MoRich Stance on the Proposed USBC Ball Specification Change

In their question and answer “News Story” on the www.bowl.com USBC website, the USBC states, “USBC’s charge is to maintain the credibility and integrity of the sport. There have been many changes in both equipment and bowlers over the years. USBC wants to ensure that scoring is based on individual skill and effort as opposed to artificial means.”

At MoRich, we believe that the proposed changes will be ineffective! Not only will the proposed changes be ineffective but they will have the following negative effects:

the changes will accelerate the rate at which the USBC is losing sanctioned league bowlers

the changes will significantly raise the price of bowling balls to bowlers

the changes will impose undue, unwarranted hardship on the pro shop industry

the changes will also impose undue, unwarranted hardship on the bowling ball manufacturing and distribution industry

MoRich Rationale

The USBC states, “The USBC’s charge is to maintain the credibility and integrity of the sport.” They use this position to justify the necessity of these proposed specification changes. MoRich applauds the nobility of this cause and will participate in and support research resulting in accurate adjustments to bowling ball specifications that will help achieve this cause. Any adjustments must be supported by valid, accurate, and credible research. This research must stand up to a thorough statistical analysis. This type of study requires thought and time. We believe that enthusiasm for the goal should not result in an ineffective rush to judgment.

I have read the following excerpt from a correspondence to the USBC and feel that this accurately states the challenges faced by the game of bowling today.

“The three components that determine scoring are the bowler, the ball and the balls interaction with the lane. Lane conditioning is the dominant factor among these three components that determine the scoring environment. The sport bowling program in addition to the ABC and WIBC national tournaments have verified this. House conditions are designed to overcome both ball reaction and bowler error, this is what creates scores. You can take a bowler and place them on a house condition and they will score the same regardless of what ball they have in their hand or how it’s drilled or if it does or does not have a weight hole. I know this because I’ve tested bowlers with different balls on varying conditions. Some balls met the proposed specifications while others did not. Lane conditions varied from the typical house condition to modified house conditions to varying sport compliant conditions. In each case scoring levels were reduced as conditions were made more difficult regardless of equipment used or if that equipment had a weight hole.”

“The 3 unit minimum rule was instituted at the dawn of the reactive urethane era and remains in effect today. When the 3 unit minimum rule was instituted it was a compromise from what many felt actually needed to be done to restore credibility to the sport of bowling which was a 7-9 unit minimum. What makes this even worse is the lack of enforcement of the 3 unit minimum rule. The local association volunteers call centers before coming out to inspect lanes. Then, when they are on site to inspect lanes the centers are prepared and usually put out a legal pattern on all lanes or just a few and have those checked only. The scores that are being used to determine the trends are contested on conditions that do not even meet specification. The USBC states that their data shows that balance holes can create a dynamic effect and by eliminating them artificially assisted scoring will be reduced. Are we forgetting that friction is required for any reaction to be possible? In reality it is this friction which artificially-assists ball reaction, this is why many refer to the typical house conditions as “adult bumper bowling”.

“Before any changes are made to the system of bowling we first need to ensure current specifications are being enforced. We then need to determine what can be done that is in the best interest of bowling both now and in the future. We need to help people bowl, not create hurdles to keep them from enjoying the sport. If then a reduction of the dynamic potential of a bowling ball is required it should be done at the design level. There are many ways this can easily be performed without creating any product price or distribution increases to the bowler that would potentially hinder participation levels.”

The above was written by Scott Maikowski, proprietor of Precision Bowling Pro Shop in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This is from the letter Scott sent to the USBC in response to the USBC Proposed Ball Specifications changes.

As ball designers and ball motion experts, MoRich knows that ball dynamics do not significantly affect scoring unless there is an inordinately large amount of friction present on the lane. The farther the friction is from the pins, the more the lane can steer the ball to the pocket. High levels of friction within the oil pattern have the largest effect on scoring and present the biggest contributing factor to severely inflated scores. First, let’s address the largest contributing factor to artificial scoring levels.

Evidence of this is obvious when analyzing the 2005 WIBC Championships vs. the 2005 WIBC Queens Tournament. A unique environment exists when the same bowlers, using the same bowling balls, in the same bowling center, bowl in both events and two different lane conditions with significantly different degrees of difficulty are used. This was the case at the WIBC Championships and Queens Tournament in May 2005.

The 2005 WIBC National Championships uses an oil pattern with a 4.2 to 1 blend while the 2005 WIBC Queens Tournament used a “sport legal” oil pattern with a less than 2 to 1 blend (a much more difficult lane condition). Of the women who bowled in both events, only 24 of them averaged over 200 for 10 games of qualifying in the Queens Tournament, while more than 80 of them averaged over 200 for the 9 game All Events in the 2005 WIBC Tournament. This is a huge difference in scoring pace with only the difficulty of the lane condition contributing to the scoring differential.

