Just wanted to encourage a little discussion about entry angle.

I see that most of the ball companies like to promote angular backend reaction and entry angle. While I will agree that in creased entry angle is a good thing on light pocket hits, I completely disagree when it comes to flush or high flush pocket hits.

As a rule, my carry is much better when it is not from an extreme angle. I absolutely dislike balls that skid/flip for a few reasons, but one of those reasons is the entry angle at the pocket. While yes it looks pretty cool, the reality is that I leave tons of pocket 4's 9's and 4-9's with these entry angles.

Balls I use that are more of an arcing ball and have heavy forward roll to the carry much better regardless if the hit high flush, flush, or even light. The only problem I have with carry with the more arcing balls is when the lanes get extremely dry and I run into a problem with the ball rolling out in the back ends. However this is usually corrected with a ball change or loft/speed increase.

Just wanted to get the guru's takes on this subject. Like I said I prefer a heavy forward rolling ball with minimal entry angle to a flippy ball with extreme angles.

Good topic.

A few years ago the USBC did a study with a ball ramp and rolling a ball down it through the pocket at different angles and they determined that 6 degrees was the optimum angle of entry into the pocket to carry strikes, 5 degrees and 7 degrees didn't carry as well as 6 degrees of entry angle.

As part of this study they drew a line from the pocket at 6 degrees and determined that the line hits the gutter at 31 ft from the foul line, so to play the lane with the proper entry angle you need to subtract 31 from the length of the pattern to find the board that the ball needs to make it's turn to get to the pocket. If you are playing the Chameleon pattern which is 39ft of oil from the foul line, which means we want the ball to make it's move on the 8 board to get to the pocket with a 6 degree entry angle.

If you hit the 8 board and the ball is leaving 4 or 9 pins (6 or 8s for lefties) then the ball you are using has too much backend for the conditions. If the ball leaves weak 10 pins then the ball you are using is not strong enough. This is why you need to know when you hit your targets and make a good shot and follow the ball all the way through the pins. If you just think well I played the lane right and made a good shot but I got robbed, you will not make the proper adjustment which can be a different ball, or a release adjustment to get the proper angle more or less that you need to strike.

So, subtracting 31 from the pattern length gives you the optimum breakpoint? As far as board?

That seems fine in theory, but the ball will not make its move right at the end of the oil pattern all the time. So I see a flaw with this formula. It assumes the ball will react right at the end of the oil pattern.

Also if you remember back in the late 80's the ABC mandated a short oil pattern that was not to exceed 24 feet. 24-31 means that your breakpoint should be on the lane beside you?

It is possible to get a 6 degree angle of entry with the ball breaking at 15 or 1 depending on the shape of the hook.

It is interesting that the USBC determined this angle to be the best, however what board were they entering the pocket on? 17 board? 18 Board?

Also does simply rolling a ball down a ramp accurately simulate a ball that is rolled off a persons hand? Does that apply to high rev and low rev alike?

Seems like there are a lot of holes in this study. Do you have a link to this study?

A higher entry angle enlarges the strike pocket. With lower entry angles, the strike pocket is narrower than with higher entry angles.

The following chart shows the strike percentage in relation to the entry angle and entry point (inches from center of head pin). (I copied this chart from Bowling Steps to Success by Doug Wiedman).

The study was published in Bowling This Month magazine, maybe someone who has more patients for finding things on the net can find a link to it.



The ball does react at the end of the oil pattern, at least a reactive resin ball does, if there is no oil, the ball will hook, there is nothing to stop it from hooking if there is no oil. You are envisioning the ball moving dead left like someone kicked it, the ball doesn't hook like that.



Notice how that rule is not in effect these days. There is no playable break point on the lane on a pattern this short. This means that the path to the pocket will have to be bowler driven and not played there by the lane conditions.



This is true but again it is bowler driven, you can do this on any lane condition if you have the talent, if not you will have to play the lane the like the rest of us mortals.



17 board.



