I'd like the study to include urethane balls that have been hit with a 360 or 500 grit pad before bowling and what it's impact is over time, especially as balls are continually hit with the 360 or 500 grit pad every time it's used in a event
Hitting the ball with 360 or 500 each and every time it is used, does it impacts the ball to get softer over time or change its ability to cover more or less footprint.
I may be missing something, but leaving aside the footprint/performance results, the sudden drop in hardness upon "use" is an issue on it's own. Isn't the lower limit for hardness in competition for ALL balls set @ 73, by the USBC? (there must be a limit right, or we could go back to using "soaker" balls, lol). That alone could explain why the PBA made their decision. Requiring 78 hardness at manufacture will ensure that none drop below 73 in competition. There may be other reasons as well, but that's the way I interpret it.
Right, but the point USBC seems to be making is that even if the hardness drops, there is no performance to be gained from it (the graphs showed they hooked less over time, not more), and they seem to believe that is because the footprint remains the same. And so if there's no performance to be gained, why do we even care about this so much?
@@JeffTeachesBowling Good question, but I think that study is far too limited to be able to draw any far reaching conclusions. You discussed this, and of course this debate has been going on for years. I certainly don't have an answer, heh. The PBA decision HAS been called in to question as a result of this report though. If I put myself in their position, I want to make sure that all equipment is "rule compliant" in $$$-competition-$$$ to protect my members first. The rest of us can carry on wondering until the rules are changed. =)
More than the damning content of this USBC report, I wonder at the motivation and timing of the report. Does the USBC really care what rules the PBA sets for itself? Is the USBC intentionally casting doubt on the PBA's rules and if so, to what end? Why release this report now, when Stremmel and the PBA have already made their 01/06/24 rule change cast in stone? It's not like the PBA is going to lose face and reverse their decision just because of this report.... Or, perhaps more likely, the USBC released this report as a self-serving precursor to an announcement coming soon, that all league and USBC Nats bowlers can relax and keep using their Purple Hammers and Pitch Blacks and not worry that the USBC will follow the PBA's lead? I'm not into conspiracy theories, but the timing and content of this report is quite curious, to me. In the immortal words of the Bard, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
Amazing what the USBC can conclude when you don't test any balls below 71 hardness and where the performance has been proven already to have the greatest impact to ball motion. Just like the USBC's Open Championship surveys, this is another study that has been manipulated and spun in favor of the outcome the USBC wants.
The softer tires needed changed more often. If the driver running the spongy Hoosier pits to soon his tires crap out and the guys with the hockey puck Goodyears pass him lol
confused - wow - so soft balls dont impact ball performance so why did the USBC ban 2017 2018 Purple Hammers and why did the USBC ban all those storm reactive balls last year? Also what about a urethane balls that has 1000 ganes on it ?
Keep in mind, this study was ONLY for balls that are soft from use. It isn't about balls that are too soft from the factory (like the 2017 purple hammers) or people who intentionally and illegally soften their bowling balls artificially like with acetone, etc. Also, this is only about URETHANE balls, not reactive balls, so it isn't related to the Storm balls banning. As for the 1000 games, yeah I'd like to see that study too. Maybe USBC will do a follow up study.
oh ok - so balls that come out of the factory soft will have a bigger footprint and those that dont come out of the factory soft ---- the factory (non soft balls) can go softer over time but that doesnt impact performance .. uhuh ... oh and balls that came out of the factory soft can also go softer over time and does impact performance - hahaha - clear as mud lol @@JeffTeachesBowling
Conclusion: USBC has too much money! Did the study re-oil after every shot, after all isn't it lane condition that makes the BIGGEST impact on ball performance? So the next study will be... Do strings effect the hardness of a plastic balls ?
You asked for my assessment and it would be that you did a fine job explaining all of this ... but your video lacks the relevant context and critique knowledgeable viewers would want. You didn't note how this finding is the second that conveniently fits with USBC not governing the 2 urethanes that get softer. And you didn't bring up and discuss two vital points: If it doesn't matter, why have all the best bowlers in the world (other than MOTIV staffers who can't) overwhelmingly chosen the PITCH BLACK and PURPLE HAMMER when they use urethane? If it doesn't matter, why would the PBA spend so much time and energy on it and enact rules that create strife with 2 of its biggest sponsors (Storm and Brunswick)?
