Storm/USBC???

[boatman37]

Geez. I had been a B7 user since about 1981 but this year got a new Altered Reality (now illegal) and Helios (still not drilled). Sure, for now the AR is legal for leagues as far as I can tell but sounds like they will offer me another ball off their list. Problem is it sounds like about 1/2 the balls they produce are now not legal? I have heard of some that sent in their forms for a replacement for the Spectre just last week and now find that the ball they requested as a replacement is now not legal

[Ryster]

This whole thing is so silly.

If a ball is illegal, it's illegal. Ban it outright in all USBC sanctioned events. This game they are playing where it is banned in tournaments but still legal in leagues is just nonsense. Either it is illegal or it isn't. Are they suggesting that sanctioned league bowling isn't important enough to enforce their own rules? That's kind of how it looks.

I get that a softer bowling ball has a wider footprint on the lane and can hypothetically provide a competitive advantage. However, someone still has to drive the ball. The ball doesn't strike all by itself. Doesn't matter who is throwing the ball, if they don't know what they are doing they aren't going to magically start throwing strikes when they pick up one of these balls. They still have to figure out where on the lane to play and consistently repeat shots.

The USBC certification of the six additional balls isn't being revoked like the Spectre. I am betting that Storm is only going to offer replacements to bowlers that participate in one of the tournaments specifically mentioned in the ruling. That would make more sense than replacing balls that are still technically legal for league play and still USBC approved for league play. Storm and the USBC worked together on this latest ruling, and I am betting the part about not revoking certification for these additional balls was at Storm's request to prevent them from having to replace all of these balls in addition to the Spectre. We will just have to see what happens when the latest replacement program is announced in the next day or two.

I am seeing online that a lot of bowlers want nothing to do with Storm Bowling products at this point. Many have asked for Storm to give them a voucher to allow them to replace their ball with non Storm products. I doubt Storm would go that far, but it is interesting to see a backlash starting.

[boatman37]

Agreed. I am pretty sure I would not be able to tell the difference in a 70D ball compared to a 73D ball so to me it makes no difference in that sense. Just that someone is going to lose alot of credibility here. So far seems like it is Storm but USBC isn't off the hook either. Belmo sent a post out that no bowlers were permitted to watch these balls be tested and it was done behind a black curtain so nobody could see.
If they have to replace all of these balls I couldn't imagine the financial impact this would have on Storm.
And yeah, I was wondering how many will leave Storm for other brands now.

[SRB57]

This whole thing is so silly.

If a ball is illegal, it's illegal. Ban it outright in all USBC sanctioned events. This game they are playing where it is banned in tournaments but still legal in leagues is just nonsense. Either it is illegal or it isn't. Are they suggesting that sanctioned league bowling isn't important enough to enforce their own rules? That's kind of how it looks.

I get that a softer bowling ball has a wider footprint on the lane and can hypothetically provide a competitive advantage. However, someone still has to drive the ball. The ball doesn't strike all by itself. Doesn't matter who is throwing the ball, if they don't know what they are doing they aren't going to magically start throwing strikes when they pick up one of these balls. They still have to figure out where on the lane to play and consistently repeat shots.

The USBC certification of the six additional balls isn't being revoked like the Spectre. I am betting that Storm is only going to offer replacements to bowlers that participate in one of the tournaments specifically mentioned in the ruling. That would make more sense than replacing balls that are still technically legal for league play and still USBC approved for league play. Storm and the USBC worked together on this latest ruling, and I am betting the part about not revoking certification for these additional balls was at Storm's request to prevent them from having to replace all of these balls in addition to the Spectre. We will just have to see what happens when the latest replacement program is announced in the next day or two.

I am seeing online that a lot of bowlers want nothing to do with Storm Bowling products at this point. Many have asked for Storm to give them a voucher to allow them to replace their ball with non Storm products. I doubt Storm would go that far, but it is interesting to see a backlash starting.

I am with you Ryster it's either legal or not no in-between. You are also right more traction don't equal higher scores. You still have to be consistent. I still don't know with all the R and D they do Storm did not know this. Just a bad situation all way around. Steve

[boatman37]

So was Storm aware of this? Was their testing equipment not calibrated? Did the USBC ever test them prior to certifying them?

I agree with not enforcing this right now in league play. With only a few weeks left it would knock quite a few league bowlers out completely so I see that side of it. Now will they take it a step further after leagues are over and completely ban these balls? Who knows.