A ball rolled down the ramp that Neil Stremell made was supposed to simulate a thrown ball. When a modern bowling ball is thrown it has some degree of axis rotation that revolves the ball in an angle to the direction it is traveling. When the ball comes off the oil it starts to grab the lane and stop traveling at what ever angle it was traveling and turn to go straight with the boards for a short distance. Then it rolls straight in the direction of the remaining axis rotation to the pins, so yes it does simulate a ball that is rolled down a ramp. A ball that is still hooking into the pins will drive through the pins and not carry as well.

This applies to high and low rev bowlers alike, they all strive to achieve a 6 degree angle of entry into the pocket for optimum carry percentage. This is how Lynda Barnes beat Sean Rash at the clash of the Champions.

Linda Barnes and women in general scoring like they do these days is a whole other subject, and just proves that the sport is all about the technology and equipment now.

Back to the 24 foot oil pattern. It sounds to me like if there is no mathematic formula that works, then the "US MORTALS" are incapable of bowling on these conditions.

This whole response in fact makes me sad to see what has become of this game. You know it actually used to be all about talent. I'd be interested to see how the modern bowler would score using only plastic or hard rubber on a 24 foot oil pattern. Now THAT would be an interesting league concept.

Why is it hard to believe a woman can score well, especially with good fundamentals? Ok, they don't have the strength of men but with a free armswing and the same weight ball, ball speed can be the same. They also might not have the revs, but thats why they play straighter lines and are more finesse players.



Most patterns aren't this short, even though I think one house I bowl in isn't far from it. I find a plastic ball, or maybe a Groove Urethane the best thing on something like this. "US MORTALS" can play these conditions, but its having to learn what to use and how to use it.



I see this type of posts way too often on other bowling sites.

People need to realize that everything changes over time, in any sport. Techniques change, technology changes, talent levels change. Either change with it or don't bowl. I don't hear anyone complain about the forward pass in football since it was added many years ago.

As for the plastic ball on a short pattern, those kind of leagues have been done with some mixed results across the country.

Back to the talent versus equipment/technology. On the league level equipment does make a big difference, especially on your typical house shot. On the tougher patterns equipment means nothing if you can't repeat a shot with good fundamentals. Many bowlers, including those that have bowled over several decades, and through the different changes will argue that the technology actually makes it harder. If you use the wrong ball on the wrong pattern you won't score well. Its more of a thinking game these days.

Its not hard to believe, I am simply stating an opinion that this sport is dominated by the equipment. Why do you think the USBC is taking steps to tame the balls down?



EXACTLY!!



I am sure the ball manufacturers are loving this. This is why you see people with furniture dolleys rolling into the local bowling center for league play.

I get the fact that I have to adapt my game, and I am taking the steps needed to do just that. That does not mean that I cannot have the opinion that the game has become dominated by the ball manufacturers, and easy house shots. I am going to out perform 95% of league bowlers regardless of the equipment and lane conditions, but I sure long for the days when a 200 average meant something, and an 800 series was pretty much unthinkable.

As far as the PBA conditions being more about talent. I will agree to an extent, however I doubt many will be dragging out a white dot to bowl the shark pattern and say equipment doesn't matter that much.

In the end though, It is what it is. Like it or leave it. I still enjoy the game, even if I have to tolerate Johhny 5 rev throwing an occasional 279 at me, and never hitting the same board twice.

I apologize if this thread went in a negative direction, it was intended to talk about entry angle and todays equipment. I am still interested to hear more about that subject and I am sure many will benefit from it.

I meant to make a response about entry angle, but got side tracked.

The best entry angle is 6 degrees flush in the pocket. Now there are different ways to get there. Some do it with arching balls, some with skid/snap balls. Now the entry angle is different than the angle you have to play the lanes, such as extreme inside angles, straight up the boards or even pointed to the pocket. I have a hard time playing inside anymore when I used to be able to, I guess due to added speed and a whole lot of mechanical issues.

As for USBC trying to tame balls down, they really aren't. They are studying ball motion to make it look like they are doing something. If they can't get the ball companies to fall inline, nothing will come of it, or they will lose thousands on top of thousands of bowlers because they can't use the newest ball in sanctioned competition. I think lane conditions are a bigger issue than the balls. Put out a harder shot with very little room for error and see how much those balls help the guy that sprays the lane. Take the USBC Open Championships that are in Albuquerque this year. There are many 220+ house bowlers that are struggling to hit 200 once in a total of 9 games.

