zero...one on left mostly had 0, while the one on right had mostly 1 (I also saw a 2, 3, and even a 4 at various times in the other tests too). Doesn't seem like they were the "same" and certainly makes it seem questionable. I don't know anything about the durometers though.
Also, when comparing surfaces and temperature, using two different balls (of the same model) to demonstrate possible variability is suspect to me. To truly show variability, it should be the same exact ball, not two different balls that in "theory" should be identical. Heck, one could have been soaked in MEK, right?? (Just kidding)
Also, found it funny that when they were comparing the testing lab values (Day 1 vs Day 2), all were very consistent except one, that was 3 points off from Day 1 to Day 2. That would make me question why that lab was so variable...maybe even to excluding their values in the example, but by including it it "statistically" broadened the range Storm was trying to say "look....results could be all over the place".
Just thought it funny and I'm just a league bowler and not a scientist/engineer!
-
USBC and ABC have been behind the curve from a technological standpoint for 50 years. In the 70s they mandated a flat oil procedure that would be comparable to a US Open pattern today. They promoted a short oil block in the 80s thinking the short pattern would take away hold area that "steered" the ball to the pocket. After outlawing the super soft polyester balls in the 70s they barely took note of the resin enhanced balls that made soft polyester look like a ping pong ball in comparison. Today they really have no idea what a couple of points in hardness has on ball reaction
-
And from all my dealing with them they are arrogant enough to think they would never be caught if they were too soft.
How have you "dealt" with Storm personally?
-
I've run pro shops for other people, owned a pro shop, worked for 2 ball manufacturers and at the time I was there, one of the big 3 online retailers with their own private label balls.
-
I don't have a dog in the fight/debate, as I don't own any of the balls (still I have all 900 Global).
I saw the Storm video, and only one other poster mentioned the same as I observed. The two durometers were suspect to me. IF both were IDENTICAL and calibrated, WHY did one show "Clr" after each punch, while the other displayed "Zero"? There is even a dot on the display that is different from one another. Additionally, there are random numbers displayed after each clear/zero...one on left mostly had 0, while the one on right had mostly 1 (I also saw a 2, 3, and even a 4 at various times in the other tests too). Doesn't seem like they were the "same" and certainly makes it seem questionable. I don't know anything about the durometers though.
Also, when comparing surfaces and temperature, using two different balls (of the same model) to demonstrate possible variability is suspect to me. To truly show variability, it should be the same exact ball, not two different balls that in "theory" should be identical. Heck, one could have been soaked in MEK, right?? (Just kidding)
Also, found it funny that when they were comparing the testing lab values (Day 1 vs Day 2), all were very consistent except one, that was 3 points off from Day 1 to Day 2. That would make me question why that lab was so variable...maybe even to excluding their values in the example, but by including it it "statistically" broadened the range Storm was trying to say "look....results could be all over the place".
Just thought it funny and I'm just a league bowler and not a scientist/engineer!
I agree. The Storm video was definitely marketing "fluff" and had some issues.
Alex shows the difference in the readings between the 2 durometers. Then when showing the differences between a non-polished ball and a polished ball, uses only one of the durometers but doesn't mention which one he was using (assuming he was using the one that reads "higher".)
When comparing the non-polished vs. polished ball, he refers to the use of "generic" polish. Why not specifically mention the use of Storm branded polish? Perhaps there was some concern that would not help their case if viewers associated lower readings with the use of their own polish...
Used 2 different balls for the comparison. Should have at the very least tested the non-polished ball, then polished that specific ball, and retested it to show any differences.
Specifically discusses that Storm uses a device to ensure consistent durometer pressure during testing. Even demonstrates the device in the video. Then proceeds to administer testing manually. How do we know he wasn't manipulating the durometer pressure in the video to exaggerate the results?
The video certainly demonstrated that there is the opportunity for numerous variances when performing hardness testing, however their video had its own set of problems and did nothing to quell any controversy. If anything, it perfectly demonstrates why the USBC doesn't have the transparency with their testing that everyone is clamoring for. It wouldn't be productive. First people will question the USBC's hardness testing, then they will question the cover stock absorption rate tests, RG and diff testing, friction testing, CoR testing, etc.
The USBC has tested and approved thousands of balls and we never cared about how they did it. Out of all of the balls they have tested, there is only one page of balls that are not approved. Out of that, there are 8 recent balls that get revoked/excluded and all of a sudden we care about the testing. Motiv admitted to their Jackal issue and fixed it. Brunswick accepted the decision on the "6" and "7" Kentucky Purple Hammers that became their problem due to the acquisition and replaced the balls. Storm pitches a fit all over social media and all of a sudden people are up in arms and demanding full transparency to the ball testing. 99.9% of those people would have no idea what they were watching if the USBC had a "ball testing" cam or some other way of disclosing the procedures.
The USBC is far from a perfect organization and I am not a fan. It definitely needs new leadership. However I also don't necessarily care about the ball testing, or who or where it is done. Is the ball on the approved list? Great! Is the ball excluded? OK, I will not use it. Is the ball banned now? Whatever, I will exchange it or throw it out. If I don't like or agree with the rules or format of a tournament, I simply don't bowl in it.
We buy and use products and services all the time that undergo testing and we never see or care about the procedure (medicine, medical tests, cars, tires, food, drinks, textiles, construction materials, etc.) There reaches a point where you just have to rely on the testing having been done correctly. Products fall through the cracks and get recalled and replaced all the time. It happens.
