Okay, I am trying to work out some bowling math, and the numbers are not adding up. The pins are supposed to be 1 foot apart in every direction. For example, this means from the 7 pin to the 8 pin should be 1 foot apart. That represents 10 boards, which means each board should be 1.2 inches in width.

However, the USBC spec says the lane width is limited to 41.5 inches. If each board is 1.2 inches wide, with 39 boards, the lane would have to be 46.8 inches wide. That is a difference of 5.3 inches!

Does this mean that the lane markers don't really line up with the pins?!

The arrows don't line up with the pins.

Unbelievable! One of my basic assumptions in life has been blown to pieces. I am speechless...

Okay, I have recovered enough to come up with the following table of ACTUAL boards the pins are located, assuming standard dimensions, number of boards, etc.

For those who like to play "up the boards", it's good to know exactly where the pins are located relative to the boards.

Right-handed:
10 pin on 3.08 board
6 pin on 8.72 board
3, 9 pins on 14.36 board
1, 5 pins on 20 board
2, 8 pins on 25.64 board
4 pin on 31.28 board
7 pin on 36.92 board

Left-handed:
7 pin on 3.08 board
4 pin on 8.72 board
2, 8 pins on 14.36 board
1, 5 pins on 20 board
3, 9 pins on 25.64 board
6 pin on 31.28 board
10 pin on 36.92 board

Thanks Joe, and now you know that the pins are not lined up with the lane markers. Everyone learns something new about the game every day, thats the best part about it!

It's a little embarrassing not having realized this sooner. But, if posting it helps somebody else, then it's all for good.

No problem Joe.

What would really interest you is to help your local association certify their centers. You have some nifty tools, measurements, you go back and forth up and and down the lane taking side to side measurements, back and forth measurements, gutter depths, pin deck angles, pin weights, and how close the pins are to the pin spots on the pin deck. It needs to be done every year and mot associations could use the volunteer help. Any time you want to come to Sacramento to help certify you'd be welcome. :-)

Erin

Hey Joe, you dont need those measurements..all you need to know is that your ball is burning up everytime you throw it b/c it sounds like you have too much hand. P.S, hit the treadmill! Then you will strike everytime.

Mkee, even if Joe doesn't follow your suggestion, I think I will. I have been wondering if this extra 10 pounds has affected my game.

Assuming that 6 degrees is the optimum angle for throwing strikes, below is a table that traces the ball path at the breakpoint for the ideal strike line.

Board....Length (feet)
1........46.78
2........47.63
3........48.47
4........49.31
5........50.16
6........51.00
7........51.84
8........52.69
9........53.53
10.......54.37
11.......55.22
12.......56.06
13.......56.91
14.......57.75
15.......58.59
16.......59.44
17.......60.28

Below are my assumptions:
1. Lane width is 41.5 inches.
2. There are 39 boards.
3. The pocket is located at x = 17.75 inches, y = 60.433 feet.

If anybody else has calculated this and come up with different results, I would appreciate an explanation of how you came up with the values.

That is assuming the ball will hit the breakpoint, turn to a 6* angle with respect to the lane, and roll out. Such is not the case - the ball's angle w/respect to the lane will gradually increase as it hooks toward the pocket. Also, the values Slowinski used were based on 5% entry angle, because you had a good chance to strike if you ended up with 4-6%.

I probably should not have used the word "breakpoint", as the ball could break at various distances and angles, and ultimately merge with this "optimum entry angle" for lack of a better word.

At this point, I am primarily concerned with validating that my math is correct.

Haha Dennis. Joe and I bowl together, its a running joke we have about another bowlers excuses for not striking or bowling good.

You really do need to see lanes up close. The pits and tracks, the lifted areas, the tilts. The shallow gutters, the weak side boards, the pin deck tilt. Your mathematics are in a perfect world, but bowling lanes are not .

Erin

I thought that is what the pattern length -31 trick was for or the pattern length - 35+4.. and based on that your numbers are off a bit. 32 feet of oil would have the ball at the 1 board when it makes a straight line to the pocket from there...

but maybe you are accurate and they are off cause if you have a 50 ft pattern slowinski's formula gives you an pattern exit point of 19 board which can't be accurate..

I'm leaning towards you having the correct numbers...interesting..
can anybody else back up his numbers.. I could but feel kind of lazy to do all the math on it right now..

My bad for using the word "breakpoint". It seems to have caused some confusion.

The pattern length minus 31 is to help find the optimum exit point for an oil pattern. The numbers I posted represent where the ball would have to be before it hits the pins to obtain a 6 degree entry angle. These are not contradictory. On different oil patterns the ball path should merge with the 6-degree entry angle at different points. For example, Cheetah (36-feet) might merge on the 5 board at 50.16 feet, while the Shark (44-feet) might merge on the 13 board at 56.91 feet.

Erin, you are a great recruiter. If I am ever in California, I will look you up to help with the USBC certification process. For now, the numbers are based on standard lane dimensions, and should apply in most situations.

I'm still hoping somebody can verify my math is correct. It has been a long time since I have had to do any trigonometry. The next step is to calculate the precise boards where to stand on the approach, and aim at the foul line and arrows to merge with the optimum strike entry angle at the 2.5 board, 7.5 board, and 12.5 board. This is something I have never seen spelled out anywhere, and should be useful for adjusting to a variety of conditions.

But that's just it Joe, every bowling lane in existance has wear and tear. Some much more then others. Old wood lanes are not going to perform like new synthetics, especially where it comes to taking a specific pattern like Cheetah etc..... That's why USBC put in allowances in their Sport rules for such lanes.

I agree that bowlers will always need to adjust to lane conditions. My goal is to map out a system of adjustments that gets the ball to what is recognized as the optimum strike entry angle on different conditions. A lot of people throw the ball well. They just don't know how to line up. Hopefully, this will help.

I don't think there is any way you will ever find the pocket if your ball is on the 5 board at 50 feet on the Cheetah.

The problem is that the ball will continue to hook, adding entry angle, up until it reaches the pocket (on an ideal shot). This means that it might look more like

35 feet: -2* entry angle
40 feet: -1* entry angle
45 feet: 0* entry angle
50 feet: 2* entry angle
55 feet: 4* entry angle
60 feet: 6* entry angle

So, you cannot try to fit the ball path to a straight line coming from the pocket at 6*. It will be a curve, and the shape of that curve will be different depending on things like oil pattern, axis rotation, coverstock, lane surface, etc.

There are too many variables to standardize. But, there is probably data collected from the USBC robot that would be meaningful.

I am sure you have seen Parker Bohn hang the ball off the edge of the gutter at 45 feet on the Cheetah pattern. When it recovers, it is around the 5 board at 50 feet. Or how about Tommy Jones, who attacks the pattern from a steeper inside angle, but still gets the ball out to around the 5 board at 50 feet.



The point is not to calculate all of the possible arcs until the ball hits the pocket. It is to establish targets down the lane that will increase strike percentage. For example, if you are playing straight up the 5 board, on most conditions the ball will start to hook before it reaches 50 feet. It is still possible to achieve a 6 degree entry angle if the ball path merges with one of the other board/length combinations. HOWEVER, the target was still 5 board at 50 feet.

Before anybody's brain explodes, check this out. I have calculated the angles for targeting the 2.5 board at 48.05 feet.

Arrows, Foul line, Ball Start, Approx Feet Start
2, 1.79, 1.62, 9.62
3, 3.21, 3.38, 11.38
4, 4.63, 5.14, 13.14
5, 6.07, 6.92, 14.92
6, 7.51, 8.71, 16.71
7, 8.96, 10.50, 18.50
8, 10.41, 12.31, 20.31
9, 11.88, 14.13, 22.13
10, 13.36, 15.96, 23.96
11, 14.84, 17.80, 25.80
12, 16.34, 19.65, 27.65
13, 17.84, 21.51, 29.51
14, 19.35, 23.39, 31.39
15, 20.87, 25.27, 33.27
16, 22.40, 27.17, 35.17
17, 23.94, 29.08, 37.08
18, 25.49, 31.00, 39.00

PLEASE NOTE: The Approx Feet Start is a personal adjustment based on your size and style, drift, etc. For me, that is about 8 boards. The starting position is assumed to be the row of dots closer to the foul line.

Chances are your house shot plays a lot like this. I bet you will find your favorite line or close to it listed above. Hopefully, this will help everybody see where I am going with this.

Joe, I've bowled with Tommy Jones in a pro-am. He has much more hand than I have. I would have to play 15+ boards right of him to hopefully hit the pocket at 5bd/50 ft.

So, how would you account for that?