[boomer]

I still find it hinkey that a Purple Hammer (Ebonite) series that everyone KNEW was an issue and was MADE to be an issue by Storm personnel (900 Global) brings out this vast banning of balls from Storm especially when none of those balls exacted any complaints from anyone, anywhere.

[Ryster]

When the manufacturers sends the new, pre-production balls to the USBC for testing and certification, they make sure they will pass all tests. The USBC approves the balls before they are mass produced by the manufacturers. After they get USBC approval, they ramp up production knowing full well the USBC can randomly spot check production balls out in the real world.

The USBC passed all of these balls based on the perfect testing samples provided to them by Storm. All manufacturers do this. They aren't going to send balls to the USBC and not know they are perfect for testing.

Seems to me like Storm either got lazy with QC, or just started manufacturing too many balls too quickly to meet demand and tried cutting some corners. Or they got a bad batch of materials for their covers and didn't know [again, bad QC.]

I agree that a full ban could be coming to coincide with the end of the regular bowling season. The USBC did say that leagues could establish by-laws to also ban these balls at the league level but I don't think any league would have the gall to try such a thing [or even cares to that extreme unless it is an ultra high-dollar scratch league or something.]

[Ryster]

I still find it hinkey that a Purple Hammer (Ebonite) series that everyone KNEW was an issue and was MADE to be an issue by Storm personnel (900 Global) brings out this vast banning of balls from Storm especially when none of those balls exacted any complaints from anyone, anywhere.

Chad Murphy, the head of the USBC, just so happened to work for Columbia and Ebonite at one point before his role at the USBC. 900G [Storm Products] staffer complains about the Purple Hammer and integrity. Purple Hammer from the 2016/2017 Ebonite days gets banned. Now 7 balls [1 totally banned, 6 others banned from national tournaments] from Storm Products get put under the microscope? The press release from the USBC specifically uses the word "integrity"? Coincidence? Just saying...

[Ryster]

And there you have it, Storm just announced on Facebook that they will replace balls for tournament bowlers only. Not everyone gets a replacement:

The ball models mentioned in the official USBC Press Release remain USBC approved.
For those participating in the national events listed we will offer you an exchange. For those who are unaffected by the national tournament exclusion rule, you can continue to use these products in league and approved tournament play.
The models affected by the national tournament exclusion rule include:
– Storm Phaze 4
– Storm Electrify Solid
– Storm Trend 2
– 900 Global Altered Reality
– 900 Global Wolverine
– Roto Grip UFO Alert
Information about the exchange program will be published later this week on stormbowling.com.

[boomer]

Chad Murphy, the head of the USBC, just so happened to work for Columbia and Ebonite at one point before his role at the USBC. 900G [Storm Products] staffer complains about the Purple Hammer and integrity. Purple Hammer from the 2016/2017 Ebonite days gets banned. Now 7 balls [1 totally banned, 6 others banned from national tournaments] from Storm Products get put under the microscope? The press release from the USBC specifically uses the word "integrity"? Coincidence? Just saying...

yep - just sayin.

That's why I was saying we need someone independent at the top.

OR - here's a revolutionary concept - get an independent agency to do the testing. Random, NOT AFTER HOURS, drop-in testing, plus required periodic company testing with records.

Sigh. Too much to ask, though.

[Ryster]

yep - just sayin.

That's why I was saying we need someone independent at the top.

OR - here's a revolutionary concept - get an independent agency to do the testing. Random, NOT AFTER HOURS, drop-in testing, plus required periodic company testing with records.

Sigh. Too much to ask, though.

Interesting idea...

So the ball companies would send their initial balls and the applicable fees to the independent agency. The agency tests the balls and sends an approval back to the ball company and cc's the USBC.

The USBC adds the balls to the approved list based on the testing results of the independent agency.

The ball company starts manufacturing based on the approval of the independent agency.

If the USBC wants to randomly test balls for compliance, they would purchase a sampling of balls and send them to the independent agency for review. The independent agency sends the test results of the sample to the USBC and cc's the ball company as a way to notify them that a random sample test was requested by the USBC. If the balls fail at a defect rate greater than what is permitted, then what? The USBC is in the same boat they are in now. Ban totally, or ban from nationals but keep the balls approved. Ultimately the USBC still has the final say...

[boomer]

They do - but there's a separation. Right now, there's at least an appearance of impropriety. There's enough people like me, Yo Jo Bowler, who can see enough that think things may be a bit hinkey. . . but have an independent agency do the testing, keep the results, etc. . . that's better.

Kind of like the anti-doping agencies in other sports.

It's also better than what's going on with NASCAR, for instance, where it's just a CF of "the hell???" with everyone getting penalized for . . . what? and for things that NASCAR is probably more responsible (like the wheels falling off - obviously either a design defect from NASCAR or something not planned and trained for in time, also traceable to NASCAR - not that I follow NASCAR, it's just been popping up in my feed)

Take the thing that's supposed to be OBJECTIVE and remove it from the political arena.

[Ryster]

Despite seeing Ron Hickland's CTD video showing how an illegally soft bowling ball reacts on the lane compared to a compliant ball, I just don't see an issue. Same with the balance holes. Someone still has to accurately and consistently throw the ball. Greater footprint on the lane, ball slows down faster, enters the roll phase sooner, whatever. I have seen no clear cut, empirical evidence showing that these softer balls automatically result in higher scores or give someone an unfair advantage compared to a strong, compliant ball with a strong layout on the same lane pattern.

The USBC is just barking up the wrong tree. There are so many other pressing issues that need to be solved to bring "integrity" to the sport instead of focusing on all of these balls.

[ALazySavage]

So many things to unpack with this and I can understand how confusing this is for all of us - a few concerns/comments/opportunities below:

1. This is tough that it is occurring in the middle of a few major USBC events; Masters and Nationals - I respect the challenge that Nationals poses as it is such a long event, but hearing people already complain that Chris Barnes is leading all-events and he used what is now illegal equipment is a little annoying (frankly, he is leading because he is Chris Barnes but it is just another excuse people will use). I think the way this should have been handled is allowing the equipment to be legal for any events that were already occurring but in reality there wasn't a winning situation with this. At the time the illegal status was announced I was also added by USBC to my nationals roster and was given the identification number so the timing makes me think that they had been working on this for a little bit (which makes the Masters situation even more questionable).

2. Looking at the list of balls that were deemed illegal, my concern is that they are all using different coverstock formulations - so how is the Phaze 4 illegal but the Hy-Road not illegal. If they are both using the R2S pearl and they are being poured around the same time you would have to think whatever the issue is (new material supplier/supply issues, formulation change, etc.) would apply to both pieces. Granted tracking the dates of all Hy-Roads would be very challenging but still would make that ball illegal in newer versions. This could make trade-in decisions challenging if you are faced with that, since the Hy-Road would be under the same issue, I think the UC3 (or 2, whichever is the non-urethane) uses the same Trax cover that was on one of the balls. We must also remember that just recently USBC did change the hardness requirement from 72D to 73D which put a lot of balls right up against the edge of the hardness standard, so if the company did not change their formulation that could also be why we are now seeing this issue pop up.

3. This really shows just how much bad publicity the USBC has. Agree with the focus or not, they are doing their job (many of us may say finally they are doing what they are supposed to do) in regards to maintaining a standard that was announced and known. While getting lane conditions under control would be where most of us would like to see them start, this is still something under their sphere of control. With that, this is also really exposing a weakness in the governing body - apparently it was said that the local associations have some level of control over this to determine if a ball can be used in their competition which is just scary for the sport. I will say I am in a much better association now than I was and without saying where, I can say with almost 100% certainty my old association has no clue about ball standards and bowling issues and it is scary to think of they control they potentially have over the area.

4. Another thing I have seen this situation cause (starting with the urethane) is just a reminder of how poorly the industry and game has done to teach the participants about the game. This week I was discussing a sport shot league with a bowler who is trying to get better (two hander that averages about 150, the sport league is handicap over the summer) and he said he was interested but was scared to join because he felt he didn't have the equipment to compete and that he needed to purchase more. I offered him that he could sub for my team and then find another league for his weekly bowling, so that he can have some exposure but not feel the week to week pressure - and that he didn't need to purchase equipment to bowl with us. He followed saying he was going to buy a Zen anyway and that he feels he needs to buy a urethane ball sooner than later because "they get softer as you use them". First, I asked him why is he buying any of those when he doesn't have a plastic ball for spares (covered in so many posts we need not say more) and then asked him why does he want the ball to get softer? The response was that it must be better because of the news he is hearing.