-
Anyone remember mill holes?
-
Anyone remember mill holes?
Yes.
Often wondered about that "spot" on the ball, until I found out what it was.
-
The USBC has tested and approved thousands of balls and we never cared about how they did it. Out of all of the balls they have tested, there is only one page of balls that are not approved. Out of that, there are 8 recent balls that get revoked/excluded and all of a sudden we care about the testing. Motiv admitted to their Jackal issue and fixed it. Brunswick accepted the decision on the "6" and "7" Kentucky Purple Hammers that became their problem due to the acquisition and replaced the balls. Storm pitches a fit all over social media and all of a sudden people are up in arms and demanding full transparency to the ball testing. 99.9% of those people would have no idea what they were watching if the USBC had a "ball testing" cam or some other way of disclosing the procedures.
The USBC is far from a perfect organization and I am not a fan. It definitely needs new leadership. However I also don't necessarily care about the ball testing, or who or where it is done. Is the ball on the approved list? Great! Is the ball excluded? OK, I will not use it. Is the ball banned now? Whatever, I will exchange it or throw it out. If I don't like or agree with the rules or format of a tournament, I simply don't bowl in it.
We buy and use products and services all the time that undergo testing and we never see or care about the procedure (medicine, medical tests, cars, tires, food, drinks, textiles, construction materials, etc.) There reaches a point where you just have to rely on the testing having been done correctly. Products fall through the cracks and get recalled and replaced all the time. It happens.
Very well said. Frankly, it's surprising how many (usually) smart people can't bring themselves to accept that Storm might have actually made a manufacturing mistake. It happens in every field and a lot more often than we realize. It's usually due to a combination of inattentiveness, hubris, and/or human error, and I'm sure it happened here. All the complaining about USBC's various issues doesn't change the fact that Storm screwed up, and they're just making it worse by keeping the issue in the spotlight instead of moving on.
-
All the complaining about USBC's various issues doesn't change the fact that Storm screwed up, and they're just making it worse by keeping the issue in the spotlight instead of moving on.
That's definitely your take on it, but you don't speak for me with those words.
What makes this a different situation than General Mills having to recall a truckload of cereal boxes is twofold, for me: One, the bowling industry isn't rich enough to have to take multimillion-dollar hits over miniscule errors in production. The companies that support this sport are not rich enough.
But the much greater problem here is a sanctioning body that will neither recognize that fact, nor take common-sense steps to find middle ground between fixing the problem and causing more problems through either shoddy testing on its own part, or a lack of transparency with its stakeholders (i.e., us, the card-carrying members).
An earlier post talked about how Motiv fixed the Jackal problem. Well, that's half right. Motiv was nearly bankrupted over that. Moreover, Motiv didn't really have a choice, because the USBC doesn't answer to anyone, and too many of its members would give the USBC carte blanche to operate however it wishes. I see some of that attitude in this thread, including your post.
The way to have fixed this was to notify Storm -- and Motiv, and Hammer -- of issues and have them fix those issues immediately in the production run and going forward, but not forcing the old equipment out, and putting the companies on the hook for millions in reparations to bowlers that most of the bowlers didn't really want to have to receive in the first place. Jeff Richgels has a fantastic article on 11thFrame right now where he interviews three guys qualified to speak about the testing from an engineering standpoint, and the overarching point is that balls out of spec by fractions don't offer enough performance advantage for it to matter in the first place. It's not like the Storm equipment was punching 60. It certainly wasn't enough of a margin to cause the fallout that it has. But there's an attitude within the USBC that they can basically do what they want and no one will hold them accountable for collateral damage so long as they get to whip out the stick and swing it around.
And even if people want to argue against the science and try to claim that these balls did offer clear and nefarious advantages to the bowlers, resin balls take themselves out of bags after a couple hundred games at most, anyway. Assuming that the balls landed in the hands of bowlers skilled enough to actually do something with them when they were fresh, the problem would have taken care of itself. But like I just said, that would be counter to what the experts quoted in Richgels' article had to say about it.
My perspective as a bowler is that the USBC's first priority in all things is to copy a doctor's oath: "First, do no harm." They objectively failed that test here miserably. And Storm is not "making it worse" -- if anything, if Storm is able to pressure the USBC to think twice before going down this road again in the future, then go Storm, go.
-
How do we know a competitor company didn't notice the durometer difference, and the USBC had to act?
I'm not certain that the USBC is that on top of things, but I didn't forget the motiv situation...it seems more probable to me. Company A reports company B etc etc....to usbc
-
All the complaining about USBC's various issues doesn't change the fact that Storm screwed up, and they're just making it worse by keeping the issue in the spotlight instead of moving on.
That's definitely your take on it, but you don't speak for me with those words.
What makes this a different situation than General Mills having to recall a truckload of cereal boxes is twofold, for me: One, the bowling industry isn't rich enough to have to take multimillion-dollar hits over miniscule errors in production. The companies that support this sport are not rich enough.
But the much greater problem here is a sanctioning body that will neither recognize that fact, nor take common-sense steps to find middle ground between fixing the problem and causing more problems through either shoddy testing on its own part, or a lack of transparency with its stakeholders (i.e., us, the card-carrying members).
Amazing how those people upset about Storm and this issue don't say a single thing about the FDA when it comes to that box of Cocoa Puffs, Cheerios, and Kix are recalled due to those errors in production, and they are the governing body over food, let alone the USDA.
