BallReviews
Equipment Boards => Storm => Topic started by: 3835 on March 11, 2022, 04:53:22 PM
-
No word why yet. More to come.
-
Where was this? Storm or USBC website?
-
It's still on Storms website
-
USBC still has it listed as approved.
-
Perhaps it has only been stripped of approval for left-handers?
;D
-
Oh I know it is. When I was told that’s where I went first (USBC approved list) and then Storms site.
-
I kinda hope it is. I will trade mine in for a Hy-Road or IQ Tour.
-
At this point I don’t know what the issue is. Maybe some were poured with the wrong cover? Some with the wrong core? I’m completely guessing at this point what it could be.
-
(https://c.tenor.com/fyylSNGrZ80AAAAd/well-waiting.gif)
-
OH NO!
-
Ace Mitchell has pulled the ball from its website.
I still don’t know the issue behind it though
-
Ace Mitchell has pulled the ball from its website.
I still don’t know the issue behind it though
BowlerX is now showing it out of stock in all weights too
I'm really curious now
-
Buddies has them in an all weights
-
Supposedly the story is the ball is not spinning the same numbers now as when it was tested and approved by the USBC. It’s symmetrical so this is not a mass bias issue.
The RG is 254/255 for 15#/14# - so for there to be an illegal issue that’s a huge jump to below 246
The diff is 050/051 for 15#/14# so once again that’s a huge jump to get above 060 to make it illegal
Maybe it’s not illegal - maybe it’s just spinning substantially differently?
-
I'm not trying to be a dick, but did you heard this from some idiot in league?
-
Nope. From a Storm staffer concerning the specific issue of the ball not spinning the same #s.
As for the original notification- distributor sent an email alerting of the issue.
-
Unless he heard it from you no he didn’t
-
I’m seeing posted elsewhere. Mostly based upon information from the distributors. They’re pulling stock and no longer shipping them. No one knows the exact reason why. Some speculating it’s spin numbers, some it’s cover being too soft.
But it seems to be a certainty, there’s a concern about the ball and a halt to sales by distributors.
-
Storm has now acknowledged that the ball is under review by the USBC. Pulled from shelves but still legal for competitions at this time.
-
So unless the current Spectre's are different than the ones USBC already approved this is another glaring weakness in our "governing body".
If they are exactly the same then this debacle is an obvious waste of time, and USBC should be embarrassed at their inept "approval process". I guess time will tell, but that ball has been used by tons of bowlers here in Utah with nice results.
As I type this distributors cannot sell them and pro shops are asked not to sell or drill any until this is resolved. What a mess!
-
So unless the current Spectre's are different than the ones USBC already approved this is another glaring weakness in our "governing body".
If they are exactly the same then this debacle is an obvious waste of time, and USBC should be embarrassed at their inept "approval process". I guess time will tell, but that ball has been used by tons of bowlers here in Utah with nice results.
As I type this distributors cannot sell them and pro shops are asked not to sell or drill any until this is resolved. What a mess!
I'm definitely curious to know the reason.
In my eyes it has seemed like the Spectre has outperformed it's on paper specs
-
Approval should mean approval, assuming that something hasn't changed since original "approval".
Today it's Storm, tomorrow it could be any other manufacturer. At what point does USBC need to be held accountable for their own actions?
-
Question is do I snag one up?
Will they be worth $$$
Will storm offer a trade in on a special edition ball?
-
Approval should mean approval, assuming that something hasn't changed since original "approval".
Today it's Storm, tomorrow it could be any other manufacturer. At what point does USBC need to be held accountable for their own actions?
It seems like there was an error in production. Something changed during production that maybe took the ball out of spec. Either an error in cover formulation or they put in a wrong core. Those details haven’t come out yet. This literally came to light yesterday so I’m sure Storm is working with the USBC to verify what’s wrong and see how widespread the issue is. If there is one.
-
Storm has a blurb up on their Facebook page.
Text:
We were informed late Friday by the United States Bowling Congress that the Storm Spectre is under further review. We have reached out to the USBC for additional information. At this time, this ball is not available for sale in pro shops but is still legal for competition. As information becomes more available, we will release further statements.
-
New update from USBC on Facebook today
Spectre has been removed from the USBC approval list because too many tested too soft.
-
Wow.
https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337387&fbclid=IwAR1-oq1at8zmwUG-fr8Pl4E4lldm6XFIsiKvMwQRir0SEbv42Uw-pqQeS5k
Over 98% outside the spec.
-
Which now begs this question
Why did the original balls provided to the USBC for approval pass? Did they pass hardness inspection?
If yes, then that to me says Storm changed something after approval. How could the balls pass USBC approval and yet now, 98.6% would not pass inspection for hardness? There is no way every ball originally passed when there is now a 98.6 rate of failure.
If the USBC did not appropriately check for hardness during the approval process, then this is on the USBC. USBC should have said hey wait, the ball is outside of hardness spec. I would imagine Storm would stop and say yep, it is, let's stop production and make a change. Instead, now Storm has produced boatloads and now will probably have to replace all the sold ones. What a nightmare if this is the scenario that occurred.
I also wonder if USBC wasn't checking for hardness (although they should have been) until such a gripe was made about the Purple and because of that gripe, someone else decided to spill the beans on this ball as a "Gotcha too" moment.
-
Just like the original Motiv Jackal and Jackal Carnage. The USBC approved the balls and later banned them after the differential was found out to be above .060. Motiv had to exchange a lot of bowling balls and lost money because it.
-
So....for another update....
The same "birdie" that sent me the email about the Spectre from my distributor just said the USBC is not done with Utah yet.....
I don't know if that means more balls being revoked is in our future.......I guess we shall see.
-
When balls are approved you get the test results in a report with the approval letter, so I doubt the balls submitted originally were out of spec.
I know bashing the USBC is the popular thing to do on BR.com, but it's not a USBC problem, it's a quality control issue by the manufacturer.
Test balls don't come out of the production runs, so it is the manufacturer responsibility to make sure the production run balls end up the same as the test balls submitted.
When stuff like this happens somebody already knows and they have made the decision to take the calculated risk vs. the guaranteed loss.
-
When balls are approved you get the test results in a report with the approval letter, so I doubt the balls submitted originally were out of spec.
I know bashing the USBC is the popular thing to do on BR.com, but it's not a USBC problem, it's a quality control issue by the manufacturer.
Test balls don't come out of the production runs, so it is the manufacturer responsibility to make sure the production run balls end up the same as the test balls submitted.
When stuff like this happens somebody already knows and they have made the decision to take the calculated risk vs. the guaranteed loss.
As much as I would love to blame Chad, I can't disagree with anything you said here. Storm obviously screwed up. On purpose(knowing and going ahead anyway) or by accident, this is still on Storm. Even if it's a resin supplier issue, it's still on Storm.
-
Collateral damage from the purple hammer witch hunt. This might get interesting, hearing chatter at the WSOB is the Zen and Phase 2 are being looked at. Storms been making balls at the lower end of the 73-75 hardness they claim their balls are at.
-
The only complaint against USBC on this would be why do a teaser friday to then do this today if you had the information all along? Are you that hard up for social media attention and buzz about bowling?
It is unfortunate that this happened and no doubt someone out there is paying close attention to different bowling balls and passing the information on to USBC who then is forced to get involved.
