BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: JOE FALCO on April 15, 2018, 10:46:05 PM
-
I'm shocked that no one commented on today's TV .. didn't anyone watch it?
-
I'm shocked that no one commented on today's TV .. didn't anyone watch it?
I did. Some great bowling on very tough condition.
Can't imagine why the PBA would block out all their stand-left-throw-right, 750 rpm "super stars" and let 1960s style strokers take over the show. (Said with dripping sarcasm)
Andrew (edited) Anderson does have a lot of revs, though, and good deal of accuracy. Nice game.
Kind of surprised that Bill O'Neil didn't make the show; this was right up his alley.
I wonder if Rhino didn't over-prep his side during warm-ups??
Steve Kloempken bowled very well.
I suspect there are no comments online because Belmonte didn't make the show.
-
I watched it, enjoyed it. I remember Kloempken from the World Team Challenge shows in the 90s.
Nice win by Anderson. This Hoskins kid is tough too, really dug deep in his 1st match, and I thought he was going to strike out for the win.
-
That was the best display of SHOTMAKING in recent memory. This should be the standard by which all are judged. I loved the fact the hi-rev carry guys were closed out.
-
>> Anthony Anderson
It's was Andrew Anderson. A real nice kid I've known for 10+ years.
-
>> Anthony Anderson
It's was Andrew Anderson. A real nice kid I've known for 10+ years.
Sorry about that. Corrected.
-
The Masters should be about shot making and not destroying lanes with 450+ revs And crossing a ton of boards. Let’s use the golf analogy as always. The majors are about shot making and not who can hit the ball the farthest. Thank you USBC for bringing back some integrity to a major.
-
I wouldn't say the high rev rate guys were shut out - it's all about catching the right opponent at the time or inversely, the wrong opponent. 1st round, Belmonte lost to Ciminelli 683-673. Then in the elim bracket, Belmo won 2 matches going 687 and 736. Eventually he lost 766-676.
For comparison, Joe Paluszek, who qualified 3rd for the show, won a couple matches with 625 and 609. Belmo did not have a single series under 673. Paluszek only had one series over 673...
Long story short - high rev rate guys were not shut out. A lot of what happens at the Masters is luck of the draw....
And with all that said, I'm happy Paluszek made the show. I crossed with him at a tournament on Chameleon that he ended up winning, beating TOC champion Matt O'Grady in the process. He is an excellent bowler who is a PBA east region stalwart. I'm also happy for Steve Kloempken - excellent performance. And lastly, Andrew Anderson has an amazing game. He can pipe it throwing urethane and can get in deep when needed - he is going to be good for a very long time.
-
I wouldn't say the high rev rate guys were shut out - it's all about catching the right opponent at the time or inversely, the wrong opponent. 1st round, Belmonte lost to Ciminelli 683-673. Then in the elim bracket, Belmo won 2 matches going 687 and 736. Eventually he lost 766-676.
For comparison, Joe Paluszek, who qualified 3rd for the show, won a couple matches with 625 and 609. Belmo did not have a single series under 673. Paluszek only had one series over 673...
Long story short - high rev rate guys were not shut out. A lot of what happens at the Masters is luck of the draw....
And with all that said, I'm happy Paluszek made the show. I crossed with him at a tournament on Chameleon that he ended up winning, beating TOC champion Matt O'Grady in the process. He is an excellent bowler who is a PBA east region stalwart. I'm also happy for Steve Kloempken - excellent performance. And lastly, Andrew Anderson has an amazing game. He can pipe it throwing urethane and can get in deep when needed - he is going to be good for a very long time.
very well said
-
Watched it. Great show. Really emphasized shot making. You make the shot, get rewarded. Miss the shot, get penalized.
For me lately, men’s bowling is too much like men’s golf. I am never going to hit it as far as the men golfers. I am never going to have as many revs nor as much power as the men bowlers. Consequently, I am never going hit it as far nor get as much pin action/carry.
I tend to watch the ladies if I want to see something closer to what I can do and hope to strive for. It’s the best I am ever going to get to.
-
Watched it. Great show. Really emphasized shot making. You make the shot, get rewarded. Miss the shot, get penalized.
