bowling-forum.net
The bowlers choice for bowling chat.

Main
Date: 22 Jul 2005 06:34:08
From: BowlTX
Subject: USBC's look into credibility
What do you think about the USBC plans to look at bolwling balls, and
will you be ready to replace your equipment?





 
Date: 09 Sep 2005 10:39:14
From: Robert A. Zanol
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility

"BowlTX" <wrightdk@hot.rr-dot-com.no-spam.invalid > wrote in message
news:42e0cba0$1_5@alt.athenanews.com...
> What do you think about the USBC plans to look at bolwling balls, and
> will you be ready to replace your equipment?


First of all i would like to say hi to everyone and introduce myself. my
name is Robert A. Zanol and my bowling friends call me the medicineman. I am
all in favor of the USBC restoring integrity to the game. I have averaged
210-219 depending where i bowl in league. In my heart i know that i am not
that good. When i have bowled in tournaments that do not have a walled or
xmas tree pattern i average in the 180's. I have a few sanctioned 300
games, but in my opinion that is a joke because of the lane conditions and
the traction of the equipment i used.

i would rather average a 180-190 on a tougher shot than a 200+ on a give me
shot. But what i feel is the crux of the problem today is that bowlers are
the biggest crybabies in the world. we all want an "easy" or "familiar"
shot. the first night that shot isn't there and we don't score as we think
we should we all go to the counter and complain about the shot and make
threats of withdrawing and bowling elsewhere. i know this is true because i
managed 2 bowling centers and this is the main reason i got out of the
business. secondly on the list is the amount of traction or friction created
by todays equipment is totally out of hand. anyone can "hook" the ball
today. i see bowlers i bowled with in the 80's who played tweener lines now
standing left and swinging the ball from coast to coast. me personally i
refuse to buy new equipment. Today's equipment has too much hook potential
because of the surface of the balls. My newest ball is from 1997. i bought a
spinner and take great care of my eqipment. i never let them track up. all
my balls always look like new.

Finally i used to work for brunswick and if you have taken the time to
really read and absorb what their response to the USBC proposal is you will
see through their smokescreen and see that they are really only interested
in protecting their investment and really don't care about the bowlers. they
have twisted (as have a lot of others have done also) what the USBC wants to
achieve. For everyones info the proposal to eliminate balance holes was shot
down as it should have been because you cannot make a ball hook more than
it's original hook potential by adding a balance hole, all you can do is
alter at which point it will break and tweak flare potential. a ball cannot
be made to hook more than its manufacturing specs.. the real issue that
needs to be addressed is the surface hardness of todays balls. this is what
created the so called "hook in a box" balls. todays balls are too soft and
are allowing anyone who puts their hand in a ball to hook the ball out of
the building. also the traction created by these balls are tearing up the
lanes. Couple that with the fact that most times a center puts out a shot
with more oil to protect the lanes "we" bitch about the shot. i have been
bowling since the 70's and it is my observation through experience that
bowlers cry they want more oil, but then when they get it they see that they
really don't like more oil. so really we are the cause of all of todays
problems because "we" watch the PBA and want to bowl like them, it is us who
the ball manufacturers have designed these balls for and it is us for whom
the bowling centers have put out the gimme shot because lets face it they
dont want us to leave and bowl elsewhere, they are in business like everyone
else: to make money. so really we have caused this dilemma and ultimately it
is us who must fix it.

the USBC has made a step in the right direction by limiting the surface
hardness on balls manufactured after january 2006. Now hopefully they wuill
address the other problem (which of course is going to be the most painful)
the lane conditions. bowling needs to address this to make the emphasis on
skill and the player making the shot rather than the lane condition doing it
for the bowler. i chose the sport of bowling because when i learned to bowl
(using plastic and urethane) bowling truly was a game of adjustments. today
it is far from such. Bowlers today want the same easy shot to achieve the
same inflated scores to make their egos feel good. lets take a good look at
our sport and restore integrity to the game. this will mean getting very
honest with ourselves and putting the future of bowling ahead of our own
interests...thanks ...Robert
>




 
Date:
From:
Subject:


 
Date: 26 Jul 2005 11:18:37
From: Jake's Marketplace, Inc.
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
How about something that gets changed almost annually in each center.