At this point, a discussion of each of the proposed changes in ball specifications is appropriate.

1) Eliminating all balance holes will severely restrict the ability of a ball driller to match a bowler to a wider variety of modern lane conditions. Balance holes are an important tool to ball drillers to increase the ability of league bowlers to adapt to a wider variety of lane conditions. This increases the bowler’s enjoyment of the game of bowling. The USBC contends that balance holes “influence the amount of hook and ultimately the entry angle of the ball into the pocket.” Scientifically, balance holes can increase the total differential of the drilled ball, which in turn increases track flare. The USBC has already addressed the total differential of a bowling ball by reducing it from .080” to .060” as of February 1, 2005, less than 5 months ago. That is a 25% reduction in total differential, the major contributing factor to track flare. Not enough time has elapsed to accurately evaluate the effect of this change. Let’s evaluate the current reduction in differential before rushing to an additional change within 6 months of the last change. This is not science, this is politics!

MoRich does not agree with the USBC’s assumption that increased track flare increases entry angle. The USBC assumes this relationship in their statement about the use of balance holes in affecting entry angle. USBC, where is your data?

Again, Scott Maikowski puts it very eloquently in his letter to the USBC. “The elimination of holes drilled for balance purposes is a troubling proposition to say the least. While this will reduce my ability to manipulate the dynamics of a bowling ball as a driller it will not eliminate that ability. The majority of balls drilled today have a hole in addition to the gripping holes. Does this weight removing hole manipulate the balls dynamics? Yes, it does. Is a weight hole the primary factor in determining ball reaction and entry angle resulting in inflated scores? No, it is not. When we drill a weight-removing hole into a bowling ball we are altering the shape of that balls core which in turn modifies dynamics including Rg differential and spin time. When comparing balls with balance holes the amount of weight removed is usually less than 1.25 ounces with the typical weight being about 0.75 ounces. This is a small amount when compared to the weight removed by drilling the 3 gripping holes. Which will alter dynamics more when compared to an undrilled ball, a typical 0.75 ounce weight hole or weight removed from the gripping holes? Will gripping holes be banned next to keep a bowling ball exactly as approved by the USBC? The majority of balls I drill have an extra hole intended to reduce Rg differential and track flare. Why, because in the modern bowling environment we are exposed to excessive amounts of friction from some sections of the lane. Controlling the dynamics of a drilled ball should be an option any ball driller has available. If reduction of a manufactured balls potential dynamics is desired, it should be addressed at the design level.”

MoRich agrees with Scott’s point of limiting ball specifications to the design level, not restricting the ball driller’s ability to assist players in adapting to changing lane conditions. The use of balance holes dates back to at least 1970 that we are aware of.

2) Requiring all drilled balls to have the center of gravity (CG) mark within 1” of the center of grip is ineffective and creates a logistical nightmare for both distributors and ball manufacturers. The result of this nightmare will be a severe escalation in the price of bowling balls.

MoRich, as well as many other manufacturers, has proven that CG location has a minimal effect, if any, on ball reaction (refer to the video on the Brunswick website). The CG does not represent any particular portion of the core. Therefore, it does not affect core axis angle. The CG is merely the heavy spot and will not affect ball reaction. We have been teaching and explaining this to pro shops for 8 years.

A logistical nightmare would occur because bowling ball manufacturing tolerances do not allow manufacturers to control the pin to CG distances accurately enough to produce bowling balls to meet pro shop demands. Manufacturers have just recently learned how to produce 70% – 75% of balls with pins out 2” to 4”. This proposed specification change will result in pro shops and, therefore, distributors ordering exact pin out distances. For example, 1-1/2” pin out, 3-3/4” pin out, or 5” pin out. This will significantly increase inventory levels everywhere and increase the handling costs of balls at all levels. These costs will be passed on to the consumer. The end result will be a severe increase in bowling ball prices to the bowler. BAD IDEA!

3) Requiring manufacturers to place a 2” logo on every ball is simply an economic and aesthetic issue. Engraving time is a strong cost driver in the manufacturing of bowling balls. Engraving is traditionally used only for identification and marketing of bowling balls. The 2” USBC logo would not contribute to either. We have been told by our manufacturer that including the 2” USBC logo alone would raise the cost of bowling balls at least $10 each to the end user. That’s a $10 increase before adding other costs caused by the specification change #2. Let’s just leave the logos to all printed materials and ball boxes.

In closing, MoRich understands and applauds the USBC’s desire “to maintain the credibility and integrity of the sport”. We do not believe that the proposed changes in ball specifications will effectively accomplish that goal. A well thought out, scientifically and accurately documented plan is the best course of action. MoRich will co-operate with and contribute to any well designed project that will help the USBC to accomplish their goal.

Sincerely,

Mo, Rich, Fred, Braz, Jim and Shari

“Passionately concerned MoRich people”