For me lately, men’s bowling is too much like men’s golf. I am never going to hit it as far as the men golfers. I am never going to have as many revs nor as much power as the men bowlers. Consequently, I am never going hit it as far nor get as much pin action/carry.
I tend to watch the ladies if I want to see something closer to what I can do and hope to strive for. It’s the best I am ever going to get to.
+1
-
Watched it. Great show. Really emphasized shot making. You make the shot, get rewarded. Miss the shot, get penalized.
For me lately, men’s bowling is too much like men’s golf. I am never going to hit it as far as the men golfers. I am never going to have as many revs nor as much power as the men bowlers. Consequently, I am never going hit it as far nor get as much pin action/carry.
I tend to watch the ladies if I want to see something closer to what I can do and hope to strive for. It’s the best I am ever going to get to.
Are you saying you don’t enjoy watching the men’s players because of the power they generate? I’m not sure I understand why you have to be able to relate to the men’s bowlers or golfers to enjoy watching them. Until they start airing competitive Netflix binging, I can’t relate to the athletes in literally any sport.
-
Watched it. Great show. Really emphasized shot making. You make the shot, get rewarded. Miss the shot, get penalized.
For me lately, men’s bowling is too much like men’s golf. I am never going to hit it as far as the men golfers. I am never going to have as many revs nor as much power as the men bowlers. Consequently, I am never going hit it as far nor get as much pin action/carry.
I tend to watch the ladies if I want to see something closer to what I can do and hope to strive for. It’s the best I am ever going to get to.
Are you saying you don’t enjoy watching the men’s players because of the power they generate? I’m not sure I understand why you have to be able to relate to the men’s bowlers or golfers to enjoy watching them. Until they start airing competitive Netflix binging, I can’t relate to the athletes in literally any sport.
I enjoy watching the women more as I can relate more. I am never going to throw 550+ revs at 20 mph. I am never going to see the pin action they’re going to get. Just like I’m never going to hit my 9 iron 180 yds. My two firsts not 325+ ydsdrives both landed on cart paths and rolled. Hell, I have a 400 yd drive. The cart path was on a down slope and edged.
I watch both men’s golf and bowling. I enjoy watching both, I just enjoy watching the women more. Probably because I can watch and learn. Again, it relates to what I see when I Bowl.
-
I like watching the women more and NOT for those reasons. I <3 Daria oxox
-
I like watching the women more and NOT for those reasons. I <3 Daria oxox
She's the best staffer Global has. That INCLUDES Barnes.
-
I like watching the women more and NOT for those reasons. I <3 Daria oxox
well said as well
-
I'm waiting for Ashly Galante to make a show ;)
-
This show was confirmation of something I've believed for a long time.
Accuracy trumps power. Accuracy + power = Hall of Fame. -- JohnP
-
I'm waiting for Ashly Galante to make a show ;)
None of today's women bowlers can hold a candle to Leila Wagner. Now there was a beauty. She touched my AMF shirt and said, "Nice shirt," when she was on the AMF staff. I was in heaven.
-
This show was confirmation of something I've believed for a long time.
Accuracy trumps power. Accuracy + power = Hall of Fame. -- JohnP
Depends on the pattern.
-
None of today's women bowlers can hold a candle to Leila Wagner. Now there was a beauty. She touched my AMF shirt and said, "Nice shirt," when she was on the AMF staff. I was in heaven.
TISH JOHNSON GOR THE WIN!!!!!!!!!! ??? ??? ??? :o ;)
Actually, if you wanna go old school, I always had a crush on Betty Morris and Jeanne Maiden.
-
I thought it was definitely a shot-making pattern that was fun to watch. Joey Pants wasn't too impressive (nor his pants, lol), but probably just not his day or maybe the pressure of 1st time on TV got to him. On the other hand, watching Hoskins being on the brink of imploding embarrassingly in his first match and then pulling it together for the win was awesome. His ball roll though was noticeably hitting a hole every time, which seems kind of odd. I'd like to see the oil tracks on his ball to see what the deal was. Congrats to Andrew Anderson for the win. At 22, he looks like he has a good future ahead.