You're trying to have it both ways in your example, but can't. Either be upset about both the General Mills and Storm, or be upset about the USBC and the FDA. If you're upset about one and not the other, then welcome to your own hypocrisy.
An earlier post talked about how Motiv fixed the Jackal problem. Well, that's half right. Motiv was nearly bankrupted over that. Moreover, Motiv didn't really have a choice, because the USBC doesn't answer to anyone, and too many of its members would give the USBC carte blanche to operate however it wishes. I see some of that attitude in this thread, including your post.
Then again, carte blanche to the FDA because of General Mills' "miniscule errors"?
The way to have fixed this was to notify Storm -- and Motiv, and Hammer -- of issues and have them fix those issues immediately in the production run and going forward, but not forcing the old equipment out, and putting the companies on the hook for millions in reparations to bowlers that most of the bowlers didn't really want to have to receive in the first place. Jeff Richgels has a fantastic article on 11thFrame right now where he interviews three guys qualified to speak about the testing from an engineering standpoint, and the overarching point is that balls out of spec by fractions don't offer enough performance advantage for it to matter in the first place. It's not like the Storm equipment was punching 60. It certainly wasn't enough of a margin to cause the fallout that it has. But there's an attitude within the USBC that they can basically do what they want and no one will hold them accountable for collateral damage so long as they get to whip out the stick and swing it around.
Yet by contrast, Ron Hickland, who not only interviewed the person that did all of the durometer testing at EBI, but is himself is experienced in the manufacturing and testing of balls from an engineering standpoint (hell, he created the gas mask core), said effectively the opposite and that the USBC was indeed correct in their decision to sin bin the balls that they binned. But Riggs is right and Hickland is wrong?
Oh wait; Riggs himself is a Storm Staffer, so there obviously isn't any bias there. ::)
And before saying the same about Hickland, he left EBI in 2015, well before the the Purple Hammer was created, let alone the BoB buyout.
And even if people want to argue against the science and try to claim that these balls did offer clear and nefarious advantages to the bowlers, resin balls take themselves out of bags after a couple hundred games at most, anyway.
Umm... yet they get replaced with similar because of how great the ball works for the bowler that they want either the same ball again or similar. But the issue isn't what the balls do over time; the issue is what they are doing when they are at their best, and fresh out of the box. That's what they got pinged on. Going 34 weeks and 200 games down the road is irrelevant at that point.
But then again, we have a PBA bowler who complained about the same with urethane, which for all intents and purposes was 5-6 years outside of people's bags, and got it banned. Further than that, with the PBA, he got 40 years of balls banned.
Again, can't have it both ways, where urethane gets banned for being its best over the journey, while saying resin takes itself out of the bag after a couple hundred games. Hell, I went 6 years with using a Scandal, Scandal Pearl, Mission Unknown, and Maverick in my bag, and none of them lost anything in performance: no resurfacing, sock to get oil out, or anything major; the only thing used was PowerHouse finish, or Clean'n'Dull.
Assuming that the balls landed in the hands of bowlers skilled enough to actually do something with them when they were fresh, the problem would have taken care of itself. But like I just said, that would be counter to what the experts quoted in Richgels' article had to say about it.
My perspective as a bowler is that the USBC's first priority in all things is to copy a doctor's oath: "First, do no harm." They objectively failed that test here miserably. And Storm is not "making it worse" -- if anything, if Storm is able to pressure the USBC to think twice before going down this road again in the future, then go Storm, go.
Then you would agree that the Purple Hammer shouldn't have been banned, nor a 2-year rolling urethane ban in the PBA, the Jackal should be back in, the Gamebreaker should be back in, everyone's robot arm gear should be back in, soakers should be back in, and everyone should not have any problem with it whatsoever, despite their complaining about it.
Then also consider this; if the KPBA, JPBA, and the WTBA come up with the same results as the USBC, then what is Storm's recourse? Bully them into submission because Storm is too big to fail? We see where that got us with Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, MCI/Worldcom, Arthur Andersen, Enron, and Tyco.
But I digress.
BL.
-
All the complaining about USBC's various issues doesn't change the fact that Storm screwed up, and they're just making it worse by keeping the issue in the spotlight instead of moving on.
That's definitely your take on it, but you don't speak for me with those words.
I would never pretend to speak for anybody else. Sorry you seem to feel differently.
What makes this a different situation than General Mills having to recall a truckload of cereal boxes is twofold, for me: One, the bowling industry isn't rich enough to have to take multimillion-dollar hits over miniscule errors in production. The companies that support this sport are not rich enough.
FYI, I work in a mid-to-high level position for a leading company in a niche market, and I am very aware of the potential damage a multimillion dollar hit can create. I completely agree that a situation that puts a company like Storm in a financially jeopardized position should be avoided if possible.
But the much greater problem here is a sanctioning body that will neither recognize that fact, nor take common-sense steps to find middle ground between fixing the problem and causing more problems through either shoddy testing on its own part, or a lack of transparency with its stakeholders (i.e., us, the card-carrying members).
I don't actually think the USBC needs to be overly beholden to its members on this topic when it comes to the technical aspects of it. Transparency would definitely be appreciated, but the vast majority of bowlers have no expertise on this topic other than what they've learned in the last few months. Information is awesome and personally I love getting as much as possible, but I try to assimilate it with the humility and understanding that I am not and will never be an expert. You might want to try that at some point.