Hopefully there are no other Storm balls with this issue. The last thing you want is a manufacturer going under or being taken back a few years because of something like this. Motiv I think almost lost out because of this on the Jackal. Not that this is as popular of a release but still a costly issue.
-
Can confirm more SPI balls are being heavily scrutinized.
-
So my source was right again.
If this turns into 3/4/5 balls getting decertified this is going to get very nasty.
-
Can confirm more SPI balls are being heavily scrutinized.
Oh Boy!
-
Just like the Jackal was the end of balls coming out at a .060 differential, the companies will be sure to leave some buffer room with hardness now.
This will just make it harder for companies to come out with the newest, greatest thing.
-
Can confirm more SPI balls are being heavily scrutinized.
Oh Boy!
RIP Idol Helios was nice knowing ya.
-
Can confirm more SPI balls are being heavily scrutinized.
Oh Boy!
RIP Idol Helios was nice knowing ya.
Could you imagine that being true after a second 900 series was just thrown with one
-
Collateral damage from the purple hammer witch hunt. This might get interesting, hearing chatter at the WSOB is the Zen and Phase 2 are being looked at. Storms been making balls at the lower end of the 73-75 hardness they claim their balls are at.
Dunno anything about the Zen (don't have one) but the Phaze II is stupid strong out of the box and it would not surprise me if that turns out to be why.
-
This is on Storm of course, but if it's across multiple balls, it is probably a supplier problem.
Their resin supplier is probably sweating about now. Or could be an issue with some additive used in the process.
At any rate, Storm needs to check their QA process.
-
Can confirm more SPI balls are being heavily scrutinized.
Oh Boy!
RIP Idol Helios was nice knowing ya.
Could you imagine that being true after a second 900 series was just thrown with one
I'm hearing rumours that Rash was throwing a Spectre during the tournament and/or finals when he was complaining about the Purple Hammer. I didn't watch the show so I don't know..
If so, I don't know which way to take it...
BL.
-
11th Frame.com confirmed Rash was using a Spectre when he had his flare up on TV.
Also - Belmo won the Players Championship and used a Spectre in the finals, also according to 11th Frame.com
-
Can confirm more SPI balls are being heavily scrutinized.
Oh Boy!
RIP Idol Helios was nice knowing ya.
Could you imagine that being true after a second 900 series was just thrown with one
I'm hearing rumours that Rash was throwing a Spectre during the tournament and/or finals when he was complaining about the Purple Hammer. I didn't watch the show so I don't know..
If so, I don't know which way to take it...
BL.
SO, the question is, is there a rat? Do we have the box of balls that say spin me going on again? Hopefully not, bowling doesn't need this negative publicity..
-
Can confirm more SPI balls are being heavily scrutinized.
Oh Boy!
RIP Idol Helios was nice knowing ya.
Could you imagine that being true after a second 900 series was just thrown with one
I'm hearing rumours that Rash was throwing a Spectre during the tournament and/or finals when he was complaining about the Purple Hammer. I didn't watch the show so I don't know..
If so, I don't know which way to take it...
BL.
SO, the question is, is there a rat? Do we have the box of balls that say spin me going on again? Hopefully not, bowling doesn't need this negative publicity..
Now it's "Poke Me" ;D
-
Can confirm more SPI balls are being heavily scrutinized.
Oh Boy!
RIP Idol Helios was nice knowing ya.
Could you imagine that being true after a second 900 series was just thrown with one
I'm hearing rumours that Rash was throwing a Spectre during the tournament and/or finals when he was complaining about the Purple Hammer. I didn't watch the show so I don't know..
If so, I don't know which way to take it...
BL.
SO, the question is, is there a rat? Do we have the box of balls that say spin me going on again? Hopefully not, bowling doesn't need this negative publicity..
I was thinking of either Karma in one direction, or the pot calling the kettle black in the other. I mean, Rash can't particularly talk now.
BL.
-
There is still a difference.
When Rash had his dust up on TV, multiple Purple Hammers had previously tested and failed exam, and yet the USBC/PBA both allowed use of the ball to continue.
At the same time, not a single Spectre had failed exam, so how would anyone know?
There is a difference between using a ball that others used and have been known to not pass and continue to use versus a ball that never had failed before.
Now if Rash were to use the Spectre in something (how could he because its banned) then yes, now you have the same scenario because he now knows it has failed.
-
I'd bet if you test the balls Rash or Belmonte used to win they would pass. No chance a whole ball release worth of balls with a projected 98% failure rate gets sent out to distributors by mistake. There is also no chance you are sending balls from those failed batches to your marquee players who you know will have balls tested. Just like there is no chance only one person in Hopkinsville knew they produced bad balls for 2 years.
-
I'd bet if you test the balls Rash or Belmonte used to win they would pass. No chance a whole ball release worth of balls with a projected 98% failure rate gets sent out to distributors by mistake. There is also no chance you are sending balls from those failed batches to your marquee players who you know will have balls tested. Just like there is no chance only one person in Hopkinsville knew they produced bad balls for 2 years.
This would seem imply that Storm knew there were bad ones vs good from the beginning and made sure the PBA players did not get the soft ones and were okay risking everyone else using a ball that could be banned and have to be replace by Storm. That is a lot of risk for a mid performance ball that sells for $139
I think with everything we learned on the purples and other urethane is that the PBA was/is not testing balls so if players were using Spectre or any other ball that was soft no one would know.
This lead to the two year rule to keep the PBA from having to test ball hardness still. pAth of least resistance/work.
-
Don't be naive enough to believe a whole release of balls went out the door without the decision being made to take the risk vs. taking the balls to the dump by the truckload. How many customers that buy the ball will actually bowl an event that a ball would be tested. Make the decision to send them out and deal with any failures on a case by case basis. Nobody would ever consider the balls would be tested after the USBC approval.
It isn't that hard to make a small run of balls to send to the truck for the tour guys since you know those will be tested.
-
Can confirm more SPI balls are being heavily scrutinized.
Oh Boy!
RIP Idol Helios was nice knowing ya.
Could you imagine that being true after a second 900 series was just thrown with one
I'm hearing rumours that Rash was throwing a Spectre during the tournament and/or finals when he was complaining about the Purple Hammer. I didn't watch the show so I don't know..
If so, I don't know which way to take it...
BL.
SO, the question is, is there a rat? Do we have the box of balls that say spin me going on again? Hopefully not, bowling doesn't need this negative publicity..
I guarantee you every brand is testing all other brands equipment to look for flaws.
-
I remember when the Track Heat was a big hit on tour in the late 1990s. I know for a fact Ebonite tried to reverse engineer that ball. They had several Heats in Hopkinsville and tore them apart etc trying to figure out how that ball was soooo good.
-
I'd bet if you test the balls Rash or Belmonte used to win they would pass. No chance a whole ball release worth of balls with a projected 98% failure rate gets sent out to distributors by mistake. There is also no chance you are sending balls from those failed batches to your marquee players who you know will have balls tested. Just like there is no chance only one person in Hopkinsville knew they produced bad balls for 2 years.
This would seem imply that Storm knew there were bad ones vs good from the beginning and made sure the PBA players did not get the soft ones and were okay risking everyone else using a ball that could be banned and have to be replace by Storm. That is a lot of risk for a mid performance ball that sells for $139
I think with everything we learned on the purples and other urethane is that the PBA was/is not testing balls so if players were using Spectre or any other ball that was soft no one would know.
This lead to the two year rule to keep the PBA from having to test ball hardness still. pAth of least resistance/work.