Watch over lane condition because this is where ABC really lost control.
Then control the pins a tad bit more, this is an expected expense in bowling
centers and can be tweaked over 2-3 years with less negative effect directly
to the bowlers.

Then work in changes to the balls, but no first change should take effect
till 2010 if the new standards effect more than 50% of balls manufactured in
the last 5 years. The new standards should be introduced into manufacture
specifications 2-3 year years prior to bowlers having to use proper
guideline equipment by 2010.

The manufacture should be able to make suitable balls that match or exceed
quality and reaction to grandfathered balls during the limbo period.

Off my soap box for now
Michael


"BowlTX" <wrightdk@hot.rr-dot-com.no-spam.invalid > wrote in message
news:42e0cba0$1_5@alt.athenanews.com...
> What do you think about the USBC plans to look at bolwling balls, and
> will you be ready to replace your equipment?
>




 
Date: 23 Jul 2005 13:49:52
From: Lisa
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
"BowlTX" wrote:

> What do you think about the USBC plans to look at bolwling balls, and
> will you be ready to replace your equipment?

I will, and the only thing that really IRKS me is having to get rid of a
label-drilled 20 year old White Dot that is near and dear to my heart :(




  
Date: 24 Jul 2005 01:38:50
From: Ryan Press \(NI\)
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
Will we not just be able to get the USBC label prnted on old balls, so
bringing this one to legality? ;)

One thing that confuses me - at present, USBC OK's a ball, payed of course
by the ball company for the certificat of OK-ness, and is released... the
same list of OK'd balls, is used around the world.. FIQ's OK'd ball list is
the USBC one... however, surly the rest of the world can't be forced to use
the USBC logo??

Ryan
"loving the many uses of the word "OK""


"Lisa" <eyeshot300@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:8JydnXAb8rjdHn_fRVn-rQ@wideopenwest.com...
> "BowlTX" wrote:
>
> > What do you think about the USBC plans to look at bolwling balls, and
> > will you be ready to replace your equipment?
>
> I will, and the only thing that really IRKS me is having to get rid of a
> label-drilled 20 year old White Dot that is near and dear to my heart :(
>
>




   
Date: 24 Jul 2005 07:08:34
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
The current proposal as a remember it makes balls that aren't
"manufactured" with the USBC logo illegal after 2008, regardless of how
it is drilled. Everybody gets to buy new equipment if they plan to bowl
sanctioned leagues, like it or not.

Ryan Press (NI) wrote:

>Will we not just be able to get the USBC label prnted on old balls, so
>bringing this one to legality? ;)
>
>One thing that confuses me - at present, USBC OK's a ball, payed of course
>by the ball company for the certificat of OK-ness, and is released... the
>same list of OK'd balls, is used around the world.. FIQ's OK'd ball list is
>the USBC one... however, surly the rest of the world can't be forced to use
>the USBC logo??
>
>Ryan
>"loving the many uses of the word "OK""
>
>
>"Lisa" <eyeshot300@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:8JydnXAb8rjdHn_fRVn-rQ@wideopenwest.com...
>
>
>>"BowlTX" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>What do you think about the USBC plans to look at bolwling balls, and
>>>will you be ready to replace your equipment?
>>>
>>>
>>I will, and the only thing that really IRKS me is having to get rid of a
>>label-drilled 20 year old White Dot that is near and dear to my heart :(
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>


    
Date: 24 Jul 2005 10:03:54
From: Mark D
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com > wrote in message
news:S7HEe.1682$vf.1367@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> The current proposal as a remember it makes balls that aren't
> "manufactured" with the USBC logo illegal after 2008, regardless of how it
> is drilled. Everybody gets to buy new equipment if they plan to bowl
> sanctioned leagues, like it or not.
>


What would stop pro shops from getting a stencil and engraving the logo on
older balls themselves? Same way they put names or initials on new balls.
They could charge $1 for the service and make a little cash, and create tons
of new loyal customers who don't need new balls just yet, but will most
likely
buy from the pro shop who helped them out. A win-win situation.