5. Last part of a long post, if you did purchase one of these balls and you are provided the opportunity the trade it in (either through participation in a national event or if it is expanded to anyone interested) this could be a good opportunity to get a ball that has a different differential and RG, drill it the same way as the replaced ball, and then try and see what happens that is different than what you previously had. This could be a small bright spot in this whole thing.

[Ryster]

The 73D requirement went in to effect 1/1/2021, so it has been the minimum hardness for new balls now for 15 months. Balls previously approved at 72D must cease to be produced after 7/31/22. These balls that were excluded were balls approved well after the 73D minimum went into effect, however were testing at an average of 71D at a defect rate approaching 100%. They were technically illegal under both minimum standards. Based on comments made by the USBC, there are more balls that have issues but no further actions will be taken. That's kind of alarming.

If a ball is illegal, it is illegal. Revoke certification and take it out of play entirely. Allowing it to remain certified and then leaving the decision to exclude it up to local associations and leagues is wholly ineffective. Local associations do not know what they are doing, and leagues are not much better. There should be uniformity in issues like this at the national level.

While the Phaze 4 and Hy-road Pearl use the same cover, the Phaze 4 is a 3-color ball and the Hy-road Pearl is 2-color. Ron Hickland from CTD, who worked at Ebonite, stated recently that the color pigments in covers can affect hardness. This could be causing some of the issues. There is also speculation that the polished finish on these balls impacted hardness. USBC certifies all new balls at 500 grit. These six excluded balls have a polished factory finish. It could be that process contributed to the hardness issue.

I bowl in a highly competitive scratch head-to-head league. I was matched up against a bowler who was using a Wolverine. Was this issue in the back of my mind? Absolutely. Do I ultimately think the bowler had any distinct advantage using the ball? No. They were leaving just as many corners, stone 8, and stone 9 pins as the rest of us. There was no noticeable carry advantage. Is there a material competitive advantage to someone using a 71D ball compared to a 73D ball? I personally do not believe it for one second.

The exchange program for these balls was obviously set up to satisfy only the most hardcore bowlers. Anyone who owns any of these balls can exchange them. However they have to pay out of pocket to return them to Storm. They pick what they want from a specific list. Once Storm receives your old ball, they ship the replacement ball and a $50 drilling voucher within 3 to 8 weeks. There is a 2 month window for exchanges and then the program ends.

There are some bowlers that may have 3 or 4 of the affected balls. The cost to ship all of them back could approach $100. Even shipping a single ball could be upwards of $25. Regular league bowlers probably won't bother. National tournament bowlers might try it if they think they can get the replacement balls in time for their scheduled dates.

The USBC identified an issue and acted on it. However just like the Spectre and the "6" and "7" Purple Hammers, they should have revoked certification of these other six balls as well as any other balls from any manufacturer also found to have a high defect rate. That would have been the most consistent course of action.

[djp1080]

Your statement that the USBC certifies all balls at 500 grit is interesting. Apparently the USBC asked bowlers at the Masters tournament to allow them to test their balls. If they tested them, I guess that they'd have to sand them to 500 grit before they did their testing their in Las Vegas. Then once they were done, they'd have to sand them to the original finish or polish them up like when they were done. My guess is that none of that was done and any testing they did was pure nonsensical testing by the USBC at the tournament site.

[Aslan]

Been busy moving the last month and a half.

Did anything interesting happen in the bowling world while I was away?? :D

I will make the same statement I made after Motiv did the same thing 5-6 years ago...and it was mentioned in the letter from the USBC:

SPECS are a range for compliance. A RANGE. If you, as a company, are stupid enough to manufacture balls right at the edge of either end of the range...then you absolutely 100% DESERVE the failure of those products and the ensuing recalls. Motiv manufactured balls at a 0.060 differential and then acted like they didn't realize their balls could be over 0.060. Storm, apparently, pushed that same envelope on hardness...and now they get to have a recall.

As someone who has worked in labs and production for about 3 decades...I can tell this was all AVOIDABLE by the manufacturer. They pushed the limit...they got caught. If their people didn't realize formulating and engineering to the exact edge of the approval range was potentially a risk of failing the USBC testing...then they need better staff in their R & D and quality departments. These mistakes aren't "production variations"...they are a failure to engineer and formulate to reproducible end point.

As to all the arguments about whether this or that should be a spec and does it matter and who cares...blah blah blah. The sport has rules...and the manufacturers "barely" have to follow them. The fact that the manufacturers can't follow the simplest and easiest and most lax rules in professional sports...is pure laziness. And we all say "it doesn't matter" until we lose to someone throwing that ball. Then, whether we say something or not, we're upset about it.

My 2 cents.

[boomer]

While I agree with you in principle, there's more going on.

For example, they asked to check Belmo's equipment. Since it was before check-in it would be voluntary and he said, sure, as long as he could watch. They said no, he can't watch and he said, then no you can't check my equipment.

WHY would the exam need to be in secret? It's not like we're looking at Belmo's balls. . . badum tcha! Sorry - it's bowling.

But the point remains - why would the checking need to be in secret? It's a DUROMETER check - it's basically putting the ball on a stand like a drill press, then pressing the needle-probe into the ball and watching the gauge. There's no mystery.

In fact, I would argue vehemently that an OPEN TESTING would be the BEST thing they (USBC/PBA) could do.


ANY manufacturer pushes the envelope. ANY racer pushes the envelope of their motor, suspension, etc. You NEVER see a desert racer in a class say, "well, I'm allowed 14" of travel in the front but I felt safe with 10" . . . that way I'm well within spec." You NEVER see a motor manufacturer say, "Well, we're allowed 1.6L but we're happy with 1.4L because that means we're safe." Nope - you find Toyota (in the 80s) pushing it and getting away with 2.0L for several races (oops!) - you find literal vacuums put under Formula 1 cars to get an aero advantage (well, it's not AGAINST any rule. . . yet . . .) you find baseball players putting pine tar riiiiiiiiiiight up to the line on their bats.

so, I would EXPECT Storm - as well as Hammer and Motive - to have their highest performance line to be RIGHT up against the limit. If they weren't, they would not be doing their job.

I would also expect their QC to be on top of it so that if the number is 73D, then they would have to HIT that number - which, btw, Storm says they do.

I would ALSO DEMAND an OPEN testing system that everyone can see and would be above the PERCEPTION of impropriety.

Right now, this completely smacks of politics and subterfuge. It is the definition of a perception of impropriety - there may be no impropriety but it APPEARS to be improper. It stinks to high heaven. It smells worse than the pig sty on the ranch I used to work on.

[Ryster]

Your statement that the USBC certifies all balls at 500 grit is interesting. Apparently the USBC asked bowlers at the Masters tournament to allow them to test their balls. If they tested them, I guess that they'd have to sand them to 500 grit before they did their testing their in Las Vegas. Then once they were done, they'd have to sand them to the original finish or polish them up like when they were done. My guess is that none of that was done and any testing they did was pure nonsensical testing by the USBC at the tournament site.

From what I heard, surfaces were not changed on balls that bowlers permitted the USBC to test at the Masters. They were tested as-is, just as they would be at any tournament that had a testing requirement. In the past, there would be a shallow milling spot put in the ball to get just down under the ball's surface, and the durometer reading would be taken off of that spot. Now, however, there are 10 readings taken on each ball and then the average of all of the readings becomes the hardness number for that ball. They can't really put 10 milling spots on someone's personal ball. I agree there could be inconsistencies in the readings if they are testing numerous units of a model of a ball and they all have different surface preps.

However, when virtually 100% of the balls tested are below the minimum that indicates a problem regardless of the surface. Either the bowling balls are all bad, or the testing equipment isn't properly calibrated or being used properly. So many different factors at play.

[boomer]

but since the testing was done behind closed doors - we won't know ANYTHING . . . which makes it politics.

[Ryster]

but since the testing was done behind closed doors - we won't know ANYTHING . . . which makes it politics.

The USBC did explain why they did that, and it does make sense. They stated:


"Each ball test can take 3-5 minutes. If the tester is having a conversation with the player
during the test, it would take much longer.

The curtain is used simply to provide a workspace without distraction or interruptions for the
staff completing the hardness tests. The integrity of the results also requires a similar
environment from test to test. Additionally, it would be unfair to ask players to submit their
equipment for research, and then allow the public and other competitors to view the results."

I could see someone asking numerous questions during testing, which could turn that 3-5 minutes in to 10-15 minutes. I could also see large groups of bystanders congregating there to watch the testing and starting rumors and speculation on what was going on. Then you see a PBA or PWBA tour player there and it makes matters worse. The staff also probably has a routine for the tests and just wants to get the work done. Kind of like when doing a special project or something at work. The person or team signs out a conference room and isolates themselves.

