For the good of the sport?

Posted by: BOSStull

For the good of the sport? - 03/11/18 10:10 AM

Is it? Be interesting to see if these changes are implemented. My guess no but who knows.
Attached is the new proposed changes if you have not already read.
Posted by: BOSStull

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/11/18 10:15 AM

oops posted twice
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/11/18 11:30 AM

One sticks out to me as having a obvious problem, and that is #3 about liquid cleaners. What happens when there is a machine malfunction of some sort and a foreign substance that adversely affects my bowling ends up on my ball. If it can only be effectively removed by a liquid cleaner, am I just supposed to deal with it and do nothing?

Mark
Posted by: djp1080

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/11/18 11:31 AM

Just about all of my bowling balls have balance holes in them. Perhaps the answer to what to do is to just plug the balance holes. I'll be spending money with the pro shop, but it won't be too bad. Perhaps I'll have to plug and redrill them. At least I won't have to throw away anything with a high differential value as that would cost me more.
Chad Murphy is everyone's best friend.
I think the USBC should have focused solely on the oil absorption as that's what takes the oil off the lanes "too quickly" like it's stated. It's what kills the reaction of the ball over time as well. I'd rather have a ball last longer than be an oil hog.
Have a great day... smile
Posted by: SteveH

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/11/18 11:49 AM

I've heard many state that some will simply go to filling them with foam or a substance that makes plugging a moot point. What I think is hilarious is the study comparing bowlers throwing strong balls on heavier oil versus urethane on light oil. With no reference to actual reality, the USBC is stating that their goal is less oil, which of course proprietors (BPAA is in the same building), love this idea.
Since league conditions are regulated as much as deer hunting on the Moon, I wonder where all this oil is during most league bowling?
Posted by: champ

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/11/18 05:58 PM

I hate these "studies" not because of anything having to do with equipment but because of what it represents.

To me, these studies represent a USBC wasting time, energy, and resources. Not focusing on bringing value to USBC membership. Not focusing on advertising or attempting to lure more bowlers to the game. Not focusing on what really matters to the 99% of league bowlers.

At first I was excited to see an accomplished and respected bowler taking over USBC. The more I watch Cad however, the more I see he's really only interested in pushing an agenda that the 1% rumble about.

That's what I think of these studies. My favorite balls have always been the lowest tier in the lineup. I love Vibes and Tropical Heats. I won't miss the super soakers. Scores were sky high in the 90s when strong reactive then is comparable to weak reactive today. Once the lane oilers catch up to the rule changes, scores will remain high. This will make no difference at all.

Wasted time.

In the mean time leagues continue to dwindle. Members gripe about value. Many leagues go unsanctioned. Sandbagging seriously infiltrated the USBC Open last year. Those are the things that matter to me and most of us. How do we get more people bowling? Answer that question first; then we can focus on whether or not equipment is too strong, if there's too much oil, and how do we "slope rate" each house in America.
Posted by: BOSStull

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/12/18 07:47 PM

As for the ball cleaner all approve during competition cleaners should be allowed but limited to use only when a foreign substance other than lane oil is on the ball. I have seen bowlers that have a wet rag and use after every ball return and then thrown on top of other balls. I can see where the dry rag proposal came from.

As for the other proposal I have no problem as long as balls are grandfathered in. Most of my balls have balance holes and would have to be plugged. I don't think that the USBC members should have to bare the cost of making a previously approved ball legal again.

Ball manufacturers will just design cores that the dynamics of a ball can be changed by just changing how or where the holes are drilled. Radical has already done that with the FIX. They will find a way to enhance the drilling without motion holes.

And by the way I do not intend to purchase another ball until USBC makes their decision. Why drill a ball today that may need to be plugged or not be able to drill a ball in a way that is illegal today but legal tomorrow.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/13/18 09:05 AM

Originally Posted By: BOSStull
As for the ball cleaner all approve during competition cleaners should be allowed but limited to use only when a foreign substance other than lane oil is on the ball. I have seen bowlers that have a wet rag and use after every ball return and then thrown on top of other balls. I can see where the dry rag proposal came from.

I agree with the wet rag/towel on other equipment being an issue. However, I'm more inclined that they're looking at ball reaction since that's the basis of a lot of the other rules such as absorption or the balance holes. If they did put in a foreign substance exception, I could see the rule being too vague and possibly abused. Could someone "accidentally" get a foreign substance on their ball after taking it away from the return as an excuse to clean it in the middle of competition? I know it could be a stretch, but it could be possible.

Mark
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/13/18 06:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Mkirchie
One sticks out to me as having a obvious problem, and that is #3 about liquid cleaners. What happens when there is a machine malfunction of some sort and a foreign substance that adversely affects my bowling ends up on my ball. If it can only be effectively removed by a liquid cleaner, am I just supposed to deal with it and do nothing?

Mark


If it's an approved ball cleaner, you can use it. It's happened to me where the ball stuck in the return rubber wheel, and I routinely inform the opponent that I am cleaning it. Never had a problem. And, they never checked my cleaner for approval either.
Posted by: wronghander

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/13/18 09:43 PM

Originally Posted By: champ
My favorite balls have always been the lowest tier in the lineup. I love Vibes and Tropical Heats. I won't miss the super soakers. Scores were sky high in the 90s when strong reactive then is comparable to weak reactive today. Once the lane oilers catch up to the rule changes, scores will remain high. This will make no difference at all.

I agree that the scores will remain high but I do think it will make a difference. The other issue is bowling becoming an arms race where it's really about the ball in your hand rather than the ability of the bowler. Sure, on the house shot you might be able to get to the pocket with anything but it all comes down to carry. With less oil those Vibes and Tropical Heats are going to work better, plus you don't have to worry about other bowlers on your pair with the big daddy oil soaker chewing up the heads or burning up a line inside yours.

I also like the proposal to change from one to three ounces of side weight. I was concerned before when this was first rumored because I'd be severely limited with drilling options (a lot of my balls do have balance holes) but the extra allowance should allow my driller to get me the reaction I want and still be within legal specifications.

If I have to spend some money to get stuff plugged (or on that foam that Steve mentioned) that's fine too cause less oil will mean the balls I have should last longer plus I hopefully will not feel the need to purchase multiple bowling balls each season to keep up with the scoring pace.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/14/18 08:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Dennis Michael
If it's an approved ball cleaner, you can use it.


Unfortunately, this is the proposed change as it is currently worded.