Mark D.





     
Date: 24 Jul 2005 15:21:26
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
The serial number on the ball, which contains the year of manufacture.

Mark D wrote:

>"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:S7HEe.1682$vf.1367@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
>
>>The current proposal as a remember it makes balls that aren't
>>"manufactured" with the USBC logo illegal after 2008, regardless of how it
>>is drilled. Everybody gets to buy new equipment if they plan to bowl
>>sanctioned leagues, like it or not.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>What would stop pro shops from getting a stencil and engraving the logo on
>older balls themselves? Same way they put names or initials on new balls.
>They could charge $1 for the service and make a little cash, and create tons
>of new loyal customers who don't need new balls just yet, but will most
>likely
>buy from the pro shop who helped them out. A win-win situation.
>
>Mark D.
>
>
>
>
>


      
Date: 24 Jul 2005 10:38:56
From: Mark D
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
OOPs! I found it....

Mark D.


"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com > wrote in message
news:WlOEe.1693$vf.1174@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> The serial number on the ball, which contains the year of manufacture.
>
> Mark D wrote:
>
>>"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>news:S7HEe.1682$vf.1367@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>>The current proposal as a remember it makes balls that aren't
>>>"manufactured" with the USBC logo illegal after 2008, regardless of how
>>>it is drilled. Everybody gets to buy new equipment if they plan to bowl
>>>sanctioned leagues, like it or not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>What would stop pro shops from getting a stencil and engraving the logo on
>>older balls themselves? Same way they put names or initials on new balls.
>>They could charge $1 for the service and make a little cash, and create
>>tons
>>of new loyal customers who don't need new balls just yet, but will most
>>likely
>>buy from the pro shop who helped them out. A win-win situation.
>>
>>Mark D.
>>
>>
>>
>>




       
Date: 24 Jul 2005 16:16:12
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
... and then reality sunk in... How do you feel about USBC's proposal
now, Mark?

Mark D wrote:

>OOPs! I found it....
>
>Mark D.
>
>
>"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:WlOEe.1693$vf.1174@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
>
>>The serial number on the ball, which contains the year of manufacture.
>>
>>Mark D wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>news:S7HEe.1682$vf.1367@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The current proposal as a remember it makes balls that aren't
>>>>"manufactured" with the USBC logo illegal after 2008, regardless of how
>>>>it is drilled. Everybody gets to buy new equipment if they plan to bowl
>>>>sanctioned leagues, like it or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>What would stop pro shops from getting a stencil and engraving the logo on
>>>older balls themselves? Same way they put names or initials on new balls.
>>>They could charge $1 for the service and make a little cash, and create
>>>tons
>>>of new loyal customers who don't need new balls just yet, but will most
>>>likely
>>>buy from the pro shop who helped them out. A win-win situation.
>>>
>>>Mark D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>


        
Date: 24 Jul 2005 13:49:12
From: Jeff Rife
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
Tony R Smith (tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com) wrote in alt.sport.bowling:
> ... and then reality sunk in... How do you feel about USBC's proposal
> now, Mark?

Until Lisa mentioned it, I never thought about the many, many people who
paid reasonably big bucks for "Vis-A-Ball" (or similar from other companies)
spare balls, and *those* would not be legal after 2008, since they don't have
the USBC logo.

--
Jeff Rife


        
Date: 24 Jul 2005 12:31:23
From: Mark D
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
Man it sucks! I don't know why we need the logo and balance hole
requirements.
Even the cg within 1" of the center of grip is out of line. If they
absolutely have to
do something, the cg would be the least costly, we could plug our balls that
don't
comply and redrill. But I don't think most of us can afford to replace our
arsenals all
at once.

I sent them a protest to the link they have on their page, and got a
response from
Midge Jozwiak, whoever that is, already! I don't know if it is a canned
response,
but she said they would take my comments under consideration. Yeah right,
we'll see...
I told them the lanes and not the balls are the problem. I am finding that
out this
summer in the Sport shot league. :-0!!!

Mark D.



