Bad Bowling Ball Legal vs Illegal Hardness | Flat Pattern Different Hardness Same Ball Same Laydown

Click here to learn more.

All of the products showcased can be purchased at

For more information consider joining our Staff for Free.
Click here.

You can also join our National Program and receive monthly items for a fee

You can also sign up to come visit us at the the Education Center

32 Comments on “Bad Bowling Ball Legal vs Illegal Hardness | Flat Pattern Different Hardness Same Ball Same Laydown”

  1. See this proves a point that aggravates me about this rule… even though soft balls hook more, you still have to be accurate with them, so idk why USBC is so up tight about it

    1. The issue is the oil carrydown. Urethane balls do not absorb oil, so they pick up oil from the front and carry it down to the back. The softer the ball, the wider the contact footprint on the lane. Given the same number of shots, soft urethane balls will displace more oil than hard urethane balls. Reactive balls absorb oil, so the carrydown is minimal and they don’t tend to get softer over time. That’s why Sean Rash was complaining about the older Purple Hammers being used in competition.

    2. I have a great idea! Ban all players, all bowling balls all brands and just have Sean Rash play alone in league and competition 😂😂

  2. I think this is a bad comparison because you didn’t hit the same line on each ball. What about ball speed also? Was ball speed the same? Use a bot or a pro the next time.

    1. Typical non-scientific testing used by this channel. One shot each is not good enough to show the difference. No doubt the softer ball should hook more, but let’s get some actual proper testing.

  3. The only issue I have in all this, is the known method variability around shore durometer testing. It’s far from perfect and often used as information only testing in GMP because of the variability in the method isn’t reliable enough for validation. As you pointed out in the blog the test results can be very different based around who’s performing the testing. That being said if there is a statistically significant difference between the hardness of the balls regardless of what the exact magnitude of the reading is then you can say that one ball has a clear advantage over the other. What’s strange to me is the the PBA specification limit doesn’t have a range. Based on the requirement of 73D then when applying industry standard (such as ISO) rounding rules then anything 72.5D or greater is still considered a passing result otherwise the PBA should make the specification 73.0D. In your blog all the spectre balls would have passed when applying ISO standards which I’m sure all the major manufacturers (Storm, Brunswick, Motiv) would all follow, which makes me question whether or not the 98%+ defect rate of the spectre that the USBC is claiming (based on DPMO) is actually accurate. I know these are bowling regulatory bodies but i’m sure they must have some QE’s on staff if they’re looking at this sort of data and if they don’t then I have to highly question their leadership when these decisions can cost a manufacturer millions.

  4. This is not a very good test, a good test would be with the throw bot to hit the same speed, same line, and same revs. I would also like to see different strikes to see the pin reaction to see if there is any difference in pin carry

    1. read the article, it wasn’t a test. it was a demonstration. the durometer, ramps, carbon paper etc, did the actual testing.

  5. Very interesting. As someone that’s never liked the Purple Hammer, I can now see why these hardness rules are in place. Also to the people asking for a robot to throw it, why? Robots can’t bowl in league or compete in tournaments, so there’s no sense in using one. Even if he did use one you guys would still say they were thrown on different lines😂😂

    1. The reason they are asking for a robot is to minimize variation in speed, axis rotation, and targeting to see how much more hook is generated with a softer urethane ball.

    2. Neil Truick Yeah but even with Ron throwing it, you can clearly see the difference. Having a robot throw it is not going to make a big enough difference to justify using one. I think the point of the video is to show that there is a difference not necessarily exactly how big the difference is.

  6. So Question after reading the article. From reading your article that you can soften a ball on your own opens up a whole other question.

    1. Guys used to soak bowling balls in acetone to soften them up. Note the regulatory bodies call this a banned substance “never legal for use” implying that if a ball is cleaned with acetone it’s now no longer USBC certified.

      But I’m an idiot so don’t listen to me.

  7. I request you rent out Optimus Prime, Terminator, ThroBot, or equivalent robot to throw the shots. Thanks.

  8. kind of wish you’d have put the articles content in this video. i would have found that interesting. show one of the balls getting prodded then show all of the results, maybe not show how you chemically softened the balls..just show that you did. show the ramp testing to quiet the complaints about needing a robot.

    it makes complete sense what the results showed. a softer ball will grip more when it can. that grip will also cause more drag slowing it more. being softer also probably means it’s more porous

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *