As Ebonite has discovered, smaller can be better.
by Dennis Bergendorf.
According to the results of an experiment conducted by Ebonite, the answer should be a resounding, "Yes!" That's because the (non-scientific) experiment strongly indicated that the smaller the ball the better the performance.
The USBC mandates that balls not measure more than 8.595" in diameter, nor less than 8.50". The various manufacturers turn out equipment whose average diameters are slightly different, ranging from 8.545" to the maximum. At the time, Ebonite's standard was nearly the maximum, or 8.585". The design team, led by Development Engineering Manager Ron Hickland, had been discussing lowering the brand's average size. There was no consensus.
So Hickland devised a blind test. He took a dozen 15-pound V2 cleans and gave them to professional Jason Queen and two unidentified amateurs, one of whom had won thousands in megabuck events, the other a 220-plus league competitor. Each bowler got four specially-prepared balls. one was actually larger than usual, at the maximum 8.595". The next was Ebonite's standard 8.585". The third had been taken down to 8.550", and the fourth was just over the USBC minimum.
The balls were given a box finish and sent to the bowlers, with instructions for their pro shops to lay them out and drill identically. Interestingly, Hickland says the three participants were not informed that the balls differed in size. They were instructed to go out and bowl a minimum of 30 games with each ball on various conditions at different centers.
All bowlers preferred the smallest of the four, telling Hickland they experienced better down-lane read, movement into the pocket, carry, overall feel and ease of "revving" up the ball.
Hickland says several factors are involved. Before sending the balls out, they were checked for RG and differential. The largest ball had an RG of 2.538 and a diff of .042. The smallest was 2.508 and .046. "It's obvious that, as the coverstock gets thinner, the core plays a greater role in the ball's dynamic," Hickland says. As ball size goes down, the RG (a measure of distance) does too, but the differential actually increases.
A second factor is the pitch of the holes, which are subtly different in all four balls (though all were drilled identically). The smaller diameter, the more holes tend to "converge"... if the span remains the same. That means the bowler may have gotten a better grip with the smaller balls.
Perhaps the biggest factor is that the smallest ball weight a third of a pound less than the largest! That could explain why all three bowlers felt that they could throw it "better". The lower weight would also account for the threesome's ability to rev the smallest ball more effectively.
Hickland says the other aspect to the size differences is the effect on pin movement. The smallest ball hits the pin ever so slightly lower on the pin's "belly", which conceivably sends it into the air just a bit more than a larger ball. But doesn't that conflict with the long-held concept of "keeping the pins low" for higher scores? Hickland says he's not convinced that low-flying pins are more effective.
"The object is to get more pin action," he says, " and keeping the pins low would seem to limit pin action."
The ball size test is great in theory, but how does it apply to the pro shop, especially the customer who wants the ball resurfaced for the umpteenth time? Multiple resurfacings will definitely produce a smaller, lighter ball, but with one major downside. The grip will be altered, the span shortened by as much a 1/32", and the pitches feeling more toward the palm.
So why doesn't Ebonite start producing smaller equipment?
"We're concerned that after a couple resurfacings, the balls would no longer be legal," says Hickland.
However, a pro shop might consider taking a new ball and sanding it down (then finishing the surface) -- for the customer who isn't likely to demand several resurfacings.
Return to the list of Bowling Articles