See the chart that I just posted, and start further to the outside of the lane. This will get you to the 2.5 board at 48.05 feet. I plan to do charts for the 7.5 board and 12.5 board, too.

maybe I am confused but isn't what you are saying the same thing that slowinski is saying with his pattern - 31?? At the end of the pattern that is when the ball hooks.. so if at a certain distance down the lane you get yourself to the board at which from that point to the pocket is a 6 deg entry angle.. this will provide the best carry...
yeah you can carry from the 5 board at 50 feet but that angle is not optimum.

If I understand correctly, the pattern minus 31 formula is supposed to give you the optimum exit point for the pattern. For example, on a 40 foot pattern the ball should exit on the 9th board (40-31=9).

Here is the key difference. Slowinski is talking about the 9th board AT 40 FEET, the pattern length. If the pattern is 32 feet, he suggests the ball should exit on the 1 board AT 32 FEET, the pattern length.

What I have described are downlane targets that translate to a 6 degree entry angle into the pocket. The nearest downlane target is the 2.5 board at 48.05 feet, which the chart above details various angles at the arrows, foul line, and position on the approach to reach. Other downlane targets include the 7.5 board at 52.27 feet, and the 12.5 board at 56.48 feet. I am still working on the angles for those.

The purpose of this exercise is to answer the question where to stand and where to roll the ball to consistently throw strikes. Not just "if it hooks too much move in, or if it does not hook enough, move out". But, specifically how much to move in and out, and correspondingly adjust your target.

right, but if both of you are correct shouldn't your target at a give length equal what the slowinski pattern length - 31 gives you. Since they are both showing where your ball should be at a given length and to get to the pocket at a 5-6 degree.

j w73,
I think the difference is, Slowinski is pointing out where the ball needs to exit the pattern to result in the best carry percentage, that doesn't mean you couldn't carry from a different exit point. Joe Bowler is pointing out where the ball needs to be down lane when it hits that 6 degree mark in order to find the pocket. For instance, the ball could need to exit the pattern at 9 board (example above) at 40 feet. If the ball was already at a 6 degree angle to the pocket it would overhoook and run Brooklyn. The ball can exit the pattern at 9 board and still get out to lets say 7 before it finally turns enough to make its move. Lets say 7 board at 48 feet. That means that both numbers can be right, they are pointing out different areas of the game.

If it hits any of the points on that 6 degree entry angle line, it needs to roll out right there. So, the chart may be good for Chris Barnes. I like my ball to hook till it gets to the headpin, which means I will only merge with the 6 degree entry angle line at the pocket.

you are correct cgeorg, I don't think these numbers were supposed to be anything other than "factoids" for the curious bowler. I highly doubt anyone is aiming to hit board 6.78 at 48.022 feet (arbitrary numbers, not a real example).

Not that I am a huge fan, but Chris Barnes was PBA Player of the Year. How is your strategy working for you?

Seriously, I think you are asking a lot out of your bowling ball to arrive at the pocket and then turn 6 degrees, or even 4-5 degrees. Because if it did not arrive from one of the points along the 6 degree line, then that is what you are expecting it to do.

Remember our discussion of skid, then hook, then roll? You may want to take another look at the chart on http://www.bowl.com/articleView.aspx?i=15475&f=21. Note where the ball is at 55 feet where it begins its roll. Right on the 11th board which just so happens to align with the 6 degree chart.

It is very possible that your ball *appears* to still be hooking if it happens to be rolling in the same direction as your axis rotation, giving the illusion that the angle is increasing.

These "factoids" may be a curiosity to some, but I plan to use them to elevate my game to the next level. The last chart I posted details exactly where to stand and where to target for most house shots. If nobody else finds that valuable, no problem. I will just keep the rest of the research to myself.

Joe, its not that I am trying to stop you from posting, I was just trying to say that what you are trying to explain and graph out is not the same as what Slowinski is talking about when bringing up the -31 rule. The problem is going to be training the eye to pick out different distances on the lane in order to determine where the ball needs to be on board 5 for instance. Other than that, all research is good research!

The ball isn't taking a straight path to the 6 degree line, it's taking a curved path. So even if you play a roll-out shot (which most players don't do, even Chris Barnes doesn't play a roll out shot most of the time, and when he does, his carry sucks), I don't see how the chart you provided helps.

I usually play around 11 at the arrows to start on my league. If I take your chart, which draws a straight line for me from 12 at the arrows out to 48 feet, I get this:

Arrows, Foul line, Ball Start, Approx Feet Start
11, 14.84, 17.80, 25.80

I do lay the ball down around 15, and my ball never gets near the 2.5 board... Yet I create the appropriate entry angle to strike.

You say:

Yet, it sounds like you are expecting the ball to arrive at the 6 degree line, and then turn 6 degrees. I know that my ball isn't going to turn 6 degrees at the pocket. It's going to use the 20 feet of dry lane at the end of the pattern to go from -1* to 6* over the course of those 20 feet. On my ideal shot, my ball will not touch the 6* degree line until it is very near - if not in - the pocket. Only then will it enter its roll phase.

Re: the USBC study, all that graph shows is that a particular set of shots on a particular pattern tended to roll out. I'm not disputing that the ball will initially skid in the oil, then change direction (hook), and eventually stop changing direction (roll). Different combinations of oil pattern, ball, bowler, and environmental conditions will cause those phases to occur at different points (and potentially, cause the later stages not to occur at all). But don't assume that that set of points in that graph correlate to an ideal strike line on that pattern.

Aha! Pinpoint bionic vision not necessary. Knowing the downlane target is 2.5 board at 48.05 feet (for example), and having CALCULATED the precise positions at the arrows, foul line, and approach dots, you can be confident that if your shot hits the intermediate targets, it is in line with the down lane target.

The ball will either hit the pocket or not, and that is all you need to know whether to move left or right. The chart suggests precisely how much to move.

Agreed. Whether the ball goes dead straight, or arcs from the time it leaves your hand until it exits the pin deck is not the point. The point is establishing a target, which for most people is best described with a straight line.

It should tell you something that when you play 11 at the arrows, you usually lay the ball down around the 15 board. I have never seen you bowl but "magically" this is a line that works for you. You probably didn't know you were aiming at the 2.5 board at 48.05 feet, but I believe that is the magic.

Most good bowlers know when their line and ball reaction give them a "good look to the pocket". I have come to believe that has a LOT to do with lining up with the six degree angle, whether they realize it or not. Hopefully, by charting the angles to the six degree angle finding "the look" can become a conscious, systematic process.

Joe, the line you created goes from the pocket to the gutter. As long as I'm not lined up to hit the gutter before 46 feet, my initial target line will hit the 6* degree line somewhere.

If I line up to lay the ball down on 11, and hit 11 at the arrows, I'll actually be aiming at the 6 degree line at 55.22 feet. Does that mean anything?

If the ball goes straight to the down lane target, it will have only 4.78 feet to turn 6 degrees. Obviously, not a typical house shot. Maybe the Shark pattern with super clean backends?

Last Wednesday, my usual line stopped working, in a big way - a small adjustment wouldn't cut it. I changed hand position, and moved left, laying the ball down around 22 and hitting 14 at the arrows.

Arrows, Foul line, Ball Start, Approx Feet Start
14, 19.35, 23.39, 31.39

That's a 2.5 board difference at the lay down point, which is a big difference at the breakpoint.

I think the general idea of what you're doing is good. However, there are an infinite number of ways to change the shape of the hook phase to create a 6* entry of angle. I think that what would be very helpful would be a similar chart, based on the ideal exit point. IE, I'm on a 40 foot pattern, so I want to be at board 9 at 40 feet. Given a target at the arrows, where do I stand to hit that spot? If it dries a little, move target 1 board left, and look up new stance position. If it dries a lot, move target 2 or 3 boards left, look up new stance position. You get the same exit point. Remember, the exit point formula was based on creating the proper entry angle.

I understand. That is why it is necessary to have more than one down lane target along the 6-degree angle. It would be possible to do a chart for every board, but that is not practical. So, my plan is to do charts for the 2.5, 7.5, and 12.5 boards. There may actually be a use for a -2.5 board (no oil in heads) and 17.5 board (oil from foul line to pin deck) chart, but fortunately, these lane conditions are rare.

How I see the different charts tying together is, as you described, when simply moving left and right leaves you with an unreliable line to the pocket. Chances are in these cases that the problem is not carrying, but actually hitting the pocket. For example, this can happen when the ball is going too long and hooking too sharp on the backend. This requires a downlane target closer to the pocket and further down the lane to compensate for the late, steep entry angle.