Proposed change #3
USBC proposes a new rule allowing only a “dry towel” to be used to clean bowling balls during competition and prohibiting liquid cleaners of any kind to be used during competition. Additional information: This proposal remains unchanged with a proposed effective date of August 1, 2019.

Without an exception, to me the USBC is saying "Deal with it".

Mark
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/14/18 10:22 AM

If I'm getting my head handed to me, is that still considered competition? LOL!
Posted by: BowlerBill

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/14/18 08:59 PM

We can still use liquid cleaners before competition starts. Could this rule change be directed at the cleaners that have solids in them that seem to scuff the surface a little like Storms' Reacta Skuff?

To me a cleaner that changes the surface should not be used during competition.

I have a few balls with balance holes. The BH was put there because it was necessary to meet static weight limits. Plugging the BH will make these balls illegal and re-drilling might end up making the ball a dud.

The implementation time line is forward enough where I probably won't be using them anymore but it means I won't be able to dust an old ball off once in awhile to see if it still works.
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/15/18 04:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Mkirchie
Originally Posted By: Dennis Michael
If it's an approved ball cleaner, you can use it.


Unfortunately, this is the proposed change as it is currently worded.

Proposed change #3
USBC proposes a new rule allowing only a “dry towel” to be used to clean bowling balls during competition and prohibiting liquid cleaners of any kind to be used during competition. Additional information: This proposal remains unchanged with a proposed effective date of August 1, 2019.

Without an exception, to me the USBC is saying "Deal with it".

Mark


When the ball comes back with gooey black substance on it, there is no way a dry cloth can clean it. OK, then I take 10-15 mins to clean my ball, too bad to the others.
Posted by: Dylan585

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/15/18 11:23 PM

So my laptop is being weird right now... So as a two handed bowler who doesn't use his thumb this would mean that I would only be allowed two holes in the ball?
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/16/18 12:38 AM

Currently, you’re actually permitted to have up to 12 holes!

– You can have up to five holes for gripping purposes (one for each finger and one for the thumb, all for the same hand). Although you’re not required to use all five holes on every shot, you must be prepared to demonstrate that you can.

– You can have one hole for balance purposes (a weight hole), not to exceed one and a quarter inches (1 ¼) in diameter.

– You are allowed one vent hole for each finger and/or thumb hole, not to exceed ¼ in in diameter. A vent hole is any non-gripping hole that intersects with a gripping hole at any depth.

– You are allowed one mill hole for inspection purposes not to exceed 5/8 of an inch in diameter and 1/8 of an inch in depth.

Any hole not used for its intended purpose is considered a balance hole and would be a violation of the rule.

________

Under the proposed rule, only the balance hole is being eliminated.

________

Since you only use 2 holes, that's all you need. However, if you can demonstrate that you can actually use other holes, they would be available.
Posted by: 6_ball_man

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/16/18 08:30 AM

mixed emotions....almost all my stuff has a flare reducing hole, some have a flare INCREASING hole. If balance holes are eliminated all together I will have to do more research before selecting a piece to be punched. I suppose if everyone else has the same spec to deal with I will have to conform, but what about the mountain of equipment I currently can make use of, even if only on "special" occasions?
Posted by: BOSStull

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/18/18 10:28 AM


I am going to throw this out there for those they may have missed this article.

https://www.11thframe.com/news/article/1...latest-proposed
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/18/18 11:41 AM

I find it sort of interesting that these two points are made in the article.

"5) a lack of checking lanes for legal oiling conditions" as a reason for higher scores.

"Give out 300 and 800 awards again only on conditions that meet “Award Requirements.” This could be an 8, 9, or 10:1 ration with a minimum of 6, 7, or 8 units of oil on the outside boards to where the machine starts to buff" as a solution.

I like the intent, but if regulation of conditions is already a problem who is going to go around to all these award leagues and check for compliance? I do like how there is wiggle room so different centers could account for different or older surfaces.

However, I also question whether bowlers would really migrate to the award leagues for the awards over their egos. Additionally, his idea of charging bowlers more for bowling in more leagues could backfire. If that were to happen, I'm only going to bowl in an award league because I want my money to go to an award I could earn. There could also be a limitation for those who can only bowl league at certain times or nights and if no award leagues are offered then, someone might not bowl leagues at all if they know their sanction money is going to awards they cannot earn.

Again, I like the idea. However, I think that any idea that relies on a prediction of human behavior and reaction to the change worries me.

Mark
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/18/18 12:52 PM

Where I bowl, whenever the lane pattern is changed to make the shot more realistic, the whiners go right to the mechanic, desk or even management to vent. Not a single person schedules another day of practice. The idea that 'stake-holders' will regulate themselves, won't work.

USBC is long over-due in making these changes. There may be other changes necessary to make the game credible again. If you ask me, USBC also needs to visit places 'quietly' where averages are statistically out of line to see why.

I always claim to have a 187 lifetime average, even while I've averaged over 200 in at least one league since 1968. I base any average over 187 on my ability to take advantage of ball or lane pattern technologies. Put a hard rubber ball in my hand on a 60 foot long oil pattern and I 'think' I can still average in the high 180's.

I'm not suggesting that conditions become that demanding again, but what USBC is proposing, is minor compared to what 'could' be done to make the game credible again. Of course, we could just put asterisks next to our honor scores and averages :-)
Posted by: Dylan585

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/20/18 11:38 PM

If they change all the regulations for making certain leagues qualify for scoring that's the end of the USBC... Most alleys just simply wont comply... at that point why pay the sacantioning fee... We need to start focusing on getting more people bowling and that is the biggest issue facing our sport... Everybody is distracted by the high scores to realize that no more youth want to bowl! Deal with that before anything else. Everybody loves to complain about this that and the other thing about how its "the integrity of the game" but for Christ sakes! Youre gonna have nobody left to govern by these new rules!
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/21/18 12:04 AM

Ever read the current rules for golf? A person needs to lawyer up before playing in any USGA event. I haven't noticed golf suffering because the rules are too strict.

Bowling's popularity is only suffering here in America. Overseas, it does better and it's actually growing in some countries.

As long as our youth and even some adults spend more time on an iPhone than with other 'real' people, bowling will suffer. We've created an entire Sesame Street generation looking for instant gratification and bowling doesn't provide that.