An earlier post talked about how Motiv fixed the Jackal problem. Well, that's half right. Motiv was nearly bankrupted over that. Moreover, Motiv didn't really have a choice, because the USBC doesn't answer to anyone, and too many of its members would give the USBC carte blanche to operate however it wishes. I see some of that attitude in this thread, including your post.
The way to have fixed this was to notify Storm -- and Motiv, and Hammer -- of issues and have them fix those issues immediately in the production run and going forward, but not forcing the old equipment out, and putting the companies on the hook for millions in reparations to bowlers that most of the bowlers didn't really want to have to receive in the first place.
Two points here: 1) It's completely possible that Storm has been making illegal balls for some time now and the USBC took the approach you suggested. However, the issues were not addressed sufficiently and further action needed to be taken. I have no idea if this is the case, but it would change things a bit. 2) If it got out that the USBC knowingly approved illegal balls and let it slide with a vague "just do better" slap on the wrist, the admittedly shaky reputation of the organization would be destroyed because of the complete lack of integrity exercised. It would surrender all ability to act impartially as an overseer of the sport.
Jeff Richgels has a fantastic article on 11thFrame right now where he interviews three guys qualified to speak about the testing from an engineering standpoint, and the overarching point is that balls out of spec by fractions don't offer enough performance advantage for it to matter in the first place. It's not like the Storm equipment was punching 60. It certainly wasn't enough of a margin to cause the fallout that it has. But there's an attitude within the USBC that they can basically do what they want and no one will hold them accountable for collateral damage so long as they get to whip out the stick and swing it around.
And even if people want to argue against the science and try to claim that these balls did offer clear and nefarious advantages to the bowlers, resin balls take themselves out of bags after a couple hundred games at most, anyway. Assuming that the balls landed in the hands of bowlers skilled enough to actually do something with them when they were fresh, the problem would have taken care of itself. But like I just said, that would be counter to what the experts quoted in Richgels' article had to say about it.
The last two paragraphs are generally fair points, though many experts have argued that the balls when fresh do present excellent bowlers with a clear advantage. How much is arguable, but an advantage exists. It would only be with significant use that the advantage would deteriorate
My perspective as a bowler is that the USBC's first priority in all things is to copy a doctor's oath: "First, do no harm." They objectively failed that test here miserably. And Storm is not "making it worse" -- if anything, if Storm is able to pressure the USBC to think twice before going down this road again in the future, then go Storm, go.
Trying to pressure the USBC to not abide by its own rules that are clear and have been followed consistently and well for the last twenty years or so by all ball manufacturers seems unwise. Keeping a situation that has been a marketing and sales disaster, not to mention a drain on the industry as a whole, at the forefront of people's minds is not a good way to sell more equipment. It's simply a good way to make sure that as many people as possible don't trust you and question your judgment. The way to move forward and minimize damage is to admit at least some fault and put it behind you as quickly as possible, not live in the past and deny responsibility over and over. Your pettiness and desire to punish the USBC for its perceived flaws is bad business. The durometer video was a big mistake. The 4K - Fast video, on the other hand, was an excellent idea.
-
Amazing how those people upset about Storm and this issue don't say a single thing about the FDA when it comes to that box of Cocoa Puffs, Cheerios, and Kix are recalled due to those errors in production, and they are the governing body over food, let alone the USDA.
You're absolutely right, bradl ... because I don't eat bowling balls.
Furthermore, the USDA is a government agency with specific legal powers. The USBC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and not a very well-run one at that.
That's before you even get to my original point in that comparison, which is the size of General Mills or Kelloggs compared to what amounts to a niche plastics company making product for a recreational activity. No, it's not even remotely on par. The ball companies should get a lot more leeway than something my body has to ingest.
Yet by contrast, Ron Hickland, who not only interviewed the person that did all of the durometer testing at EBI, but is himself is experienced in the manufacturing and testing of balls from an engineering standpoint (hell, he created the gas mask core), said effectively the opposite and that the USBC was indeed correct in their decision to sin bin the balls that they binned. But Riggs is right and Hickland is wrong?
Oh wait; Riggs himself is a Storm Staffer, so there obviously isn't any bias there. ::)
And before saying the same about Hickland, he left EBI in 2015, well before the the Purple Hammer was created, let alone the BoB buyout.
Richgels isn't making these statements, the experts are. If you read the article, you'll notice all three had bowling ball experience -- one each from Storm, one from Columbia 300 and another who had worked with Mo Pinel. The latter two also worked previously with the USBC in its testing department.
On top of that, Richgels' arrangement with his primary employer stipulates he observes the same level of journalistic standards for his work on 11thframe that he does for the newspaper that is his daily job. So if you're going to throw shade on him for being a Storm staffer (due to his ability, if you know anything about his actual bowling career), I'd say you need to have proof of it before you slander him with the charge of bias.
Not sure what Hickland has to do with any of that but if you're going to shade Riggs and not Hickland due to the companies the two of them worked with, I'd call that more than a bit hypocritical.
Umm... yet they get replaced with similar because of how great the ball works for the bowler that they want either the same ball again or similar. But the issue isn't what the balls do over time; the issue is what they are doing when they are at their best, and fresh out of the box. That's what they got pinged on. Going 34 weeks and 200 games down the road is irrelevant at that point.
But then again, we have a PBA bowler who complained about the same with urethane, which for all intents and purposes was 5-6 years outside of people's bags, and got it banned. Further than that, with the PBA, he got 40 years of balls banned.