Below are the additional charts:

Breakpoint 7.5 board at 52.27 feet
Arrows, Foul line, Ball Start, Feet Start
4, 2.69, 1.62, 9.62
5, 4.05, 3.29, 11.29
6, 5.43, 4.97, 12.97
7, 6.81, 6.65, 14.65
8, 8.20, 8.35, 16.35
9, 9.59, 10.05, 18.05
10, 10.99, 11.76, 19.76
11, 12.40, 13.48, 21.48
12, 13.82, 15.22, 23.22
13, 15.25, 16.96, 24.96
14, 16.68, 18.70, 26.70
15, 18.12, 20.46, 28.46
16, 19.57, 22.23, 30.23
17, 21.03, 24.01, 32.01
18, 22.49, 25.80, 33.80
19, 23.96, 27.59, 35.59
20, 25.45, 29.40, 37.40

Breakpoint 12.5 board at 56.48 feet
Arrows, Foul line, Ball Start, Feet Start
6, 3.76, 1.98, 9.98
7, 5.09, 3.58, 11.58
8, 6.42, 5.18, 13.18
9, 7.76, 6.79, 14.79
10, 9.11, 8.41, 16.41
11, 10.46, 10.04, 18.04
12, 11.82, 11.68, 19.68
13, 13.18, 13.32, 21.32
14, 14.56, 14.98, 22.98
15, 15.93, 16.64, 24.64
16, 17.32, 18.30, 26.30
17, 18.71, 19.98, 27.98
18, 20.11, 21.66, 29.66
19, 21.52, 23.36, 31.36
20, 22.93, 25.06, 33.06
21, 24.29, 26.70, 34.70
22, 25.65, 28.33, 36.33
23, 26.99, 29.95, 37.95

What you are saying, in essence, is that instead of an optimum exit point, each pattern has an optimum target on the 6* line from the headpin. I haven't seen evidence to support either case, but I do trust Joe Slowinski more. In his article about the 3 point targetting system which includes exit point, he mentions that his pattern length - 31 formula came from a previous article, which I don't have. I'd be interested in reading that article, and I'd be interested to see actual data for both your theory and the exit point theory.

What I am posting here is new research. I have not seen it anywhere else. That is not to discount Joe Slowinski's research in any way. They are not contradictory. Perhaps in time, I will find a way to mathematically correlate the two.

What needs to be understood is that Joe isnt saying you need to use these, but they are simple numbers to help guide some people. Alot of bowlers have a mark at the arrows or dots, but no downlane mark. This could help people get the visual of the ball path. Yes there are alot of variables that can change what each bowlers chart would look like, but the general logic to it is pretty good. Given a downlane mark that would put your ball on a 6 degree angle you would need to aim along this path, or need to have this ball motion. Most advanced level bowlers can read ball reactions and decide on how to adjust the line. I dont think he's saying if you hit this target and start here yadda yadda, that you will strike. Besides nothing hurts to try once.

Say Joe, our data must be on a spreadsheet format. It might be easier if you could attach the spreadsheet rather than copy the data. Just switch to full screen reply and attach.

I think I am getting what you are saying. thanks mkee for your 2 cent explanation. It was worth more then that.

I know Dennis the chart can blow your mind away if you dont understand what the numbers mean lol. I know what he means by this and it may just be a misunderstanding, but it seems like people may be thinking that he's saying by hitting these reference points you will strike.

Am I understanding this?


Can't pull this up.

OK, if I understand this;

Your co-ordinates 7.5 - 52.27, and 12.5 - 54.48 are actually points on a 6* line from the pocket. Your charts indicate what you are calculating as the stance, release point and arrow target to get your ball to the 6* angle point.

Based on the chart and co-ordinates, you are creating a "turn angle" for lack of another term. An outside line is an obtuse angle, where an inside line is a more acute angle. So, based on your axis of rotation at the breakpoint, your ball will either turn on the 6* line, turn short or go long. By varying your stance and targeting, left or right, you are calculating the boards to stand on, the boards at release, and the boards at the arrows.

You are using the co-ordinates as a pivot, and turning the ball roll line from foul line to the pocket to gain the 6* entry angle.

Hope, I'm getting this.

Correction. I AM suggesting these are precisely the optimum targets and angles for lining up to throw strikes. The only variable for each bowler is your feet start position based on your size, style, and drift pattern. If the lane dimensions I have used and my math is correct, these charts represent all of the strike angles any bowler will ever need. Pick any ball in your bag, including your spare ball, and whatever particular release you want to use, and you can use these charts to find the optimum line for that ball and release. To the astute reader, these are the "keys to the kingdom".

Further, I do NOT suggest you try to visually pinpoint the target downlane. It is enough to start in the correct position, release the ball at the correct spot at the foul line, and hit the target at the arrows. Without specific markers embedded down the lane, I believe it would be difficult to find the exact same spot on the next shot. Trust the math that if you hit two points along the intended line, it will continue towards the downlane target.

How to use the charts? To start, find what your feet position is relative to your line. For me, it is 8 boards. That is what I used in the tables above to provide an example. If you walk a straight line, you can just add the number to the feet start position.

Next, let's say you are getting ready to roll your first ball in an unfamilar bowling center and you know nothing about the oil pattern. I would suggest starting with the chart for the downlane target on the 2.5 board at 48.05. These angles are typical of most house shots. Roll the ball from 9.62 (feet start) to 3.21 (foul line) to 3 (at arrows). If the ball goes high, move your feet position, and targets at the foul line and arrows towards the inside of the lane in the exact increments described in the chart. By doing so, you are maintaining the same downlane target.

If the ball is light, you don't have much room to move left, so you may need to adjust your downlane target. In this case, you would change to the downlane target on the 7.5 board at 52.27 feet. Depending how light the previous shot was you might try rolling the ball from 11.29 (feet start) to 4.05 (foul line) to 5 (at arrows) and adjust from there using the new chart.

The same principle applies if the lanes are really hooking, and you find yourself running out of room on the other side of the approach. In these cases, you may need to move your downlane target further outside. I bowled on the Cheetah pattern last night, and found myself using the downlane target at -2.5 board at 43.83 feet.

Hopefully, this helps to clarify the intent and usage of the charts. If somebody can tell me how to upload a document, I will provide a clean copy of all the charts above on a single page document along with the precise positions and targets for shooting each single pin spare.

I just attached the document via file manager. Hopefully, it will now be accessible.

Great stuff, Joe! Thanks!

This is one of the most frustrating threads I think I've read. I'm with cgeorg and others who say that there's way more at play here other than just targeting. The ball and the release play a huge role in how the ball gets to it's final entry angle and none of that is accounted for in the equation.

I think you are missing the point. With a particular ball in your hand and a particular release, you still need to stand somewhere and aim somewhere. The chart is not intended to tell you what ball or release to use, but to help get lined up with a particular ball and release. If the chart were part of a book, it would only be one chapter, with other chapters for equipment, layouts, releases, etc.

Yes, you do need to figure out where to stand and where to target, and I don't think this helps with that. Part of knowing about where to stand and where to aim is also knowing how the particular ball you're throwing is going to react with the way you throw it.

You're also not going to aim at the spot where the ball will reach a 6* entry angle because it will actually hook before it gets there. You'll need to aim some amount outside of that. How do you propose a bowler figure out how far left or right a bowler needs to aim to eventually get to number in your chart?

And it can all be simplified by starting out looking at pattern length - 31 and figuring out the best angle to get the ball to that spot. Then you can figure out if that will actually work.

I just can't see how this chart would be useful.

The fact is you don't know how a particular ball is going to react until you throw it. The chart simplifies the process of adjusting to moving left or right, and provides the exact adjustments to make in your starting position and targets.

It is understood that the ball is not likely to go straight down to the 6 degree entry angle and make an immediate turn towards the pocket. It is simply a target, and targeting systems generally use straight lines.

The bowler doesn't have to figure out have far left or right to aim to get to a number in my chart. That is what the chart is for.

The pattern length minus 31 is a valuable formula, but it is difficult for most bowlers to visually identify a particular spot down the lane. The chart, on the other hand, provides clear visual targets on the approach, at the foul line, and at the arrows. If a bowler hits those targets, the math has already calculated the intended trajectory.

I can tell you long before doing these calculations, I found that I could stand on 15, aim at 5 at the arrows, and if the ball went high, move 2 boards on the approach and 1 board at the arrows, and eventually find an optimum line to the pocket. Now, I know that I was on the right Track, just not mathematically precise. That is how the chart is useful.

Further, there were times when I knew I needed to move my line further inside, for example on longer oil. The chart identifies secondary and additional targets to handle these situations. That is how the chart is useful.

I feel like I'm on candid cameras.



It's simply a target of where the ball needs to be on a 6* angle to the pocket. It's not a target of where the bowler actually needs to aim to get the ball to that point on a 6* angle to the pocket. If you're at point A and aiming at point B, aren't you trying to throw the ball in a straight line from point A to point B? If point B is where the ball needs to be on a 6* angle to the pocket, how can you say that you don't expect the ball to get there and make a sudden turn?

