Author Topic: Why are older urethane balls better? (Read 21270 times)

jensm · « **on:** September 27, 2013, 12:40:26 AM »

Since the shorter oil patterns (33-36 ft) were introduced in international championships, there seems to have been a rising demand among bowlers on the best national teams for urethane balls manufactured in the late 1980s and early 1990s. One of these bowlers told me that this is due to modern urethane balls being 'tamer' than older ones. Why is that? Lower RG? Better COR? Or what?

kidlost2000 · « **Reply #31 on:** September 30, 2013, 03:33:41 PM »

Quote from: jensm on September 30, 2013, 08:14:21 AM

The match between Barnes and Cho Yeung Sun is about 1h18min into this video:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/38008115

I don't know for sure that the grit on the Korean's urethane ball was 180. Could have been 360, I guess.

It looks like he kept sanding the sumo in practice to create area on the gutters. He was using a different ball during the match. Barnes was using something different. For it to be a short pattern the ball wasn't super strong.

The urethane reaction looks like any other urethane ball you see from today or 20 years ago.

Greazygeo · « **Reply #32 on:** September 30, 2013, 10:46:38 PM »

Quote from: bradl on September 30, 2013, 01:02:27 PM

I was going to post about comparing a Fab Blue Hammer to a Fab Burgundy Hammer, in seeing which would be better (I know that's relative). I have a Blue and Blue Pearl I keep in my bag to this day because of how they just last. I punched up a new Blue Hammer, but as you mentioned, there's a big difference in how the cover was laid out and the core.

I was thinking about trying to find another Fab Blue so I can retire my original one (it's a 300 ball, and I've had the worst luck with serious ball damage to my 300 balls), but now you have me wondering if it would be better to add some serious surface to the New Blue.

What is a 300 ball?

I've got a new Blue remake, took it down to 2000 so far. Still creates too much carry down. Good to use against certain teams. May have to sand it way down to see what happens.

Been getting alot of mileage out of my Red Hammer so far this season. Also have a Burgundy, Blue Pearl and now a couple of Purples. Should get to try the Purple this week. I really enjoy using these old Hammers.

MI 2 AZ · « **Reply #33 on:** October 01, 2013, 01:14:27 AM »

What is a 300 ball?
----------------------
I think he means a ball that he used to bowl a 300 game with.

Armourboy · « **Reply #34 on:** October 01, 2013, 01:29:26 AM »

Ha been thinking about picking up a Blue Hammer or Super Natural, but I may hold out and try and get my hands on an older urethane. Really wouldn't mind having a couple of old hammers, that was before my time.

kidlost2000 · « **Reply #35 on:** October 01, 2013, 02:11:42 AM »

Reads like it's a Blue Hammer he shot 300 with.

bradl · « **Reply #36 on:** October 01, 2013, 01:15:06 PM »

Quote from: kidlost2000 on October 01, 2013, 02:11:42 AM

Reads like it's a Blue Hammer he shot 300 with.

I should have clarified this. Yes. it's a ball that I shot 300 with. I just have the worst luck in having balls I've shot 300 with damaged beyond repair:

Columbia Pearl Quake: a 50 cent piece chunk taken out on my track roughly 2 months after shooting 300 with it.

Ebonite Mission Domination: problems in the pit on the lane I was one burned that ball and my teammates ball. mine had part of the track burned down to where the surface was flat (read: no longer round).

Only my Fab Blue, Black 3D Offset Hammer, and Ebonite Complete NV have survived, and it's only because I replaced them as soon as I could. Since the Fab Blue was the first high performance ball I ever had, and that my mother bought it for me (hey, I was 15!), I'd rather send it and the award to her to mount it as a trophy. She helped with it, and I'd like it to be in one piece. Sentimental and all.

The only C300 ball I have that I've done this with is that Quake. The only thing it's good for now is to become a ladybug in a lawn or garden.

BL.

Greazygeo · « **Reply #37 on:** October 01, 2013, 01:58:16 PM »

Quote from: bradl on October 01, 2013, 01:15:06 PM

Quote from: kidlost2000 on October 01, 2013, 02:11:42 AM
Reads like it's a Blue Hammer he shot 300 with.

I should have clarified this. Yes. it's a ball that I shot 300 with. I just have the worst luck in having balls I've shot 300 with damaged beyond repair:

Columbia Pearl Quake: a 50 cent piece chunk taken out on my track roughly 2 months after shooting 300 with it.

Ebonite Mission Domination: problems in the pit on the lane I was one burned that ball and my teammates ball. mine had part of the track burned down to where the surface was flat (read: no longer round).

Only my Fab Blue, Black 3D Offset Hammer, and Ebonite Complete NV have survived, and it's only because I replaced them as soon as I could. Since the Fab Blue was the first high performance ball I ever had, and that my mother bought it for me (hey, I was 15!), I'd rather send it and the award to her to mount it as a trophy. She helped with it, and I'd like it to be in one piece. Sentimental and all.

The only C300 ball I have that I've done this with is that Quake. The only thing it's good for now is to become a ladybug in a lawn or garden.

BL.

Ahh. I wasnt sure if it was a certain batch or ser # thing that were more prone to damage.

Wish I wouldn't have thrown away my tour offset Hammer. That was a great ball!

Author Topic: Why are older urethane balls better? (Read 21270 times)

jensm

Why are older urethane balls better?

kidlost2000

Re: Why are older urethane balls better?

Greazygeo

Re: Why are older urethane balls better?

MI 2 AZ

Re: Why are older urethane balls better?

Armourboy

Re: Why are older urethane balls better?

kidlost2000

Re: Why are older urethane balls better?

bradl

Re: Why are older urethane balls better?

Greazygeo

Re: Why are older urethane balls better?