As for watching someone shoot a 279 and rarely if ever hitting the same mark, I've seen my own teammate do it, well a 250 game while I was hitting my mark hitting the pocket, not carrying and adjusting and still not being able to carry. He hit at least 6 different marks over 15 different boards and acted like he was trying to do that. Now it helped the team win the game, but we drew each other in the first round of the bracket we were in.

desertdog, about a year ago, we had a thread here that turned into a battle. The subject was House shots versus heavier oil patterns. The are really polarized views on this subject.

I am glad to see many here finally taking part in the PBAX. That will give them a totally new respect for the game. But, sadly, there are still very few participating to make an impact.

So, we leave that subject alone out of respect for the other side, whichever it was.

In terms of entry angle, outside of foot position movement on the approach, the most common remedy is a change in your axis of rotation, which can be achieved in quite a few ways: more or less side rotation, flattening the ball, etc. You have to find the correct release to combat it.

Most here don't remember or weren't around when a bowler had to manipulate their hand to make the ball respond. It was bowler hand manipulation that got the desired reaction needed. A turn of your wrist. Pull of your arm. Tighter finger grips. Even, pulling your thumb out a shade to rely more on your fingers.

Then fingertips came around, and everyone had a hook.

Watch some old videos of Varipapa or Fazzio. They actually turned their hand backwards in the swing, and turned it back before they released the ball. The figure 8 hand movement was tough to Master.

See the below article to see about the USBC's reaction to the ball study.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/05/22/bowling-ball-tech.html

I won't stir this up anymore than I already have. Yeah I do remember when you had to manipulate your release to get different reactions, and rolling a suitcase ball wasn't the preferred method.

People still manipulate their release to get different reactions. I couldn't even think about throwing the ball the same on the Cheetah as I do on the Shark. There are articles in BTM about diferent releases and "finger dancing" and the results. Ron Clifton has an article on the same thing along with other ways to make adjustments.

It's true that equipment plays a bigger role in todays game than it did 20 years ago, but that doesn't mean that everything else goes out the window. On tougher conditions, the cream still rises to the top, and the better bowlers will out score those who are not as good. Yes, even a 5 rev'er can score on tough conditions if they've got a solid game.

No doubt, I used to bowl with a certain exempt pro that gets ridiculed for lack of revs. The guy was like a machine though and never missed his mark. I even went as far as having him give me some tips on changing my release and arm swing. We both agreed after a while to abandon that approach, and work with what I did well.

This was the beginning of the end and how the game evolved into what it is now. They used to oil all the way to the pin deck, now that was a challenge, but they used maybe a small fraction of the oil they use these days and the oil is much lower in viscosity back then too.

A 24ft pattern would be easier to score on with old school balls, give me a white dot on that one vs a modern hook machine any day.

A 24ft pattern with old school balls is way easier than the old 60ft pattern or a modern 50 ft flat pattern even with a modern ball. It is the easy lane conditions that have made the game easier, the ball is just a tool to take advantage of it and if you have the wrong ball in your hand you will not do well.

The reason the 5 rever shoots the occasional 300 is he/she hit the break point and played the lanes properly, or got extremely lucky.

If anyone feels jipped it is not you it is me, I spent my whole youth learning to rev the ball up just so they could put a pattern so short that I blew my arm out trying to get the ball to a point that I could hit the head pin with a blue dot and people who I would beat like a drum were keeping up with me because they could now hook the ball, so don't act like you are the only one who is unhappy with the way things are.

You posed the topic about entry angle and since you have been out of bowling many things have changed, most of which the sharing of information. Tips and secrets used to be locked away in a golden vault only to be learned if you stumbled across them yourself or were lucky enough to know someone out on tour who was willing to give you a tip or two.

Now they have coaches, magazines, websites dedicated to helping people learn to bowl properly so it doesn't take someone 20 years to learn how to Master one way of bowling, now people are much more versatile they can play the lanes from any angle on pretty much any condition, only one angle will be optimum, but they can usually get there from several angles without changing balls.

Re: not having to do anything anymore, I go through about 3 different releases with 3 different balls in 4 games on the Cheetah, across 4 lanes.