Again, can't have it both ways, where urethane gets banned for being its best over the journey, while saying resin takes itself out of the bag after a couple hundred games. Hell, I went 6 years with using a Scandal, Scandal Pearl, Mission Unknown, and Maverick in my bag, and none of them lost anything in performance: no resurfacing, sock to get oil out, or anything major; the only thing used was PowerHouse finish, or Clean'n'Dull.
I don't think old urethane should have been thrown out, either, but at least there is evidence that old urethane gets softer, while old resin goes the other direction and continues to cure.
If you're sore at Sean Rash, just say so. Because that's what this is now beginning to sound like. I doubt Rash triggered this; he says a lot of dumb stuff when he's struggling on TV.
Finally, the PBA has very visibly sided with Storm on this, anyway, keeping the balls in play and noting that their testing does not produce the same results as the USBC's. That may have been the most damaging development to the USBC in all this, when the PBA basically said they didn't see what the fuss was over.
Then you would agree that the Purple Hammer shouldn't have been banned, nor a 2-year rolling urethane ban in the PBA, the Jackal should be back in, the Gamebreaker should be back in ...
Absolutely should be back in. So should my Visionary AMB Gold Centaur with a .700 diff. By now its cover is too weak to perform on anything but the driest burn, anyway. Jackal should never have been out in the first place.
... everyone's robot arm gear should be back in, soakers should be back in, and everyone should not have any problem with it whatsoever, despite their complaining about it.
Wrist braces aren't illegal in the USBC. That's a PBA national rule and I'm not a PBA member, so if they want to ban those, I don't carry one of their cards like I do a USBC card and that's not my acre.
Soaker, let's be serious for a moment. The act of soaking is to take a legal piece of equipment and knowingly make it illegal to gain an advantage. There is specific intent on the part of the bowler, not the company. That's not apples and oranges, that's apples and Volkswagens.
Then also consider this; if the KPBA, JPBA, and the WTBA come up with the same results as the USBC, then what is Storm's recourse? Bully them into submission because Storm is too big to fail? We see where that got us with Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, MCI/Worldcom, Arthur Andersen, Enron, and Tyco.
I guess we'll see. The only other accredited sanctioning body to test the stuff besides the USBC so far, that we know of, is the PBA, and the PBA deemed them legal. So the USBC is 0-for-1 already. As for the other companies you list, again we are talking about unlike things. Each of those companies you mention were either so tied to the general economy and dependent on credit markets that they couldn't survive nadirs in the global financial world, and/or they were brought down internally (i.e., Tyco) by incredible amounts of greed, theft and other malfeasance. None of that is comparable to one of the 5-10 companies holding up the bowling industry putting out a bowling ball that failed a durometer punch by 0.3.
-
I don't actually think the USBC needs to be overly beholden to its members on this topic when it comes to the technical aspects of it. Transparency would definitely be appreciated, but the vast majority of bowlers have no expertise on this topic other than what they've learned in the last few months. Information is awesome and personally I love getting as much as possible, but I try to assimilate it with the humility and understanding that I am not and will never be an expert. You might want to try that at some point.
I'm not an expert on it, either, which is why we have to rely on experts to interpret the data for us. So far, the only person or group that has agreed with the USBC ... is the USBC. The independent experts who have looked at it, as well as the PBA, believe the USBC was off-base. I'm not going to give the USBC a pass just because they are playing the role of police here.
Also not sure what my "humility" has to do with things. If I'm not showing "humility" when I criticize the USBC, then I'll live with the lack thereof.
(M)any experts have argued that the balls when fresh do present excellent bowlers with a clear advantage. How much is arguable, but an advantage exists. It would only be with significant use that the advantage would deteriorate.
Given the PBA's stance on this matter, it would seem unlikely. The PBA is not only keeping these balls in use, they're still drilling fresh ones on the truck. I would consider the PBA a better arbiter of what that equipment could do solely in the hands of elite bowlers than the USBC, so if they believed the difference was anything but marginal, they'd have erred on the side of caution early.
I've also been trying to steer clear of any brand-loyal bickering, not just because I use equipment from every manufacturer except for BIG but because there are a lot of Yankees-Red Sox kind of whataboutism going on across various bowling sites right now, but the PBA found issue with old urethane (which affected B7 more than Storm, Jesper Svensson nothwithstanding) and not with SPI's balls, so it's not like the PBA has its head buried in the sand about the whole issue. The fact they moved on one but not the other is an important data point.
Trying to pressure the USBC to not abide by its own rules that are clear and have been followed consistently and well for the last twenty years or so by all ball manufacturers seems unwise. Keeping a situation that has been a marketing and sales disaster, not to mention a drain on the industry as a whole, at the forefront of people's minds is not a good way to sell more equipment. It's simply a good way to make sure that as many people as possible don't trust you and question your judgment. The way to move forward and minimize damage is to admit at least some fault and put it behind you as quickly as possible, not live in the past and deny responsibility over and over. Your pettiness and desire to punish the USBC for its perceived flaws is bad business. The durometer video was a big mistake. The 4K - Fast video, on the other hand, was an excellent idea.
* The USBC approved the balls, then conducted tests no one can replicate, and threw the equipment out, even though some fell within established and accepted ranges of tolerance for durometers per experts in the field. I do not see that as the USBC following any rules, its own or otherwise.
* It's a marketing and sales disaster only because the USBC made it one by bending Storm over the knee at the end of a process that cannot be duplicated by other testers. The caveat here is that if the USBC were to prove Storm deliberately knew of a defect and perpetrated it anyway, the game changes. But Storm's durometer video doesn't get made if that was the case, probably.
