Exactly a month after PBA released a report and announced new rules for 2024 governing urethane and “urethane-like” balls, Radical Bowling Technologies posted a podcast slamming the PBA’s testing and policy.

My lengthy story on the PBA report and new rules is here and it contains links to the more than 20 stories I’ve written since urethanes emerged as a major issue in early 2020. Those links also are at the bottom of this story.

The key PBA change for 2024 is hiking the minimum hardness at manufacturing from 73D to 78D, which may make balls like the PURPLE HAMMER and Storm PITCH BLACK not nearly as effective as they have been.

PBA continued gathering data on urethanes during the 2023 PBA Tour, and the results confirmed that at least some modern urethanes get softer with use: some PURPLE HAMMERs and PITCH BLACKs manufactured above the minimum 73D hardness were found to drop under 70 within 10 shots and to 68 as they continued to be used, according to PBA officials and the data posted on PBA.com.

Making the minimum manufacturing hardness 78D means that if they drop 5D points they still will be legal at 73D.

Brunswick, which makes the PURPLE HAMMER, sent out this email after PBA announced the new rules:
"Subject: PBA Bowling Ball Rule Changes
To our friends in the bowling community:
In response to the PBA’s recently announced bowling ball rule changes for the 2024 season, Brunswick has shared feedback and confirmed our commitment to compliance with the PBA. However, we must communicate to the bowling community that we believe the PBA rule changes relating to urethane balls unnecessarily target some of the most popular performance balls on the market today. To the best of our knowledge, there has never been a type of ball that was so good and so popular that rules were created to ban it even though the balls have maintained USBC-approval and currently meet all ball specifications as required by the USBC.
We do not agree with the PBA's decision to set unique and separate hardness specifications for urethane balls based on the stated conclusions that urethane balls get softer with use. In fact, our testing has shown that a significant portion of the change in hardness measurement once a urethane ball has been used can be directly attributed to lubrication of the Rex Gauge durometer indenter by lane oil and moisture. We believe this change in hardness measurement is due to how the unique polymer structures of some urethane balls retain lane oil and moisture on or just below the ball’s surface for several days resulting in lower hardness values, a phenomenon that is much different from reactive balls that quickly absorb and redistribute lane oil and moisture throughout the pore structure.
It is very important to note that these rule changes only apply to PBA National Tour, PBA Regional Tour, PBA50+ Tour, and PBA Youth Tour events. Bowlers can continue to use and enjoy the unique performance offered by popular urethane bowling balls in USBC and PBA LBC leagues and tournaments. Further, the Brunswick research and development team remains committed to innovating bowling ball technologies that will provide performance improvements, more strikes, higher scores, and enhanced enjoyment for bowlers of all skill levels.
Brunswick continues to stand for protecting the integrity of the sport of bowling, and as an advocate for all bowlers, we will continue to communicate with league and tournament bowling organizations and make recommendations to prevent needless rules/regulations and unnecessary confusion within the bowling community.
The entire team at Brunswick Bowling Products thanks you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
The Team at Brunswick Bowling Products"

PBA in its report said it found that the urethanes got softer even when rolled with no oil involved.

In the Radical podcast, Nick Smith and Phil Cardinale zeroed in on the oil issue, and also the durometer. The podcast is just over an hour long, and I am going to let it speak for itself and not try to report all they say.

Perception vs. Reality Podcast | Episode 17
Quite possibly our most important episode yet! We'll be talking about Purple Hammer Urethane vs. Durometer Testing with an exclusive video of our own testing. You won't want to miss this one!
#PerceptionVsReality

Anyone interested enough in the topic to read this story should take an hour and listen carefully to what Smith and Cardinale say, then read the rest of this story.

When I started up my computer about 3:30 a.m. Friday, I had a message pointing me to the Radical podcast. After listening before I started my real job, I made this post on Facebook:
“Nick Smith and Phil Cardinale with an interesting podcast taking dead aim at PBA. The obvious question that jumps out at me: If oil causes a durometer to read a ball as softer that doesn't absorb the oil, then it should work the same with all balls that don't absorb oil. So show us some other non-absorbing balls with and without oil and what they read = a 1980s BLUE HAMMER, a current polyester ball, etc. If oil is the culprit in balls that don't absorb it, then it should hold true for all balls that don't absorb oil, not just the PURPLE HAMMER (and presumably the PITCH BLACK, the other ball identified by PBA as getting softer with use).”

The thread off that post includes numerous comments, including from me pointing out that PBA reported that the urethanes get softer when no oil is involved.

One thing I noted in the podcast was that at about 16 minutes, Cardinale says USBC sands balls to 500 to test for hardness. It did do that with the famous “black curtain” data gathering field tests at the 2022 USBC Masters, but it is not part of its policy when testing balls for initial approval, although there are some parts of the approval process where sanding to 500 is required.

After listening to the podcast, I messaged both PBA Commissioner Tom Clark and PBA Director of Rules and Equipment Neil Stremmel, which ultimately led to Stremmel listening to the podcast and preparing a response.

The most important point Stremmel makes is that, as noted in the report data, balls got softer when no oil was involved, including rolling never used balls “down a ramp back and forth on the approach for 10 ‘shots’ ” — shooting down the contention that oil is responsible for the balls reading softer.

Here is what Stremmel sent me as a response to the podcast:

---

Due to some recent misinformation that was released, the PBA is answering some questions regarding the new Hardness Rule for PBA competition for 2024.

Is the Rex type D durometer the right piece of equipment for hardness testing and is it antiquated?

The Rex type D Hardness gauge has been used for 50 years in the bowling industry. The manufacturers have not said it was an issue for the past 50 years. Does that make it antiquated? NASA has used the gauge and method for 50+ years as well, so it is not an antiquated piece of equipment. The selection and continued use of the device for modern bowling balls, beyond plastic and urethane is listed on the Rex website. It can be found here: https://www.durometer.com/durometer-selection-guide/

Here are some key examples from that Rex selection guide:

MATERIAL                                                           DUROMETER TYPE                           AVAILABLE MODELS

Bowling Ball – Hardness                                  D                                                             All Rex Models

Epoxy – Hardness                                            D                                                             All Rex Models

Plastic – Hardness                                            D                                                             All Rex Models

Plastics, Hard – Hardness                                 D                                                             All Rex Models

Thermoplastics, Rigid – Hardness                    D                                                             All Rex Models

Rubber, Hard – Hardness                                 D                                                             All Rex Models

Wood – Hardness                                             D                                                             All Rex Models

 

Do the micro-grooves on the durometer indenter get filled with contaminants during the testing process?

Yes, they can. That is why the procedure used by the PBA, and the entire bowling industry, requires cleaning the indenter with isopropyl alcohol (IPA) before every test. Note, to clear any confusion or mis-information, the PBA procedure does not call for the ball to be sanded to 500 grit. None of the current industry procedures call for the ball to be sanded that I am aware of.

Do balls measure softer after oil (conditioner) is applied to the ball?

Yes. That is one of the tests I did as well and it is documented in the PBA Hardness Report under the Appendix on data. I also did tests on older urethane balls, other current urethane balls and reactive balls. Additionally, I tested undrilled, new balls on a stripped, dry lane – as noted in the data, they got 2-3 points softer. To take the test one step further, I also tested a fresh set of balls out of the box, then rolled them down a ramp back and forth on the approach for 10 “shots” – again as noted in the data, they got 2-3 points softer as well, while never touching oil. The balls in the above tests were, of course, cleaned with IPA prior to each test as well.

Was Brunswick part of this process or was the PBA off on their own?

Brunswick and all of the manufacturers were part of this process since before I came on board with the PBA a year ago. Every step of the way in this controversy while traditional urethane balls were falling below the minimum hardness rule while in use. Once I came on board, we talked with them again a year ago about the issues the PBA and the industry, have faced regarding urethane for the past several years. Therefore, when they say they saw it coming, yes, we told them we would be testing and looking at options. Additionally, to call it a “witch hunt” when multiple companies have illegal balls for the PBA level of competition and all manufacturers have to deal with the new rule in 2024, is completely inaccurate and irresponsible. The PBA is truly ensuring integrity and that rules are followed for our level of competition (they are still legal for leagues and USBC competition).

Are the PBA durometers “no good” or inaccurate?