We are moving on to the Viper this week. I think I will have 4 balls I can use. I will probably have 3 or 4 release I use, and they will not all be the same as the ones I used on the Cheetah.

Wow, that sounds familiar.

I am not going to perpetuate this discussion though. It is indeed pointless, the game is what it is, and likely will not change.

The ball companies drive the industry now, and that's just the way it is. Like I said before, I still like the game and have returned for a reason. I came hear to get some help getting my game back on Track and you were very helpful with that so I appreciate it. The subject is closed as far as I am concerned.

I have no problem with the PBAX shots, they do what they were intended to do.

Getting this thread back on topic, when you said you have no use for a skid/snap type reaction, or a dull ball, because of your high rev rate, maybe I could shed some light here.

When I posted about the subtracting 31 from the length of the pattern to find the board the ball should leave the oil on, I was trying to get you to see that if your ball didn't finish strong enough because it was burning out due to your high rev rate, that maybe a ball with more skid/snap type reaction would allow you to play the lane from this angle and optimize your scoring.

The same would hold true with a dull ball, if the ball leaves the oil on the 8 board and the ball was jumping too high because of the high rev rate allowing the ball to store so much energy then a dull surface would smooth things out on the back end.

The point I was trying to make was that dull or polished balls don't just help you hook the ball, they help you shape your ball reaction to what you need to score your best, and sometimes more surface is less hook and vise versa.

You can't even equate hand release changes to hand manipulation of the past.

Let's put you in the 1960's, in the bowling heyday.

First, the lanes. They are all wood. And the wood is covered with shellac from foul line to pin deck. Older houses, without proper humidity and temperature control would see some wood shrinkage, leaving some minor gaps between the boards. If you rolled across the boards, you would hear a thump, thump as your ball crossed those gaps. Hence, no one played an inside line. It was too unreliable.

And, the shellac coat was slick. Like a continuous coat of oil in today's world from foul line to pin deck, gutter to gutter.

You had to wear a groove or lane in the shellac. But, unlike wearing down an oil pattern in a game or two, this took weeks or months. Everyone cringed when the lanes were resurfaced because it meant an automatic average drop.

Now, the balls. They weren't urethane, reactive, pearlized or anything like the sort. They were rubber. They grabbed when a Track was worn in the ball too. That is why many bowlers kept their equipment for so long.

Balls had a pancake weight at the top. What was the top? It was where the ball label was. And your finger and thumb holes were centered there. The purpose of the weight was to offset the loss of material from drilling holes. There was no PAP, Val, cg or anything like that. No symetrical, asymetrical or offset weights existed.

Finally, drill your ball in conventional style, and without grips. Some left a sharp edge on the thumb to grip it tighter.

Now, on those lane conditions, with those balls, the bowler manipulated his hand to get a desired reaction of the ball. He would twist his wrist as if to open a door knob. He would lift his thumb out to put more reliance on his fingers. He would flick his fingers as if you snap your finger, to get the ball to move more. Those were learned tactics that were passed on from bowler to bowler. I won't even mention the figure 8 armswing where your fingers face the pins in the backswing.

Bowler manipulation was more prevalent then than it is now, and needed to be. There is no comparison.

I don't have a problem getting to the pocket with any of my equipment. I prefer a heavy rolling mild arcing ball, I do have one ball in my bag that is skid/flip and I use it on occasion (back ends are fried and heads are drying out). I will move deep and swing this one out when I have to, its outside of my comfort zone and the way I prefer to approach the lanes. I am sure we all have to attack the lanes outside of our comfort zone at times.

Ok, neither does Walter Ray, for the most part. On sport shots, I don't tend to cross more than 3-4 boards till I get to my breakpoint.



So scoring had nothing to do with skill, it was all the lane condition?



So, equipment mattered then? An old ball hooked more than a new one.



Actually, a pancake is a symmetrical weight block. The location that is marked by a "pin" now was marked by label. There existed a cg - it was probably right where the pin would have been. Just because you *didn't* drill it anywhere but grip center doesn't mean that you *couldn't* drill it anywhere but grip center. Just because you *didn't* drill fingertip doesn't mean that you *couldn't* drill fingertip. I leave a sharp edge on my thumb. GP just got rid of his grips. PDW (to pick an example offhand) has never used them.