"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com > wrote in message
news:g9PEe.914$5g.688@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> ... and then reality sunk in... How do you feel about USBC's proposal now,
> Mark?
>
> Mark D wrote:
>
>>OOPs! I found it....
>>
>>Mark D.
>>
>>
>>"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>news:WlOEe.1693$vf.1174@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>>The serial number on the ball, which contains the year of manufacture.
>>>
>>>Mark D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:S7HEe.1682$vf.1367@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The current proposal as a remember it makes balls that aren't
>>>>>"manufactured" with the USBC logo illegal after 2008, regardless of how
>>>>>it is drilled. Everybody gets to buy new equipment if they plan to bowl
>>>>>sanctioned leagues, like it or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>What would stop pro shops from getting a stencil and engraving the logo
>>>>on
>>>>older balls themselves? Same way they put names or initials on new
>>>>balls.
>>>>They could charge $1 for the service and make a little cash, and create
>>>>tons
>>>>of new loyal customers who don't need new balls just yet, but will most
>>>>likely
>>>>buy from the pro shop who helped them out. A win-win situation.
>>>>
>>>>Mark D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>




         
Date: 25 Jul 2005 04:38:00
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
The bottom line is that "every" ball currently in use today will be
illegal for use in 2008 if the proposal goes through. It doesn't matter
whether you are a once a week, hangin' out with your drinkin' buddies,
one ball bowler, or a guy who needs a caddy to haul in his arsenal of
balls... they "all" will need to purchase new equipment in 2008. If you
don't believe that there will be backlash from this from the bowling
community once they find out about it, you need to put down the peace
pipe before your brain is completely fried! I still like to bowl, and I
am thinking that maybe sanctioning isn't necessary to have fun and
compete. We'll see when and if the say really comes.

Mark D wrote:

>Man it sucks! I don't know why we need the logo and balance hole
>requirements.
>Even the cg within 1" of the center of grip is out of line. If they
>absolutely have to
>do something, the cg would be the least costly, we could plug our balls that
>don't
>comply and redrill. But I don't think most of us can afford to replace our
>arsenals all
>at once.
>
>I sent them a protest to the link they have on their page, and got a
>response from
>Midge Jozwiak, whoever that is, already! I don't know if it is a canned
>response,
>but she said they would take my comments under consideration. Yeah right,
>we'll see...
>I told them the lanes and not the balls are the problem. I am finding that
>out this
>summer in the Sport shot league. :-0!!!
>
>Mark D.
>
>
>
>"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:g9PEe.914$5g.688@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
>
>>... and then reality sunk in... How do you feel about USBC's proposal now,
>>Mark?
>>
>>Mark D wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>OOPs! I found it....
>>>
>>>Mark D.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>news:WlOEe.1693$vf.1174@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The serial number on the ball, which contains the year of manufacture.
>>>>
>>>>Mark D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:S7HEe.1682$vf.1367@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The current proposal as a remember it makes balls that aren't
>>>>>>"manufactured" with the USBC logo illegal after 2008, regardless of how
>>>>>>it is drilled. Everybody gets to buy new equipment if they plan to bowl
>>>>>>sanctioned leagues, like it or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>What would stop pro shops from getting a stencil and engraving the logo
>>>>>on
>>>>>older balls themselves? Same way they put names or initials on new
>>>>>balls.
>>>>>They could charge $1 for the service and make a little cash, and create
>>>>>tons
>>>>>of new loyal customers who don't need new balls just yet, but will most
>>>>>likely
>>>>>buy from the pro shop who helped them out. A win-win situation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mark D.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>


          
Date: 25 Jul 2005 02:39:05
From: Joe Zachar
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
I was going to write a long reply but since the proposal is for balls
manufactured with balance holes I guess my balls manufactured without
balance holes will be good. ; )

I can see riot police going into action at the Nationals when they tell
someone who has just paid extra to the airlines to get they ball bag on
the plane that they cannot use those balls because they are not up to
USBC specs.