The PBA currently has 2 durometers, a Lab durometer and a Field durometer. They are both calibrated. They are both verified with calibration blocks. To insinuate otherwise is ridiculous and a waste of everyone’s time. The Field device was NOT the only durometer used in the PBA Hardness Report. It clearly states what durometer was used for which test and it is obvious that one durometer was not the basis of all the results and decisions. The Lab device is kept in the lab, calibrated by Rex annually, verified with calibration blocks and used during all Lab tests. This includes all tests done at the PBA test facility at Bowlero Wauwatosa such as lab and lane tests as well as tests done on PBA players equipment during the WSOB. The Field device is also calibrated annually by Rex and is exactly that; the durometer we use out in the field at PBA events to test PBA player equipment during tournaments. As I said in a video that was recently criticized, it is the one we ship to events, tear down, ship, set up again, etc. I also said it wasn’t as “good.” I could have articulated that much better, but because of all the above, it is the field durometer and that is why we use a +/-2.0HD gauge accuracy which allows a ball to test 2.0 points lower than the spec in the field. This spec was recently changed from 72 to 73 HD, therefore, balls were allowed to register as low as 70.0HD and still be considered legal. Despite all this, the Field device still passed all calibrations and stayed within specs. Lastly, one of the reasons I posted that video was to show that we are aware of the accuracies and realize that the equipment we use for this testing needs to be monitored and maintained. We are fully aware of that and wanted to be clear about it.

Is it true that the USBC doesn’t do any field testing and that they only do out of the box tests?

No. USBC has a spot checking procedure. Additionally, you may recall a video where a PBA player gets his ball thrown out of the 2020 US Open for testing too soft. Link below as reminder. This was due to USBC Field testing at that event – among other events where they have conducted field testing.
https://www.flobowling.com/video/6708501-micd-up-butturff-navigates-urethane-test-at-us-open

Thank you,

Neil Stremmel

PBA Director of Rules and Equipment

---

One part of the thread off of my post offered information worth noting from Ted Thompson, a long-time lane man and topography expert who bowled on the PBA Tour and worked on the PBA Tour truck and for Kegel. 

John Thompson asked his brother, "does the PBA skill ball fluctuate In hardness or get softer?" and Thompson replied:
"no, my 80 hardness SKILL 3.02 that I used on a 24 mL house pattern for seven weeks in 2018 remains at 80 hardness today.
My 9B Blue Hammer that I used for 100’s of games in 1989-90 punches out at 77-78, same as it did when I drilled it in 1989.
I’ve punched three different Gold Angles recently that all punch out at 77-78. My Poly Classic is still at 86. An LT-48 still punches at 77. A Black Angle I found punches the same, 77-78.
This week I put a durometer on many balls both used and new on the wall. All resin balls were 75 to 78.
A new Purple Hammer tested a max read of 70.
A two year old Purple Hammer I happened to see tested with a highest read at 67, with most being 66. Not good…for the game.
Maybe it has something to do with how hard they manufacture a urethane ball. Maybe the curing process is “incomplete” at lower hardnesses.
Remember, back in “the old days” all urethane balls were manufactured at a minimum around 76-77 so they could be used on tour. None of those balls have dropped in hardness.
I know that hardness and the resulting footprint on the lane is not a linear equation. Maybe that’s why PBA picked 75?
Oil and polish discussions relating to ball hardness are simply smoke and mirror tactics. That's my take…."

---

Update Aug. 5, 2023:

In a follow-up Radical Bowling Technologies podcast on Aug. 3, 2023, Smith and Cardinale returned to the topic.

They corrected their error about the USBC hardness testing process and tested an old BLUE HAMMER, continuing their obsession with oil as the supposed cause of the balls testing softer, though PBA reported its tests showed the balls getting softer when rolled on approaches, where there is no oil, and the methods Radical used in its test are factored out by PBA procedures.

I sought a response from Stremmel and he said the podcast erred in saying PBA used 70% IPA in its tests.

And he provided this statement:
"I continue to struggle with a lot of the content and how it clarifies anything for the pro-shops. The comments we have received from pro-shops and bowlers have been covered with some basic replies; 1) All your balls, other than the 2016-17 purples that USBC made universally illegal, are legal for use by bowlers other than in PBA Tours (National and Regional). 2) All your balls are legal even in PBA National and Regional competition, for the rest of the year. This rule goes into effect only for PBA competition, in January 2024.
Other comments have confused the matter further – none of the lab or field testing that contributed to the decision involved 70% IPA (in fact, the PBA only has 99% or 99.9% IPA in our lab), the PBA doesn’t disagree with the oil smear test video and we are not surprised by the results, there is a procedure for testing balls for hardness, we followed them and it includes cleaning the ball with IPA prior to each test, PBA equipment is calibrated, etc. We are working to move forward with the implementation of this rule for PBA Tour competition on January 6th, 2024."

---

All the background on the PURPLE HAMMER, urethane balls, and ball hardness is in my series of stories linked below. I highly recommend reading them if this story doesn't make sense for you.

11thFrame.com stories on urethanes and ball hardness issues since early 2020 (in chronological order):

It's a 'baseless claim' to say illegal PURPLE HAMMERs are being used on the PBA Tour, PBA Commissioner Tom Clark says (2/10/20) (NOTE: Clark's characterization was what was known at the time, before USBC study and testing. And this story contains the old PBA rule on ball checks.)

Video of a 7 series PURPLE HAMMER testing illegally soft illustrates why USBC urethane ball hardness tests are needed — and where it goes from here (2/15/20)

Update: USBC report shows urethane ball hardness issue much wider than PURPLE HAMMER, even though only 2 illegal balls were that model (2/18/20)

A deep dive into the urethane ball hardness tests with former USBC, World Bowling technical executive Neil Stremmel (3/3/20)

In follow to urethane ball tests, USBC finds no issues with reactive resins, stops hardness tests on them for USBC Masters (3/11/20)

After urethane testing, USBC proposes logical change with ball hardness rules — and creates a hole cheaters could exploit (4/22/20 and update 6/8/20)

PBA Tour re-instituting ball hardness checks, but only for TV finalists (1/19/22)

3 balls used during 2022 KIA PBA Tournament of Champions fail pre-TV hardness checks, sources say (2/27/22 with updates) 

PBA bans urethane balls more than 2 calendar years old for PBA Tour competition (3/2/22 with updates) 

Ex-EBI staffer Mitch Beasley explains his Facebook statement on the PURPLE HAMMER and how it came to be the most controversial ball since the Xcalibur (3/3/22) 

With PURPLE HAMMER 6s, 7s ruling, USBC cuts off just part of the tumor, doesn’t address the cancer (3/7/22)

USBC revokes approval of 2016, 2017 PURPLE HAMMERs, but doesn’t address its failed governance (3/21/22)

Update: Storm disputes USBC revocation of approval of SPECTRE: 'Our tests show and confirm that the Spectre ball meets all USBC requirements' (3/21/22)

Ronald Hickland’s hardness tests show why USBC needs to put EARL to work doing systemic, scientific hardness testing (3/22/22)

Update: PBA will not ban 6 balls banned from USBC national tournaments in USBC deal with Storm Products (3/30/22)

USBC data on the 6 too-soft Storm Products balls shows how Storm — and bowling — are paying for how the PURPLE HAMMER unintentionally changed bowling (4/1/22) 

USBC suggests it will ban the 6 Storm balls if sales don’t end, distributor Classic Products says in email to pro shops (4/15/22)

Experts say variance factors in testing mean USBC ball hardness tests shouldn't be valid in ruling 6 Storm balls too soft (4/25/22)

Former USBC CEO Roger Dalkin explains how 72 became the minimum hardness in the 1970s — and why it's a questionable basis for today's rule (7/5/22)

The puzzling findings in USBC's latest ball hardness research and how they open a gaping hole for cheaters (11/1/22)

A point of hardness does matter: Digging into the things CTD and Ronald Hickland Jr. found when testing with E.A.R.L. the bowling robot (11/21/22)

Update: Brunswick, Storm both put balls through for re-approval for 73D hardness rule in process not publicized by USBC (1/11/23)

PBA bans urethanes made before Aug. 1, 2022 for the national PBA Tour only, revamps ball surface specifications in new 2023 rules (1/15/23)

Can lane patterns nullify urethanes? Experts weigh in on a hot topic (4/10/23)

PBA explains why it’s drastically hiking minimum hardness for urethane and ‘urethane-like’ balls in 2024 (6/27/23)