WE NOW HAVE DATA | Updates on the excluded Storm Bowling Balls from USBC

bowlingball.com - 20 Years Online - Free Shipping Every Item Every Day

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

Bowling.com - Your One Stop Pro Shop!

25 Comments on “WE NOW HAVE DATA | Updates on the excluded Storm Bowling Balls from USBC”

  1. Thanks Ron, you guys are providing great insight on this from the technological perspective. You have a lot of people committing on this subject without understanding what it take to make a bowling ball.

  2. Some of these restrictive balls share cover formulas as prior equipment. Do you believe that color changes and surface preparation difference explains the hardness failures?

    I’m old enough to remember when people wanted certain color polyester balls because they hooked more than other colors.

    1. Hopefully that’s the case. Looking at adding a few balls, but even some of the most tried and true balls like the Hy-Road Pearl share a cover stock with banned balls (in this case the phase 4).

  3. Here is the one problem (brought up by BowlersRant) that I agree with. The USBC released a data summary. But, the question remains, how many balls were tested, where were they tested and under what conditions, compared to how they test initially for 1st round approval?

    A data summary is smoke and mirrors, because we don’t know how they came up with the numbers. Simply put, if they field tested 2 balls, how could they say their numbers would represent a potential 100% failure rate. Also, if they testing was done IN the field, why make a huge fuss about how the USBC’s testing standards for their in house testing far exceeds that likely of the manufacturers with environment controls etc. when the decision to ban these balls came from field testing versus in house? Therefore, this is critical information they need to address.

    Lastly, the UFO Alert has been out for what, a year now? If they continue checking these balls frequently, how has this issue only recently come up, if they expect it to have, per their data ‘summary’, a 91% failure rate, and they only just NOW realized it?

    To me, a lot of things are not adding up. I am not saying this is a fishy attack on SPI, but rather questions how things are being done at USBC. Why are they having these kinds of issues on such delay? It questions the integrity and validity of their procedures and processes.

    1. I think it comes down to transparency. Give the full report, not just the data summary. Serial numbers, dates, person who did it, location, etc. This should be easy for them to provide. My guess is that these balls are out of spec in some regard and the USBC hasn’t been doing their due diligence. This is an attempt for both to save a little face.

    2. @Luke Jackson Serial numbers, dates, name of reviewer, location…really? Do you go through the same process to find out the oil pattern your league uses? What’s the durometer reading on the ball(s) _you’re_ using? If you expect the USBC to provide the full data report on the Storm balls, then you should also expect to receive the full data on _every_ ball tested. Who exactly–outside of USBC management–is going to read that report? Let me give you a hint: Nobody. They will barely read the report on these six balls, if it was actually provided. I also guarantee if that report was provided, someone completely unconnected to Storm, the USBC, and good sense would challenge the report based on the most incoherent reason possible.

      The assumption being made is that the testing of these six balls happened immediately. Just like the FAQ says, if the two provided balls fail, then additional balls must be tested. It’s not like everything stops while they are waiting for these balls to be delivered. There are other balls which have to be tested. Do we know how many balls are tested on a weekly basis? No. Would it make anyone feel better if we actually knew? We like to think it would, but the truth is a no. Why? Because we care about the actual act of bowling. We don’t really care that much about the process, except for whether the ball will help me increase my score and is legal to use.

      You either trust the USBC or you don’t. If you pay sanction fees to an organization you don’t trust, why are you paying the fees? Maybe you are a PBA bowler…I don’t know. If you’re not, why do you care? If you are a pro and Storm is your sponsor, you’re concerned about maintaining that relationship. If you are a pro and Storm isn’t your sponsor, you can choose another ball easily, so–again–why do you care? Storm has agreed to handle the replacement of the Spectre and the other six balls, yet a lot of amateur bowlers *still* are not happy. The easiest thing to do is to make something big out of something that is nothing. The Big Bad USBC is beating up on Poor Little Storm, so mild-mannered League Bowler has to jump into the ball return and magically transform into Super Bowler to protect the multi-million dollar international bowling equipment manufacturer from the evil governing body and its twisted sidekick, Durometer. People, can we just bowl?

