Best Bowling Balls For Hook 2021USBC APPROVAL FAQ | MORE DISCREPANCIES? | FAILED TO CATCH WOLVERINE AT NATIONALS?? | PART 2 OF 3 April 6, 2022 - by - 35 Comments. Chris Beans breaks down the first section of the recently released USBC APPROVAL FAQ! Join the discussion and lets continue the conversation! LINK TO PART 1: ***This is PART 2 OF 3***
35 Comments on “USBC APPROVAL FAQ | MORE DISCREPANCIES? | FAILED TO CATCH WOLVERINE AT NATIONALS?? | PART 2 OF 3”
If SPI shipped all balls at 500grit with instructions on how to achieve the target finish in a proshop, the USBC field checks would occur in the same domain as the certification.
Personally, I think all of this is silly, given the lack of USBC control over lanes and oil patterns, which are arguably more significant factors in overall ball motion.
I average 27 pins higher in one house vs another, due to significant differences in the oil patterns used for sanctioned competition.
Has usbc released ANY data to support their rash actions?
I see what you did there….”rash actions” buwuahahahaha
@Bowlers Rant lol
Win the Internet Award of the Year
I don’t think they can say 99% of balls would fail unless they tested several different batches. I would really really hope they wouldn’t act upon the tests of one batch of balls.
As far as statistic methods go, I’d bet that it was a one tailed t test. But they should cite their data and methods.
Just a mess overall at the moment, really just another black eye for the game. Where do we do from here ? Will they lower the bar or raise the bar for hardness. More clarification on where they are going with this from the governing body would be nice for everyone.
The timing issue isn’t a valid argument when you have competitions that last for 4 months. And one could argue 7-9 months if you count leagues as ‘competitions’. Just because some company gave good samples for testing and got approval but released illegal balls (on purpose or accidently doesn’t matter) doesn’t mean you should still be allowed to use the balls after they have been found to not be legal for play. That sounds like a child yelling Ha-Ha you didn’t catch me cheating before so now you have to let me keep cheating till the games over.
As much as I don’t like it, you’re right. Someone could win Nationals in May with the new Motiv Venom, a ball I was unable to use. It’s the same level of fair/unfair.
You kind of glossed over an important question. If the Durometer at the USBC labs is the standard and every other one else can have a 2D variance, what about the durometer the USBC is using for those spot checks? Are they transporting the balls back to the lab to spot check or using a second duromter to test with? If second durometer, what about the variance? Does the variance not matter just because it’s their second durometer?
excellent point. I felt it was implied, but you’re right, should have expanded on this point. Well said.
It’d be interesting to see spot check data from all of the brands
If 100% of Altered Reality balls are projected out of spec, then why is this not treated the same as Spectre? I’m not seeing how Spectre is different than the other 6 (other than it was found first).
The USBC has basically said they are being nice. They could revoke all of the 6 balls, but won’t because of the impact to Storm and their customers. The Spectre just came out and didn’t sell particularly well. The other balls have been out a lot longer and sold a lot better.
@Cardinal Copium Phaze 4 hasn’t even been out for 2 months. Altered Reality and Wolverine came out just before Spectre. I’m just looking for some consistency here, but that’s too much to ask of the USBC
@Tyler Hall They have sold a ton of Phaze 4s. Regardless, consistency would be worse for everyone involved.
@Tyler Hall How about asking for consistency from both sides? That’s always an option.
I wonder if this testing process has so many variables (testing/ manufacturing) such as temperature of the test subject, test area, color, cover type, surface grit etc etc? Maybe the process, and procedures needs to be revisited to see if it’s possible to lessen the amount of possible variables
We’re here for nationals now. Overheard on Monday 4/4 that a wolverine was used with the front 7 for team event before they were stopped. Did not throw out score or the frames bowled. Wtf. Ball checkers appear to be looking for extra weight holes. Apparently, collared shirts were being strictly enforced, but balls, not so much. All this needs follow-up as this was 2nd hand info.
The ball checkers have pictures of the balls they are suppose to remove from competition, but they are pretty clueless. They thought my Honey Badger Intensity was an Altered Reality.
@Cardinal Copium unreal
Since surface prep can make a different in the test result, it would be interesting to take a ball that is matte finish oob and polish it and test.
It would make no sense to ban a ball that tests under out of box and not one that could produce the same reading if polished.
I bet Storm gets some interesting data from the balls returned to them as part of the voluntary exchange process. I’m going to guess there are more than a couple Phaze 4 and Altered’s that test good
This is a point I think most aren’t considering. There is a reason they want those bowling balls.
I believe my Phaze 4 was a defect, but it would test very hard. It didn’t hook much at all compared to others. I’ve drilled enough balls to know when something’s off.
There needs to be conversations between USBC, Ball Companies, and the PBA at the end of 2022. That has to happen. 2nd, they need to come up with a better plan for testing for all 3 and needs to be uniform. I believe a batch shouldn’t be released without results first approved by the USBC. Yes that will slightly elongate the releases and stagger them more but I mean if we standardize across the board I think this would be great for the sport. 3rd, no matter the entity, whether it’s the PBA, USBC, or Ball Companies, balls should be tested (in theory) after a tournament to see where they stand before the next. This will allow for data to be used in declaring an illegal Ball for the next one or not (unless it’s nationals, which in this case should have enough data before it starts. But every entity should be on board and to make it better throw employees from all companies together using a uniform testing method that is calibrated doing the testing so that way all the data good or bad can be delivered back to the brains and assembly lines of the companies. The whole thing is put egos aside come together and comply to keep everyone honest. Plain and simple.
Right now, USBC looks like that person telling a lie. And that person believes in their lie so much that they just keep digging a deeper hole. I can literally picture if Chad Murphy were speak publicly and verbally about this mess… he’d be stuttering and trip over his words.
USBC culpable? Yes Storm culpable? Yes
Bandwagon conspiracy theorists being ridiculous? Absolutely!
Why does it take up to FIVE HOURS to certify ONE BALL!? I can’t believe they would x-ray any bowling ball. At the USBC Stadium in Reno, they checked all our balls in front of us. We each own a Pro Shop. I’m confused and disagree with the USBC on not having the bowler present at the certification. Just my opinion
Are they done testing of all MFG or is the USBC still testing other MFG?
Cool video talk to tech bowling ball bowler rant Chris beans
I like the fact that the USBC say the MFG should build in a “buffer” because their testing isn’t wrong and there couldn’t be any variance in the testing process. So no +/- in these test.
Spot checking is done in a controlled environment?