The PBA's 2 year rule only applies to pure urethane, not reactive equipment. However it will be interesting to see if that rule gets amended in light of this current fiasco.
Belmo only used the Spectre for the final frame of his Player's Championship win a couple of weeks ago, so it isn't like he used it the entire match [and that was prior to the revocation of the certification anyway.]
It may be that actually testing all equipment at check-in and in between each round is the only solution now that old and new equipment is apparently testing out-of-spec.
-
They don't have to test every ball, just spot check at random like a drug test. And make the penalty harsh for getting caught.
They could also check the winner.
-
The bowler can't really get penalized in these cases. You can't look at a ball and know it is out of compliance. To penalize the bowler is to insinuate they were complicit in some sort of scheme to use an illegal ball. It could simply be a case of the ball being incorrectly manufactured [such as the Spectre.]
All you can really do is confiscate the ball and not allow it to be used. The PBA could also do an immediate spot check of all whatever make and model balls tested illegal and see if there is a systemic issue [go to the ball truck and test undrilled balls, check balls held by other bowlers, etc.] If more of those balls test illegal, they are banned entirely from PBA competition. If it is just a random non-compliant ball it gets confiscated and the bowler simply cannot use it in that tournament. I suppose you could also have a provision that says any bowler who has a ball test non-compliant will automatically be subject to equipment testing for the next two seasons at all PBA events in which they participate.
-
The bowler can't really get penalized in these cases. You can't look at a ball and know it is out of compliance. To penalize the bowler is to insinuate they were complicit in some sort of scheme to use an illegal ball. It could simply be a case of the ball being incorrectly manufactured [such as the Spectre.]
All you can really do is confiscate the ball and not allow it to be used. The PBA could also do an immediate spot check of all whatever make and model balls tested illegal and see if there is a systemic issue [go to the ball truck and test undrilled balls, check balls held by other bowlers, etc.] If more of those balls test illegal, they are banned entirely from PBA competition. If it is just a random non-compliant ball it gets confiscated and the bowler simply cannot use it in that tournament. I suppose you could also have a provision that says any bowler who has a ball test non-compliant will automatically be subject to equipment testing for the next two seasons at all PBA events in which they participate.
We will just have to "agree to disagree" on this one. The "P" in PBA is an abbreviation for "Professional". When you step up to that plate, you should be accountable for your actions and equipment.
Only one person uses that ball. Make them responsible for it. It's like that saying "If you don't know, you better ask somebody."
Just my opinion, treat adults like adults.
-
So what you are saying is I am supposed to know (if I was a PBA pro) if my Spectre was pinging too soft on the durometer? So now I need to carry a duromater with me at every stop for when I drill a new ball on the truck?
Also, if I was with Motiv during the original Jackal and Jackal Carnage days, I am supposed to have the resources at my fingertips available to spin a ball and determine because undrilled its spinning .061 or more that its illegal and I should not drill it? So once again, if I drill something on the truck, I need to have whatever with me to spin the ball before I drill it and say yep, its under .060?
Making sure I understand your thought correctly Milo...
-
So what you are saying is I am supposed to know (if I was a PBA pro) if my Spectre was pinging too soft on the durometer? So now I need to carry a duromater with me at every stop for when I drill a new ball on the truck?
Also, if I was with Motiv during the original Jackal and Jackal Carnage days, I am supposed to have the resources at my fingertips available to spin a ball and determine because undrilled its spinning .061 or more that its illegal and I should not drill it? So once again, if I drill something on the truck, I need to have whatever with me to spin the ball before I drill it and say yep, its under .060?
Making sure I understand your thought correctly Milo...
You understand me correctly. I expect "Professionals" to act professional and take responsibility for the equipment they use for their craft.
To paraphrase what a couple of users here said, it was common knowledge that the older urethane was softer than allowed. If the bowler is held responsible, the non-sense will end.
Anyone think Jason Belmonte would stay with Storm if they provided him with illegal equipment that cost him personally? Or any other top bowler?
The bowler is the final check.
-
Milo that is like saying a pitcher in baseball is supposed to know if the baseball is wound tight enough or if in hockey the pucks being used are the correct hardness or in golf if the ball had the correct materials in it at the time of production and so on.
I agree with you that a pro should not be altering the object to change its performance in any way against the rules, but if the professional is provided an object/item I think there has to be some good faith involved that what the manufacturer is providing is actually what they say they are providing.
The manufacturer is the professional in manufacturing the ball, the bowler is the professional in throwing the ball, not the manufacturing of the ball.
But alas, if that is your opinion, you are absolutely entitled to it. No argument here on that.
-
Miloguy lol your a funny guy
-
No, baseball and hockey are not the same. Everyone on the team has access to the baseball during a game in one way or another. Same with Hockey, it's a common element of the game used by all players.
Now in Golf, the equipment used by a PGA member is for his exclusive use. He should be held responsible for it. The PGA member isn't responsible for the course conditions, but he should be the single most concerned entity that his equipment isn't going to be outside the regulations.
PBA and PGA members can and should hold the equipment manufacturers responsible for providing them with tools that are legal for use.
-
Miloguy lol your a funny guy
I'll be here all week, try the veal. ;D
-
No, baseball and hockey are not the same. Everyone on the team has access to the baseball during a game in one way or another. Same with Hockey, it's a common element of the game used by all players.
Now in Golf, the equipment used by a PGA member is for his exclusive use. He should be held responsible for it. The PGA member isn't responsible for the course conditions, but he should be the single most concerned entity that his equipment isn't going to be outside the regulations.
Keep trying to justify your ignorance it’s very entertaining
PBA and PGA members can and should hold the equipment manufacturers responsible for providing them with tools that are legal for use.
I'm not justifying anything, just expressing an opinion on how to correct the problem.
If your opinion is different, as amazing as you may find it, I will be able to live with that.
-
Milo - they don't use one baseball per game in the big leagues. How many dozens of balls are used every game? I have seen one batter go through a half dozen balls from foul balls etc during one at bat. How would anyone outside of the pitcher and catcher during that time know if a ball was not quite right? What if one box of balls were bad somehow and the others were fine?
I think we will need to agree to disagree on this one.
-
Milo - they don't use one baseball per game in the big leagues. How many dozens of balls are used every game? I have seen one batter go through a half dozen balls from foul balls etc during one at bat. How would anyone outside of the pitcher and catcher during that time know if a ball was not quite right? What if one box of balls were bad somehow and the others were fine?
I think we will need to agree to disagree on this one.
No worries, but doesn't your statement enforce my argument?
-
No, baseball and hockey are not the same. Everyone on the team has access to the baseball during a game in one way or another. Same with Hockey, it's a common element of the game used by all players.
Now in Golf, the equipment used by a PGA member is for his exclusive use. He should be held responsible for it. The PGA member isn't responsible for the course conditions, but he should be the single most concerned entity that his equipment isn't going to be outside the regulations.
PBA and PGA members can and should hold the equipment manufacturers responsible for providing them with tools that are legal for use.
The PGA golfer, like the PBA pro gets his equipment from the same batches as the general public. As any other competitor could. From the exact source. Just like baseballs.
They do not have specific specs of golf balls they have made for them. Not that I’ve heard. They can go into the pro shop at the course and buy a dozen of their preferred brand. Off the shelf. That’s what they use.
I understand your view, don’t agree with it. Now, if they alter the surface or soak it in something to make the ball illegal, totally different story. But using the same mass produced item as anyone else has access to, punish the manufacturer.