* Sowing distrust among members, members becoming wary of the USBC: I was already there, for reasons that had nothing to do with equipment. And then the Jackal issue came along, so I've been there on issues of equipment, too, for some time. (edit: And I never owned a Jackal myself ... the whole thing just smelled.)
* Storm's video responses: From this distance, it looks like the durometer video was one or both of two things, either hammering the point down that durometer testing of bowling balls is more scattershot than the USBC manual suggests, and/or Storm's own move to backstop a future legal battle if the USBC decided to come back and try to reopen the case for any reason after already declaring it closed.
In the end, I can only say how I'm going to move forward, and that's by saying I think a lot of shine has come off the USBC rose over this -- not that things were really all that healthy to begin with. I've done my best to rep the organization to fellow bowlers and also to people I tried to recruit to join sanctioned leagues, but it's affected my desire to continue to do that. Our house is very divided right now and I don't think we're going to fix it by doubling down on processes that appear as flawed as the ones that led us here.
-
Please stop with the stupid comparisons of the USBC to the FDA.
You really think when the FDA tells General Mills there’s a problem with one of their products they don’t tell them exactly what the issue is? Show them their results. Works with them to identify all the product that IS AND ISN’T affected?
Do they blanket ban all of Cocoa Puffs ever produced or do they work with General Mills to identify and pull the specifically affected product?
You think they’d make General Mills pull all Puffs products and stop selling them if the nutritional label has a percentage listed that was off by 0.2%?
Read the thread again here and most everywhere else.
The issues in regard to the USBC are about the severe lack of transparency. To their own members and Storm. Lack of documentation regarding their finding. Forget their summations, give the actual datasets.
Their own pettiness. See their threatening to perma-ban all 6 balls because Storm did what was asked of Storm, but they, the USBC, were too stupid to account for product already sold by Storm. Product they themselves say makes ZERO difference in the hands of most bowlers. In most league settings. Balls they themselves did not fully ban, only excluded from the national tournaments. They are demanding that all product be pulled back from sources not controlled by Storm.
Why do that on product you say isn’t banned and the issue doesn’t make any difference in how it will be used.
That’s not Ben getting back into the timing of the whole fiasco.
Defend the USBC all you want. You’re not going to convince many folks they are blameless.
Stupid analogies to the FDA, just stop.
-
Thoughtful response with many good points, but inaccurate in a few ways.
* Not all independent experts believe that the USBC was off-base. Opinions are split, much like the bowling world as a whole, with many different viewpoints. Much of the disagreement is regarding how much impact a small difference in hardness has and what the "true" durometer readings are. There does not seem to be any significant pushback that the excluded balls were softer than other balls in the marketplace, just whether or not they were out of spec.
* As you said, the USBC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit. The PBA is not. They are a for-profit venture and it is very much in their best interests to protect one of their most important sponsors. The decisions they make must inherently balance their ability to make money with the appearance of legitimate and fair competition. They had to protect both Storm and the validity of their competitions or risk viewers' and competitors' faith in their product. Just look at how they handled the Purple Hammer situation. They tried to quietly sweep it under the rug even though they knew there were balls providing an illegal competitive advantage, but Sean Rash (publicly) and others (semi-privately) wouldn't let them. They tried to sweep this under the rug too because the health of the PBA is directly and inextricably connected to the health of SPI.
* My comments about lack of consumer trust were directed at Storm, not the USBC. Your points are good ones, but not at all what I was referring to. The point isn't whether the durometer video makes good arguments or not. By prolonging the discussion in a need to be "right", it creates more opportunity for consumers who have mixed feelings on the subject to question Storm's judgment and willingness to make products that are hassle-free to use in competition. Consumers want to hear "We fixed the problem, we can assure you that it won't happen again, and we're moving forward with the solution in place," not "There isn't a problem even though you're being affected by the problem, therefore we didn't fix anything."
* Also, there's absolutely no way that the durometer video set up anything from a legal standpoint. As many others have pointed out, there are so many easily provable problems and irregularities with the way Storm conducted the testing shown on the video that any attempt to use it as a basis for legal action would dismissed within hours. The only forum it's trying to win in is the court of public opinion.
* None of this is meant to absolve the USBC of many of the issues it has, especially in terms of transparency. Personally, I would love to know if and/or how they attempted to limit the financial damage to SPI. I would also love to know what discussions they had with SPI prior to the initial press release. It is highly probable that the USBC and Storm had a lot more communication prior to the press release than many people here are giving them credit for. However, Storm assuredly doesn't want the public to know the substance of those discussions any more than the USBC does as it would make them look even worse.
-
They limited the financial damage to Storm with only a partial ban and by stopping the testing on additional balls. With a full ban Storm would have had to follow this-
-Penalty for balls found to be outside of any specication-
-Up to $8,000; manufacturer must also pay full restitution to consumers who purchase nonconforming balls; 1-year probation.
-
Itsallaboutme-
I have a question concerning the 1 yr probation part.
Considering the Spectre ban, is the 6 partial banned considered a violation on probation as is?
If not, if the 6 partial-banned balls were fully banned, would that have been a violation while on probation?
If either answer is yes, what happens when you are on probation and have another violation?
-
Thank you for the details. It seems obvious that the USBC knowingly did Storm a favor by not banning the balls outright and taking the well-deserved heat for the lack of consistency inherent in that decision. I firmly believe that the more information is released about what happened leading up to the decision to exclude the balls, the worse Storm would look. Of course, the USBC might look worse too.