Joe Z


Tony R Smith wrote:

> The bottom line is that "every" ball currently in use today will be
> illegal for use in 2008 if the proposal goes through. It doesn't
> matter whether you are a once a week, hangin' out with your drinkin'
> buddies, one ball bowler, or a guy who needs a caddy to haul in his
> arsenal of balls... they "all" will need to purchase new equipment in
> 2008. If you don't believe that there will be backlash from this from
> the bowling community once they find out about it, you need to put
> down the peace pipe before your brain is completely fried! I still
> like to bowl, and I am thinking that maybe sanctioning isn't necessary
> to have fun and compete. We'll see when and if the say really comes.
>
> Mark D wrote:
>
>> Man it sucks! I don't know why we need the logo and balance hole
>> requirements.
>> Even the cg within 1" of the center of grip is out of line. If they
>> absolutely have to
>> do something, the cg would be the least costly, we could plug our
>> balls that don't
>> comply and redrill. But I don't think most of us can afford to
>> replace our arsenals all
>> at once.
>>
>> I sent them a protest to the link they have on their page, and got a
>> response from
>> Midge Jozwiak, whoever that is, already! I don't know if it is a
>> canned response,
>> but she said they would take my comments under consideration. Yeah
>> right, we'll see...
>> I told them the lanes and not the balls are the problem. I am
>> finding that out this
>> summer in the Sport shot league. :-0!!!
>>
>> Mark D.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> news:g9PEe.914$5g.688@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>
>>> ... and then reality sunk in... How do you feel about USBC's
>>> proposal now, Mark?
>>>
>>> Mark D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> OOPs! I found it....
>>>>
>>>> Mark D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:WlOEe.1693$vf.1174@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The serial number on the ball, which contains the year of
>>>>> manufacture.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:S7HEe.1682$vf.1367@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current proposal as a remember it makes balls that aren't
>>>>>>> "manufactured" with the USBC logo illegal after 2008, regardless
>>>>>>> of how it is drilled. Everybody gets to buy new equipment if
>>>>>>> they plan to bowl sanctioned leagues, like it or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What would stop pro shops from getting a stencil and engraving
>>>>>> the logo on
>>>>>> older balls themselves? Same way they put names or initials on
>>>>>> new balls.
>>>>>> They could charge $1 for the service and make a little cash, and
>>>>>> create tons
>>>>>> of new loyal customers who don't need new balls just yet, but
>>>>>> will most likely
>>>>>> buy from the pro shop who helped them out. A win-win situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>



           
Date: 25 Jul 2005 11:41:27
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
I just reread the proposal Q & A's. I misunderstood them. This is the
real answer.

Q. What if bowlers have a ball with a balance hole? If these proposals
are adopted, could a ball with a balance hole still be used in USBC
certified competition?

A. Any ball that is on the approved list remains approved. As of Jan. 1,
2006 only new balls (with the USBC logo) would be prohibited from having
a balance hole (and the CG must be within one inch of the cg). As of
Jan. 1, 2008 no ball with a balance hole would be allowed in USBC
certified competition. You could still use a ball without a logo (a
pre-2006 ball), it just couldn't have a balance hole and the CG must be
within one inch of the center of the grip. Older balls could be plugged
and re-drilled.

Joe Zachar wrote:

> I was going to write a long reply but since the proposal is for balls
> manufactured with balance holes I guess my balls manufactured without
> balance holes will be good. ; )
> I can see riot police going into action at the Nationals when they
> tell someone who has just paid extra to the airlines to get they ball
> bag on the plane that they cannot use those balls because they are not
> up to USBC specs.
>
> Joe Z
>
>
> Tony R Smith wrote:
>
>> The bottom line is that "every" ball currently in use today will be
>> illegal for use in 2008 if the proposal goes through. It doesn't
>> matter whether you are a once a week, hangin' out with your drinkin'
>> buddies, one ball bowler, or a guy who needs a caddy to haul in his
>> arsenal of balls... they "all" will need to purchase new equipment in
>> 2008. If you don't believe that there will be backlash from this from
>> the bowling community once they find out about it, you need to put
>> down the peace pipe before your brain is completely fried! I still
>> like to bowl, and I am thinking that maybe sanctioning isn't
>> necessary to have fun and compete. We'll see when and if the say
>> really comes.
>>
>> Mark D wrote:
>>
>>> Man it sucks! I don't know why we need the logo and balance hole
>>> requirements.
>>> Even the cg within 1" of the center of grip is out of line. If they
>>> absolutely have to
>>> do something, the cg would be the least costly, we could plug our
>>> balls that don't
>>> comply and redrill. But I don't think most of us can afford to
>>> replace our arsenals all
>>> at once.
>>>
>>> I sent them a protest to the link they have on their page, and got a
>>> response from
>>> Midge Jozwiak, whoever that is, already! I don't know if it is a
>>> canned response,
>>> but she said they would take my comments under consideration. Yeah
>>> right, we'll see...
>>> I told them the lanes and not the balls are the problem. I am
>>> finding that out this
>>> summer in the Sport shot league. :-0!!!
>>>
>>> Mark D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>> news:g9PEe.914$5g.688@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> ... and then reality sunk in... How do you feel about USBC's
>>>> proposal now, Mark?
>>>>
>>>> Mark D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> OOPs! I found it....
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark D.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:WlOEe.1693$vf.1174@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The serial number on the ball, which contains the year of
>>>>>> manufacture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark D wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:S7HEe.1682$vf.1367@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The current proposal as a remember it makes balls that aren't
>>>>>>>> "manufactured" with the USBC logo illegal after 2008,
>>>>>>>> regardless of how it is drilled. Everybody gets to buy new
>>>>>>>> equipment if they plan to bowl sanctioned leagues, like it or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What would stop pro shops from getting a stencil and engraving
>>>>>>> the logo on
>>>>>>> older balls themselves? Same way they put names or initials on
>>>>>>> new balls.
>>>>>>> They could charge $1 for the service and make a little cash, and
>>>>>>> create tons
>>>>>>> of new loyal customers who don't need new balls just yet, but
>>>>>>> will most likely
>>>>>>> buy from the pro shop who helped them out. A win-win situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>


            
Date: 26 Jul 2005 20:09:19
From: Lisa
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility

"Tony R Smith" wrote:

> A. Any ball that is on the approved list remains approved. As of Jan. 1,
> 2006 only new balls (with the USBC logo) would be prohibited from having a
> balance hole (and the CG must be within one inch of the cg). As of Jan. 1,
> 2008 no ball with a balance hole would be allowed in USBC certified
> competition. You could still use a ball without a logo (a pre-2006 ball),
> it just couldn't have a balance hole and the CG must be within one inch of
> the center of the grip. Older balls could be plugged and re-drilled.

So.... the 20 year old White Dot can live on, yes? :)




             
Date: 27 Jul 2005 00:58:42
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
Yes, but "all" of my current equipment, including my spare ball, would
need to be filled and redrilled. :-(

Lisa wrote:

>"Tony R Smith" wrote:
>
>
>
>>A. Any ball that is on the approved list remains approved. As of Jan. 1,
>>2006 only new balls (with the USBC logo) would be prohibited from having a
>>balance hole (and the CG must be within one inch of the cg). As of Jan. 1,
>>2008 no ball with a balance hole would be allowed in USBC certified
>>competition. You could still use a ball without a logo (a pre-2006 ball),
>>it just couldn't have a balance hole and the CG must be within one inch of
>>the center of the grip. Older balls could be plugged and re-drilled.
>>
>>
>
>So.... the 20 year old White Dot can live on, yes? :)
>
>
>
>


              
Date: 26 Jul 2005 22:13:02
From: mhood
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
You've got a balance hole in your spare ball????

Tony R Smith wrote:
> Yes, but "all" of my current equipment, including my spare ball, would
> need to be filled and redrilled. :-(
>


               
Date: 27 Jul 2005 04:07:37
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
Yes. I drill my spare ball with the CG on my track. This gives the ball
zero flare. Because of this, I have to have a balance hole on my NAP
(negative axis point/plane).

mhood wrote:

> You've got a balance hole in your spare ball????
>
> Tony R Smith wrote:
>
>> Yes, but "all" of my current equipment, including my spare ball,
>> would need to be filled and redrilled. :-(
>>


               
Date:
From:
Subject:


              
Date:
From:
Subject:


             
Date:
From:
Subject:


            
Date:
From:
Subject:


           
Date:
From:
Subject:


          
Date: 25 Jul 2005 04:40:53
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
... "say" was supposed to be "day". <damned spell checker not correcting
for grammar > :-P

Tony R Smith wrote:

> The bottom line is that "every" ball currently in use today will be
> illegal for use in 2008 if the proposal goes through. It doesn't
> matter whether you are a once a week, hangin' out with your drinkin'
> buddies, one ball bowler, or a guy who needs a caddy to haul in his
> arsenal of balls... they "all" will need to purchase new equipment in
> 2008. If you don't believe that there will be backlash from this from
> the bowling community once they find out about it, you need to put
> down the peace pipe before your brain is completely fried! I still
> like to bowl, and I am thinking that maybe sanctioning isn't necessary
> to have fun and compete. We'll see when and if the say really comes.
>
> Mark D wrote:
>
>> Man it sucks! I don't know why we need the logo and balance hole
>> requirements.
>> Even the cg within 1" of the center of grip is out of line. If they
>> absolutely have to
>> do something, the cg would be the least costly, we could plug our
>> balls that don't
>> comply and redrill. But I don't think most of us can afford to
>> replace our arsenals all
>> at once.
>>
>> I sent them a protest to the link they have on their page, and got a
>> response from
>> Midge Jozwiak, whoever that is, already! I don't know if it is a
>> canned response,
>> but she said they would take my comments under consideration. Yeah
>> right, we'll see...
>> I told them the lanes and not the balls are the problem. I am
>> finding that out this
>> summer in the Sport shot league. :-0!!!
>>
>> Mark D.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> news:g9PEe.914$5g.688@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>
>>> ... and then reality sunk in... How do you feel about USBC's
>>> proposal now, Mark?
>>>
>>> Mark D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> OOPs! I found it....
>>>>
>>>> Mark D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:WlOEe.1693$vf.1174@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The serial number on the ball, which contains the year of
>>>>> manufacture.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:S7HEe.1682$vf.1367@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current proposal as a remember it makes balls that aren't
>>>>>>> "manufactured" with the USBC logo illegal after 2008, regardless
>>>>>>> of how it is drilled. Everybody gets to buy new equipment if
>>>>>>> they plan to bowl sanctioned leagues, like it or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What would stop pro shops from getting a stencil and engraving
>>>>>> the logo on
>>>>>> older balls themselves? Same way they put names or initials on
>>>>>> new balls.
>>>>>> They could charge $1 for the service and make a little cash, and
>>>>>> create tons
>>>>>> of new loyal customers who don't need new balls just yet, but
>>>>>> will most likely
>>>>>> buy from the pro shop who helped them out. A win-win situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


          
Date:
From:
Subject:


          
Date:
From:
Subject:


         
Date:
From:
Subject:


        
Date:
From:
Subject:


        
Date:
From:
Subject:


       
Date:
From:
Subject:


      
Date: 24 Jul 2005 10:37:54
From: Mark D
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
I just went through the USBC site and did not find anything that
would indicate people will need to get new equipment in 2008.
The rules and specs don't seem too much different than they are
now. Someone point me in the right direction so I can read the
proposed changes.

Mark D.


"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com > wrote in message
news:WlOEe.1693$vf.1174@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> The serial number on the ball, which contains the year of manufacture.
>
> Mark D wrote:
>
>>"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>news:S7HEe.1682$vf.1367@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>>The current proposal as a remember it makes balls that aren't
>>>"manufactured" with the USBC logo illegal after 2008, regardless of how
>>>it is drilled. Everybody gets to buy new equipment if they plan to bowl
>>>sanctioned leagues, like it or not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>What would stop pro shops from getting a stencil and engraving the logo on
>>older balls themselves? Same way they put names or initials on new balls.
>>They could charge $1 for the service and make a little cash, and create
>>tons
>>of new loyal customers who don't need new balls just yet, but will most
>>likely
>>buy from the pro shop who helped them out. A win-win situation.
>>
>>Mark D.
>>
>>
>>
>>




      
Date:
From:
Subject:


      
Date:
From:
Subject:


     
Date:
From:
Subject:


    
Date:
From:
Subject:


   
Date:
From:
Subject:


  
Date:
From:
Subject:


 
Date: 22 Jul 2005 16:52:38
From: twobirds
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
BowlTX wrote:
> What do you think about the USBC plans to look at bolwling balls, and
> will you be ready to replace your equipment?

This has been discussed here - and the ball manufacturers have pretty much
all made statements saying the same thing. They feel that the proposed
changes will increase manufacturing costs and therefore increase retail
costs.

Aside from that, my reading and small amount of experience makes me beleive
that the ball changes are not likely to bring the even playing field that
the USBC is hoping for. It is a cop-out in my opinion. They may be able to
bring the scores of the top 2 or 3% of players down a couple of pins for a
short while, but their changes certainly won't effect the scores of your
regular league bowler who is playing on a wall that will let him/her find
the pocket just by cranking it out anywhere from the 12 board to the 1
board.

I've recently done some traveling around checking out other centers in my
State. I found conditions that allowed me to miss and miss badly and still
find the pocket. Other than the USBC Logo, my current equipment is all
pretty much compliant.

In short: It is the lane conditions, not the balls they should be looking
at.




 
Date:
From:
Subject:


 
Date:
From:
Subject:


 
Date:
From:
Subject:


 
Date: 22 Jul 2005 15:39:54
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility
All USBC has to do is look at the results at Nationals to see that the
bowling ball specs are not the culprit... it's the lane conditions.
Nationals isn't even the toughest shot possible but, for people that are
used to taking advantage of the huge amounts of area provided by a
typical "Wally World" house shot, it is damn near impossible. All
changing the equipment specs will due is put more money into the
manufactures pockets (from those bowlers that continue to bowl
sanctioned play) and separate the bowlers with hand from those without
hand. It is the biggest farce that the sanctioning body has come up with
yet.

BowlTX wrote:

>What do you think about the USBC plans to look at bolwling balls, and
>will you be ready to replace your equipment?
>
>
>


  
Date: 24 Jul 2005 01:34:24
From: Ryan Press \(NI\)
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility

"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com > wrote in message
news:er8Ee.1426$vf.371@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> All USBC has to do is look at the results at Nationals to see that the
> bowling ball specs are not the culprit... it's the lane conditions.

Heh, its weird, but half the bowling public, and 100% of those that actually
know anything about bowling, are currently pulling their hair out at the
proposals of the USBC, as we all know that its the LANES that are making the
difference... (time for me to state my usual claim - me with a plastic ball
on a wall against anyone on a flat shot with the ball of their choice and i
fancy my chances ;-)

Surely there are at least 1 or 2 people on the USBC council thinking -
"here, hold on guys, this is going to make a gnats balls of a difference -
lets just set some rules in place on the lane conditions allowed for
sanctioned play... surely we will loose less players this way than making
all the once a week bowlers in the country go out and buy a new $200
ball...??"

Ryan
*tearing his hair out*




  
Date:
From:
Subject:


 
Date: 22 Jul 2005 11:48:57
From: moncho
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility

"BowlTX" <wrightdk@hot.rr-dot-com.no-spam.invalid > wrote in message
news:42e0cba0$1_5@alt.athenanews.com...
> What do you think about the USBC plans to look at bolwling balls, and
> will you be ready to replace your equipment?

I really wish 7/29 would get here because I believe they are suppose to have
a meeting that day to finalize any changes based on the comments
received at their June meetings.

I am itching to purchase a new bowling ball and have it drilled but I would
like to know if they are going to scratch the balance hole BEFORE
I get it drilled so I will not have to have it re-drilled later.

To answer your question, I am NOT ready to replace equiptment yet
but I am willing to increase the arsenal.

moncho




 
Date: 22 Jul 2005 11:44:08
From: pkstore2
Subject: Re: USBC's look into credibility

"BowlTX" <wrightdk@hot.rr-dot-com.no-spam.invalid > wrote in message
news:42e0cba0$1_5@alt.athenanews.com...
> What do you think about the USBC plans to look at bolwling balls, and
> will you be ready to replace your equipment?
>

Gotta do what ya gotta do but they still wonder why leagues have been on a
decline.