| |
Main
Date: 09 Apr 2007 21:02:42
From: 1966olds
Subject: Old plastic balls vs new ones (any major difference in core?)
|
I have an old green Brunswick Tommy Hudson from early 80's and a
Brunswick Black Diamond from late 70's. They're seldom used, relegated
mainly for times when the lanes are extremely dry (which I encounter
rarely).
However, part of the reason I don't use them much ---even when the
lanes ARE dry--- is that I believe the cores to be inferior to those
on all other more recent equipment and I feel I am giving up more than
just traction with them. Just curious if that's true or not.
In other words, would there be any advantage in buying a newer ball
that is plastic (or at least a very mild reactive resin) in order to
have a ball with less friction, but that would still create more pin
action than my old stuff? Or would the cores not matter that much
where friction with the lane is already mnimized?
And if it's a dumb question, sorry. Really is something I've thought
about.
Thanks,
Larry
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 11:04:36
From: PromptJock
Subject: Re: Old plastic balls vs new ones (any major difference in core?)
|
> I do tend to have too much speed at times (the down side to having
> enough to forego a spareball).
Don't knock yourself - many of us have similar "speed problems".
Myself in particular. ;)
> But I think I get it now. For most of the trip down the lane, a weak
> reactive or a plastic ball (or antique rubber one) would have similar
> rolls. But the reactive ....no matter how mild....would grab the lane
> sooner and when it did, would have a better angle as it changed
> direction. Presuming, of course, that the speed is kept under control
> to allow the ball time to produce some friction.
That is correct. In fact, I'd substitute a "plain urethane" (ala
Ebonite "Gyro") for the "weak reactive". Again, don't discount the
AMOUNT/PLACEMENT OF OIL on the lane as contributors to "ball action"
as well.
> To tie in with my original question, sounds like the core has not as
> much to do with powering through the pins at the impact point as with
> creating the roll/entry angle of the ball in the first place.
Correct. The primary function of the core is to provide the necessary
"dynamic action" in regards to ensuring how/where the ball "rolls into
position" prior to hitting the pins (i.e. track flare). The main
determinant of ball "reaction" is the COVERSTOCK MATERIAL ("grip" vs.
"slip"). The next "piece of the puzzle" is hole drilling - pin/CG
placement in relation to finger/thumb holes. The "final piece" is
HAND/FINGER POSITION at the release (determines "spin axis" rotation/
angle positions and # of revs imparted to the ball). All these
factors, combined with your individual skill (targeting accuracy,
timing, speed control, etc.), come together to determine how the ball
will finally "perform" when it meets the pins.
The goal of the individual bowler is to discover the optimum cover/
core/layout for his/her individual delivery and release style. For
"the majority" of us, the standard "3-3/8 PAP-CG pin placement"
drilling (a.k.a. "stacked leverage", "maximum smoke") on a "baseline"
reactive ball is all that's needed for handling The Typical "Home"
House Shot. For "the rest of us" who do tournaments or otherwise bowl
in many houses (with their resultant "individual" lane oilings), we
tend to use "exotic" pin/PAP/CG layouts to either enhance or retard
roll/flare characteristics of the particular balls we use. FWIW, a
couple of years ago the USBC "American Bowler" newsletter had a great
article by Norm Duke on the effects of pin placement vs. roll
characteristics. If you can find it, it's worth reading! :)
If you haven't done so already, I strongly suggest you consult a USBC
"Silver" Certified coach to get pointers and "tweaks" regarding your
ball release (i.e. hand position at release) and techniques on speed
control as well as finding a (real) good IBPSIA-certified ball driller
who, by virtue of observing your bowling "style", can most likely
determine an optimum drilling layout for your "performance" ball(s).