Bowling just isn't attractive enough for everyone. The worst aspect, the real estate that most sit on is worth a small fortune. Faced with a 3% profit margin and becoming an instant millionaire, I'd be selling :-) A 10-year CD will return 2.9% risk free.
Posted by: Dylan585

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/21/18 12:22 AM

You can blame what you want to blame for the decline of bowling but you cant tell me that changing this that and the other thing will be good for getting more people bowling... As for the golf analogy, I don't know how many people go to USGA events usually... A lot of people go bowling now just to drink and bowl in the lights... I compare that to when I go golfing with my buddies with a 30 pack and have fun... Again, I don't know enough about golf but I have a hard time imagining that these USGA tournaments have a lot of young golfers
Posted by: Dylan585

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/21/18 12:24 AM

I mean no offense when I say this but the only way to get more yoth in bowling is to start including them more. I have one guy in my league who will nit pick every single little rule he can to try and get free games off other people.
Posted by: SteveH

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/22/18 12:02 AM

Not really that Boat. The USBC is an elitist organization now solely dependent upon the 95% (or more) of bowling they don't even look at. USBC could care less about league bowling, which is virtually unregulated. When they discuss the Integrity Of The Sport, they never mention the fact that lanes have been unregulated for decades.

Golf is a sane sport regulated by common sense for the most part. Golfers, and the USGA, understand that their leagues don't mater as far as the sport goes. That does make golfers smarter than bowlers, especially since golfers don't fund the USGA.

It's high time for the sport of bowling to cut ties with recreational bowling, which includes leagues.
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/22/18 04:32 AM

My point was, making the game more difficult won't drive participants away. When bowling was really difficult, it was in it's hay-day.

What's hurting bowling isn't the rules or USBC. For young people, it's simply not as popular as what can be done on an iPhone.

I remember being a junior coach back in the late 70's and early 80's. One of the biggest problems was getting the kids out of the game rooms and down on the lanes. Back then, maybe 10% wanted to become better bowlers. The other 90% could have cared less.

That trend continues today. I don't know how a proprietor can make bowling more exciting to participants. Light-shows and loud music may draw a few teens on Fridays and Saturdays, but it won't encourage them to bowl in a league where they need to make a commitment for months.

Maybe grab-bag mixed-doubles where young people get a chance to meet others of the opposite [censored] in a controlled environment :-)
Posted by: SteveH

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/22/18 11:45 AM

From what I've heard, even back in the day, conditions varied. Even before the short oil era.

Most league bowlers want a fun night out. We had a fun league with no prize fun. Everyone loved it, juniors, adults, music. All different averages there.

It's hard to make league bowling exciting, but apparently pretty easy to make it not fun.
Posted by: SportBowler Joe

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/23/18 12:37 AM

Conditions did vary back in the day, in the '70s lots of bowlers (at least around here in (SoCal) flocked to the easier houses but still when an honor score was shot the ABC came out and inspected the lanes every time, though honor scores were rather rare back then.
Posted by: SteveH

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/23/18 11:05 AM

That's what I've heard from a lot of people around the country. Many like revisionist history that starts with Back in the day.......

When the BPAA forced the 3-unit rule and got away with no inspections, that was the end of true honor scores. Although it's relatively easy to come out with decent house shots that are at least challenging, but not that difficult, most don't want them. USBC has already changed their expert recs for ball specs twice, and many don't think they're even close to being on target.

I know that with current house shots, there's really no reason to have many of the expensive top of the line monsters out there now.
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/23/18 11:18 AM

Agree completely. Anyone buying top-of-the-line balls, are probably wasting $50 or more. Science has proven that there 'is' a placebo effect, so if people believe a new ball will do the trick, who am I to burst their bubble?

However, if reducing hook and increasing RG keep the game honest, I'm for it. Personally, I'd like to see THS's become flatter. Make spare shooting a bigger factor again.
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/23/18 02:53 PM

Originally Posted By: SteveH
From what I've heard, even back in the day, conditions varied. Even before the short oil era.


Not really. Back in the day, all bowlers, amateur and Pro, bowled on the same shot. Wooden lanes, laquered.

There was no shot, and it was the same from house to house.

The advent of synthetic lanes created the slide as part of the ball path. Prior to that, a bowler got the ball to roll right off his hand.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/23/18 03:54 PM

I think it depends on what you want to consider as back in the day. The urethane lane finishes on wood lanes also played a factor in increasing the slide phase.

Originally Posted By: Dennis Michael
Prior to that, a bowler got the ball to roll right off his hand.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean roll in the sense of the USBC defined roll phase that occurs just before the pin deck, right? If that was the case, then bowlers of that era would have their ball complete nearly 27 full rotations before the pins and if released at 17 mph would need to have 673 rpm off the hand. I am wondering how you are using roll in the statement. I do believe that the changes have made the slide/skid phase become so important due to how much longer it is today than it ever used to be.

Mark
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/23/18 05:51 PM

No mark, better bowlers rolled the ball right off their hand. Purpose was back then, to eliminate the skid. Opposite of what we do now. With lacquer all the way to the pin deck, there was no place to gain friction. So, it was important to get into the roll as fast as possible. Ball side rotation generated from finger lift cause it to hook. Some would snap their fingers as the ball left their hand, most used suitcase grip too.

hahaha, 673 rpm. What a guy. No, the balls didn't have internal weights, and the rpm's were imparted by your hand and fingers. I can still remember I could hear the ball spinning as it hit the lane.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/24/18 07:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Dennis Michael
hahaha, 673 rpm. What a guy. No, the balls didn't have internal weights

I asked question based on the numbers. This has nothing to do with internal weights or how people bowl differently then compared to now. It also pertains to the type of motion that the USBC describes as the roll phase.

The circumference of a bowling ball is 26.7 inches. Since it was likely a full roller, I can assume that the entire circumference of the ball has to touch the lane in one rotation.

A bowling lane is 720 inches from the foul line to the head pin.

(720 in)/(26.7 in/rotation) = 26.96 rotations in one trip down lane.

A bowling ball thrown at 17 mph would reach the head pin in 2.4 seconds. If we assume it never slides and only rolls (the roll phase), it would have to complete all 26.96 rotations in 2.4 seconds.

(26.96 rotations)/(2.4 seconds) = 11.2 rotations/second

(11.2 rotations/second)*(60 seconds/min)=674 rotations/minute

To never slide and only roll, a ball released at 17 mph would have to have 674 rpm the instant it touched the lane. That means 674 rpm off of the hand.