-
The pros cannot and should not be expected to have a durometer in their bag, access to a Determinator, an RG Swing, a COR ramp, and a ball sled and a profilometer. They should not have to scientifically test their own equipment.
I agree that what the pros (and retail consumers) really need is trust that the equipment being provided/sold to them is being manufactured to the correct standards. This all falls on the manufacturer and the USBC. If a pro is found to have a non-compliant ball, the pro should go back to the manufacturer and have then make good on it, but the pro should not be penalized by the PBA (other than confiscation of the equipment) for a non-compliance that cannot be seen, heard, or felt.
-
No, baseball and hockey are not the same. Everyone on the team has access to the baseball during a game in one way or another. Same with Hockey, it's a common element of the game used by all players.
Now in Golf, the equipment used by a PGA member is for his exclusive use. He should be held responsible for it. The PGA member isn't responsible for the course conditions, but he should be the single most concerned entity that his equipment isn't going to be outside the regulations.
PBA and PGA members can and should hold the equipment manufacturers responsible for providing them with tools that are legal for use.
The PGA golfer, like the PBA pro gets his equipment from the same batches as the general public. As any other competitor could. From the exact source. Just like baseballs.
They do not have specific specs of golf balls they have made for them. Not that I’ve heard. They can go into the pro shop at the course and buy a dozen of their preferred brand. Off the shelf. That’s what they use.
I understand your view, don’t agree with it. Now, if they alter the surface or soak it in something to make the ball illegal, totally different story. But using the same mass produced item as anyone else has access to, punish the manufacturer.
Do they get them from the same batches as the general public though? I don't recall seeing any Motiv Blue Urethanes on my Pro Shop shelf. Nor do I see the new Blue Coral Venom. New balls usually show up on tour well before they are available to the general public.
I suspect this holds true for the PGA as well. I can have clubs custom made, no doubt the Pros can as well.
-
The pros cannot and should not be expected to have a durometer in their bag, access to a Determinator, an RG Swing, a COR ramp, and a ball sled and a profilometer. They should not have to scientifically test their own equipment.
I agree that what the pros (and retail consumers) really need is trust that the equipment being provided/sold to them is being manufactured to the correct standards. This all falls on the manufacturer and the USBC. If a pro is found to have a non-compliant ball, the pro should go back to the manufacturer and have then make good on it, but the pro should not be penalized by the PBA (other than confiscation of the equipment) for a non-compliance that cannot be seen, heard, or felt.
That would be one huge bag...not that anything was said about the bowlers having all that stuff on their person.
-
Your wrong about golf equipment and bowling balls. I have been out of the ball business for a while but there were definitely balls made for tour guys only that came out of San Antonio. And golfers definitely have equipment specially made and built for them.
The only way to hold the bowler responsible is if you go back to the old way and have every ball checked after it is drilled and before it's used. But the PBA doesn't want to have enough personnel at each tournament to do the ball check in.
-
Your wrong about golf equipment and bowling balls. I have been out of the ball business for a while but there were definitely balls made for tour guys only that came out of San Antonio. And golfers definitely have equipment specially made and built for them.
The only way to hold the bowler responsible is if you go back to the old way and have every ball checked after it is drilled and before it's used. But the PBA doesn't want to have enough personnel at each tournament to do the ball check in.
Do random checks at each event. Like drug screening, it's too expensive to do everyone, but easy to set up a process to make a few random checks at each tournament. Then maybe the top five or so money winners in the top tournaments.
-
The pros cannot and should not be expected to have a durometer in their bag, access to a Determinator, an RG Swing, a COR ramp, and a ball sled and a profilometer. They should not have to scientifically test their own equipment.
I agree that what the pros (and retail consumers) really need is trust that the equipment being provided/sold to them is being manufactured to the correct standards. This all falls on the manufacturer and the USBC. If a pro is found to have a non-compliant ball, the pro should go back to the manufacturer and have then make good on it, but the pro should not be penalized by the PBA (other than confiscation of the equipment) for a non-compliance that cannot be seen, heard, or felt.
That would be one huge bag...not that anything was said about the bowlers having all that stuff on their person.
The response in post #59 alludes to that with a statement such as "the bowler is the final check."
-
The pros cannot and should not be expected to have a durometer in their bag, access to a Determinator, an RG Swing, a COR ramp, and a ball sled and a profilometer. They should not have to scientifically test their own equipment.
I agree that what the pros (and retail consumers) really need is trust that the equipment being provided/sold to them is being manufactured to the correct standards. This all falls on the manufacturer and the USBC. If a pro is found to have a non-compliant ball, the pro should go back to the manufacturer and have then make good on it, but the pro should not be penalized by the PBA (other than confiscation of the equipment) for a non-compliance that cannot be seen, heard, or felt.
That would be one huge bag...not that anything was said about the bowlers having all that stuff on their person.
The response in post #59 alludes to that with a statement such as "the bowler is the final check."
The bowler wouldn't have to "own" the equipment for the checks to ensure compliance.
-
I know bashing the USBC is the popular thing to do on BR.com, but it's not a USBC problem, it's a quality control issue by the manufacturer..
Storm put out today that their testing still shows Spectres as passing.
I've heard some rumblings that this may actually be a Chad Murphy issue
-
I have also started hearing that there was an issue with the USBC's testing equipment.
It would be kind of funny to find out that someone did their math wrong, and the defect rate was only 1.4%, not 98.6%.
In all seriousness, if it is determined that the USBC messed up here then Storm should pursue some sort of legal action just to yank the USBC's chain. It would be great to see the USBC sweat a little over their inability to get their act together.
-
Seems like this is going to rumble on for a while yet.
Here’s the mail SVstar is referring to.
We are disappointed in USBC’s decision on Monday revoking its prior approval of the Storm Spectre bowling ball. Our tests show and confirm that the Spectre ball meets all USBC requirements. Therefore, we disagree with this recent ruling. We pride ourselves in manufacturing the finest high-end balls which are shipped worldwide. When we create a new product, we do extensive testing prior to sending it to the USBC for approval. The USBC then conducts their own studies to determine if the ball is certified for USBC competition. We then get an approval notification and proceed with the manufacturing process. All that occurred with the Spectre.
Our customers are our priority and deserve the utmost service and respect. While we continue to work through this ongoing situation with USBC, we want to do all we can to take care of our customers. We are currently working on a resolution and process to ensure that if you purchased a Spectre, you will have a product that you can use in a USBC Certified competition.
We will have more information for our customers shortly.
-
Although I doubt this will happen, I would love to see Storm release their review to the public. How many balls did they test, etc and what the results were.
We all know USBC will not release their infomration unless made to......
-
Although I doubt this will happen, I would love to see Storm release their review to the public. How many balls did they test, etc and what the results were.
We all know USBC will not release their infomration unless made to......
Yes please. Website numbers might be made up but they imply they should average 74 so having basically all of a sample below 73 means something is bogus somewhere.
As far as USBC? Here's an example of what they could be doing for approved products instead of just a picture:
https://www.pdga.com/technical-standards/equipment-certification/discs/wizard-revised (https://www.pdga.com/technical-standards/equipment-certification/discs/wizard-revised)
-
Storm issues new update today...
They're going to be opening an exchange portal on their website. List of 7 balls you'll be able to pick from as a replacement and a $50 voucher for drilling that pro shops will be able to turn into Storm for reimbursement.