You know, baseball players used to not wear gloves. Doesn't mean that they couldn't. Means they caught less balls, and had sore hands. I certainly wouldn't put them on a pedestal for it.



Can you say unnecessary? The bowler could have easily not turned his fingers towards the pins and got the desired reaction. Hey, guess what, I can spin in circles while I walk. Or, I can walk. In the end, I end up where I was going, facing straight ahead. Now, if I'm going for repeatability, one of these ways makes more sense than the other.



There will always be versatile bowlers, and non-versatile bowlers. Non-versatile bowlers will find somewhere they can shoot the occasional 200, and stay there. You don't have to respect them for that. But you are disrespecting all of the bowlers who take the time to bowl on every condition they can find, in every house they can find, to make themselves the best they can be, by saying that all the work means nothing.

There is no disrespect intended. Those of you who have never experienced the ways of the old cannot voice an opinion until you are at least familiar with it. Bowling on heavier patterns is the closest thing you have to then. You will admit that eliminating the current designs of ball construction, internal weights, coverstock, and the like would make it more difficult as well. You are the one talking about ball surfaces on PBA patterns. That discussion never would have taken place in the past.

I think you're remembering the past more fondly than it really happened. Why was there a hardness requirement for bowling balls? Why was acetone and similar substances outlawed? It's because people tried to tweak the surface of a bowling ball back then as well. So yes, this discussion did take place back then.

I thought we settled the fact that today's game is vastly different from the game 20+ or 30+ years ago?

Yeah, but some of us liked the old days. Me included, because house hack couldn't touch me 20-25 years ago. Thats ok though, I will continue to stand on top of the ball return and swing it to the 3 board. I refuse to fluff the ball down the lane and let the equipment do the work. That is just me, might be wrong, but so be it.

The game is very different, but Dennis' assertion was that this conversation wouldn't be happening back then. My point is that people did in fact try to gain an advantage by altering the surface of the ball back then.

20 years ago we were throwing U-Dots and bowling on short oil. The shot was already made much easier. 25 years I think it would be a good bet that you weren't tearing up scratch leagues at the ripe old age of 11.

You may have been using U-dots and Hammers, I was not. Why?? Because they hooked to daggum much. I never owned a Urethane ball, and didn't own resin until 1995. Why?? Again too much hook. Short oil was also a choice by the proprietor, 24 foot oil was what most places went to, however some places stayed longer. It was a choice, either go long or go short. The places I bowled were long oil, and not short oil.

My ball of choice then, was the Columbia Black Knight, and Red Dot. Up the 8 board all day long, while people struggled to figure out how to bend those steroid balls. It was a good time, but 1988 was the last year I bowled until 1995 so I basically missed a whole bunch of that transition that everybody went through. I have bowled a total of 1.5 seasons since 1988, so do you think maybe I am in shock to see people fluff the ball up the second arrow and rip the rack?

I will figure it out eventually. It still does not change the FACT that averages are inflated by the equipment and lane conditions.

No argument on the inflated averages, but its not inflated for everyone. The average average for males in sanctioned competition is somewhere in the low, maybe mid 170s. I think females its in the mid 140s maybe low 150s. My whole career in bowling has been in the current resin era, actually this current decade, so its all I've ever known. If and when I get my mechanics fixed I believe I can score well with a plastic on most typical house shots, maybe not carry as many shots but still put it in the pocket and get at least 9 just about every strike shot. As long as my game is in order I have no problems bowling harder conditions. If my game wasn't such a mess I would be bowling at least one PBA league this summer. My winter leagues I try to bowl at a different house and hope they don't play the same so that I have to learn to be versatile.

Well, the hardness durometer reading of 72 became a requirement in 1976, after the introduction of polyester balls. That's about 10 years later. This had no impact on the rubber balls of the 60's and early 70's.

What about acetone?

It doesn't mean you can't bowl on those conditions, it just means you can't get the ideal 6-degree entry angle. Because there's no possibility of opening your target, it puts a premium on accuracy over shotmaking, I suppose...