Mark
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/24/18 07:57 AM

I never argue with empirical evidence.
Posted by: djp1080

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/24/18 03:19 PM

I'd suppose that the ball once released slid a little bit. How much who knows?
Cripes! I didn't think I ever came close to a 600 rev rate back in the 60's. smile I had a pretty good hook though with my Black Beauty. Still have it, too... Looks nice and shiny...
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/24/18 03:38 PM

I don't think anyone threw 600 RPM's in the 60's, although we tried. We called them armpit-balls :-) No thumb, just fingers and you had to carry the ball high on your body next to your shoulder to keep a hold. Hadn't thought of 2 hands yet. At the very end, your arm would uncoil and put unimaginable rev's on the ball. Because the oil ran for 60 feet, there wasn't a hook or roll phase to increase RPM's like today. The ball just had a 60 foot skid phase. Everyone tried to throw a full roller then. Bowling balls were made from 16 pound industrial diamonds :-) After a hundred games or so, a track about 1/2 inch wide would begin to appear :-)

When lacquer came out, then things began to change. We thought balls hooked a lot then. LOL! Nobody could imagine what was coming.

I think Wayne Webb was the first person to offset the pancake weight block and drill a balance hole. We called them floppers. After that, everyone converted to 3/4 rollers to take advantage of the dynamic weight. Axis weight, leverage weight and floppers were popular.
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/25/18 04:46 AM

Look at the Septuagenarians chiming in on this topic. It's only we, who have been there, that can say these things.

djp, you threw a hook, because you learned how to bowl, not just buy one in a box. I remember my first semi-fingertip ball. No one could believe how that ball hooked. I rolled lower to the floor then. And, when the ball met the lane, I could hear it spin right off my hand. My target was between the first and second dots at the foul line,straight up. We didn't have arrows then. The ball would travel about 45 feet , then make a radical turn to the pocket, sending 5 pins at the 7. I could feel a strike right off my hand.

And, 10 pins were easy then too. IDK why, but they were. Threw the ball at the gutter about 50 feet and the ball turned to hit it.

I know Mark will say my ball was sliding if I heard the spin and it turned at 45 feet.
Maybe it was.

And, I had to be 5-6 MPH faster too.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/25/18 08:30 AM

I sort of learned how to hook without the "hook in a box". In the fall of 1995, I got my first "high end" ball, which is the Turbo in my avatar. It was an upgrade to a 16 lb ball from a more generic 14 lb urethane with a pancake block. At the same time, my center installed synthetic lanes. I'm not sure whether the ball or the lanes played more of a factor in this, but my average jumped around 20-30 pins that season to be averaging with the top bowlers in high school who were all using resin. My average dropped the first season I used resin until I got used to it.

Keep in mind that until somewhat recently, everyone also thought that the motion of the ball was skid, roll, hook. A ball that is rolling without slipping/sliding (the USBC roll phase) experiences static friction and physically cannot hook unless the static weights are crazy illegal. A ball in the roll phase without sliding/slipping would never gain RPMs. The point of contact of the ball has to be sliding relative to the lane for kinetic friction to cause a change in direction and an increase in RPMs. Imagine rolling any ball on a perfectly level surface such that its direction of motion is perpendicular to the axis around which it rotates; it will not change direction. You mentioned side rotation earlier. If the ball's motion relative to the lane is straight forwards and it has side rotation, it experiences kinetic friction and is not rolling without slipping/sliding no matter how many RPMs the ball has.

This was more about asking what you mean by roll vs. what the USBC means by the roll phase, which was my original question. We have to be careful with observations as they also need to be justified by reasoning that is consistent across all phenomenon.

Mark
Posted by: djp1080

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/25/18 11:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Dennis Michael
Look at the Septuagenarians chiming in on this topic. It's only we, who have been there, that can say these things.

djp, you threw a hook, because you learned how to bowl, not just buy one in a box. I remember my first semi-fingertip ball. No one could believe how that ball hooked. I rolled lower to the floor then. And, when the ball met the lane, I could hear it spin right off my hand. My target was between the first and second dots at the foul line,straight up. We didn't have arrows then. The ball would travel about 45 feet , then make a radical turn to the pocket, sending 5 pins at the 7. I could feel a strike right off my hand.

And, 10 pins were easy then too. IDK why, but they were. Threw the ball at the gutter about 50 feet and the ball turned to hit it.

I know Mark will say my ball was sliding if I heard the spin and it turned at 45 feet.
Maybe it was.

And, I had to be 5-6 MPH faster too.

Yes Dennis, Been there and have done that!
I believe my first ball was a 16 pounder Black Beauty. When I heard about fingertip grips, I got one. Don't recall how I lined up, but it was probably a down and in shot along the right side.
Your explanation of the 10-pin shots was what experienced, too. I never heard of flattening out my shot either, so I didn't. Stayed with the same type of release each time no matter what.
In the 80's got the LT48. My hook monster for the time. Great ball.
Always threw a full-roller as I've said here many times. I still fight the tendency to do just that. I've gotten control of my backswing pretty much and I like the feel of the ball coming off my fingers on the inside of the ball now. My speed has dropped from 19 to 20 mph down to around 16 mph off my hand. Hopefully that's about right.
Lately have been working hard on my spare shooting ability. I've amazed myself on picking up stuff like the 4-9, 4-5 and 1-2-10 regularly. Of course, there's not much excuse for having missed the darn head pin, is there? smile
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/25/18 02:00 PM

We did everything legal to get more on the ball. Some people used 'stickum' on their finger tips. There were also cork finger lifts you could pick up to give your finger tips more traction. I used medical tape. I had to carry a small can of turpentine to clean out my finger holes when I changed the tape. Talk about primitive :-)

I ran into Billy Hardwick at a senior masters event once and his thumb was permanently damaged by what he had used in his thumb holes over the years.

Looking back, I would say most of it was a waste of time. What ever added advantage was achieved, was probably minuscule when put up against the oil that was laid down.

I can remember lining up right of the right gutter and lofting the gutter so the ball came down on the 1-3 board on an angle to the pocket. Occasionally, if the ball was set down too far right, the thumb-hole would cause a slight howl as it rotated over the gutter :-)
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/25/18 02:17 PM

Originally Posted By: 82Boat69
We did everything legal to get more on the ball. Some people used 'stickum' on their finger tips. There were also cork finger lifts you could pick up to give your finger tips more traction. I used medical tape. I had to carry a small can of turpentine to clean out my finger holes when I changed the tape. Talk about primitive :-)

I ran into Billy Hardwick at a senior masters event once and his thumb was permanently damaged by what he had used in his thumb holes over the years.

