Storm/USBC???

[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??

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.