That's fair. I suspect the reason your brain thinks to go there but mine does not is because your background is in journalism. You're always looking to see why people do the things they do. My background, on the other hand, is science (as you probably know I have an Ivy League Engineering degree), so I'm just good with figuring out and seeing the results of the study, and to wonder what other studies might be needed next and what other science questions naturally follow, and am happy to leave the "people questions" for journalists like you!
If I had to make a guess from the peanut gallery (i.e., the league bowler world) ... we're here because someone went ready-fire-aim. They probably saw the durometer readings getting softer and the knee-jerk reaction is to believe we were about to have another Don McCune/MEK situation on our hands and they knew from the last time what that would do to ball performance, so they just flat-banned everything below a certain hardness and/or everything that had the potential to go below a certain hardness. But there's a couple of problems with that. One, it would be difficult (not impossible, but not all that easy) to compare modern urethane to chemical-soaked polyester from 50 years ago with the poly serving as the "control" for lack of a better term (this would answer the question of at what softness do we start to see a real effect on performance and whether that change in performance was linear or whether it "kicked in" at a certain softness); two, any of us that still have 20-year-old urethane lying around (Visionary Red Sorcerer, anyone?) don't get the same performance characteristics out of them as it is, compared to what we get from modern urethane -- which may or may not be analogous, design-wise, to the modern pieces, so comparing modern to non-modern equipment might yield false positives or negatives depending on the conditions both sets of equipment were exposed to. Solution? Just ban everything (or at least everything outside of certain, narrow parameters) so they didn't have to think about it anymore. That's kind of how it looks from here, and now the companies are moving on to Hammer Nu Blue and Storm iQ 78/U and whatnot.
Great Video BTW
Thanks!!
Great info Jeff!
Jeff your still a smart boy my personal reasons is they made a deal because they manufacture won't sell as many balls
I'd like the study to include urethane balls that have been hit with a 360 or 500 grit pad before bowling and what it's impact is over time, especially as balls are continually hit with the 360 or 500 grit pad every time it's used in a event
What would the study be looking to measure? The surface prep's impact on what?
Hitting the ball with 360 or 500 each and every time it is used, does it impacts the ball to get softer over time or change its ability to cover more or less footprint.
They USBC has raised the numbers from 72 up to 78, 80 is hard plastic
@@remington1439 yeah, I'm aware of it. Just curious what will happen when surface will be modified consistently
I may be missing something, but leaving aside the footprint/performance results, the sudden drop in hardness upon "use" is an issue on it's own. Isn't the lower limit for hardness in competition for ALL balls set @ 73, by the USBC? (there must be a limit right, or we could go back to using "soaker" balls, lol). That alone could explain why the PBA made their decision. Requiring 78 hardness at manufacture will ensure that none drop below 73 in competition. There may be other reasons as well, but that's the way I interpret it.
Right, but the point USBC seems to be making is that even if the hardness drops, there is no performance to be gained from it (the graphs showed they hooked less over time, not more), and they seem to believe that is because the footprint remains the same.
And so if there's no performance to be gained, why do we even care about this so much?
@@JeffTeachesBowling Good question, but I think that study is far too limited to be able to draw any far reaching conclusions. You discussed this, and of course this debate has been going on for years. I certainly don't have an answer, heh. The PBA decision HAS been called in to question as a result of this report though. If I put myself in their position, I want to make sure that all equipment is "rule compliant" in $$$-competition-$$$ to protect my members first. The rest of us can carry on wondering until the rules are changed. =)
More than the damning content of this USBC report, I wonder at the motivation and timing of the report. Does the USBC really care what rules the PBA sets for itself? Is the USBC intentionally casting doubt on the PBA's rules and if so, to what end? Why release this report now, when Stremmel and the PBA have already made their 01/06/24 rule change cast in stone? It's not like the PBA is going to lose face and reverse their decision just because of this report....
Or, perhaps more likely, the USBC released this report as a self-serving precursor to an announcement coming soon, that all league and USBC Nats bowlers can relax and keep using their Purple Hammers and Pitch Blacks and not worry that the USBC will follow the PBA's lead?
