Right or wrong ?

[Bigsy]

Please feel free to discuss, as I think this is relevant to Australia also (albeit on a smaller scale)

Bigsy !!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/sports/othersports/01bowling.html?pagewanted=print

 

[PeterB]

Interesting article. Ebonite themselves say reactive balls make good bowlers better bowlers. They describe their balls as having built in steering wheels. Reactive balls hit the market in 1991. In that year in the US 300 games jumped by 24,000.

It's been awhile since I've told someone to take it slowly. Start off with a conventional drill in a plastic ball and learn the basics. Now I tell them to buy a cheap secondhand reactive ball and have a full fingertip drill patern and start bowling. Doesn't take long to get good anymore.

 

[Ubby]

Its definately an interesting article.
I sort of feel like as ball technology has advanced, oil patterns have gotten harder at the same time.
In all honesty, you can have gear of the highest quality that will get you through league on a house pattern no problems at all, but as soon as you hit a pattern that actually requires skill and a bit of thinking, if you dont have a real good technical game or have limited knowledge, your high tech gear means nothing.

Which poses another problem. There are people that can average 220+ on house patterns with their brand new gear, how many of them can go away to a tournament and shoot the same numbers on a much harder pattern?
The ones that can, many of us know as some of the countries best.
The ones that cant, just eventually stop going away to tournaments.

 

[Fitzy]

I agree with you, though, I believe the opposite can be true also.

When I started bowling as a junior with rock hard 16lb bowling balls (from my grandfather when he bowled in the 60's) - Think they where made from pure rock (think Flintstones!) . The lane conditions and balls where conducive to the same shot making. If you put the ball in the same spot the same way it will do the same thing for 20 games!

With the ball technology and high friction, a heavy oil or long oil condition can make some of the high tech balls track 'similar' to the above situation. The oil does not let the ball traction as much until it reaches the dry and the stored energy forces the ball to make a consistent arch to the pocket.

Then come to a league where oil is placed sparsely and with no apparent forethought of pattern and watch the ball sail coast to coast, move the little oil that was in that spot forcing the bowler to move after 2 frame (and repeat). On some 'house' conditions it is easier just to go to my plastics and have fun with it. On these conditions, usually I score higher after going to plastic anyway. Hmmmm.

I know everyone shouts now, the ball is not the right ball for the condition. When you can only afford one bowling ball a year you just have to make do I suppose.

Essentially what I am trying to say is that both environment (before 1990 and after) have their own idiosyncrasies and challenges. Who is to say which is better. Take Belmo back in time and I am sure he will be, back then, where he is now. On the PBA tour and Australians finest bowler for the time.

My $0.05

Cheers.

 

[jimcross]

I agree with you, though, I believe the opposite can be true also.

When I started bowling as a junior with rock hard 16lb bowling balls (from my grandfather when he bowled in the 60's) - Think they where made from pure rock (think Flintstones!) . The lane conditions and balls where conducive to the same shot making. If you put the ball in the same spot the same way it will do the same thing for 20 games!

With the ball technology and high friction, a heavy oil or long oil condition can make some of the high tech balls track 'similar' to the above situation. The oil does not let the ball traction as much until it reaches the dry and the stored energy forces the ball to make a consistent arch to the pocket.

Then come to a league where oil is placed sparsely and with no apparent forethought of pattern and watch the ball sail coast to coast, move the little oil that was in that spot forcing the bowler to move after 2 frame (and repeat). On some 'house' conditions it is easier just to go to my plastics and have fun with it. On these conditions, usually I score higher after going to plastic anyway. Hmmmm.

I know everyone shouts now, the ball is not the right ball for the condition. When you can only afford one bowling ball a year you just have to make do I suppose.

Essentially what I am trying to say is that both environment (before 1990 and after) have their own idiosyncrasies and challenges. Who is to say which is better. Take Belmo back in time and I am sure he will be, back then, where he is now. On the PBA tour and Australians finest bowler for the time.

My $0.05

Cheers.

How very true! Easier to know how true it is, if you've experienced both periods.
Belmo may have had a bit of trouble with the likes of Eric Jang,or Joe Velo... ( Eric moved a plastic ball about as far as just about any of to-day's bowlers ) - But Belmo would have been up there with them, for sure - So would George. Actually we didn't mind lefties then, both sides of the lane were just as good ( or bad).

 

[Geoff300]

How very true! Easier to know how true it is, if you've experienced both periods.
Belmo may have had a bit of trouble with the likes of Eric Jang,or Joe Velo... ( Eric moved a plastic ball about as far as just about any of to-day's bowlers ) - But Belmo would have been up there with them, for sure - So would George. Actually we didn't mind lefties then, both sides of the lane were just as good ( or bad).

Oh yes the good old days

Don't forget Chris Batson, Steve Mackie, Eric Ellis, Eric Miles, Peter Zambelis
Jan Kozaki, Graham Bacon, just to name a few who were brilliant