No mention of what balls will be on the list of 7. I'd imagine the Wolverine, P4, UC2, and Zen will be on the list
-
It seems to be that there's two different sets of information out there. And it seems to be crystal clear for the people with drilled bowling balls to simply use the portal and follow the process.
I believe I also saw instructions to ship on drilled balls back to the distributor but that has to be like owned equipment by the pro shop. What about consumers that have undrilled specters do we just keep those and drill them as a practice ball or to use in unsanctioned events?
Doesn't seem right that if someone already has it drilled that they get to keep the ball whereas if it's undrilled they have to send theirs back. Good effort on storms part but it needs to be a little bit more clear...
-
It seems to be that there's two different sets of information out there. And it seems to be crystal clear for the people with drilled bowling balls to simply use the portal and follow the process.
I believe I also saw instructions to ship on drilled balls back to the distributor but that has to be like owned equipment by the pro shop. What about consumers that have undrilled specters do we just keep those and drill them as a practice ball or to use in unsanctioned events?
Doesn't seem right that if someone already has it drilled that they get to keep the ball whereas if it's undrilled they have to send theirs back. Good effort on storms part but it needs to be a little bit more clear...
The PSOs are to ship the undrilled balls back to the distributor, while those that are drilled need to have a picture of the serial number taken and send that to the exchange portal.
Those customers that have them undrilled can choose to drill them or keep them undrilled. Either way, they get to keep the ball. If you choose the drill it, drilling is on you to pay, as I don't think Storm will let the PSO use the certificate to drill the Spectre.
Again, only the PSO has to send the balls back, not the customer.
Chris Beans has a good explanation up on Bowlers Rant's YT channel:
BL.
-
So now that we're a few days into this ... apparently people are starting to do their own hardness checks of a Spectre and I haven't seen a failure yet, from the videos that have started to pop up.
If the USBC fouled this up, but doesn't want to eat crow and admit it, what's the next step? Does Storm sue? And what about us bowlers who rely on the USBC to be accurate about these kind of things -- should we go to the mat for this issue? Because I don't really want our sanctioning body being wrong about these things in the future, regardless of the company involved. We're just not a big enough industry to absorb that kind of thing multiple times over.
-
Supposedly there is a reason behind Storm not wanting drilled balls returned to the pro shop or to Storm or requiring the serial number to be drilled out (Motiv required the Pro Shop to drill out the serial number on the Jackals).....
If you put 2 and 2 together, that tells me Storm has something up their sleeve about this. Further, the Spectre is still on Storm's website.
What this tells me is ultimately, I think Storm is going to use every recourse to get the Spectre approved again, but because they know its more than likely going to be a long process, don't want to hurt customers, so in the meantime they are throwing everyone a free ball.
-
The 7 balls available for the Spectre replacement:
1. Original Hyroad
2. Hyroad Pearl
3. Pitch Black
4. Rubicon UC2
5. Rubicon UC3
6. Idol Helios
7. Wolverine
-
Supposedly there is a reason behind Storm not wanting drilled balls returned to the pro shop or to Storm or requiring the serial number to be drilled out (Motiv required the Pro Shop to drill out the serial number on the Jackals).....
If you put 2 and 2 together, that tells me Storm has something up their sleeve about this. Further, the Spectre is still on Storm's website.
What this tells me is ultimately, I think Storm is going to use every recourse to get the Spectre approved again, but because they know its more than likely going to be a long process, don't want to hurt customers, so in the meantime they are throwing everyone a free ball.
They are definitely trying to get it reinstated. I'm a little surprised the P4 isn't on the list of balls for exchange
-
Supposedly there is a reason behind Storm not wanting drilled balls returned to the pro shop or to Storm or requiring the serial number to be drilled out (Motiv required the Pro Shop to drill out the serial number on the Jackals).....
If you put 2 and 2 together, that tells me Storm has something up their sleeve about this. Further, the Spectre is still on Storm's website.
What this tells me is ultimately, I think Storm is going to use every recourse to get the Spectre approved again, but because they know its more than likely going to be a long process, don't want to hurt customers, so in the meantime they are throwing everyone a free ball.
They are definitely trying to get it reinstated. I'm a little surprised the P4 isn't on the list of balls for exchange
The P4 deserves to be in there more than the Pitch Black. Only ball I disagree with being in the list.
-
Agreed - but the long play here is IF (that's a BIG IF) the Spectre does get USBC approval again, not only do you still have the Spectre, you got a 2nd ball for free. Can't argue with that point.
However - if the Spectre never gets reapproved, then yeah, totally agree. But from Storm's standpoint, I don't know if you want to give away your hottest ball on the market for free right now, regardless of the situation.
-
I seem to be missing some needed instructions.
What do I do with an undrilled Spectre? I have one I got from my local proshop that is drilled and a second one that is still NIB that I purchased from Buddies.
I must be over looking those instructions somewhere.
-
I seem to be missing some needed instructions.
What do I do with an undrilled Spectre? I have one I got from my local proshop that is drilled and a second one that is still NIB that I purchased from Buddies.
I must be over looking those instructions somewhere.
From their news page article:
If you have an undrilled Spectre, please email tech@stormbowling.com with your
Name
Shipping Address
Picture of the serial number
Choice of the 7 Balls (Storm Hy-Road, Storm Hy-Road Pearl, Storm Pitch Black, 900 Global Wolverine, Roto Grip Rubicon UC2, Roto Grip Rubicon UC3, Roto Grip IDOL Helios)
Replacement Weight
If you run into any issues with the website, please contact 800-369-4402.
-
Supposedly there is a reason behind Storm not wanting drilled balls returned to the pro shop or to Storm or requiring the serial number to be drilled out (Motiv required the Pro Shop to drill out the serial number on the Jackals).....
If you put 2 and 2 together, that tells me Storm has something up their sleeve about this. Further, the Spectre is still on Storm's website.
What this tells me is ultimately, I think Storm is going to use every recourse to get the Spectre approved again, but because they know its more than likely going to be a long process, don't want to hurt customers, so in the meantime they are throwing everyone a free ball.
They are definitely trying to get it reinstated. I'm a little surprised the P4 isn't on the list of balls for exchange
Or the Altered Reality for that matter.
But out of those 7 choices: Helios all day.
-
I seem to be missing some needed instructions.
What do I do with an undrilled Spectre? I have one I got from my local proshop that is drilled and a second one that is still NIB that I purchased from Buddies.
I must be over looking those instructions somewhere.
From their news page article:
If you have an undrilled Spectre, please email tech@stormbowling.com with your
Name
Shipping Address
Picture of the serial number
Choice of the 7 Balls (Storm Hy-Road, Storm Hy-Road Pearl, Storm Pitch Black, 900 Global Wolverine, Roto Grip Rubicon UC2, Roto Grip Rubicon UC3, Roto Grip IDOL Helios)
Replacement Weight
If you run into any issues with the website, please contact 800-369-4402.
Thanks! Damn, I was just overlooking it. Even after reading your post, I read it again and still missed it. LOL
Now, like magic I see it clear as day. ;D
-
A few of my really good customers are not happy with the options (100% their opinion only). They all said if they wanted 10 year old technology they would have bought that already (in reference to both Hyroads being offered) and nobody liked the urethane option (Pitch Black).