-
3835, this is what is in the spec manual-
1. During the probation period the manufacturer must submit 20 sample balls for each new release.
2. Failure to remit payment in a reasonable amount of time will results in revocation of approval status and cessation of approval testing on new products.
3. Late fee charge of 1.5% per month will apply for all outstanding invoices not paid within 30 days.
4. Ball manufacturers will be responsible for all shipping costs, including the return of additional test balls when required.
I have no idea from past experiences. At BP we were fined for selling a ball before release date, I do not remember how much the fine was, but it was enough to get Nick's attention, and we once had to submit additional samples as one ball tested close to the COR spec. Those were the only times we had anything beside submit samples and get the test results and approval letter.
-
If you need some stimulating reading-
http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/ESManual.pdf
-
Thanks!
I have my Doctorate degree and wrote a dissertation, so I am used to stimulating reading....
-
Part 2
https://youtu.be/EhJHB3FKGGw
-
Amazing how those people upset about Storm and this issue don't say a single thing about the FDA when it comes to that box of Cocoa Puffs, Cheerios, and Kix are recalled due to those errors in production, and they are the governing body over food, let alone the USDA.
You're absolutely right, bradl ... because I don't eat bowling balls.
No, you don't eat bowling balls. But the issue here is how well you and other bowlers easily just comply with what the FDA says in regards to General Mills' "miniscule errors " (your words, not mine), yet are completely up in arms in Storm's "miniscule errors" (again, your words, not mine).
You're having it one way with one entity, and a complete different other way with the other entity, even though according to you, the same "miniscule errors" happened.
The logic being portrayed is off; if you're complicit and compliant with one, you should be equally as complicit and compliant with the other, yet you aren't.
Furthermore, the USDA is a government agency with specific legal powers. The USBC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and not a very well-run one at that.
yet for the terms of this issue in this country, the USBC IS THE GOVERNING BODY, with the ability to do something about the issue. For the conditions of this incident, especially in how they are written in their bylaws, they are the "legal" authority.
That's before you even get to my original point in that comparison, which is the size of General Mills or Kelloggs compared to what amounts to a niche plastics company making product for a recreational activity. No, it's not even remotely on par. The ball companies should get a lot more leeway than something my body has to ingest.
See the above about complicity and compliance.
Yet by contrast, Ron Hickland, who not only interviewed the person that did all of the durometer testing at EBI, but is himself is experienced in the manufacturing and testing of balls from an engineering standpoint (hell, he created the gas mask core), said effectively the opposite and that the USBC was indeed correct in their decision to sin bin the balls that they binned. But Riggs is right and Hickland is wrong?
Oh wait; Riggs himself is a Storm Staffer, so there obviously isn't any bias there. ::)
And before saying the same about Hickland, he left EBI in 2015, well before the the Purple Hammer was created, let alone the BoB buyout.
Richgels isn't making these statements, the experts are. If you read the article, you'll notice all three had bowling ball experience -- one each from Storm, one from Columbia 300 and another who had worked with Mo Pinel. The latter two also worked previously with the USBC in its testing department.
On top of that, Richgels' arrangement with his primary employer stipulates he observes the same level of journalistic standards for his work on 11thframe that he does for the newspaper that is his daily job. So if you're going to throw shade on him for being a Storm staffer (due to his ability, if you know anything about his actual bowling career), I'd say you need to have proof of it before you slander him with the charge of bias.
I have not nor will question his ability. He has done for the sport everything he has done with his ability and deservedly so. However, optics are everything in this incident, and while Riggs is more than well known, the semblance of bias is given simply by being directly involved with the manufacturer directly partially responsible for this issue. That can not be denied, as it does bring about the semblance of bias.
As a journalism major myself in college, the first thing I had to learn with any type of reporting is to eliminate all types of indications of bias. If a story I was working on affected me directly due to my involvement in the topic of the story or my personal business with a company that I am reporting, I would have to either recuse myself from that story or remove myself completely from all business with that company for the sake pf journalistic integrity. Riggs has not done that in this instance, and because of that, a sense of bias towards Storm can be seen.
That has nothing to do with his ability; that has to do with the business he has with Storm; if that were gone, I would have no problem with what he posted; but he hasn't, so it hasn't. That isn't slander; that is the question of journalistic integrity that hasn't been resolved.
Not sure what Hickland has to do with any of that but if you're going to shade Riggs and not Hickland due to the companies the two of them worked with, I'd call that more than a bit hypocritical.
See the above about integrity.
Umm... yet they get replaced with similar because of how great the ball works for the bowler that they want either the same ball again or similar. But the issue isn't what the balls do over time; the issue is what they are doing when they are at their best, and fresh out of the box. That's what they got pinged on. Going 34 weeks and 200 games down the road is irrelevant at that point.
But then again, we have a PBA bowler who complained about the same with urethane, which for all intents and purposes was 5-6 years outside of people's bags, and got it banned. Further than that, with the PBA, he got 40 years of balls banned.
Again, can't have it both ways, where urethane gets banned for being its best over the journey, while saying resin takes itself out of the bag after a couple hundred games. Hell, I went 6 years with using a Scandal, Scandal Pearl, Mission Unknown, and Maverick in my bag, and none of them lost anything in performance: no resurfacing, sock to get oil out, or anything major; the only thing used was PowerHouse finish, or Clean'n'Dull.
I don't think old urethane should have been thrown out, either, but at least there is evidence that old urethane gets softer, while old resin goes the other direction and continues to cure.