  4. I think the context on lane conditions and the “softness” effect is huge…and why they have banned them for the National tournaments and not for joe league bowler…

  5. Thanks gentlemen for the straight scoop. I recently got a Wolverine and am really matching up well with it. It’s really the first ball in several years that wasn’t a Radical for me. I’ve been a faithful fan and satisfied customer. My pro-shop guy remarked that the core looked similar to the Quantum balls. I prefer symmetrical pearls primarily, and have recently liked the looks of the GB4, and the Bigfoot. I’m going to hold onto the Wolverine for now, and continue using it. It’s funny how you get reactions from some league bowlers who don’t have information on the ball, and try to tell you that it’s illegal.

  6. The “2 ball test” is misleading. When a ball falls into a certain RG range, 8 additional balls are required to be tested. Some of these balls, even the Spectre fell into this range. There’s more to this story. It’s all shady.

  7. Great video, thanks, guys. Sad I sent in my Wolverine as I’m bowling Nationals & PBA50 come July, but, excited for the Nova coming. Thing’s happen for a reason

  8. Here is an unanswered, food for thought question that I’m wondering everyone’s opinion on.. if you then reference Tom Clark’s statement on these balls still being legal to use on the PBA – and I fully get and understand that the PBA is a private organization – does that mean that the PBA is holding bowling ball specifications to a LOWER STANDARD than the USBC? As the PWBA and Collegiates are run by the USBC, they are being held to a higher standard than the PBA. so what does that say about the PBA being the echelon of bowling, when the governing body and equivalent and lower “ranked” competitions (lack of a better word) are being held to a higher standard than what is “professional”?

    Food for thought..

    1. Yes, the PBA’s Hardness requirement is 70D, which is lower than the USBC’s 73D hardness requirement

  9. I’m all in for fairness, but the timing of this leaves many of us to wonder, why now? Awesome review gentlemen!!!

  10. Question. Since a few balls Storm makes have been around awhile, do the balls manufacturered after the new spec rule have to meet the new spec?

  11. officially its + 2/-2 if its in this range USBC says its ok. and reactive tends to harden over the years. as it’s still curing.

  12. All balls that do not meet legal specifications need to be banned across the board. Period. This pick and choose back room deal is detrimental to the integrity of the sport.

  13. Thanks to the no frills, straight shooter explanation on the matter. I have a Phaze 4 and don’t bowl national tournaments. Nothing has been said so far in Washington state on a state, local, house or league level that I’ve heard. As a result, I think I’ll keep the Phaze 4 to go with my Phaze II and III.

  14. Great video guys. I’ll deffo be subscribing to the channel. Keep up the good work. 👊🏽🤘🏾

  15. Thank you, Ron! I now know far more than I _ever_ cared about the process of bowling ball testing. It’s not that I don’t believe this examination is necessary, because I believe it is. The conspiracy theories being floated are exhausting to slog through. I would bet the last $10 in my pocket that no more than 0.001% of UBSC sanctioned bowlers knew what the bowling ball testing process was before the Spectre was banned. At least 90% still don’t know, yet of that remaining 10%, too many bowlers feel that USBC is trying to get away with something and/or they are picking on Storm for some heinous reason. Thank you for providing the explanation and being the voice of reason in our hour of need.

  16. JR Raymond said something I completely agree with. If spec would have been set at 75D with a -2 allowance. We wouldn’t be having these issues now. Because the manufacturers would be required to meet 75D out of box but could drop by 2 points over time and still be within spec.

  17. Bottom line Storm made made illegal or at the very least, highly questionable balls. Do any of you think for a minute that Storm wouldn’t try for a performance advantage? Plus everybody is questioning the timing of the findings. The rules state that if a ball in found illegal or right at the spec four balls will be tested from a distributor. If those are found to be out of spec four more are tested and if they are as well 24 more will be tested. Those balls could have been tested before the tournament even started and took that long to come up with their findings. Put the blame where it belongs with Storm not the USBC. So tired of the whiners. Do you really think USBC has it out for Storm? With all that Storms does for bowling and the betterment of the sport. Suck it up buttercup

Leave a Reply

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