Finally, "super-hook" ball trajectories (i.e. release ball @ board 35
and have the ball "bounce" 40-45 feet down the lane on board 5 back to
the 1-3 pocket @ board 17 - ala Tommy Jones) won't necessarily
"deliver the most" in terms of results. For many of us, the "gentle
curve" trajectory (i.e. release @ 10, have ball travel to 5 @ 40' or
so, then watch the ball flip over and slam the 1-3 pocket - ala Norm
Duke or Walter R. Williams or even Pete Weber) is much more productive
on the majority of conditions. Again, a "Silver" coach can help you
determine which kind of delivery style is Best For You, but be aware
that LANE CONDITIONS will determine whether you need to "go deep" or
"hug the channel" or do "somewhere in-between" to ensure you topple
the most pins. I guess I'm trying to impart the concept of "learn a
few delivery styles" rather than have a "one delivery fits all"
mindset. :)
Anyhoo, that's my input and, again, I hope it's helpful. :)
|
| |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 04:08:34
From: 1966olds
Subject: Re: Old plastic balls vs new ones (any major difference in core?)
|
Thanks Tony and Promptjock,
I do tend to have too much speed at times (the down side to having
enough to forego a spareball).
But I think I get it now. For most of the trip down the lane, a weak
reactive or a plastic ball (or antique rubber one) would have similar
rolls. But the reactive ....no matter how mild....would grab the lane
sooner and when it did, would have a better angle as it changed
direction. Presuming, of course, that the speed is kept under control
to allow the ball time to produce some friction.
To tie in with my original question, sounds like the core has not as
much to do with powering through the pins at the impact point as with
creating the roll/entry angle of the ball in the first place.
Thanks again,
Larry
On Apr 11, 12:13 am, "PromptJock" <102151.3...@compuserve.com > wrote:
>
> Using a plastic (or similar) ball for single-pin (and certain multi-
> pin) spares is purely a decision best left to the bowler. The
> "prevailing wisdom" of using plastic (a.k.a. polyester) balls is they
> are (generally) not affected by lane conditions - they simply Go
> Straight with little or no hook.
>
> I do agree plastics can "shine" (no pun) on lanes where there is "no"
> oil, or whatever oil that was laid down has been spread out and
> carried down, because their normally-slick surfaces will fare better,
> control-wise, than "super-grippy, etc." reactives and such.
>
> As you've related, you're able to nicely control your reactive ball
> via speed and hand position - the hallmarks of a good technical
> bowler. :)
>
> > But why would a reactive coverstock provide more hitting power than
> > plastic or rubber?
>
> Greater entry angle in the pocket combined with resistance to
> deflection. It's similar to driving on wet, slick roads vs. dry roads
> - which condition will give you better traction, handle corners, let
> you "go faster, etc."? the same for "non-grippy" plastic cover vs.
> "grippy" reactive cover on the oiled lane surface - which cover will
> "bite down" on the lane better (traction), hook a little better into
> the pocket, and resist deflecting off the pins? All these things add
> up to "hitting power".
>
> Unfortunately, there is a down side to "power hitting" balls: they
> tend to leave more single-pin spares (i.e. 10 pin, 5 pin) and splits
> if they're deliverd "too fast, etc." for the prevailing lane
> condition. Bowling this Month has had a few good articles in the past
> year on this subject and they are definitely worth reading. :)
>
> Hope this helps a little.....
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 22:13:10
From: PromptJock
Subject: Re: Old plastic balls vs new ones (any major difference in core?)
|
> Never have used a spare ball, instead increasing delivery speed for a
> straighter shot. But do have several older reactives (varying from 5
> to 10 years old) that I use frequently for drier conditions.
>
> The plastic and rubber ball I reserve mainly for abnormal or extremely
> dry conditions, or for a game or two of practice on oily lanes before
> switching to more aggressive stuff when it counts (similar to a batter
> in the on-deck circle swinging the bat with a weight donut on the end
> of it).
Using a plastic (or similar) ball for single-pin (and certain multi-
pin) spares is purely a decision best left to the bowler. The
"prevailing wisdom" of using plastic (a.k.a. polyester) balls is they
are (generally) not affected by lane conditions - they simply Go
Straight with little or no hook.