This made me think of a question about today vs. then. Did bowlers develop the same sort of stress injuries to other parts of the body that they do now considering how different the body mechanics are today?

Mark
Posted by: BOSStull

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/25/18 03:39 PM

My back in the day would be the mid to late 70s. I used a Dickey Weber 5 Star bowling ball back then. I really did not try to overly hook the ball. I laid the ball down on the 1-2 board with a gradual curve into the pocket. So you can say I played the TWIG almost all the time and was somewhat successful as compared to the competition in my centers at the time.
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/25/18 03:39 PM

Interesting that you ask :-) We use to discuss injuries all the time. The objective was to get as much on the ball as possible but not be so radical that our careers would be over by age 40.

First, everyone was throwing 16 pounds. Secondly, nobody had a really high back-swing. Just about everyone tucked their little finger. Our wrists were cocked and our hand was way under the ball with our thumb way right. At the point of release, it would all come unwound. A good analogy would be the motion used to start a lawnmower with a pull rope :-)

Most of my friend ended up wearing wrist braces and forearm straps to unload the stress later in their lives. I still get an injury I've never had diagnosed. My wrist gets really sore dead in the middle. I usually just wear an ace bandage or my bowling glove for a day or too and ice it 2 times a day for at least an hour.

Since going back to 15 pounds, I don't get that injury, but the extra weight can make all the arthritis in my right hand flare up when the weather changes.

At age 70, I can still get 325 RPM's on a good day with 15 pounds. However, it's all catching up with me. I usually only wear a glove when I'm injured. Going to start wearing one more often to prevent injury instead of after I've already injured myself.

This summer, against all logic, I plan to try and throw the ball 2 handed. Nobody my age is doing it. I have trouble bending because of back surgery and that may be something I need. But, my delivery has been so compact for so long, throwing with 2 hands won't be that different. I plan to use weak equipment so I get as much speed as possible. I'll shoot spares one handed. Speed will be the determining factor. If I can't throw fast enough to offset the increased RPM's, I'll discontinue the effort. Or if my back can't handle the load, that will end the effort also.
Posted by: Dylan585

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/25/18 05:12 PM

Once you start trying that let me know and I can give some advice! I think I'm the only two hander active on this site
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/25/18 05:31 PM

I'll do that. After scouring the internet, there's very little info on how to get started for someone my age. I'm not interested in just throwing with 2-hands using a normal 5 step. I want the skip step so I can really unload :-) go big or go home :-)

When I practice my normal game, if I leave a big split, I'll use my spare shot to practice the last 3 steps of a 2-handed delivery to get use to the feel. I have a 15 pound 1979 Columbia Blue Dot I use for 10 pins. I've been tossing that.

I should probably get a 13 pound ball to make it easier. For me, bending a little more and holding that body angle and spine tilt is what I'm trying to get use to. Keeping my head right of my shoulders and keeping them in-line is something else I work on. Throwing 2-handed isn't difficult. Throwing 2-handed at a target and hitting it, is :-)
Posted by: Dylan585

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/25/18 06:53 PM

Originally Posted By: 82Boat69
Throwing 2-handed isn't difficult. Throwing 2-handed at a target and hitting it, is :-)
Youre right on with that! Along with that another big thing is getting more end over end roll on the ball instead of it being straight off the side
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/25/18 08:06 PM

I get behind my normal shot pretty well, but it's like my right hand wants to go faster than my left when I throw 2-handed. I need to have shoulder turn more like golf where everything stay together :-)
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/31/18 12:28 AM

Here's some questions on technique versus flexibility. Remember, I'm 70.

It seems that at the very moment I get to my skip step, is when my ball gets as high as it will get with my right arm bent.

My left arm is extended as far as I can and I've opened up my shoulders as much as I can.

As the ball begins to come down, I try to extend my right arm but it feels like I'll lose contact with my left hand prematurely.

To maintain that contact, My right arm is coming down still bent and I do get plenty of revs, but no down-lane projection.

Is this a flexibility issue or a technique issue. When I watch Oska Palermaa, he does more like I do, except he's able to get much lower and has a lot more extension.

Does the left hand do anything besides keep the ball in contact with the right?

Is the objective to simply maintain control long enough where a cupped hand position can then be maintained through the rest of the delivery?
Posted by: BOSStull

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/31/18 09:16 AM

Another good article

BTM's "A Look at the USBC’s Bowling Technology Study
Some thoughts on differential, balance holes, static imbalance, and coverstock oil absorption rate"


https://www.bowlingthismonth.com/bowling-tips/a-look-at-the-usbcs-bowling-technology-study/
Posted by: Dylan585

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/31/18 11:27 AM

The left hand is basically just a guide like you said... If you can find a slow mo video of belmo you will see that just prior to release his left hand is actually off of the ball.. The way I do it is different then somebody like Osku... I basically do the swing with the bent elbow and then once the ball is at the back of the swing I almost just try to push the ball such that it is next to my leg... So imagine the ball at the top of the two handed swing and then just pushing it to next to your leg... Again, I really need to just post a video
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/31/18 03:22 PM

Thanks. Getting low enough and uncupping my right wrist are something else I'm working on. I can tell when I do it right, because I don't get any unnecessary loft.

Do you think I should start with a lighter ball or just use my normal equipment?

I notice when I use my current equipment, I get a minor thump which means I may be catching a finger hole.

Did your PAP change when you stopped using your thumb?
Posted by: Dylan585

Re: For the good of the sport? - 03/31/18 11:30 PM

I use all of my old equipment from one handed that doesn't have a weight hole with the exception of my for a GT which only has two fingers... My PAP did change much but I also already had a ridiculously high track that was almost identical to my two handed track. As for lower weight, when I was first starting I threw 14 and I honestly do think that it made things easier to start learning... Your probably not hitting a finger but rather your thumb and that's totally normal... When I was starting I hit the thumb almost always... Now that I have more control over what I do I lowered my track a little and just barely touch the edge of the thumb. It honestly just takes time to get used to, watch any and every video you can find of Belmo and try and study that! Again, as soon as I go open bowling again ill have a video to post!
Posted by: BOSStull

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/24/18 09:40 AM

Rumor is USBC may announce decision on proposed ball changes at USBC convention this week.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/24/18 04:19 PM

Video up about study and rule changes on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nkmk733Nbs

I'll give them credit for the forward thinking to disable the comments on the video.

