(Only BTM subscribers can rate articles)
As many of you are likely already aware, the USBC recently announced that they will be implementing some new equipment specifications rule changes in the very near future that will affect how bowling balls can be drilled. You can read what they had to say about these changes in their official press releases (available here1 and here2), but here is a quick summary of the new drilling-related specifications:
If you read my last article—which was published shortly after the release of the USBC’s Bowling Technology Study and before these rule changes were officially adopted—you should already know that I’m no fan of these rule changes. To summarize that article, I don’t believe that eliminating balance holes will do anything to significantly reduce the performance of modern high-flaring bowling balls, but I do believe that—in some circumstances—the enlarged static imbalance ranges can be used to increase the bowling ball’s performance. For those reasons, I just don’t see the point of disrupting the entire bowling industry with these changes.
But, barring some last-minute moment of enlightenment that causes the USBC to change its mind, these rules changes are unfortunately coming, and it seems that there’s nothing any of us can do to stop them. So, as bowlers, as pro shop operators, and as coaches, we all need to make sure we understand them so that we can properly prepare. To that end, the focus of this article is on the effect of static imbalance and the implications of the new ±3 ounce limits. I’ll cover the balance hole elimination rule in a follow-up article in the near future.
My intent with these articles is to give practical suggestions on how to approach ball drilling under the new rules. But, we really can’t get to the practical stuff until after laying some technical groundwork. And, what better place to start than with the debate that’s raged on for decades in the bowling industry…
For years now, I’ve resisted the impulse to write about this topic, primarily for the reason that it’s just so incredibly divisive. No matter what I say, some percentage of you will walk away from this thinking that I’m an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Many well-intentioned people have weighed in on this topic over the years—running tests, producing videos, writing research reports, etc.—attempting to show how significant or insignificant static imbalance is in the modern game. While there is quite a bit of information out there, there still doesn’t appear to be a universal consensus. The tendency I see time and time again is for people to cherry-pick their favorite example—typically the one that best matches their view on this topic—and attempt to present it as definitive proof that they are right and that the opposing viewpoint is wrong. It would be great if things were actually so simple, but, unfortunately, they just aren’t.
So, what exactly is the effect of static imbalance? We’re going to examine this question in detail below, but—in case you can’t wait—the bottom line is this: it depends! In some situations, static imbalance is a significant factor in the performance of the ball. In other situations, it isn’t really all that significant. In my opinion, this is definitely one of the things that can make it so confusing.
Let’s start our analysis by looking at one recent example of a static imbalance study that was
conducted by the USCs Fquipment Specifications team.