Again, I am not a huge supporter of the USBC (and certainly believe that there are conspiracies going in certain aspects in the world arena) but I really don't think there was anything political or nefarious going on here. They were doing testing and just wanted an isolated area to do it. The USBC claims they were not just focusing on Storm equipment and the testing they were doing was part of a 2-year research study they were working on. Belmo kind of stoked the fire with his social media post and pictures. He knew what he was doing with that post and it wouldn't be surprising to learn that Storm corporate encouraged him to post it.

At the end of the day, no one wins here. The USBC continues to look bad and will certainly lose membership from this, Storm is acting like an innocent victim seeking redemption, and hundreds of thousands of bowlers are wondering what in the world is going on with the sport they love. It's just bad for bowling all around.

[boomer]

That's BS.

I've done standards testing for auto races (SCCA) - it's easy to deal with that situation. You have one person talking to the competitor and one person doing the inspections. The person talking with the competitor can answer the questions and give information while the inspector can be working, even behind plexiglass, which we have plenty of due to Covid, without interruptions.

What that answer was is prevarication - it's their way of getting around an issue that makes them look bad.

Either their management is incompetent (probably to a degree)

OR

Their management is biased and they're trying to spin it (probably to a degree)

OR something else that coffee hasn't yet revealed to me.

[Aslan]

ANY manufacturer pushes the envelope. ANY racer pushes the envelope of their motor, suspension, etc. You NEVER see a desert racer in a class say, "well, I'm allowed 14" of travel in the front but I felt safe with 10" . . . that way I'm well within spec." You NEVER see a motor manufacturer say, "Well, we're allowed 1.6L but we're happy with 1.4L because that means we're safe." Nope - you find Toyota (in the 80s) pushing it and getting away with 2.0L for several races (oops!) - you find literal vacuums put under Formula 1 cars to get an aero advantage (well, it's not AGAINST any rule. . . yet . . .) you find baseball players putting pine tar riiiiiiiiiiight up to the line on their bats.

so, I would EXPECT Storm - as well as Hammer and Motive - to have their highest performance line to be RIGHT up against the limit. If they weren't, they would not be doing their job.

I would also expect their QC to be on top of it so that if the number is 73D, then they would have to HIT that number - which, btw, Storm says they do.



But, there lies the contradiction. If you're a Nascar driver, you want that call at the limits because it gives you the best chance to win. If it's illegal, ya just hope nobody bothers to check. HOWEVER....if someone does check and you have to give back a title because you're car was illegal...then suddenly it's the pit crew's fault for pushing the limits so hard that they were over them.

One goes with the other. If you're allowed 0.060 of differential...you run a repeatability test that shows your manufacturing capability for variation. If it shows that in internal testing...the ranges found were 0.0581 to 0.061. The data may also show that 98% of the tests were 0.0585 and 0.0607. At that point you have two choices:

1) Use the revised range (cancelling out outliers) and say your average was 0.0596. You figure your revised variation was only .0022. You still want to "push the envelope" so you cut that in half (0.0011) and subtract it from the limit (0.060) and you tell manufacturing that for THIS BALL you design to a differential as close as possible to 0.0589.

2) You use the same data but set a limit based on the potential for outliers (0.0571) or with a more conservative approach to the revised data (0.0576).

Now, the advantage of Option 1 is that you think you can win a couple more titles and your players qualify and win slightly more. The RISK is that you could fail a spot with about a 22-24% chance of failing. That may sound risky, but it's also like saying you have a 76-78% chance of not being tested or having your equipment pass if it is tested.

The advantage of Option 2 is, while you may not have quite as much success with the releases (sales $$), you have a drastically reduced chance of failing a spot check. Probably by a factor of 10...to around 2%.

Now, in Nascar...it makes sense to cheat...because it's millions in rewards and cheating can gain you a tremendous advantage. A slight tweak to the aerodynamics could be the difference between 1st place and 7th place.

In bowling, it usually doesn't make as much sense..for the same reasons. It's much less likely that a 0.0018 reduction in differential will be a huge benefit...and even if it is...there's less money at stake. A racing team (just one) could make more than a bowling ball company over one year. Drivers usually get a big cut of the prize money if they finish in the top 5-10...so we're talking 10s of millions riding on just one race. What's the highest purse in bowling? Most tournaments you're probably under $100,000.

And then there's the penalties. A millionaire driver gives $4M in prize money back and the racing team (company loses $6M)...but they still make plenty on the TV contract. A bowling company risks a recall that would likely wipe out an entire year's revenue and probably lose some customers for a long period of time/forever.