Also, the PDF is only useful for angles if you throw the ball perfectly straight. I guarantee you that if you use the following on a house shot:

Target 2.5 Board@ 48.05 Feet
Arrows: 5
Foul line: 6.07
Ball Start: 6.92

If the person has any hand at all, the ball will never see 2.5. The ball will probably never make it outside 5.

If you want to roughly estimate an angle, figure that the arrows are about 12 feet. For every board you cross to get to the arrows, you'll cross the same number for every 12 feet after. So 2 boards to the arrows will be another 2 at 24 feet, 4 at 36, 5 at 42, etc... but you can only really use a rough estimate because you're not going to be throwing the ball dead straight. If it's a house shot, the ball will start to hook as soon as it gets out to the 3 unit area, which is between 7 and 10 usually. If you're playing second arrow and you're swinging the ball, the ball could start to grab at 20 feet.

You can't be mathematically precise because you're not accounting for the friction of different oil volumes. Sometimes 2:1 doesn't work.

Hmmm, maybe I am the one on candid cameras? But, I figure if I can help make it clear to you, it might be clearer to other people.

It sounds like you are suggesting that if you are standing on A aiming at B, but the ball hooks to C, that you should instead aim at C. Well, I can assure you the ball will hook to D! If you walk and swing the ball in a straight line, aim at the targets at the foul line and arrows, it is true that the ball may or may not hook before it reaches the downlane target. What is important is if it hits the pocket, and adjusting left or right if necessary.

There is probably a mathematical equation to prove that most of the various arcs to the pocket along the same initial trajectory that arrive at the pocket enter at the same 6 degree angle by the time they reach the pocket. But, I would have to blow the dust off my calculus books for that, and I am guessing that would make something that is very simple to be complex, and that is not my thing.

Concerning the downlane target 2.5 Board@ 48.05 Feet, I would challenge you to calculate the trajectory of your typical lines to the pocket on a house shot, and I bet you are darn close to the same point (assuming you score well on a house shot).

The chart includes 5 downlane targets to handle every volume of oil. If you look at the first table in the chart, the downlane target is the -2.5 board. Think burned out Cheetah pattern. With the target actually off the lane, that should help make it clear that it is not expected for the ball to always reach the target. On the other extreme, the last table in the chart is very close to the pocket itself. Think gutter-to-gutter 50+ feet of oil, flooded.

Hopefully, that helps make it clearer that the chart covers nearly every possible strike line to the pocket. The only thing I did not include were deep inside lines where it was not possible to walk straight to the pocket, and the half-board adjustments sometimes necessary, but they are easily calculated by looking at the chart.

That's exactly the point I'm making to you. You initially came up with a point down the lane that the ball had to be at on a specific board to enter the pocket @ 6*. You've then derived the rest of this from that.

You're saying that the ball needs to be at point B to enter the pocket at 6*, so aim at point B. The problem is that if you aim at point B and hit it, you won't enter the pocket at 6* because the ball will need to already be hooking by the time it gets to that point. If the ball actually went straight and hit that point, your breakpoint will be further down the lane than it needs to be.

So in order to get the ball to that spot on the angle it needs to be, you have to aim outside that point and have the ball hook into it.



I think it's apparent that they would not enter the pocket at the same angle, let alone a 6* angle. The earlier the ball starts to hook, the shallower the angle would be. The longer the ball goes, the steeper the angle will be.

That again goes back to the fact that you have to take the equipment into account and why using something like pattern - 31 will give you the spot that will probably work to get the ball to, but you can then figure out how to get the ball there depending on the bowler and the ball.

I think the point here is that you're creating a system of adjustment based on an arbitrary line. You have no data. You have no method of figuring out which point on that line should even be used as the target for different conditions, other than guessing. The charts are generated based on targets at 12.5, 7.5, 2.5, and -2.5. 5 boards is a lot, especially on a sport pattern. I was targeting a line on the Shark yesterday where my ball never saw 12.5 or 7.5. Started out straight up 10, and eventually moved in to crossing 13 out to 11. I couldn't use your chart to make an adjustment.

Please forgive the quality of the attached image. I am not a graphic artist. It is intended to convey how it is possible to have the same initial trajectory, hooks with different shapes, and still arrive at the same six degree angle.

That wouldn't be true on a flatter pattern, though

The line is only arbitrary if you do not believe 6 degrees is the optimum strike angle. That is a noted assumption earlier in this thread.

There is no guesswork involved other than the unavoidable trial-and-error nature of bowling itself. So, pick a chart based on your knowledge of the length of the pattern. The shorter the pattern, the closer the downlane target. Roll the ball along one of the lines on the chart. If it is high, move further inside. If it is light, move further outside. If there is no consistent line to the pocket, you likely need to choose another downlane target and continue adjusting from there.

I am curious. What did you shoot starting straight up 10, and later crossing 13 to 11? If you used the chart, you may have found a better line to the pocket.

If you want to throw out the laws of physics, sure.

EDIT: Let me say that you could oil a lane that would cause different balls to react this way, but it wouldn't be legal and it would be extremely difficult to do. This wouldn't happen on a legal pattern though.

Sorry, not sure what planet's laws of physics you are talking about throwing out. I see different paths to the pocket and hook shapes every time I bowl league.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree. If you don't find the information presented useful, then don't use it.

I don't think giving people bad information is a good thing, and I think people should be aware of the fact that this is not good information. The diagram you drew is not possible. All of those shots will have the same energy off the bowlers hand, they just use them in different parts of the lane. A ball that hooks earlier will have less back end motion. A ball is also not going to stop hooking after the end of the pattern, somehow magically have energy added to the system and hook again right before the pocket. The only way a ball would react that way would be for there to be oil where the ball straightened out causing a loss of friction, allowing the ball to retain energy for when it hit the dry again. On a legal pattern, it would have stopped hooking because it used it's energy and entered it's roll phase.

Good luck with whatever you think this does for you, but others reading this at least need to know that there are people who find it all extremely flawed.

I'm out.

Similarly, I don't think that people who don't understand a concept, and have never tried to put it into practice, should interfere with other people possibly learning something.

To suggest multiple angles to the pocket is beyond the laws of physics is absurd. All I would have to do is change my axis rotation slightly along the same line to demonstrate how ridiculous that is.

See ya.

Your diagram only shows one ball actually achieving the 6 degree angle.

I don't turn on the scorers when I'm practicing.

Believing that 6* entry angle is optimal for striking has nothing to do with your system, because your system does nothing to get the ball to 6* of entry angle.

Your system does nothing to get the ball to 6* of entry angle.

You fully admit that the ball will not hit the target on the 6* line. So, what reason do you have to use a target on that line?

ar·bi·trar·y (är'bĭ-trěr'ē)
adj.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

Each of the balls in the diagram IS entering the pocket along the same 6 degree angle. It does not matter whether the ball travels 1 foot or 2 feet along the angle. In fact, in an earlier post, you described how your ball increases from straight to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 degrees at the pocket, and continues to hook past the packet. Now, are you objecting to a diagram that matches your own description?

While I have appreciated your posts on other threads, the rest of your post in this thread is rather ig.no.rant. You can look that up, too.

When you are done, perhaps you can explain to everybody why you believe that on the Cheetah pattern (as an example), getting the ball to the 5 board at 31 feet (Joe Slowinski's pattern length minus 31) will improve a bowler's scores? Or do you consider that arbitrary, unproven, no supporting data, etc. because you don't fully understand that, either?

Not called for.

I saw the ball paths hitting the line at an angle, instead of smoothly merging with it. Anyway, it's not important, I think we all know/agree that there are plenty of paths that end in a 6 degree angle of entry.

I don't have access to the original article that introduced pattern length - 31. Actually I do - that formula is actually a simplification of another article that I don't have access to. I would like to read it to see how those numbers were arrived at, but I haven't yet, so I can't comment on its validity. I do know that you have no data, nor do you have any reason that your method would work, other than you think it will, because of an arbitrary connection to something that has been proven. There is nothing in your system that helps the bowler achieve a 6* entry angle - targeting a line you will never hit just does not give you that. All it tells you is where to target based on where you're standing to be on line with one of 4 or 5 points down lane. Do you think any high level bowler would limit themselves to lines that intersect one of 4 or 5 targets down-lane? I don't.

I agree this is new research. That does not make it right or wrong, just unproven. However, it is very easy to prove it to yourself. Try it.

Last night, I bowled on the Scorpion pattern. This was a new league and a new bowling center for me, so I had no idea how their version of the pattern would play.

I started 11 (standing) to 3 (at the arrows), targeting 2.5 board @ 48.05 feet. The ball skidded past the pocket. Tightened up the line, and moved to 9.5 to 2. Barely made it back to the pocket. Threw a couple more shots, adjusting speed. This was not working, so I changed target to 7.5 @ 52 feet. First shot was 20 to 10. Left the bucket. Tightened it up to 18 to 9, and I was lined up for the rest of the night. Shot 762 for 4 games which was high series for the league for the night.

All of the adjustments described above were according to the chart.

How exactly did the chart help you?

You didn't move for 4 games?

How do you know the pattern didn't play better with an exit point of 11? Did you try it? Oh, you don't have a chart that lets you aim in that area of the lane.

Where to stand, where to aim, and where to move when a particular line is not working.

1) How do you know which one to pick?

2) What is the logic behind the points chosen on the chart?

3) Have you ever read Bill Taylor's "Target Lines"? You might find it helpful.


Cgeorg - There was actually a device created in the 80's called the Martin Lane reader where you slide some things around based on where you were standing, hit and where the ball finished and it told you where to move. That had all the flexibility you're talking about.

The lanes were pretty tight, and I was the only lefty on the pair, so the carrydown was keeping up with the transition, and I did not have to move much. I did try some half-board adjustments in each direction. Went washout, split, and then high flush after moving back to where I was. Like most sport patterns, it was sensitive to what I was doing with my hand, speed, etc.

But, I was satisfied with my line to the pocket, my criteria being entry point into the pocket, exit point of the ball off the lane, and carry when I threw a good shot.

Excellent questions.

Knowing which chart to start with, and which particular position and target is an educated guess, just like moving from pair to pair at a tournament. Generally speaking, the longer the oil pattern, the closer to the pocket and further down lane is the target. The cheetah pattern might use the targets -2.5 board @ 44 feet or 2.5 board @ 48 feet, where the shark might require 7.5 board @ 52 feet or 12.5 board @ 56 feet.

Once you have found the right chart, it is a simple matter to adjust left and right using the start position and targets at the foul line and arrows, until you find the pocket.

The points chosen on the chart are along the 6 degree entry angle to the pocket. I specifically chose -2.5 board, 2.5, 7.5, 12.5, and 17.5 because they cover the entire lane in manageable increments. It would have been possible to create charts for every board along the 6 degree angle, but I don't believe that is practical. Further, when it is necessary to move a down lane target it is usually because you want to get AWAY from a certain area of the lane and 5 boards is a reasonable amount.

No, I have not read Bill Taylor's "Target Lines", but I have read Ron Clifton's theories on breakpoint zones:
http://www.bowl4fun.com/ron/btm02_files/btm2.htm
I believe the chart I have provided is similar in principle to the article, but the specific numbers I calculated are different from what Ron suggests in the article.

You should read Target Lines.

OK, back to the questions.

- Why are you targeting points on the 6* entry angle line?

- Why does there have to be a chart at all? Why not use Slowinski's 3 point system with quiet eye instead, where you can pick any point on the lane and target it from any starting position?

I am writing myself a note to check out Target Lines.

The 6 degree entry angle line is supposed to be the optimum entry angle to the pocket based on several other people's research.

I suppose that I prefer a more structured approach to lining up than the 3-point target system. It is unlikely I would ever need to aim at 5 from 30 or 20 from 5 to throw a strike. To reach the next level in bowling, I knew I needed more precise guidelines.

Further, I have found targets at the foul line and arrows easier to work with than trying to visually [re]locate a particular spot further down the lane. If my math is correct, using the closer targets achieve the same goals, i.e., if your ball rolls over 2 points on a target line it is on the same trajectory.

I believe "Quiet Eye" can be successfully applied to the starting position, target at foul line, and target at arrows.

I understand that a 6* entry angle is an optimum angle. That doesn't answer why you're targeting a point on that line. Targeting a point on that line does not mean that the ball will then follow the 6* line once it gets to that point. Your own experience above shows this to be true. You said you targeted "7.5 @ 52 feet". The ball went from you standing on 20 (so approx laying the ball down on 12), out to 10. The ball never got to 7.5 at 52 feet. It was more than likely inside 10 at 52 feet, and it may not have even been on a 6* angle.

So again, why target points on that line? You eventually picked a line off of your chart that got you close to the pocket, but there was nothing special about the point you were targeting. You could have done the same thing without the chart. The point you picked is really arbitrary and the ball never even got there. It hooked well before that.

Also, with the 3 point system, you can also use a closer point. One point is the breakpoint, one is a point further down, and one is closer, like in the range of the arrows.

I am now wishing I paid more attention in calculus class...

As my admittedly crude diagram attempted to depict, it is not only possible, but happens with great regularity, that bowlers roll the ball along the same line, and arrive at the pocket with the same entry angle, but with different breakpoint shapes.

If you target a particular point along the six degree angle, and the ball does not roll over and past that point, you can safely assume the ball hooked prior to reaching that point. In order for a ball to follow the initial trajectory and still arrive at the pocket, it must hook a certain specific, total amount. How that is distributed, i.e., where the ball starts to hook and how much it hooks until it reaches the pocket is obviously variable.

But, if all of the balls roll along the same initial line, and arrive at the same intermediate destination, i.e, some point on the 6 degree entry angle, and ultimately arrive at the same final destination, i.e., the pocket, the effect is the same.

The same amount of "hook energy" may be distributed in different ways, but if you consistently aim for target A and hit B, there is a high probability of the angle of entry to B, or the ball would not reach B. Make sense?

Drawing something doesn't prove it happens in the real world. And you really don't need Calculus. You need Physics. And with the laws of physics, all of those shots won't be possible on the same pattern. I almost positive that I can say that I've never seen 2 people on the same lane playing the same exact starting trajectory, have different ball paths and have the same angle of entry. And unless you have a CATS system set up, you're never going to be able to prove it anyway.

The fundamental flaw in your picture is that you have the ball (again, assuming the same oil pattern) hooking, going into it's roll and then hooking again. This just doesn't happen. The ball will start to roll because it expends it's energy. A ball started on the same trajectory that also hits the pocket, but starts to hook earlier will have a shallower entry angle. I've taken your picture and drew in red a possible end of the oil pattern that would seem likely given where those shots started to hook. The orange is where those earlier balls would more than likely have finished, given where you drew that they used up their energy. I also drew two other lines, one where the ball would end up if it got to a similar angle, and one where it would still hit the pocket even though it hooked earlier. That one would have a shallower entry angle. They're in green and blue respectively.



How do you know it hit some point along that line?

And what if it hit's that point, goes past it, then hooks at a steeper angle? Just because 6* is considered an optimal angle, it does not mean that it's the most common angle either. It could be considered the goal, but it's not some sort of default. I added a ball path in pink that covers that scenario.

But none of that guarantees a 6* entry angle. Targeting points on that line does not in any way, shape or form imply that you'll end up with a 6* entry angle.

I should have waited until I had more time to put up a better quality diagram. It appears that you drew straight continuation lines where I intended to show the ball continuing its arc. When I drew the original, they appeared to merge into one line.

Where I bowl league, I can take 6 different balls, each layed out differently, with different surfaces, etc. and roll them along the same line and throw strike after strike. One will go long and Flip hard, another will start to hook early and arc to the pocket, and every variation in between. That is what I was trying to depict with the diagram.

Remember, we are not just talking about aiming at a point on the 6 degree entry angle, but also hitting the pocket (or adjusting the angle). If your release point at the foul line is A, and the downlane target is B, and the pocket is C, in order for a line from A to B to arc to C, its total hook must equal 6 degrees. One extreme would be to go straight, turn towards the pocket, and rollout. Another extreme would be to incrementally arc +1, +2, +3,...up to 6 degrees. And every variation in between. You can't aim A to B and get to C without hooking 6 degrees.

In your diagram, the shots that missed the pocket would require adjusting the angle.

The problem is, if the arc really did continue, the ball would not end up in the pocket. The only way the ball can end up in the pocket when it starts to hook earlier is for it to straighten out at a shallower angle, like the blue line a drew. You drew your arcs, then straighted them out, and then had them hook again. If 2 furthest right shots happened, then the most inside shots are not going to happen.



That's entirely possible, but they will be at different entry angles. You can strike with many different entry angles. Again, 6* is the optimal angle, but it's not the only angle that will generate strikes. On some lane conditions, where you'd have to throw the ball to get that 6* entry angle might not work, and you're better off with a 4* entry angle.

6 degrees of hook? I'm not sure that makes sense. You're talking about a 6 degree entry angle to the pocket, not about the amount of hook. How exactly are you measuring the hook in degrees? The measurement of 6 degrees has nothing at all to do with hook. It's a measurement of the angle between the pins and the vector of the balls velocity as it hits the pins. More axis tilt and axis rotation = steeper entry angle. A very large part of getting to that 6* entry angle is how the bowler throws the ball. It's not just aiming at some point on a line. The bowler has to generate the steeper angle.

Also, here's a study I found that describes the correlation to average and RPM's to entry angle. You'll notice that the better the bowlers and higher the RPM's, the higher the entry angle, and even the pro's don't average a 6* entry angle.

