Article Contents
- 1. Background
- 1.1. PBA player feedback
- 1.2. The Webber International incident
- 1.3. Tournament official feedback
- 1.4. Third-party working group feedback
- 2. The USBC’s areas of concern
- 2.1. Lane pattern integrity
- 2.2. Player development concerns
- 2.3. Governance and integrity challenges
- 3. Breaking down the ban
- 3.1. Slow oil-absorbing high-performance balls
- 3.2. Slow oil-absorbing non-high-performance balls
- 4. Responses from the IBF/EBF, the PBA, and Hammer
- 4.1. International Bowling Federation (IBF)/European Bowling Federation (EBF)
- 4.2. PBA
- 4.3. Hammer/Brunswick
- 5. Practical considerations and closing thoughts
Note: This article is only available to Bowling This Month subscribers.
Thought we had seen the last of the urethane controversy? Think again, dear readers! This time, however, matters have taken a decided left turn, focusing not exclusively on urethane surface hardness (previously addressed by both the USBC and the PBA, and discussed in my prior article on the matter), but on the interaction between urethane balls and reactive resin balls when both are being used on the same lanes and patterns.
Background
In mid-2025, the USBC stated on its website that it had received “numerous complaints about urethane,” citing the following sources of those complaints.
PBA player feedback
On the PBA Tour, urethane use is prevalent, especially on certain oil patterns. While the USBC didn’t mention which PBA bowlers complained, Sean Rash is one example of a bowler who has been exceptionally vocal and outspoken about urethane use on the PBA Tour, notably during the 2022 PBA Players Championship Midwest Region stepladder finals. While Rash was fined and suspended for his comments and use of profanity, the PBA subsequently adopted a urethane hardness standard of a minimum of 78D, eliminating the use of both the Purple Hammer and the Storm Pitch Black. Brunswick and Storm responded with the Hammer Black Pearl Urethane and the Storm IQ Tour 78/U, both manufactured at 78D+ hardness and therefore permitted in PBA competition.
Since then, the PBA has remained silent regarding urethane, which leads me to question why the USBC even cited “PBA player concerns” as one of its motivational sources to reawaken this matter.
The Webber International incident
In its report entitled USBC Completes Investigation of Webber International, the USBC stated that on February 17, 2025, the USBC Rules committee had received a complaint, based on a screenshot of a Reddit post, written by a member of the Webber International collegiate bowling team, stating that “we literally drill 16 pound purples for higher diffs, and soften them so we can push the boundaries and throw them more.”
In March of 2025, the USBC released the above-referenced report and its findings. The short version is that, as an experiment condoned by the unnamed (in the USBC report) Associate Head Coach of the Webber team, several Webber bowlers and an unnamed Kegel Training Center (where the ...
Already a premium member? Click here to log in.