[/quote]
I'd love to see the original durometer numbers on a Sumo, Thunderbolt, U2, Gyro, and the like. Oh wait, we have:
- AMF Sumo, OOB: 77.7
- 1993/1994 Faball Burgundy Hammer, OOB: 79
- 1983 Faball Black Hammer, OOB: 78.9
None of those, if they have become softer or not, have come anywhere near the hardness limit specified in the USBC manual. But by your own wording, a Rhino Pro, Turbo X, XCalibur, Crush/R, or Nitro/R should not have any changes in hardness at all. It would be interesting to get the numbers for those OOB and compare them to now.
If you're sore at Sean Rash, just say so. Because that's what this is now beginning to sound like. I doubt Rash triggered this; he says a lot of dumb stuff when he's struggling on TV.
I'm not sore at Rash; I'm sore at the lack of integrity. I'm sore at the overaction of pulling the trigger too hard for one thing, which is fine as everyone is complicit and compliant in it, but when it happens to another product from another company, it is a huge overreaction, and everyone thinks that it is a line too far. If it is fine for it to happen to BoB, but too much of an overreaction for Storm, that's a problem because people should be okay with both or every side having this happen should their products fall out of compliance. Motiv copped it and came out on the other side better. EBI came out better on the other side after the Gamebreaker. EBI came out better again when they recalled the Turbo/X due to the core separating.
But Storm skates the line and gets pinged for it over 7 balls, and everyone is up in arms because Storm can do no wrong, or is too big to fail? Again, there does seem to be a decent amount of bias here with calling for transparency with the USBC (side note: I get it with the Belmo incident), but don't call for as equal transparency with EBI/BoB.
Either call for them both, or call for none at all; either way, integrity on the part of the bowler is held.
Finally, the PBA has very visibly sided with Storm on this, anyway, keeping the balls in play and noting that their testing does not produce the same results as the USBC's. That may have been the most damaging development to the USBC in all this, when the PBA basically said they didn't see what the fuss was over.
Hardly. The PBA needs Storm, as they are the most dominant ball company used on tour. They need the money, which comes from the ad revenue they can easily get from bowlers using their equipment on TV, which fuels their bottom line. Besides: a private organization doesn't see a fuss over it (and it's their prerogative whether to fuss about it or not), but a governing body does. As I asked before, if any other governing body has a problem with it, does that mean that they are all wrong and the PBA is right? See the aforementioned "too big to fail" issue.
If the KPBA has a problem, or the JPBA, or the governing bodies of S. Korea, Singapore, Japan, and any other body up to and including the WTBA, then what? a private organization like the PBA is still right? That would be some rather backwards and fuzzy logic there.
Then you would agree that the Purple Hammer shouldn't have been banned, nor a 2-year rolling urethane ban in the PBA, the Jackal should be back in, the Gamebreaker should be back in ...
Absolutely should be back in. So should my Visionary AMB Gold Centaur with a .700 diff. By now its cover is too weak to perform on anything but the driest burn, anyway. Jackal should never have been out in the first place.
We actually agree on something.
But it's amazing how no-one had a problem with it before, until someone who can't handle those products got their proverbial panties in a bunch about it. But as you said, said person always has an unchecked motor mouth when they are struggling. But that isn't my problem; they should look at their own game and learn how to adapt.
... everyone's robot arm gear should be back in, soakers should be back in, and everyone should not have any problem with it whatsoever, despite their complaining about it.
Wrist braces aren't illegal in the USBC. That's a PBA national rule and I'm not a PBA member, so if they want to ban those, I don't carry one of their cards like I do a USBC card and that's not my acre.
Soaker, let's be serious for a moment. The act of soaking is to take a legal piece of equipment and knowingly make it illegal to gain an advantage. There is specific intent on the part of the bowler, not the company. That's not apples and oranges, that's apples and Volkswagens.
If everyone's Purple Hammer, Spectre, Gem, Trend 2, etc. is a Tesla Model 3, while a St. Louis poured Faball Blue Hammer is a 1983 Pontiac Trans Am, both are cars with the same abilities. The difference there is creating a fab car straight off the factory assembly line versus keeping one in pristine condition after buying it and not touching it at all for 35+ years. No modification required or needed there, but according to the PBA, that gets the same treatment as someone who soaked their ball for 40 years and never took it out of the bath.
Then also consider this; if the KPBA, JPBA, and the WTBA come up with the same results as the USBC, then what is Storm's recourse? Bully them into submission because Storm is too big to fail? We see where that got us with Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, MCI/Worldcom, Arthur Andersen, Enron, and Tyco.
I guess we'll see. The only other accredited sanctioning body to test the stuff besides the USBC so far, that we know of, is the PBA, and the PBA deemed them legal. So the USBC is 0-for-1 already. As for the other companies you list, again we are talking about unlike things. Each of those companies you mention were either so tied to the general economy and dependent on credit markets that they couldn't survive nadirs in the global financial world, and/or they were brought down internally (i.e., Tyco) by incredible amounts of greed, theft and other malfeasance. None of that is comparable to one of the 5-10 companies holding up the bowling industry putting out a bowling ball that failed a durometer punch by 0.3.
I think you've proven my point, especially with not knowing anything about the international competitions, and only thinking that the USBC and the PBA are the be all/end all of bowling. It would do you better to look at events outside the USA and the Japan Open to know what happens in the world of bowling, and not constrict yourself to only the USA.
BL.