The Study

man, i need a coach for all this stuff.

Honestly, this isn't anything you need to be thinking about. There are some very simple adjustments you can make. You can ask most 200+ average bowlers what the ideal entry angle is and they'd have no idea.

Just clear it out of your head.

Right again, Lefty!

If you throw lots of practice games outside of league, you can throw almost blindfolded and hit the pocket. The practice allows you to learn your ball.

Assuming you have only one ball, try doing a game where you start as far right as possible and end up as far left as possible after 10 frames. Repeat several times. Your score will be lousy, but your brain will be memorizing how your ball works on various parts of the lane on a THS.

This will come in handy when adjusting during league. You'll be able to move 5 or 10 boards without worrying that you'll miss the pocket.

However, that said and notwithstanding, this stuff is cool info for those of us who think about our games at idle moments...

Jared, a coach can help you with your form and rolling the ball consistently. The chart (on page 6 of this thread) can help you with lining up to throw strikes (and single pin spares). It's really very simple. The chart suggests where to stand, where to release the ball at the foul line, and where to aim at the arrows in order to throw strikes, and where to move to, if a particular line is not hitting the pocket.

There is a lot of good information on this forum. There is also a lot of noise from self-aggrandizing knowledge bullies who would like everybody to think they already know everything about bowling. New ideas, especially new ideas that they did not come up with, obviously challenge that notion. We know the world is not flat, but you can be sure the first folks to suggest it was round took a lot of grief, even though they were right.

When I returned to bowling after a 10-year break two years ago, I decided to buy a drill press so I could experiment with all the new equipment. That is my philosophy about bowling. Experiment, prove it to yourself. My average climbed from 209 (2007-2008) to 239 (2008-2009) as I tried new things and incorporated them into my game. In 2008, I bowled in several tournaments, won 5 titles, cashed in several other tournaments, and earned about $10,000 from bowling. This year, I won the Central MD Singles Scratch title, and placed in the top 30 in the MD state tournament. That should tell you that I know more than the average poster on this site about throwing strikes.

The primary reason I shared the chart in the first place was hoping that somebody would validate my math. I knew that if another bowler grasped the significance of the chart, and put it into practice, it would be a competitive advantage for that bowler. And, since I still bowl competitively, it was a real hurdle for me to put it up on this website.

The guys cluttering this thread are actually doing me a favor by burying the simple chart in bogus theoretical discussions. As long as I am competing, I sincerely hope that nobody else uses the chart. I go to tournaments all the time, and see 200+ average bowlers totally lost on the lanes. That's good for me. I hope it stays that way as long as I am competing.

But, since you found this thread, my advice to you is don't take my word or anybody else's for anything. Go try it yourself. That is the best way to learn.

This will be my last post on this thread. I have tournaments to win.

Alrighty then. +1 to my list.

So when I very politely walk through what you originally called "good questions" with you so we can discuss the "why" of what you think you're doing, it was OK. Once we get to the point where you really can't answer why, like talking about "6 degrees of hook", you start name calling, puffing your chest and try to throw around your accomplishments. I've won my association's tournament. Are you impressed? I've averaged over 230 for a full winter league. Are you impressed? I don't think anyone should be, and I don't think those accomplishments have any bearing on the subject at hand. You don't have to be able to score well to understand the science behind what we're talking about. In fact some of the best bowlers could care less about it.

Myself and others are all for good discussion, but you should not expect to present something like this and just have people accept it blindly. When things don't add up, and when they don't make sense, people should ask questions. If those questions can't be answered, like here, you know that whatever is being presented doesn't hold water. If the shoe was on the other foot, I would be appreciative of the scrutiny that other's put my work through instead of puffing my my chest, taking my ball and going home.

Sorry to see this thread come to this, but I have been silently watching this happen. I have to give Joe credit for attempting an analytical view of his theorem, and allowing us to share it. people have not come here to scrutinize but to defame his attempt.

Bringing in extraneous items as lane conditions, cover stock have absolutely no bearing on his calculations. His calculations are meant to lead a bowler to a better understanding of what to expect, and where to approach the next shot. To me, that is no different then Ron Clifford's 3 point targeting, or Mo's maximum angle of drilling, or Malott's find the line in 7 balls theories. They are calculations that don't take into account those extraneous items. They are slide rule calculations that always lead to the same conclusion.

He asked for a consensus of his calculations, and was not letting his theory open for unquantifiable variables to explain and add to his assumptions.

I can only read some of the retorts as an attempt to disclaim his theory, and not in a very constructive manner. They were an attempt to discredit him, and that's not right.

There is no way he could account for all of the variables, just as there is no way that Clifford accounts for them or a 2 for 1 move on the lanes accounts for them, nor was it his intention to even try. And, that doesn't make his assumption invalid, nor his calculations incorrect.

I spent a few hours re calculating his positions in a reverse method, and find them to be fairly close to what I would have done normally. But, he provided the quantifiable logic as to why, which I now better understand. And, I thank him for that.

For many years, we have been saying that nothing goes faster than the speed of light, and distances in space have been measured against that. Now, this has been disproven because recent calculations have proved that the Universe and galaxies could not have positioned themselves in their current spot at such a slow speed. But, it takes an innovatively new calculation to open people's eyes to this alternative.

Please, don't let me compare Joe's 6* calculation to distances in space, but the premise is the same. If you always look at things in the same manner, you will always get the same answer. but, looking at things in another quantifiable manner sometimes gets different results.

If we are to participate in this type of discussion, let's do it in a constructive manner so others on here may learn, if not from the calculations, but from the concept.

There's no attempt to defame him at all. This is not about the person. It's about what's presented.

Dennis, can you explain to me how this gets the ball to a 6* entry angle? That's the claim, but there's been nothing to back it up. That's all we've been saying.

Most bowlers, including myself, don't achieve a 6* entry angle and Joe is claiming to have come up with a targeting system that gives you a 6* entry angle.

All other research says that what contributes to a steeper entry angle is axis tilt, axis rotation, ball speed, RPM's and the ball surface. His calculation doesn't take any of that into account. He simply says to target a point on the 6* entry angle line and you'll have a 6* entry angle.

I'd like to know how exactly you achieve a 6* entry angle without taking into account all of the things that other, much more knowledgeable people than you or I, say are factors in achieving that 6* entry angle.

Can you explain that to us?

You see, he starts with the optimum entry angle as his premise. And, if you work his math in reverse, as I did, you get the ideal starting position at presentation. Which was what his calculations said.

To me, it took a little ingenuity, but it got me to the correct or very close starting point to get to the 6* angle.

So, it the formula works in reverse, his calculations seemed reasonable to me.

Knowing what the optimum entry angle is doesn't make the ball hook in such a way that it will follow that though.



His calculations tell you where to set the ball down and what board at the arrows you have to roll over to get to a specific point down the lane. It doesn't make the ball hook in a certain way to follow the line that would be a 6 degree angle to the pocket. The chart just shows where the ball should be set down and where it should cross the arrows to reach a point further down the lane, if the ball goes perfectly straight.

So again, what makes the ball hook in such a way to follow that 6* line to the pocket? What if you have 0 axis rotation? What if you have 90* axis rotation?



How do you know your entry angle isn't 3 degrees or 4 degrees or 5 degrees?

I'd say 4 or 5 is pretty close to 6, considering there are 360 to choose from, theoretically. technically 180 are possible...

There aren't 360 to choose from. The range is usually between 1 and 7.

actually maybe closer to 210, if you could stop the ball by the 2 or 3 and make it back up

There's a diference between what's possible and what a normal strike line looks like

From the link I posted earlier, they studied the entry angle of different bowlers of different calibers.

Average entry angle for a 139 and below average bowler was 1.4 degrees.

The average entry angle for a pro was 5.9 degrees.

The average entry angle for a 190 to 199 average bowler was 3.6 degrees.

There was also another study that calculated carry percentage, and 6 degrees carried better than 5 or 4 or 3.

OK, so you have just confirmed why Joe is using the 6* angle.

No where in any of his calculations does he state that the ball will turn on that 6* line, as you repeatedly ask, regardless of oil pattern. He simply states that the 6* angle line is the optimum strike angle.

And, you seem to be confusing the 6* angle line with the breakpoint, which it isn't. However, the farther from the pocket your ball turns, the closer your breakpoint will be to the 6* line. But, they are not the same.

He calculates his hypothesis by saying: if your ball hits the 6* line at the 7.5 board, then it hits the line at 52.27 feet to continue and get a strike. This is a simple calculation. But, to maintain that consistent line, and depending how your ball rolls, Joe calculates you can either roll the ball from the 4 board at the foul line and target the 5 board at the arrows, (which is rolling straight up), or you can target the 15 board at the arrows, but you have to start your ball on the 18 board at the foul line, (assuming you have more revs). He gives you all of the movement, left or right on the lane, board by board, depending on how your ball rolls.