Mark
Posted by: BOSStull

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/24/18 04:45 PM

Also
https://www.bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622331019

From above link: "It is important for bowlers to understand the specification for oil absorption will not eliminate any bowling balls from competition, as all current balls will be grandfathered in."

May be a buying splurge on some current balls.
Posted by: 6_ball_man

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/25/18 03:00 PM

Originally Posted By: BOSStull
"It is important for bowlers to understand the specification for oil absorption will not eliminate any bowling balls from competition, as all current balls will be grandfathered in."


No so with balance holes, but with the new specs for static balance, perhaps plugging a balance hole will still leave a ball legal...it will certainly effect how the ball rolls though.
Posted by: djp1080

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/25/18 04:24 PM

With no balance holes I guess I'll have to talk to my PSO about how that will affect how they roll. At least I'll still will be able to use my 16 lb Hy-Road balls with the 0.058 differential. smile
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/25/18 04:45 PM

USBC did a research paper on static weights a few years ago. The results of their research was that static weights still played a major roll in ball motion.

Based on that study, I'm surprised they've decided to allow more static weight.

Here's the relevant PDF;
http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/...eightsStudy.pdf
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/25/18 08:54 PM

If I interpreted what the USBC has said in the video and newly released news correctly, the increase in static weights is to completely eliminate the need for balance holes to bring a ball back to legality. They also mention about how balance holes have evolved to increase flare and hook by significantly increasing differential. With the 3 oz limit, balance holes would be rendered nearly useless for their original purpose and then cannot be used to increase differential and add hook.

In addition, they compare data for a currently legal ball at 1 oz of static weight with a balance hole to the same drilling at 3 oz of static weight and no hole. The ball with the balance hole outhooked the 3 oz ball by around 2 boards according to their data.

Mark
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/25/18 09:25 PM

I usually bowl 4 games. Been bowling 2-handed for the first 3 and then bowl the 4th 1-handed.

Didn't buy a lighter ball. Stayed with 15 LBS.

Throwing 2-handed takes about 10 times more energy than throwing 1-handed :-)

I was lofting too much, so started looking at the dots just beyond the foul line and that helped me start delivering the ball into the lane. Had my first 4 bagger this morning. My high game 2-handed is 164 but that will go up as I get cleaner with my release.

I'm using muscles I never knew I didn't have :-) Throwing with any speed requires muscles that are currently un-developed. It will probably take at least a year to strengthen them and get them all working together.

I believe having 50 years of bowling experience really helps. Everything I do one handed still applies. I just need to get my body to do what my mind thinks it can do.

My big recommendation, don't read all the articles that talk about how many injuries 2-handed can cause :-) I'm 70, I'm overweight and I'm not very flexible. I've shot 12 games 2-handed and I'm already back up to 16 MPH. Problem is, my RPM's are much higher and 16 MPH isn't enough. I can use a Tropical Storm and saw the 5 and create messengers that weren't possible one-handed.

If I don't blow out my fusion surgery, I expect to shoot my first 200 in the next few games.
Posted by: BOSStull

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/26/18 08:35 AM

What's wrong with this rule?
The specification increases in static weights take effect Jan. 1, 2020, which will allow bowlers the opportunity to plug balance holes prior to the elimination of balance holes starting Aug. 1, 2020.

Ok . Institute the rule but Jan 1,2020 should of been as of May 24,2018. Rule should be all new balls going forward will have the option to drill under new rule or current until Aug 1, 2020. Why make us drill balls under the current rules only to know we have to plug or choose a weaker layout? The current rules still apply until January of 2020. If you buy a ball now it will have to be compliant to the 3-1-1 rule and you can use a extra hole to adjust the balance.

Well I drilled my new new SON!Q yesterday. I had three choices.
1. Prefered layout with a balance hole
2 Prefered layout with no balance hole to comply with future rule.
3. Weaker layout no balance to comply with current and future USBC rule.

I chose number 2.

Bowled with it last night. Ball reaction is exactly what I wanted.
Posted by: BOSStull

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/26/18 10:31 AM

Posted links and attached PDF about USBC equipmemt changes


Bowling Technology Study Conclusion

Frequently Asked Questions- Bowling Technology Updates
Posted by: wronghander

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/28/18 12:31 AM

Originally Posted By: BOSStull
What's wrong with this rule?
The specification increases in static weights take effect Jan. 1, 2020, which will allow bowlers the opportunity to plug balance holes prior to the elimination of balance holes starting Aug. 1, 2020.

Ok . Institute the rule but Jan 1,2020 should of been as of May 24,2018. Rule should be all new balls going forward will have the option to drill under new rule or current until Aug 1, 2020. Why make us drill balls under the current rules only to know we have to plug or choose a weaker layout? The current rules still apply until January of 2020. If you buy a ball now it will have to be compliant to the 3-1-1 rule and you can use a extra hole to adjust the balance.

Well I drilled my new new SON!Q yesterday. I had three choices.
1. Prefered layout with a balance hole
2 Prefered layout with no balance hole to comply with future rule.
3. Weaker layout no balance to comply with current and future USBC rule.

I chose number 2.

Bowled with it last night. Ball reaction is exactly what I wanted.

I agree that the 3oz rule should be instituted earlier (maybe Aug 1 so that it doesn't affect Nationals). Most of my balls have balance holes so it makes me not want to go out and buy anything until the new rule takes effect. If others have a similar mindset, that ultimately hurts the manufacturers.
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/28/18 12:45 AM

If you read the research articles, a few years ago, USBC was opposed to removing balance holes. Now, they're in favor. If you ask me, all of this is way too late. For all their efforts, USBC rarely does a comprehensive study before they make decisions. I'm sure between now and 2020, manufacturers will discover and make changes to continue making balls that will hook out of the building and still be legal. Eventually, USBC will discover the answer is more units of oil, longer patterns, 50 feet or more and flat patterns gutter to gutter. In effect, make synthetic lanes similar to wood lanes during the 50's and 60's.

For those who are old enough, Wayne Webb was a pioneer in using dynamic weights. He took advantage of the disparity between a ball weighed on a dodo scale versus what would happen with a pancake block spinning on one side. It won't be much work for MFG's to take advantage of the new 3 ounce rule and make balls that will still hook a ton. The solution is obvious, more oil. Only problem, lane oil is really expensive.

Maybe it's time for a new lane surface. Teflon :-)
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/29/18 10:42 AM

it's time to go back to the old Varnish/shellac from foul line to pin deck. Let every ball slide except for those who know how to roll.