As a poker player, it's about risk/reward. The driver is willing to take a big risk if there's a big reward. The bowling company needs to play more conservatively given they are "All In".

As for "did Storm know"? The 1st rule of regulations/law enforcement is it's not just a matter of "did" you know, it's usually more a matter of "should you" have known. Either Storm cheated or they suck at quality control. That is a choice between being devious or being stupid. There's no "win".

I chimed back in on this because I was looking at what ball I may want to get to replace my Force Pearl down the road...and I was wondering if the Altered Reality was still out there to buy. Then I found it and read the disclaimer and remembered that it was on that list. Guess I'll cross that one of the list. No wonder the "BatComputer" liked it...the numbers were fabricated. Oh well, maybe by the time I need it, the new Quantum Evo Response will be at a better price point.

[boomer]

I agree with you - sort of.

Yes, any competitor will push the limits. I don't really like to use NASCAR because they've always been the outlaw group and have a mentality that, "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't winnin'" - which has always bugged me. In car racing, I came from the rally world and while we DO push the rules, that slogan was always looked down on. Cut sipes in your tires, sure, but keep them to the maximum width. If the class calls for a 1.6L motor, stick with that.

I think you're on, with the risks and such. It's a bit more than the way you put it, though. Statistically they'd be looking at the standard deviation from the norm - if the limit is .060, and out of 100 samples you're sitting at .058 but the st-dev is .005, then you've got a problem. That means too many are going to be over .063. However, if the st-dev is .002, then you should be good. That means that 95% of your samples would be within .056 to .060 and less than 2.5% would be at or over .060.

They may want to drop that mean to .057, with a st-dev of .002, meaning less than 1% would be over .060.

That's the game the MFGs would be playing. Lowering the st-dev as much as possible (which is also good for marketing - if your ball is as it is advertised, within tighter tolerances, it will be easier to sell) and bringing the mean as close as possible to the limit.


It doesn't make sense that any MFG would deliberately stay too close to the limit (mean) with too high a variance (st-dev) that would allow it to have too many outside the limits. According to what we were told by the governing bodies, ALL or nearly all of the tested samples were outside the prescribed limits. For any MFG to either be sloppy enough to do that, or to deliberately do that, somewhat boggles the mind. A company like Storm has a significant investment in QC and has a definite interest in their reputation.


To do the tests behind closed doors, behind a curtain, with NO ability for the MFG to at least monitor the process is problematic. The whole, "if they talk with us, it distracts us and we can't do our work" is bunk. You can have a camera for remote monitoring (like many states do for vote counting), you can have a rep there not allowed to talk (like many other states and counties and such do for vote count monitoring) but taking notes. There are a LOT of ways to allow interested parties to monitor the process that won't impact the process itself BUT would allow light into the process. Instead, they allowed themselves to look like they were hiding something and then excusing it away with the whole, " If the tester is having a conversation with the player during the test, it would take much longer." excuse - and it LOOKED like an excuse.

Had there been someone outside of the sanctioning bodies there to monitor the process, it would have left much less of a bad taste in many peoples' mouths.

[boomer]

btw - nice to have you back! :) It's fun talking with ya

[Aslan]

btw - nice to have you back! :) It's fun talking with ya

Thank you.

The reason ball manufacturers got "sloppy"...is the SAME reason that you heard when Motiv did it and you still hear now..."it's the USBC's fault for checking" or "they never did this before, why start now?" or "differential/hardness doesn't even matter to the vast majority of bowlers!"

In other words, ball manufacturers like Motiv, Storm, Radical...to a lesser extent DV8 and later 900Global...they:

1) Figured it was a small percentage chance of getting caught.

2) Figured the USBC wasn't going to do anything about it anyways.

The USBC spent the last 50 years...just sitting on their hands and trying to put out minor fires...that were obviously cheating or bad for the game. In those 50 years, the PBA went from an important part of bowling to almost extinct...to a lesser form of WWE wrestling. And while the USBC and professional bowling would love to see bowling as a worldwide Olympic sport...they can't do it with varying oil patterns and a sport so dependent on technology.

And the ball manufacturers also are to blame. They all nearly went bankrupt making rubber, urethane, and plastic balls that required great skill to throw high scores with. With the USBC asleep at the wheel, they came up with balls that almost strike by themselves...if the house puts down a THS.

And the rare bowling centers that survived the 1980s...they want the 'sport' to be as easy as possible! People drink more, eat more food, and frequent your establishment more if they strike.

All 3 entities wanted a "recreational activity" that was "easier" and where ball companies could survive by giving the bowler some sort of "edge" with their offerings. Every time the USBC stood up to object, they immediately sat back down for fear that any action they take wouldn't sit well with the customers or ball manufacturers or the BPAA. Fast forward 50 years and you have:

A) A USBC that can't win no matter what they do. They've already exponentially increased honor scores to the point they are relatively meaningless. They can't yank certifications for centers that won't comply...because the center will just have non-sanctioned leagues...like many already do. If the USBC slaps the wrist of a ball manufacturer, they all cry foul, the PBA gets upset, and some bowlers quit because they now have to pay $95 to re-drill a replacement ball.

B) A PBA that is relatively unwatchable. They have keep coming up with gimmicks just to get people to tune in.

C) A BPAA that has lost almost half it's centers...and now your center is either gonna turn into a "glam bowling" center like "Lucky Strikes" or it's gonna get sold to Bowlero and get gutted.

D) Ball manufacturers that are now down from about 15 to...3?? No, 4?? Maybe 5-6 tops...with only 4 that I believe are PBA sanctioned. They have tight margins...for every guy like me that buys 2-5 balls per year...there are many people that buy 1 ball per lifetime.

So, if ya want to end the cheating...you enforce the rules. Not because you used to work for a rival company or to be a hard ash. You enforce the rules so everyone is playing by the same rules. If the USBC wouldn't be afraid of their shadow...we 'might' have an actual 'sport'....without 2-handers, with centers that have to follow rules concerning oil patterns and such. And we'd have more predictable equipment that is more dependent on the variance between bowler talent...versus variations in the balls. Might even have a shot at the Olympics.

And the PBA could help by making changes to their qualification system...and to put in place a small number of rules concerning equipment and "teams". Force the ball manufacturers to sponsor a certain number of bowlers for each "brand"...and those bowlers can only throw that "brand". This builds brand loyalty. Having every bowler throwing all different "brands" is confusing and builds no brand loyalty.

Rules are rules. Companies can push the limits if they want...but the closer you push it, the more likely you'll have a VERY bad financial year when you fail your spot check.

[boomer]

I'm absolutely with you on everything you just said - I guess my ONLY point is that enforcement done behind a curtain just INVITES conspiracy theories and complaints.

Do it out in the open and while you'll still get complaints, they will be lessened and the conspiracy theories will get minimized.


As far as rules and enforcement -

I'm a big "as few rules as possible, but as many as are needed" - I used to be the one writing and enforcing a certain class of rally racing here in the SW. I could recite the rules for the three classes (divided into 2WD and 4WD each) in one breath. There was little cheating, enforcement was EASY, and people were happy. I'd have over 100 entries per race weekend, and had to put in an entry limit for the end of the year weekend event. Another sanctioning body took over and the rule book became a book, entries took a dive (they've recovered somewhat) and complaints went through the roof. Funny thing, though, those couple of guys who were always winning, kept winning. Nothing really changed except that you had to pay a lot more money to stay within the rules.

Applying to PBA - I have no idea. LOL - I'm not a PBA guy. I watch them (and I find them entertaining, but then I'm a bowler, and yes, I wish that Randy would retire and they should get Norm in there) but . . .

Applying to USBC - enforcement? There was no enforcement at Nats for the past couple of years. Only checking serial numbers (which . . . how hard would it be to fake a serial number?) I'm good with minimal rules for balls, but they didn't even check for those. No measuring holes, no measuring top/side-weight . . . I'm good with minimal rules - and from what I've seen demonstrated (I can't afford to do it myself) they seem pretty middle-of-the-road-ish I guess. But if we want to enforce, then enforce. IDK . . . just seemed kinda stupid to me. Open bags, get my balls out, they glance at them, then put them back.

I also completely agree re: ball brands. I like Storm (I like the gimmick, LOL) but having all those brands under Storm? C'mon. I mean, I know that economically it makes sense to consolidate, but it SUCKS. I brew beer - and I support the small local breweries in my area, partly for that same reason (but also, I think small has more soul) - I wish there was diversity in our brands again.

Side note - 1 ball per lifetime? Yeah - couple people in league. One still uses a 1980ish Black Beauty. Carrydown? LOL holy crap!