You again, ask for additional variables, by adding in lane conditions. I contend that on a longer oil pattern, you won't hit the 6* line on the 7.5 board. It most likely will be closer to the 12 board as cg indicated. Then his 12.5 board chart accounts for the ball having more length, and he calculates it hits the 6* line at 56.48 feet down the lane. And, again, he calculates where the optimum target at the arrows and at the foul line lay down will be. And, he moves from the 6 board at the arrows to the 23 board, and can calculate where to lay the ball down, and where to stand, depending on your revs or style.

My take on his calculations is look at ball line charts, as he presented, and you added your pink line. There are many different arcs for many different balls, and no one rolls the ball the same way. He has taken a ball line, and it doesn't matter which one. And, he pivots that line at either of 2 spots, the breakpoint and the pocket impact. If the ball hits the pocket at the 6* angle on board 7.5 or on board 12.5, he pivots the ball line on the breakpoint to cross a target at the arrows and start position. If you have a different arc than the ball line shows, hold that line constant at the pocket impact, and again pivot the ball line to get your optimum target and start.

Many people have comfort with a target, but won't know where to stand to use that target for a strike. Also, many people will move their feet, then not know what target to aim at. Based on the ball arc and the 6* hypothetical angle, Joe's chart will calculate both.

Why are you making this so hard?

Saying this, I know I will figure out where to stand and what target to aim for intuitively, and you certainly will too. But, many people struggle with where to stand and what to target. Joe's calcs give them a quicker starting point rather than losing several balls trying to figure it out on theirown.

He has calculated every move of feet and targets that you probably do in your head. And, I bet they are pretty close. I've tested it.

What the ideal entry angle is, is not in question.



The points he came up with are the points on the lane that if connected, would draw a 6* line to the pocket. He then targets those points. If the ball actually reaches those points, you're going to miss the pocket.



I'm not confusing them at all. And the ball breaking farther from the pocket does not mean the angle will be closer to 6*. If the ball created all of it's angle at one particular spot, then yes, you'd be correct, but a ball doesn't do that. There are a lot of variables that come in to play when you're trying to get to that 6* angle. If a more aggressive ball starts hooking at 35 feet and a skid Flip ball starts hooking at 45 feet, the skid Flip ball could be much more inside the more aggressive ball and achieve a 6* entry angle while the more aggressive ball still might not.



52.27 feet? Can you tell the difference between 52.27 feet and 51.16 feet? And can you tell if the very center of the ball rolled over 7.5 or 8.25 at that point? And can you tell if your ball continued to follow that 6* line to the pocket? I know I can't.



There's absolutely no contention that his chart gives you a place to target, given the spot to aim and where the ball is set down. It draws those lines.. absolutely. But that's all it does. Playing any of those lines does not make it any more probable to achieve a 6* entry angle than anyone had before.



I contend that most bowlers won't hit a 6* entry angle at all. Dennis, if you take yourself as an example, I would contend that you never achieve a 6* entry angle, using this chart or not. From the videos you've shared and what you've told us about the equipment you like, you tend to be speed dominant and you like duller surface, earlier rolling equipment. If you wanted to increase your entry angle, I think you'd need to become more balanced in your speed to RPM ratio and you'd have to use equipment that stored more energy so it could break at a sharper angle.

Does that mean that someone couldn't use the chart, keep picking lines until they found one where they could hit the pocket? No.. I'd imagine that I could use it and find one of the lines to hit the pocket. Does that in any way shape or form mean that my entry angle was 6 degrees? Absolutely not.



All he's calculating is where you need to lay the ball down and what board at the arrows you have to cross in order to throw the ball in a straight line to a point down the lane. He's creating a line that will intersect the 6* line. It will not make the ball path merge with the 6* line.



His drawing is just a drawing. It doesn't mean a ball behaves in that way. His chart creates straight lines that do not end up at the pocket. If you do not throw the ball with the right ball speed, axis rotation, axis tilt and RPM's, you're never going to achieve a 6* entry angle. This chart makes it no more or less likely. Modifying how you throw the ball will do that.



Again, it only tells you how to hit a point down lane, in a straight line. That's all it does.



I'm not making it any harder than it is. Why are you guys over simplifying how a steeper entry angle is acheived?

Again, there's no contention that his chart shows you where to stand and what to aim at if you want to hit a certian point down the lane, but hitting a point on that line will not make the ball follow that line. And in fact, if you do actually hit that point in a straight line, the ball absolutely won't follow it. My contention is that if you actually do hit the down lane target in a straight line, you'll miss the pocket all together. But again, you can't possibly tell if you hit the 7.5 board at 52.27 feet anyway.

And here is a diagram of the last 17 or so feet to the head pin. On a 38 foot house shot, the oil would have ended 5 feet before the beginning of this section of the lane. That means that the ball would more than likely start hooking by the beginning of this diagram.

Most bowlers balls will start to hook to the pocket and stay inside this line the entire time because they don't generate enough angle with the ball they throw and the way they throw it.

Now if you go back to Joe's example of bowling on the Scorpion, he ended up playing almost straight up the boards, with the ball getting as far right as, I think, 10. Now the beginning of my image is at about 43 feet, so by this time, the ball is in the dry and it's going to be seeing friction and it's going to be starting to move towards the pocket. More than likely, with the ball entering the dry at this angle and on about the 10 board, it seems probable to me that his shots were hitting the pocket at an angle of something less than 6 degrees.

Here's another image. The red line is straight up 10 and the yellow line is what I'd see as the probable ball path, which is has a less than 6* entry angle.

This thread is so frustrating.

The targeting system doesn't help you get lined up. It doesn't help you get a certain amount of entry angle.

What it is is 5 sets of lines that intersect 5 points, respectively. If you want to know where to aim to hit one of those 5 points, while standing on a certain board, it helps.

No more, no less.

I'll be honest. The targeting system I use, based on breakpoints, would benefit from a guide like this that let me know where I need to put my target to hit a certain breakpoint from a certain stance board. It wouldn't be this system, because my breakpoint is never (intentionally) on the line being used for targets, but the premise (aiming at a certain point and having a chart to help you keep aiming at that point as you move laterally) is sound.

I just don't like that it is being presented as a way to achieve 6 degrees of entry angle. I don't know if that was the intention, but that's how it's coming off, and it's simply not true.

My problem is what do you do when your "line" passes directly over a loose board or a board with a big chip taken out of it? Now what do you do?

What happens if the nozzel of the machine that passes over that board at the point is clogged? Or the batteries in the cordless machine are getting low or to the point where the machine is stopped on the lane and has to be drug back manually?

These kinds of things happen every single day in bowling centers. If you are using these lines and numbers as a means to line up, I don't see how you can depend on them lane to lane, day to day.

I know a lot of work went into creating these numbers and lines, but to me they just seem totally impractical.

Erin

This is my kind of thread I am sad to say.
I am in order of competence an engineer, software programmer and bowler. After reading through this thread I would like to suggest that the path of a bowling ball can either be described as a straight line or a logarithmic curve but not a simple arc.
Wikipedia Logarithm

Calculating this curve based on simply fitting the data to match the observed values would be fairly trivial. However the variables that would make this data more predictable are quite complex. For example increasing speed would flatten the curve increasing revolutions would accentuate the curve. The more challenging problem would be to allow for the effects of the cover stock and the oil pattern and the resulting coefficients of friction at various points along the balls path.
The above does not even address the issue with variations in release ball to ball etc.

I will however mull the problem for a few days to see if I can contribute more to the thread

All the best

BowlCalc

Finally, a constructive discussion has emerged.

I'll use myself as the beta test, here, and hopefully respond to your concerns.

First, let's clarify some questions.



Nowhere does Joe state that your ball will follow that 6* angle line. He simply states to note where the ball crosses that line. That is the indication of which ball chart calculations to use. If it crosses at the 7.5 board, then use his calcs for 7.5 to move accordingly to achieve a pocket hit. If it crosses at the 2.5 board, use that chart.



This is your misconception. The points on that line where your ball hits is not a target. It is an observation of your ball roll. His starting premise is that the combination of your ball crossing the 6* line in relation to a pocket hit defines your ball path line. A ball crossing the line at 15 boards into the pocket would have a fairly straight trajectory. A ball crossing at the 2.5 board would have an significant back end reaction, maybe a skid/Flip. But, it's the combination of pocket hit and crossing point.



Again, don't be obsessed with the 6*angle line. It's not a target, and most likely your ball will not roll on it. The line is simply a series of co-ordinates via a calculation that is fairly accurate. And one co-ordinate of that line crosses the 7.5 board at 52.27 feet from the foul line. His movement calculations, left or right are the important points.