-
Quote from: Kegler300800 on Today at 11:16:08
None of today's women bowlers can hold a candle to Leila Wagner. Now there was a beauty. She touched my AMF shirt and said, "Nice shirt," when she was on the AMF staff. I was in heaven.
________________________________
I always liked the one who used to post here, Kim Adler.
https://kimadler.com/photos/
-
This show was confirmation of something I've believed for a long time.
Accuracy trumps power. Accuracy + power = Hall of Fame. -- JohnP
Depends on the pattern.
Hate to say it, but I agree. It depends on what the PBA "allows". The last 49 have been won by crankers; this one was won by a cranker, but the strokers had their opportunity and blew it. It'll be another 49 tournaments before the strokers have their next opportunity. (Exaggerating for effect, of course.)
-
I wouldn't say the high rev rate guys were shut out - it's all about catching the right opponent at the time or inversely, the wrong opponent. 1st round, Belmonte lost to Ciminelli 683-673. Then in the elim bracket, Belmo won 2 matches going 687 and 736. Eventually he lost 766-676.
For comparison, Joe Paluszek, who qualified 3rd for the show, won a couple matches with 625 and 609. Belmo did not have a single series under 673. Paluszek only had one series over 673...
Long story short - high rev rate guys were not shut out. A lot of what happens at the Masters is luck of the draw....
And with all that said, I'm happy Paluszek made the show. I crossed with him at a tournament on Chameleon that he ended up winning, beating TOC champion Matt O'Grady in the process. He is an excellent bowler who is a PBA east region stalwart. I'm also happy for Steve Kloempken - excellent performance. And lastly, Andrew Anderson has an amazing game. He can pipe it throwing urethane and can get in deep when needed - he is going to be good for a very long time.
The odds say otherwise. I find it hard to believe that places 2 - 5 in the finals were filled by strokers, by sheer luck of the draw.
This "seemed" to be a pattern that penalized hooks that crossed many boards.
-
Winners bracket
Steve Kloempken - low series 583
Hoskins - low series 606
joey - low series 582
anderson - 639 (i'd classify him as a high rev guy)
Losers bracket
Rhino had low series of 622 but fell in the losers bracket with a 676 then had a 617 as a low game in the losers bracket
Belmo had only one series in the winners bracket with a 673 and had a low series of 676 in the losers bracket in 3 series.
Kyle Troup fell out with a 685 series in the losers bracket
The luck of the draw is obviously a factor, and that is not taking anything away from those who came through. That tournament is a grind.
-
Charlest stated......this "seemed" to be a pattern that penalized hooks that crossed many boards.
Belmo won the Masters in 2013,2014,2015,2017......Hum???
-
I wouldn't say the high rev rate guys were shut out - it's all about catching the right opponent at the time or inversely, the wrong opponent. 1st round, Belmonte lost to Ciminelli 683-673. Then in the elim bracket, Belmo won 2 matches going 687 and 736. Eventually he lost 766-676.
For comparison, Joe Paluszek, who qualified 3rd for the show, won a couple matches with 625 and 609. Belmo did not have a single series under 673. Paluszek only had one series over 673...
Long story short - high rev rate guys were not shut out. A lot of what happens at the Masters is luck of the draw....
And with all that said, I'm happy Paluszek made the show. I crossed with him at a tournament on Chameleon that he ended up winning, beating TOC champion Matt O'Grady in the process. He is an excellent bowler who is a PBA east region stalwart. I'm also happy for Steve Kloempken - excellent performance. And lastly, Andrew Anderson has an amazing game. He can pipe it throwing urethane and can get in deep when needed - he is going to be good for a very long time.
The odds say otherwise. I find it hard to believe that places 2 - 5 in the finals were filled by strokers, by sheer luck of the draw.
This "seemed" to be a pattern that penalized hooks that crossed many boards.
I watched most of the tournament and what I saw was that other than Kloemken, every righty that made the show had success inside of 4th arrow and throwing it away from the headpin instead of going straight/down and in on the outside. The shot all week was inside. That is why most lefties were shut out (except Ciminelli and Page) and why righties who can pipe it like Norm Duke were shut out. Joey Pants was not going up the boards during match play - he was inside. He was an arrow and a half further outside on the tv show than he was during qualifying/match play.