An old USA coach here once said... at his age of 87, he would bet any bowler as long as the oil was all the way to the pin deck. No one ever accepted his condition. But, he was right. Don't rely on the ball, learn to hook, learn to bowl.

Look at the difference between [censored] Weber and Pete Weber. One bowled, the other banked.

Haha, insert Richard. I got censored.
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/29/18 10:47 AM

They'll never go back for the reason they stopped in the first place, shellac and varnish are a serious fire hazard when being applied. What is needed is a new surface that's tough but slick as Teflon :-) Maybe some form of ceramic.
Posted by: SteveH

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/29/18 10:51 AM

USBC has been dancing around this issue for a long time. They can't control 98% of bowling, so they need to do something that makes them relavent. Proprietors spoke loudly about their desire to cut down on oil use, primarily because of what it does to their equipment. It's not the cost, oiling lanes is very cheap no matter the volume. The average cost of oiling is about 45 cents a lane, more or less. But the cleaning and maintenance of the setters and everything else is a task.

So now it's static weights and drilling, neither of which will impact oil volumes. If proprietors wanted to use less oil, they are free to simply cut it down, as is the case in most house shots. From what I've heard, no current balls would fail the absorption test, or at most very, very few would. Ball makers probably threatened all sorts of retaliations if they went after the RG limits.

Of note, three board members are in place now without a single delegate voting for them. As Jeff Richgels pointed out, they were elected by affirmation, denying delegates a choice to vote, or even protest the lack of choices. Then the PR work started online where dedicated establishment types spread fear amongst bowlers that the world would end if people didn't sanction. I have to admit he was spot on, it's an organization now that champions the art of bullying. Fact is, if people didn't need an average for tournaments, sanctioning would be far less prevalent.

The mere fact that bowling has so many different views and factions makes it nearly impossible for real change to occur. The USBC cannot control the BPAA, it's proprietors, nor in any real way the ball makers themselves.

The utter irony of the entire debate is that the USBC run tournaments have arguably the most laughable oil patterns out there. I think the uproar over the ball specs announced come from those that don't fully understand the minimal impact, plus a lot of folks that just see the USBC as a joke institution that has little power in reality, and is simply not functional as a National Governing Body. The vast majority of their work focus is to get more entries in their own tournaments, and try to stem the losses every year in members. When you forecast a loss of 5% to 7% of membership base every year, something's not right.
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/29/18 11:06 AM

The mechanic where I bowl says the lane oil is about $250 a gallon.

For leagues that want a pristine condition before they bowl, it's 25 cents per person.

Lane machines and repair are also high. I think the one used locally was over $100K new.
Posted by: SteveH

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/29/18 11:40 AM

Yeah, pretty cheap to lay down. I don't know any machines that are that pricey, I've seen pice lists from $20k to as much as $60k. But they sure do last a long time.

I have heard from proprietors that the real cost is maintaining and cleaning the pinsetters and everything, and the more oil, the harder it is to maintain them.

Most centers won't spread the oil and prefer a wall shot because that's what bowlers want, scoring. I've witnessed it enough firsthand to know to never bring up the subject again.

I've become a fan of splitting up the duties. Have USBC become the NGB of the sport, and put league bowling under the BPAA or whatever. It's recreational bowling. Very similar setup to the USGA. Maybe with a small base of members, and a real job to do, the smaller USBC can be less political and corrupt.
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: For the good of the sport? - 04/29/18 10:29 PM

In 2006, I did a study for a friend who owned a bowling alley. Condidering the lane man and machine were sunk cost. The out of pocket cost to him was $.25 per lane to strip and oil. His machine did them both simultaneously. But, he only stripped twice per week.

Another chain house near by did the same study for a cost of $.26 per lane. Comparing those two, I feel confident it isn't a lot to oil.

Now, if you go to the ICE oil that back fills grooves or the colored oil, the cost adds up.

Average price for lane conditioner is $90-100 per 1.25 gallon container. Or $280-330 for 5 gallons. But, many houses buy it in drums, which brings the cost down. Stripper, which is done periodically not nightly, costs $125 for a 5 gal jug.
Posted by: wronghander

Re: For the good of the sport? - 06/16/18 06:07 PM

Originally Posted By: wronghander

I agree that the 3oz rule should be instituted earlier (maybe Aug 1 so that it doesn't affect Nationals). Most of my balls have balance holes so it makes me not want to go out and buy anything until the new rule takes effect. If others have a similar mindset, that ultimately hurts the manufacturers.

Common sense ended up prevailing. The 3oz rule will be in effect as of August 1.

https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622331380
Posted by: BOSStull

Re: For the good of the sport? - 06/16/18 06:39 PM

Originally Posted By: wronghander
Originally Posted By: wronghander

I agree that the 3oz rule should be instituted earlier (maybe Aug 1 so that it doesn't affect Nationals). Most of my balls have balance holes so it makes me not want to go out and buy anything until the new rule takes effect. If others have a similar mindset, that ultimately hurts the manufacturers.

Common sense ended up prevailing. The 3oz rule will be in effect as of August 1.

https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622331380
That is good to know. I already opted a month ago to have my new SON!Q drilled to the upcoming specifications. So August 1 it will be legal.
Posted by: BillinPhilly

Re: For the good of the sport? - 08/31/18 10:03 PM

Originally Posted By: champ
I hate these "studies" not because of anything having to do with equipment but because of what it represents.

To me, these studies represent a USBC wasting time, energy, and resources. Not focusing on bringing value to USBC membership. Not focusing on advertising or attempting to lure more bowlers to the game.

Wasted time.

In the mean time leagues continue to dwindle. Members gripe about value. Many leagues go unsanctioned. Sandbagging seriously infiltrated the USBC Open last year. Those are the things that matter to me and most of us. How do we get more people bowling? Answer that question first; then we can focus on whether or not equipment is too strong, if there's too much oil, and how do we "slope rate" each house in America.


I will give the same answer I’ve given for years. If you want new bowlers, then you have to have leagues for new bowlers. Right now, there aren’t any. If you even want to keep your middle skilled and lower skilled bowlers, then you need leagues where they can flourish too. Again, right now these leagues do not exist.

The comment was made about all the comments from septeguenarians. Well if you remember “back in the day” you had classes of leagues laid out by skill set. That does not exist today. Leagues are the Wild West. I’ve seen leagues with teams averaging 365 to 820 for 4 person teams in the same league. Look around.