I do agree plastics can "shine" (no pun) on lanes where there is "no"
oil, or whatever oil that was laid down has been spread out and
carried down, because their normally-slick surfaces will fare better,
control-wise, than "super-grippy, etc." reactives and such.
As you've related, you're able to nicely control your reactive ball
via speed and hand position - the hallmarks of a good technical
bowler. :)
> But why would a reactive coverstock provide more hitting power than
> plastic or rubber?
Greater entry angle in the pocket combined with resistance to
deflection. It's similar to driving on wet, slick roads vs. dry roads
- which condition will give you better traction, handle corners, let
you "go faster, etc."? the same for "non-grippy" plastic cover vs.
"grippy" reactive cover on the oiled lane surface - which cover will
"bite down" on the lane better (traction), hook a little better into
the pocket, and resist deflecting off the pins? All these things add
up to "hitting power".
Unfortunately, there is a down side to "power hitting" balls: they
tend to leave more single-pin spares (i.e. 10 pin, 5 pin) and splits
if they're deliverd "too fast, etc." for the prevailing lane
condition. Bowling this Month has had a few good articles in the past
year on this subject and they are definitely worth reading. :)
Hope this helps a little.....
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 20:46:07
From: 1966olds
Subject: Re: Old plastic balls vs new ones (any major difference in core?)
|
Hi Tony,
Never have used a spare ball, instead increasing delivery speed for a
straighter shot. But do have several older reactives (varying from 5
to 10 years old) that I use frequently for drier conditions.
The plastic and rubber ball I reserve mainly for abnormal or extremely
dry conditions, or for a game or two of practice on oily lanes before
switching to more aggressive stuff when it counts (similar to a batter
in the on-deck circle swinging the bat with a weight donut on the end
of it).
But why would a reactive coverstock provide more hitting power than
plastic or rubber?
Because of the added traction? In other words, the reactives' traction
isn't much greater than a plastic ball when first delivered, but it
would have a little more grip and start rolling a little sooner than
the plastic (or rubber) ball would, thus resulting in less
deflection---even with a simlilar core to the plastic. Yes?
Anyway.... thank you for your reply,
Larry
On Apr 10, 8:17 am, Tony R Smith <tonyrsm...@myrealbox.com > wrote:
> On very dry lane conditions you don't want help from the core of the
> ball... so, no, you aren't giving up anything as far a core goes. What
> you "are" giving up is the extra hitting power that you will get out of
> a weak reactive pearl coverstock as opposed to a rubber or plastic
> coverstock Keeping one or both of those balls for shooting spares is a
> good thing but if you are looking for a good dry lane ball, get a weak
> cored weak reactive pearl coverstock ball.
>
>
>
> 1966olds wrote:
> > I have an old green Brunswick Tommy Hudson from early 80's and a
> > Brunswick Black Diamond from late 70's. They're seldom used, relegated
> > mainly for times when the lanes are extremely dry (which I encounter
> > rarely).
>
> > However, part of the reason I don't use them much ---even when the
> > lanes ARE dry--- is that I believe the cores to be inferior to those
> > on all other more recent equipment and I feel I am giving up more than
> > just traction with them. Just curious if that's true or not.
>
> > In other words, would there be any advantage in buying a newer ball
> > that is plastic (or at least a very mild reactive resin) in order to
> > have a ball with less friction, but that would still create more pin
> > action than my old stuff? Or would the cores not matter that much
> > where friction with the lane is already mnimized?
>
> > And if it's a dumb question, sorry. Really is something I've thought
> > about.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Larry- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 22:01:24
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: Old plastic balls vs new ones (any major difference in core?)
|
What makes a reactive ball work the way they do is additives that are
added to the coverstock material which fill the pores of the urethane
giving it more surface area and the classic "tacky" feeling that is
associated with the pearl reactives. This makes the them act like slick
tires on wet pavement... hydroplaning at high speed and then grabbing as
the speed reduces enough for the ball to create friction with the lane.
The less tacky a pearl reactive is the easier it will hydroplane... but
when it does finally grab the lane it has the advantage of more surface
area over its plastic counterparts. A weak pearl particle ball with
literally a non-existent core will out perform a plastic ball on any dry
lane condition you pit them on... that isn't to say that plastic won't
work.
1966olds wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> Never have used a spare ball, instead increasing delivery speed for a
> straighter shot. But do have several older reactives (varying from 5
> to 10 years old) that I use frequently for drier conditions.
>
> The plastic and rubber ball I reserve mainly for abnormal or extremely
> dry conditions, or for a game or two of practice on oily lanes before
> switching to more aggressive stuff when it counts (similar to a batter
> in the on-deck circle swinging the bat with a weight donut on the end
> of it).
>
> But why would a reactive coverstock provide more hitting power than
> plastic or rubber?
>
> Because of the added traction? In other words, the reactives' traction
> isn't much greater than a plastic ball when first delivered, but it
> would have a little more grip and start rolling a little sooner than
> the plastic (or rubber) ball would, thus resulting in less
> deflection---even with a simlilar core to the plastic. Yes?
>
> Anyway.... thank you for your reply,
>
> Larry
>
> On Apr 10, 8:17 am, Tony R Smith <tonyrsm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> On very dry lane conditions you don't want help from the core of the
>> ball... so, no, you aren't giving up anything as far a core goes. What
>> you "are" giving up is the extra hitting power that you will get out of
>> a weak reactive pearl coverstock as opposed to a rubber or plastic
>> coverstock Keeping one or both of those balls for shooting spares is a
>> good thing but if you are looking for a good dry lane ball, get a weak
>> cored weak reactive pearl coverstock ball.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1966olds wrote:
>>> I have an old green Brunswick Tommy Hudson from early 80's and a
>>> Brunswick Black Diamond from late 70's. They're seldom used, relegated
>>> mainly for times when the lanes are extremely dry (which I encounter
>>> rarely).
>>> However, part of the reason I don't use them much ---even when the
>>> lanes ARE dry--- is that I believe the cores to be inferior to those
>>> on all other more recent equipment and I feel I am giving up more than
>>> just traction with them. Just curious if that's true or not.
>>> In other words, would there be any advantage in buying a newer ball
>>> that is plastic (or at least a very mild reactive resin) in order to
>>> have a ball with less friction, but that would still create more pin
>>> action than my old stuff? Or would the cores not matter that much
>>> where friction with the lane is already mnimized?
>>> And if it's a dumb question, sorry. Really is something I've thought
>>> about.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Larry- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 06:17:47
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: Old plastic balls vs new ones (any major difference in core?)
|
On very dry lane conditions you don't want help from the core of the
ball... so, no, you aren't giving up anything as far a core goes. What
you "are" giving up is the extra hitting power that you will get out of
a weak reactive pearl coverstock as opposed to a rubber or plastic
coverstock Keeping one or both of those balls for shooting spares is a
good thing but if you are looking for a good dry lane ball, get a weak
cored weak reactive pearl coverstock ball.
1966olds wrote:
> I have an old green Brunswick Tommy Hudson from early 80's and a
> Brunswick Black Diamond from late 70's. They're seldom used, relegated
> mainly for times when the lanes are extremely dry (which I encounter
> rarely).
>
> However, part of the reason I don't use them much ---even when the
> lanes ARE dry--- is that I believe the cores to be inferior to those
> on all other more recent equipment and I feel I am giving up more than
> just traction with them. Just curious if that's true or not.
>
> In other words, would there be any advantage in buying a newer ball
> that is plastic (or at least a very mild reactive resin) in order to
> have a ball with less friction, but that would still create more pin
> action than my old stuff? Or would the cores not matter that much
> where friction with the lane is already mnimized?
>
> And if it's a dumb question, sorry. Really is something I've thought
> about.
>
> Thanks,
> Larry
>
|
|