I'm not into conspiracy theories, but the timing and content of this report is quite curious, to me. In the immortal words of the Bard, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
Amazing what the USBC can conclude when you don't test any balls below 71 hardness and where the performance has been proven already to have the greatest impact to ball motion. Just like the USBC's Open Championship surveys, this is another study that has been manipulated and spun in favor of the outcome the USBC wants.
I'm guessing that no one watches motor racing. Contact patch can increase performance, but not as much as compound softness.
The softer tires needed changed more often. If the driver running the spongy Hoosier pits to soon his tires crap out and the guys with the hockey puck Goodyears pass him lol
confused - wow - so soft balls dont impact ball performance so why did the USBC ban 2017 2018 Purple Hammers and why did the USBC ban all those storm reactive balls last year? Also what about a urethane balls that has 1000 ganes on it ?
Keep in mind, this study was ONLY for balls that are soft from use. It isn't about balls that are too soft from the factory (like the 2017 purple hammers) or people who intentionally and illegally soften their bowling balls artificially like with acetone, etc. Also, this is only about URETHANE balls, not reactive balls, so it isn't related to the Storm balls banning.
As for the 1000 games, yeah I'd like to see that study too. Maybe USBC will do a follow up study.
oh ok - so balls that come out of the factory soft will have a bigger footprint and those that dont come out of the factory soft ---- the factory (non soft balls) can go softer over time but that doesnt impact performance .. uhuh ... oh and balls that came out of the factory soft can also go softer over time and does impact performance - hahaha - clear as mud lol @@JeffTeachesBowling
Conclusion: USBC has too much money! Did the study re-oil after every shot, after all isn't it lane condition that makes the BIGGEST impact on ball performance? So the next study will be... Do strings effect the hardness of a plastic balls ?
You asked for my assessment and it would be that you did a fine job explaining all of this ... but your video lacks the relevant context and critique knowledgeable viewers would want.
You didn't note how this finding is the second that conveniently fits with USBC not governing the 2 urethanes that get softer.
And you didn't bring up and discuss two vital points:
If it doesn't matter, why have all the best bowlers in the world (other than MOTIV staffers who can't) overwhelmingly chosen the PITCH BLACK and PURPLE HAMMER when they use urethane?
If it doesn't matter, why would the PBA spend so much time and energy on it and enact rules that create strife with 2 of its biggest sponsors (Storm and Brunswick)?
That's fair. I suspect the reason your brain thinks to go there but mine does not is because your background is in journalism. You're always looking to see why people do the things they do.
My background, on the other hand, is science (as you probably know I have an Ivy League Engineering degree), so I'm just good with figuring out and seeing the results of the study, and to wonder what other studies might be needed next and what other science questions naturally follow, and am happy to leave the "people questions" for journalists like you!
If I had to make a guess from the peanut gallery (i.e., the league bowler world) ... we're here because someone went ready-fire-aim. They probably saw the durometer readings getting softer and the knee-jerk reaction is to believe we were about to have another Don McCune/MEK situation on our hands and they knew from the last time what that would do to ball performance, so they just flat-banned everything below a certain hardness and/or everything that had the potential to go below a certain hardness. But there's a couple of problems with that. One, it would be difficult (not impossible, but not all that easy) to compare modern urethane to chemical-soaked polyester from 50 years ago with the poly serving as the "control" for lack of a better term (this would answer the question of at what softness do we start to see a real effect on performance and whether that change in performance was linear or whether it "kicked in" at a certain softness); two, any of us that still have 20-year-old urethane lying around (Visionary Red Sorcerer, anyone?) don't get the same performance characteristics out of them as it is, compared to what we get from modern urethane -- which may or may not be analogous, design-wise, to the modern pieces, so comparing modern to non-modern equipment might yield false positives or negatives depending on the conditions both sets of equipment were exposed to. Solution? Just ban everything (or at least everything outside of certain, narrow parameters) so they didn't have to think about it anymore. That's kind of how it looks from here, and now the companies are moving on to Hammer Nu Blue and Storm iQ 78/U and whatnot.