I don't have time to go through all of your comments. I want to get to your lane drawings. Specifically, the one where you drew in the red line straight shot and the yellow probable ball path. First, on the yellow ball path. I probably wouldn't change much, since that line hit the pocket. And, your drawing shows a fairly shallow ball arc that hits the 6* line at maybe 14 bd, and a 3* entry angle. I'd maybe move a bd right with that shot. Don't know what Joe''s 14 bd chart would show, but I'd bet it would be close.
But, on the red straight line, look at where it hit the 6* angle line. Assume it's the 7.5 board, then look at Joe's 7.5 calcs. He has a reference of 10 bd at the arrows and 10.99 bd at the laydown. That's pretty straight and coincides with your red line. Then he calculates where to move. It could be the 4 bd at the arrows, but the ball start has to be at the 2.69 board. That gets you to a point 60 feet down lane to the pocket. If my calcs are correct, it would hit the pocket at the 16.96 bd. Or you could target the 17 bd at the arrows with a laydown at 21.03, which would get you to the pocket. I have trouble with this calc, since I see it will hit at the 16.36 board, and probably prone for deflection.

Do either of these enter at 6*? Absolutely not!!. But, do they get you to the pocket? Yes.

Joe changed the ball line based on the crossing point that you noticed when the first ball crossed his optimum 6* angle line. His chart shows either an outside straight line to the pocket or a straight line down the center. And, some points in between.

Let's get back to his original question. Joe had asked for help in verifying that his calculations were correct. I am not capable of doing that. But, maybe you are. Or others?? He asked for confirmation of the statistics, not a critique of his premise.

If his calculations are off, then he needs to go back to the drawing board.

Let's step back even further. His chart is straight lines, from the foul line to a point on the 6* line. If the ball follows that path and crosses the 6* line at that point, the ball will not hit the pocket.



Actually it's your misconception. Again, his chart draws a straight line from the board the ball is set down on to that point on the 6* line. He gives you 3 points, all in a perfectly straight line. There's no accounting for ball roll at all. If your ball actually reaches that point, it means it went perfectly straight, even through part of the dry back end. If it does this, you're not going to hit the pocket. You're more than likely not going to even his the 3 pin.




It is the target. How can you say it's not? He chart in bold letters says Target 7.5 Board@ 52.27 Feet. Why would you call something a target if it wasn't a target? And again, it's a target on a straight line. And one of Joe's assertations is that this will give you a 6* entry angle. He also said that he thought that all balls started at the same trajectory that hit the pocket would all have a 6* entry angle, regardless of the ball path. He's very much claiming that this gives you a 6* entry angle.



It never hits the 6* line. The only point they share is right at the pocket. If it crossed over the line, it would be light in the pocket. If it only meets at the one point at the pocket, it's a shallower angle. If it follows the line, it would be a 6* angle.



The red line, as I said in the post, is straight up the 10 board. I wanted to illustrate how much farther the ball would have to go to get to the 6* line. So since it's straight up the 10 board, it intersects the 6* line at the 10 board.



That's not what he's doing. He's just drawing straight lines from the foul line to a point on the 6* line. Reread how he said he used this on the Scorpion. This chart doesn't calculate anything for you. It's simply a bunch of straight lines from the foul line to targets on the 6* line. He never made any claim that you can look at the point where you cross the 6* line and adjust backwards.



He did what he'd normally do, in his head, but instead of just telling himself that he was going to stand at a certain spot and aim at a certain spot, he picked lines from his chart instead. Again, the chart didn't tell him what to pick. He made that decision. The chart is just a bunch of lines.



His calculations are correct. They, again, draw straight lines from the foul line to a target on the 6* line. Nothing more, nothing less.

Unless you end up creating > 6* entry angle, your ball will never cross that line on a shot that hits the pocket. If you end up at 6*, and your ball rolls out before it hits the pocket, it may roll on the line for a short period.

I just really want to clarify here that the system is a set of adjustments - there may be some patterns that they work on - I seriously doubt they will work on all. On a sport shot, I often find I need to make a 1 and 1 move - this system doesn't give me that, and I probably won't use it.



My constructive feedback on the validity of the calculations is that the first arrow is at 12 feet, and the 4th is at 15 feet. 2nd and 3rd at 13 and 14, respectively. If you're playing pretty straight it's not too important, but if you're crossing a lot of boards, hitting the 20th board at 12 feet could mean hitting the 19th board at 15 feet. Something to keep in mind when using the chart to find your target at the arrows.

I didn't actually run the numbers.

The chart attached below includes Target Lines to the exit points for the sport patterns (Cheetah, Viper, Chameleon, Scorpion, Shark).

The exit points are based on the pattern length minus 31 theory proposed by Joe Slowinski. I am not saying whether the theory is correct, but at least one poster on this thread suggested such a chart would be more valuable than one with points on the 6-degree line. Hopefully, my math is correct.

Good luck and good bowling.

Joe - Do you take into account that the arrows aren't all at 15 feet? I think Cgeorg mentioned above that the 1st arrows are at 12, the second are at 13, 3rd at 14 and the 5th at 15. I can see where something like this would help people get lined up to get the ball to those points down the lane.

Question lefty? Why is it that using the pattern length minus 31 formula and figures makes it somehow more valid than using what was posted earlier?

I am not arguing whether the ball achieves a 6 degree entry angle, because to be honest I don't care if it ever does. I think the best part of the chart is that if notes were added by the bowler, it could help one adjust over time. Every person has a formula running in their head that gives them what adjustment to make based on what is going on down lane, why is it that Joe shares his formula that he runs in his head and its wrong? If it works for him, it works just fine, no different than someone else using a ball that doesn't work for me and they score great. Each individual is always decoding the lanes, if Joe is trying to go out of his way to help out a new bowler that is completely lost in the game, why is that such a bad thing. Sure you think its wrong, you made your point, move on.

The short answer is yes. For this and the original chart, below are the coordinates I used for the arrows, foul line dots, and approach dots. In each case, the center of the marker was used to determine the coordinate. For in-between boards, the center position was calculated along a line that joins the center of the existing markers.

(x=inches, y=feet)

Arrows:
1st (4.78846, 14.15625)
2nd (10.10897, 14.65625)
3rd (15.42949, 15.15625)
4th (20.75, 15.65625)
5th (26.07051, 15.15625)
6th (31.39102, 14.65625)
7th (36.71154, 14.15625)

Foul Line Dots:
1st (4.78846, -0.29167)
2nd (10.10897, -0.29167)
3rd (15.42949, -0.29167)
4th (20.75, -0.29167)
5th (26.07051, -0.29167)
6th (31.39102, -0.29167)
7th (36.71154, -0.29167)

Approach Dots:
1st (4.78846, -11.875)
2nd (10.10897, -11.875)
3rd (15.42949, -11.875)
4th (20.75, -11.875)
5th (26.07051, -11.875)
6th (31.39102, -11.875)
7th (36.71154, -11.875)

I expect there may be some differences from one bowling center to another, as the USBC specification do not requires specific placement, just placement within a range.

Joe, thanks for the sport pattern chart. Incidentally, my downlane target for my house shot is about the same as the Viper pattern (40 foot house shot, but with the taper it's not 40 feet nearer the edge), so that chart should be usable this Wednesday night. I'll try it out and let you know. There have been a few nights when I haven't had to move, and a couple where I had to change my breakpoint, but for the most part I am able to make standard adjustments. Like I said, I'll let you know.

One followup - for 10 at the arrows, does that mean the center of the 10th board, or the crack between the 10th and 11th board?

On the approach, would 6.5 be the middle of the 7th board, or would 7 be the middle of the 7th board?

10th board would be the center of the 10th board.
6.5th board would be the crack between the 6th and 7th board.
7th board would be the middle of the 7th board.

EDIT: This was in response to Sk8's question to me.

I don't think the pattern - 31 figures make anything more valid as far as achieving a 6* entry angle. I think his original PDF is useful if you want to figure out how to target the points he has as targets. I just don't see how choosing those targets is beneficial.

When you choose targets at the end of the pattern using pattern - 31, you're using points that Slowinski and Neil Stremmel determined work as good exit points from patterns, no matter the style of bowler. Their research said that if that's where you exit the pattern, no matter the angle, you will create the most margin for error.

Will they be exact for everyone on every pattern? No. But it's going to give someone who hasn't been able to wrap their head around where they should be standing and where they should be targeting an idea of where those points should be instead of just guessing wildly about how to get the ball to the 9th board at 40 feet.

So the chart is "how" to get the ball to those points. There's no difference in how valid that is between the two. The difference is in "why" you'd want to target those points.

Ok, I was just curious as to why one was considered "valid" and the other was considered "invalid". Thanks for the answer, I understand what you are saying.