The bottom line is that new bowlers do not want to bowl with teams of all 200+ average bowlers who throw nothing but strikes. Neither do your 150-170 average guys. Yet that is what everybody is forced to do because there are no rules for league entry and many are playing below their real ability for easy wins.

You asked, I answered your questions. Much as people don’t want to believe high scores are a real problem, I’m here to tell you they very much are. But I know you don’t want to hear that. So I’ll just say my piece and go... And you can keep wondering why you are not attracting “new bowlers”. And losing your middle and lesser skilled players. Maybe do another study...

It also doesn’t help when you shut off all awards for anybody who can’t throw a 300 game or an 800 series. What message do you think you are sending to “new bowlers” by that? Why join a league? Why sanction? To buy someone else’s 300 ring? Seriously. Some guys are earning 8 a year. 300 rings should be once in a lifetime awards. And if you lose it or something happens to it, then let them buy another one - not out of membership money. Then maybe leagues would have money to spend on something other than a couple 300 rings every week all season.
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 08/31/18 10:34 PM

The answer has always been the same. It starts with juniors. I started in 1961 at age 13. Back then, we bowled for 35 cents a game and shoes were free.

Proprietors gave us lineage at cost because they knew we were the future. Today, proprietors charge kids $4.50 per game and shoes are $1.50.

Today, we see the results of the Sesame Street approach to education. Kids want 'instant' gratification. They would rather stare into an iPhone than take the time to learn something new.

Where I bowl high school kids bowl instead of PE, but they basically just show up and get a grade whether they bowl well or not. I live in CA, so we don't expect much of anyone here.

We have places in town where they charge $20 each half hour per person. Not many parents will send their kids into that cost-structure.

There's also too many people my age (70) charging $50+ per hour for lessons. We should be willing to give up the instruction for free.

I'm lucky. Where I bowl, the owner is a former PBA member and TOC winner, Steve Cook. He allows seniors to bowl for 75 cents a game. Last year it was just 50 cents. His center is so busy the mechanics have barely enough free time to keep the machines working.

The answers to dwindling bowlers has always been kids, the industry just isn't paying attention, or worse yet, kids aren't paying attention.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: For the good of the sport? - 08/31/18 11:16 PM

Originally Posted By: BillinPhilly
300 rings should be once in a lifetime awards.

Where do you see this happening currently? It's been once in a lifetime since August of 2014.

https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=17179869374

If anyone wants a ring after their first 300 or 800, they foot the entire cost.

Mark
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 09/01/18 12:58 AM

In the 60's, ABC issued 'diamond' rings for a first 300 game. Back then, only 600+ perfectos were shot each year. It was a special occasion. ABC reps would come and check the lanes and the balls to make sure everything was on the up-n-up. Occasionally, they even turned down 300 games for irregularities. Today, any 300 is accepted, regardless of irregularities. So, the bowler can buy themselves anything they want for an award.

With 30,000+ perfectos being shot each year, a 300 game is little more than bragging rights for a couple of hours. Today, to be considered serious, a person needs to shoot 900. Then they can brag for a whole day :-)

But! They'll still have to pay for the ring themselves :-) Unless, they've never shot 900 before :-)

Enjoy the moment, forget the ring.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: For the good of the sport? - 09/01/18 07:56 AM

82Boat69, my post was concerned with correcting the idea that membership dues paid the last four years were going to pay for multiple 300 rings for someone who already shot 300 before instead of the reality that they would be paid for by the bowler. Not getting an award from the USBC without paying is not an issue for me.

Originally Posted By: BillinPhilly
So I’ll just say my piece and go...

I just checked your post history. This was your first post in 5 years, I guess that could be why you didn't know of the rule change.

Mark
Posted by: 82Boat69

Re: For the good of the sport? - 09/01/18 08:06 AM

Sorry if I offended anyone.
Posted by: BillinPhilly

Re: For the good of the sport? - 09/01/18 08:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Mkirchie
82Boat69, my post was concerned with correcting the idea that membership dues paid the last four years were going to pay for multiple 300 rings for someone who already shot 300 before instead of the reality that they would be paid for by the bowler. Not getting an award from the USBC without paying is not an issue for me.

Originally Posted By: BillinPhilly
So I’ll just say my piece and go...

I just checked your post history. This was your first post in 5 years, I guess that could be why you didn't know of the rule change.

Mark


You are correct. I stopped in to read about new weight hole rules. I have not bowled since 2013 for quite a number of reasons. And I used to be a guy who bowled 2 leagues a week and bought several balls a year. It stopped being fun for me years before I finally gave up. One center here burned to the ground. The owners intended to rebuild but never did. Another was a junky old wood house from the 50s that was poorly maintained and ran as tax write off by another business that was finally ran into the ground and closed. Of the 2 centers nearby that are left, one is a another older wood house that sees more business as a party center with disco lights and the other is a very high scoring house that advertises itself as “home of the 300 game.” The game, sport, or whatever they call it these days has serious issues. I have sold most everything bowling related I owned and I seriously doubt I will ever be in another league again in my life. As was previously stated, leagues and bowlers do a lousy job of policing themselves and they are very good at taking the fun out of everything.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: For the good of the sport? - 09/01/18 09:38 AM

It's a shame that the centers near you are run that way, my home center doesn't fall in any of those categories and there are two other very popular centers only about 10-15 minutes further away than the 10 minute ride I have to my home center. My home center has never had what I would consider an excessive amount of honor scores compared to what I have heard of from other centers. Also it is a shame you've had those experiences in leagues.

Originally Posted By: BillinPhilly
...and bought several balls a year.

This is where I have an issue with the current state of bowling. I don't feel that is conductive to the game when people are given the impression that they need to spend a considerable amount of money on new equipment and I can see how it would have caused you and others frustration.

Mark
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: For the good of the sport? - 09/01/18 10:25 AM

Absolutely!! I do hear of alot of bowlers buying their new ball before the season starts. And, I know of a lot of bowlers who believe only a new ball can produce the desired reaction. I don't understand either.

Bowling was the affordable sport, that a family could enjoy. Parents would take kids and bowl together. You don't see that today.

The bowling Center has become a haven for kids on rainy days. Or, the Saturday Day Care where they get dropped off for the game room. Bowling is NOT the attraction.
Posted by: BOSStull

Re: For the good of the sport? - 09/06/18 08:54 PM

Here is some good info from MO.

https://youtu.be/rOOZdetR2Fs
Posted by: Dennis Michael

Re: For the good of the sport? - 09/07/18 04:48 AM

That was a GREAT video, Boss. TY VM.