Daria Pajak shot 289 between 6th and 7th arrow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM1pJO1zYHw
Her ball is reading super late, but you're telling me that if she's playing that area, that's not in Belmo's wheelhouse? Come on.
What I saw was guys who can play the middle part of the lane dominate the tournament. It just happened that guys with lower rev rates did just that...
-
8
None of today's women bowlers can hold a candle to Leila Wagner. Now there was a beauty. She touched my AMF shirt and said, "Nice shirt," when she was on the AMF staff. I was in heaven.
TISH JOHNSON GOR THE WIN!!!!!!!!!! ??? ??? ??? :o ;)
Actually, if you wanna go old school, I always had a crush on Betty Morris and Jeanne Maiden.
I bowled with Betty Morris in the Cal State Seniors tournament last year. She doesn't look much different today than she did then. And she can still bowl too. Had a 279 game during team event.
-
I wouldn't say the high rev rate guys were shut out - it's all about catching the right opponent at the time or inversely, the wrong opponent. 1st round, Belmonte lost to Ciminelli 683-673. Then in the elim bracket, Belmo won 2 matches going 687 and 736. Eventually he lost 766-676.
For comparison, Joe Paluszek, who qualified 3rd for the show, won a couple matches with 625 and 609. Belmo did not have a single series under 673. Paluszek only had one series over 673...
Long story short - high rev rate guys were not shut out. A lot of what happens at the Masters is luck of the draw....
And with all that said, I'm happy Paluszek made the show. I crossed with him at a tournament on Chameleon that he ended up winning, beating TOC champion Matt O'Grady in the process. He is an excellent bowler who is a PBA east region stalwart. I'm also happy for Steve Kloempken - excellent performance. And lastly, Andrew Anderson has an amazing game. He can pipe it throwing urethane and can get in deep when needed - he is going to be good for a very long time.
The odds say otherwise. I find it hard to believe that places 2 - 5 in the finals were filled by strokers, by sheer luck of the draw.
This "seemed" to be a pattern that penalized hooks that crossed many boards.
I watched most of the tournament and what I saw was that other than Kloemken, every righty that made the show had success inside of 4th arrow and throwing it away from the headpin instead of going straight/down and in on the outside. The shot all week was inside. That is why most lefties were shut out (except Ciminelli and Page) and why righties who can pipe it like Norm Duke were shut out.
You're saying Duke can ONLY pipe it up the outside? Really?
Joey Pants was not going up the boards during match play - he was inside. He was an arrow and a half further outside on the tv show than he was during qualifying/match play.
Daria Pajak shot 289 between 6th and 7th arrow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM1pJO1zYHw
Her ball is reading super late, but you're telling me that if she's playing that area, that's not in Belmo's wheelhouse? Come on.
I never said that. Please re-read.
[quote[
What I saw was guys who can play the middle part of the lane dominate the tournament. It just happened that guys with lower rev rates did just that...
[/quote]
-
Charlest, did you watch qualifying and/or matchplay?
You keep saying/highlighting "seemed". "Seemed" is an opinion not a fact.
-
I watched both Sunday and a lot of qualifying. The bowlers were playing multiple angles! Some inside, some outside. The match that Troup lost was indicative of that. He lost to a guy who could crank it, but the guy played a semi-direct outside line with a weaker piece!
Good spare shooting was crucial!!
-
I could not agree more. Spare shooting was at a premium, especially the ability to pickup splits and washouts. It really emphasized ones score in winning matches.
-
Charlest, did you watch qualifying and/or matchplay?
You keep saying/highlighting "seemed". "Seemed" is an opinion not a fact.
This is all our opinion of what we saw. The only facts are the scores.
I will not get into a pissing contest with you over our difference of opinion over what we saw.
-
Haven't bowled the Masters since 2000,but patterns have always seemed to favor straighter players. Also luck of the draw is a big factor in finals. In my best finishes I caught power players on the fresh where they struggled.