32 Comments on “USBC FAQ & APPROVAL UPDATE | *IMPACT TO BOWLERS* | EXCLUSION RULE EXPLAINED! | PART 3”

  1. This was supposed to help? The BS answer regarding the curtain sets the stage. “they needed to be removed” is an opinion but stated as if it was a mandate. Given rule 312 gives them the “authority”, it is clear there is judgment involved, not a mandate. The double talk continues. Chad Murphy is transparent, I can see right through him, and the circulating image of his reaction to Simo’s win fits perfectly. “Storm agreed to this approach” implies they were in agreement with the action, they just agreed that restricting the ban is better than making it broader. Again, double talk. Hardness is #9 on the list, and the variations were extremely small, and no data has been presented to indicate it was widespread (PBA could not find such imperfections it seems).

    This BS letter does not provide anything except an attempt at PR, transparency would explain the process, the data, and how on earth they truly justified this highly unusual and skeptically timed action. Until actual data and facts are produced, I have to rely on my own speculation

    Maybe we do NOT need the USBC, far too much power, and wielded by someone who puts ego and personal vendetta against the good of the sport. Or maybe we need a USBC with a different governance mechanism?

  2. I think giving each league the option to ban the balls or not is a real head scratcher. The balls are either legal or not.

    1. dude , no kidding. As soon as your team kicks another teams butt in leagues using one of those balls .. someone’s gonna start crying.

    2. This is my biggest problem. Do I now roll the dice and hope I can use it next year or take the safe way out and get a replacement?!

    3. @Kritz Kreig That’s exactly why my buddy is trading in his Phaze 4 and Wolverine before we start summer doubles. He said he doesn’t want the possibility of dealing with that. By no means is this meant to sound cocky, but my friend and I are one of the highest combined averages in the league and we usually make the playoffs. We’d be a target for sure.

  3. I found it odd that the statement says they were only testing urethane balls at the Nationals, yet they come out and ban reactive balls at that time.

  4. Son unos X18TINDER.Uno de los mejoresf conciertos MaΓ±as no 4 se l πŸ’―πŸ’žπŸ˜

  5. Only have 1 question. Did they test anyone else other than storm brands? I know the purple hammer ordeal. But have they tested the other 6 brands of brunswick or motiv?

    1. I would guess that the Spectre was picked up during a spot check, that all brands go through. Following the Spectre getting banned, questions would have been asked as to what went wrong with it. This may have uncovered the reason behind these 6 falling out of spec.

      To answer your question, yes all brands will be spot checked. It may just be that storm is the only brand that has had an issue in their production somewhere.

    2. @Bryan Jeffery it would make the usbc look better by stating all brands were tested not just storm brands.. however they only mention storm brands and the only people reporting this spot check was from storm staffers. Just find it a bit shady on part of usbc

    1. I have a Phaze 4, my leagues are allowing all the balls. I’ll be keeping mine. I guess it comes down to if you actually like the ball or not.

    2. I sent in my Phaze 4 and Electrify solid. For a Zen and a Nova. Who knows if they will fully ban them eventually. Might as well get the exchange over with.

    3. Depends on what you bowl in. I bowl in two competitive leagues though they are not banning the balls this season do to needing a unanimous decision to do so mid league the numbers are there that they will be banned during the first league meeting of the next season since only a majority will be required then. And since there is really no data coming from storm and the only real data is a few numbers from the usbc its not much of an argument with the equipment being banned from usbc national events.

    4. I have an altered reality and I’m keeping it. I really like the ball and there isn’t anything else that can really take it’s place in my arsenal right now

  6. I think the USBC is overall a good thing. “You can please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but will never please all of the people all of the time” Now, do they do everything perfectly? Heck no. Could things be improved? Yes! I do feel however that overall the USBC does good for the sport. As long as they learn from mistakes made.

  7. Line 10 I’m not agreeing with that. They were testing urethane balls but they pulled 6 Storm bowling balls that are NOT urethanes. So please explain why that’s relevant to testing hardness.

  8. If softness does not have an effect on league conditions why are the older purple hammers and spectre completely banned and not just thrown out of USBC tournaments? I think they only made this decision this time because it was so many balls at once.

  9. around your comments for #13. Would you extend that to staff vs non-staff bowlers? Staffers get access to certified equipment prior to the general public, right?

  10. What I am wondering now is are they going to do away with the pba tour resume selections now for team usa. Since the tour is allowing the use of these balls, but they are specially banned from team usa qualifying. Is it fair to take resume selections for team usa from an organization that is using equipment that can not be used by people who are trying to actually bowl there way onto the team.

  11. We need the USBC but they need to do better. This whole situation has been handled poorly.

  12. If the Storm booth has time to replace your ball, the USBC has time to test a ball’s hardness. Why couldn’t they flag the 6 balls and check them ball by ball? At the very least they would get more data to support their actions.

  13. USBC dropped the ball on this situation. Last years championships they basically just looked to see if there was a serial number on your equipment. I agree with the fact there should be integrity with all parts of the game. They should have all balls go back through the line to be weighed and tested for hardness. If your ball is not in compliance, then it should be disqualified from competition. Pretty simple. But now they opened up a can of worms.

  14. So I don’t understand why on point #10 that no reactive balls were tested and that it was for data of hardness of urethane balls, but none of the 6 balls that were removed from competition were urethane?

  15. If they weren’t testing any reactives during the Master’s and were only testing urethane, how did they even learn that there was an issue with these 6 balls?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.