-
A few of my really good customers are not happy with the options (100% their opinion only). They all said if they wanted 10 year old technology they would have bought that already (in reference to both Hyroads being offered) and nobody liked the urethane option (Pitch Black).
After throwing the Spectre, I wished I had bought a Hy-Road instead, so I will take that anyday.
For the undrilled one, I have to decide, but probably the UC2 or Helios.
I was hoping the IQ Tour would be one of the selections. I guess I love me some 10 year old technology.
-
I do too. Still have a Venom Shock and an undrilled one as well (yes its 8 years old not 10).
-
Supposedly there is a reason behind Storm not wanting drilled balls returned to the pro shop or to Storm or requiring the serial number to be drilled out (Motiv required the Pro Shop to drill out the serial number on the Jackals).....
If you put 2 and 2 together, that tells me Storm has something up their sleeve about this. Further, the Spectre is still on Storm's website.
What this tells me is ultimately, I think Storm is going to use every recourse to get the Spectre approved again, but because they know its more than likely going to be a long process, don't want to hurt customers, so in the meantime they are throwing everyone a free ball.
They are definitely trying to get it reinstated. I'm a little surprised the P4 isn't on the list of balls for exchange
Or the Altered Reality for that matter.
But out of those 7 choices: Helios all day.
They were never going to offer a Premier line/HP4 ball for the exchange.
-
Pitch Black and the two Hy-Roads are there because they're the rest of the Thunder line. Pitch Blue is getting DC'ed, so no reason to include it. Helios and Wolverine are the equivalent from RG/900G. Can't use Hustles, Electrifys or Hypeds because they sell for less and don't meet "full restitution" standard.
What doesn't belong are the two Rubicon balls, unless the UC2 is getting close to DC status. I've noticed a lot of them going for below MAP on eBay lately so that might be it. The problem is, none of these are close to the Spectre in terms of shape/reaction. UC2 maybe depending on how you drill it.
-
Wolverine can be made most close with the right layout and finish but it's not perfect. Heck of a ball though.
-
Wolverine cover is a lot different, it feels like. The Spectre was stronger than it might have first appeared, while the Wolverine looks like something to be used an entire adjustment later in a block. Just IMO.
-
Wolverine cover is a lot different, it feels like. The Spectre was stronger than it might have first appeared, while the Wolverine looks like something to be used an entire adjustment later in a block. Just IMO.
On paper the Wolverine is definitely closest with the cover difference being R3S Pearl vs S70/R2S Pearl.
I think the core shape is what leads to there being a bigger difference than on paper. It seems like the Spectre will get more asymmetry after drilling thus leading to it being stronger than expected.
-
Wolverine cover is a lot different, it feels like. The Spectre was stronger than it might have first appeared, while the Wolverine looks like something to be used an entire adjustment later in a block. Just IMO.
On paper the Wolverine is definitely closest with the cover difference being R3S Pearl vs S70/R2S Pearl.
I think the core shape is what leads to there being a bigger difference than on paper. It seems like the Spectre will get more asymmetry after drilling thus leading to it being stronger than expected.
I find quite a bit of difference between R2 series and R3 of coverstocks, but I'm weird, and end up liking a lot of things others don't and vice vers. I can definitely see the Spectre's ending asymmetry being different, though, especially if you drill the Wolverine with a high pin and get that "mushroom cap" out of the drilling zone.
-
Storm is being very generous with this replacement program. Assuming they are still in the process of appealing the USBC ruling on the Spectre, already offering a free replacement with a drilling voucher, and then allowing bowlers to keep their Spectre as well is astonishing. I know, bowler friendly company, customer service, blah blah blah. To start replacing balls this early is financially risky for Storm.
Either Storm doesn't think their appeal will result in the Spectre getting reinstated and is just getting the replacement program underway, or the ball will get reinstated and Storm will have taken a hit with an unnecessary replacement program.
Anyone who has a Spectre shouldn't wait on this. Get your claim in right away.
-
At least Storm only had the first batch of the Spectre out on the market.
-
Has there been any estimates as to how many Spectre balls were already in the channel? The ball was released mid-December 2021, so 3 or so months worth of production...
-
Storm is being very generous with this replacement program. Assuming they are still in the process of appealing the USBC ruling on the Spectre, already offering a free replacement with a drilling voucher, and then allowing bowlers to keep their Spectre as well is astonishing. I know, bowler friendly company, customer service, blah blah blah. To start replacing balls this early is financially risky for Storm.
Either Storm doesn't think their appeal will result in the Spectre getting reinstated and is just getting the replacement program underway, or the ball will get reinstated and Storm will have taken a hit with an unnecessary replacement program.
Anyone who has a Spectre shouldn't wait on this. Get your claim in right away.
I agree that Storm is being very generous with this one. I have one drilled and one NIB, sent both in today.
The Storm site says it will be a three to five week turnaround which is awesome. Motiv should pay attention to how Storm is handling this, not make their customers wait MONTHS for an exchange.
-
First of all, Motiv didn't make anyone wait months. Within a few weeks I exchanged my Carnage for a new ball. Now, you also had the option of waiting for the next Jackal (the Jackal LE it turned out to be) and that did take a few months to develop, test and get approved. It will also be a few months before you see the Spectre 2.
-
Has there been any estimates as to how many Spectre balls were already in the channel? The ball was released mid-December 2021, so 3 or so months worth of production...
Probably way fewer than if they hadn't immediately announced the Phaze 4 for stateside ;D
-
First of all, Motiv didn't make anyone wait months. Within a few weeks I exchanged my Carnage for a new ball. Now, you also had the option of waiting for the next Jackal (the Jackal LE it turned out to be) and that did take a few months to develop, test and get approved. It will also be a few months before you see the Spectre 2.
It took MONTHS for Motiv to replace with the Jackal LE. That wasn't explained upfront as I recall, at least for how long it would take if you wanted the new version. Did Motiv "make" us wait that long? No, so my statement wasn't entirely accurate.
I'm probably being petty, but I recall Motiv's handling of the Jackal situation to be very sloppy and unprofessional. Thus far, Storm has been excellent.
And no, I'm not a Storm fanboy, I throw more Motiv than anything else.
-
I agree with Motiv's handling of the process. It was clunky. BUT......it was the first time a ball had been stripped of approval and Motiv (along with everyone else) was learning as we went through the process.
I think every ball company, including Storm now, used Motiv's case and handling of the issue as a what to do and what not to do example if and when a similar situation occurred to them.
-
I agree with Motiv's handling of the process. It was clunky. BUT......it was the first time a ball had been stripped of approval and Motiv (along with everyone else) was learning as we went through the process.
I think every ball company, including Storm now, used Motiv's case and handling of the issue as a what to do and what not to do example if and when a similar situation occurred to them.
I can agree with this. Storm does have the benefit of seeing what not to do. Motiv WAS treading on unfamiliar ground.
-
Kudos to storm for giving out new balls and letting you keep your unnapproved one.
However, I wasn't super impressed with the choices for replacement. It should have been anything in the line up....
-
Kudos to storm for giving out new balls and letting you keep your unnapproved one.
However, I wasn't super impressed with the choices for replacement. It should have been anything in the line up....
They couldn't really do that...can't allow people to replace a $249MSRP ball with a $289MSRP ball. Perhaps they could have allowed people to do that and had them pay the difference in price..."upgrade to a Nova for $50".
I heard a wild, unsubstantiated figure that there may be 15,000 Spectre balls that need to be replaced. Based on that number, the $50 drilling contribution alone is costing them $750,000. Plus the cost of the replacement balls. This might end up costing them a few million dollars, not to mention the logistical headache it is already giving them.
I think what they are doing is the best they can do.
-
That number seem very high. That may have been the number of balls produced originally, not the number already drilled.
-
At the end of the day, I am still curious as to how that cover got to be too soft. It isnt like R3S has never been used before. Or maybe I missed it somewhere in the 8 pages of responses. LOL!!!!
-
At the end of the day, I am still curious as to how that cover got to be too soft. It isnt like R3S has never been used before. Or maybe I missed it somewhere in the 8 pages of responses. LOL!!!!
There is still a lot of finger pointing going on. USBC says their testing shows too soft. Storm says their testing shows no issues and they are appealing the ruling.
Even if the USBC made a mistake in testing, will they be humble enough to admit it and reinstate the ball?
-
That number seem very high. That may have been the number of balls produced originally, not the number already drilled.
Exactly what I was thinking. I had two of them, but only one drilled. I know my local pro shops both had a few Spectre's in their inventory as well.
-
At the end of the day, I am still curious as to how that cover got to be too soft. It isnt like R3S has never been used before. Or maybe I missed it somewhere in the 8 pages of responses. LOL!!!!
There is still a lot of finger pointing going on. USBC says their testing shows too soft. Storm says their testing shows no issues and they are appealing the ruling.
Even if the USBC made a mistake in testing, will they be humble enough to admit it and reinstate the ball?
Luke Rosedahl said on one of his recent livestreams that he is hearing other says they aren’t seeing soft Spectres either. Even some independent testers agree with Storm as well.
First portion of the video is the Spectre discussion.
-
Ron Hickland put some numbers up, thanks to the help of working with David Henson, who worked at EBI for over 50 years. He specialized in quality checking while there, but specialized in hardness.
https://ctdbowling.com/blogs/news/the-effects-of-bowling-ball-hardness-what-is-special-about-the-purple-hammer-bowling-ball
They went through the gambit of balls, going back to the Black Hammer from 1983, all the way up to the Spectre, as well as a few tests including bowling footprint, as well as what happens when you have a ball under 73D and over 73D thrown on a flat pattern.
Youtube video of it below:
If anything, it's safe to say at least that the Spectre was banned due to softness.
BL.
-
Looks like they’re going to have issues with the Purple hammers from any year that were manufactured by Ebonite. That 2019 is soft already.
Interesting to see someone else find the same results as the USBC on the Spectre. Curious as to how that plays out going forward.
-
Looks like they’re going to have issues with the Purple hammers from any year that were manufactured by Ebonite. That 2019 is soft already.
This is why I'm interested in how the first overseas Black Widow Purple Pearl Urethane is going to hold up to any hardness test. That was a Hopkinsville pour, and certified in July of 2019. I'm wondering if it used the same formula as the Purple Pearl Urethane from that same year. If it did, it could be subject to the softness that you've indicated as well.
BL.
-
Reading the comments on that video has me a bit befuddled. There’s conversation about there being a +/- 2 variation.
That’s freaking huge. That takes pretty much every ball that reads illegal and makes it possibly legal.
-
Got a question.
When did the SPECTRE get approved? Was it before they changed the standard reading from 72D to 73D, or was it after?
And, if the ball passed the 72D approval, then got revoked after it was changed to 73D, what would be the ramifications of that?
Just curious.
-
Got a question.
When did the SPECTRE get approved? Was it before they changed the standard reading from 72D to 73D, or was it after?
And, if the ball passed the 72D approval, then got revoked after it was changed to 73D, what would be the ramifications of that?
Just curious.
Balls approved through 12/31/20 and manufacturing of those balls needed to be stopped by 7/31/21 if approved under the 72D rule. Spectre came after in Dec 2021
-
7/31/22 is the manufacture end date for all balls previously approved at 72D
https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622334480
-
USBC and Storm Products have agreed on a national tournament exclusion rule and ball exchange program for six Storm Products manufactured ball models. The agreement comes after USBC identified the models having a percentage of balls produced below USBC minimum 73D hardness specification. Read more: https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337509
USBC's investigation showed a percentage of these ball models measured below the USBC-required hardness level of the approval samples submitted by Storm. Storm collaborated with USBC after being notified of this testing.
The affected models include: Storm Phaze 4, Storm Electrify Solid, Storm Trend 2, 900 Global Altered Reality, 900 Global Wolverine, Roto Grip UFO Alert
Effective March 30, 2022, these balls models are prohibited from use in USBC national tournaments, including but not limited to, the USBC Masters, U.S. Open, USBC Open Championships, USBC Women's Championships, all PWBA Tour events, USBC Junior Gold and Youth Open Championships, USBC Intercollegiate Championships, USBC Team USA Trials, USBC Senior Masters and USBC Senior Queens.
These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.
USBC has shared this national tournament rule with Storm and has Storm's support. Storm will offer owners of the affected balls the option to exchange their balls for a new product. Information about the exchange program will be published later this week on StormBowling.com.
-
USBC and Storm Products have agreed on a national tournament exclusion rule and ball exchange program for six Storm Products manufactured ball models. The agreement comes after USBC identified the models having a percentage of balls produced below USBC minimum 73D hardness specification. Read more: https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337509
USBC's investigation showed a percentage of these ball models measured below the USBC-required hardness level of the approval samples submitted by Storm. Storm collaborated with USBC after being notified of this testing.
The affected models include: Storm Phaze 4, Storm Electrify Solid, Storm Trend 2, 900 Global Altered Reality, 900 Global Wolverine, Roto Grip UFO Alert
Effective March 30, 2022, these balls models are prohibited from use in USBC national tournaments, including but not limited to, the USBC Masters, U.S. Open, USBC Open Championships, USBC Women's Championships, all PWBA Tour events, USBC Junior Gold and Youth Open Championships, USBC Intercollegiate Championships, USBC Team USA Trials, USBC Senior Masters and USBC Senior Queens.
These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.
USBC has shared this national tournament rule with Storm and has Storm's support. Storm will offer owners of the affected balls the option to exchange their balls for a new product. Information about the exchange program will be published later this week on StormBowling.com.
Ok, but I don’t understand really.
Either they’re illegal, or they’re not. How can they be illegal BY THE USBC’s OWN RULES, yet still be okay to use in certified league competition?
Can’t use them in a national tournament, but anything else is fine?
And, if you already own one, you can use it, but nobody else can go buy one?
I’ve defended the USBC in the past, but this debacle is just stupid.
-
USBC and Storm Products have agreed on a national tournament exclusion rule and ball exchange program for six Storm Products manufactured ball models. The agreement comes after USBC identified the models having a percentage of balls produced below USBC minimum 73D hardness specification. Read more: https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337509
USBC's investigation showed a percentage of these ball models measured below the USBC-required hardness level of the approval samples submitted by Storm. Storm collaborated with USBC after being notified of this testing.
The affected models include: Storm Phaze 4, Storm Electrify Solid, Storm Trend 2, 900 Global Altered Reality, 900 Global Wolverine, Roto Grip UFO Alert
Effective March 30, 2022, these balls models are prohibited from use in USBC national tournaments, including but not limited to, the USBC Masters, U.S. Open, USBC Open Championships, USBC Women's Championships, all PWBA Tour events, USBC Junior Gold and Youth Open Championships, USBC Intercollegiate Championships, USBC Team USA Trials, USBC Senior Masters and USBC Senior Queens.
These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.
USBC has shared this national tournament rule with Storm and has Storm's support. Storm will offer owners of the affected balls the option to exchange their balls for a new product. Information about the exchange program will be published later this week on StormBowling.com.
Ok, but I don’t understand really.
Either they’re illegal, or they’re not. How can they be illegal BY THE USBC’s OWN RULES, yet still be okay to use in certified league competition?
Can’t use them in a national tournament, but anything else is fine?
And, if you already own one, you can use it, but nobody else can go buy one?
I’ve defended the USBC in the past, but this debacle is just stupid.
Exactly, it makes no sense. They’re ok for league use but they can’t be sold anymore? Chad Murphy is one of the worst leaders I’ve ever seen in any arena. How could he possibly think this is the solution?
-
USBC and Storm Products have agreed on a national tournament exclusion rule and ball exchange program for six Storm Products manufactured ball models. The agreement comes after USBC identified the models having a percentage of balls produced below USBC minimum 73D hardness specification. Read more: https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337509
USBC's investigation showed a percentage of these ball models measured below the USBC-required hardness level of the approval samples submitted by Storm. Storm collaborated with USBC after being notified of this testing.
The affected models include: Storm Phaze 4, Storm Electrify Solid, Storm Trend 2, 900 Global Altered Reality, 900 Global Wolverine, Roto Grip UFO Alert
Effective March 30, 2022, these balls models are prohibited from use in USBC national tournaments, including but not limited to, the USBC Masters, U.S. Open, USBC Open Championships, USBC Women's Championships, all PWBA Tour events, USBC Junior Gold and Youth Open Championships, USBC Intercollegiate Championships, USBC Team USA Trials, USBC Senior Masters and USBC Senior Queens.
These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.
USBC has shared this national tournament rule with Storm and has Storm's support. Storm will offer owners of the affected balls the option to exchange their balls for a new product. Information about the exchange program will be published later this week on StormBowling.com.
Ok, but I don’t understand really.
Either they’re illegal, or they’re not. How can they be illegal BY THE USBC’s OWN RULES, yet still be okay to use in certified league competition?
Can’t use them in a national tournament, but anything else is fine?
And, if you already own one, you can use it, but nobody else can go buy one?
I’ve defended the USBC in the past, but this debacle is just stupid.
Exactly, it makes no sense. They’re ok for league use but they can’t be sold anymore? Chad Murphy is one of the worst leaders I’ve ever seen in any arena. How could he possibly think this is the solution?
Chad did horrible with the Spectre and this is very similar. I could see allowing them till the end of the season to help storm but this is confusing.
After a few days of cluster f&$k by state and local associations i think usbc will make another announcement on the topic
-
USBC and Storm Products have agreed on a national tournament exclusion rule and ball exchange program for six Storm Products manufactured ball models. The agreement comes after USBC identified the models having a percentage of balls produced below USBC minimum 73D hardness specification. Read more: https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337509
USBC's investigation showed a percentage of these ball models measured below the USBC-required hardness level of the approval samples submitted by Storm. Storm collaborated with USBC after being notified of this testing.
The affected models include: Storm Phaze 4, Storm Electrify Solid, Storm Trend 2, 900 Global Altered Reality, 900 Global Wolverine, Roto Grip UFO Alert
Effective March 30, 2022, these balls models are prohibited from use in USBC national tournaments, including but not limited to, the USBC Masters, U.S. Open, USBC Open Championships, USBC Women's Championships, all PWBA Tour events, USBC Junior Gold and Youth Open Championships, USBC Intercollegiate Championships, USBC Team USA Trials, USBC Senior Masters and USBC Senior Queens.
These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.
USBC has shared this national tournament rule with Storm and has Storm's support. Storm will offer owners of the affected balls the option to exchange their balls for a new product. Information about the exchange program will be published later this week on StormBowling.com.
Ok, but I don’t understand really.
Either they’re illegal, or they’re not. How can they be illegal BY THE USBC’s OWN RULES, yet still be okay to use in certified league competition?
Can’t use them in a national tournament, but anything else is fine?
And, if you already own one, you can use it, but nobody else can go buy one?
I’ve defended the USBC in the past, but this debacle is just stupid.
Exactly, it makes no sense. They’re ok for league use but they can’t be sold anymore? Chad Murphy is one of the worst leaders I’ve ever seen in any arena. How could he possibly think this is the solution?
Chad did horrible with the Spectre and this is very similar. I could see allowing them till the end of the season to help storm but this is confusing.
After a few days of cluster f&$k by state and local associations i think usbc will make another announcement on the topic
I was in my local shop and 6 guys came in with wolverines now needing a replacement for
Their replacement. (Spectre) all 6 said they no longer want to deal with SPI balls. It’s anecdotal for sure, however I think this will cause a lot of average folks to just not want to deal with SPI at all.
-
Chad did horrible with the Spectre and this is very similar. I could see allowing them till the end of the season to help storm but this is confusing.
After a few days of cluster f&$k by state and local associations i think usbc will make another announcement on the topic
I don't see how USBC won't follow with another announcement like the 2016-2017 Purple Hammers. It was the same thing said and then shortly after another announcement came with the full ban on those years.
-
Another thing.
I went to the OPEN the week of 3/13-1/19.
I saw quite a few people using balls that week that are now not allowed.
I heard Chris Barnes shot a ton with a Phaze 4?
What about all of this? What do we do about this situation?
-
Another thing.
I went to the OPEN the week of 3/13-1/19.
I saw quite a few people using balls that week that are now not allowed.
I heard Chris Barnes shot a ton with a Phaze 4?
What about all of this? What do we do about this situation?
Unfortunately, there isn't anything we can do about it. As with Rash and complaining about Purple Hammers while winning with a Spectre, they can't go back and retroactively disallow the scores, as the balls were approved at the time the scores were shot.
However, if they wanted to, If the tournament officials logged the serial number of the ball, they could ask Barnes to submit the ball for testing. If it is found to be under, then we enter a grey area on what to do, because there is no way of knowing what the hardness of the ball was at the time the scores were shot, nor if any adjustments were made to the ball between when the scores were shot and when the ball would be tested. There isn't a clean and clear way out of this one outside of letting the scores stand.
BL.
-
They had the chance to test the ball when he went through the line like everyone else.
One of the best bowlers ever bowled good so it's obviously because of the ball.
-
They had the chance to test the ball when he went through the line like everyone else.
One of the best bowlers ever bowled good so it's obviously because of the ball.
No, not quite what I meant.
He's good alright, and probably shoots good no matter what he throws.
Just ball is illegal. If they going to let his scores stand, then let everybody have the chance to use the same ball if they want to.
Not everybody would, and not everybody going to bowl well with it anyway, just that since he had the chance to use it, so should everyone else.
Ban them after its over, and let everybody know now.
-
It's just circumstance of when you bowl. No different than someone that goes later in the tournament that can use a ball that is released after some have already bowled.
-
It's just circumstance of when you bowl. No different than someone that goes later in the tournament that can use a ball that is released after some have already bowled.
Yeah, guess you've got a good point there, and I'm not really carping about it as much as it might seem. I know I'm not the bowler I was just a few years ago (father time takes his toll), and couldn't really hope to compete with the really good guys anymore, just hadn't put it into perspective fully I suppose.
Thanks for the insight. Having someone hand you your perspective back helps.