win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7

Author Topic: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close  (Read 19690 times)

Mighty Fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« on: April 20, 2014, 05:14:59 PM »
It's an oft-repeated (and obvious) story, but one week of modern-day scoring obliterates past full seasons of high scores, as this report clearly shows.

http://www.examiner.com/article/grether-s-300-aleshire-s-806-and-2-women-s-700s-reflect-modern-high-score-tempo?cid=db_articles
Logged

 

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2014, 10:16:35 AM »
I did bowl in the 70's.  Actually the biggest increase in scoring came with the introduction of the soft polyester balls.  They carried much better than the hard rubber balls that dominated prior to 1970 on the softer lacquer finishes.  Scoring increased again with urethane balls, but that increase had as much to do with the move to shorter oil patterns which allowed some pretty awful power players to play strike or no count on their way to many more award scores.  Resin balls again were a big factor in the next big scoring surge of the 90's. 

In my opinion the impact of lane conditions has been the smallest factor over the past 40 years.  Yes, lane machines have the ability to put out much more consistent conditions, but the balls transition the shot so rapidly that those transition trump any impact of $38000 lane machines. 

Also, nobody seems to want to give people credit, but bowlers are much better than they were 40 years ago, and there is much more knowledge out there.   
Logged

Mighty Fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2014, 11:24:28 AM »
Quote from: milorafferty on April 22, 2014, 09:07:18 PM
Not so obvious to me actually. I have only bowled in the reactive era. But I see 150/160 average bowlers who are about the same no matter what ball they use. They just don't have the tools to exploit a reactive ball.
Dear milorafferty:

In a way, your above-quoted post affirms my point ... but for whatever reason(s), don't you feel that a 180 or a 200 bowler is better able to take advantage of modern-day conditions and equipment and increase his/her average by a greater margin than a 150 or 160 bowler?
Logged

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2014, 11:43:59 AM »
Quote from: Mighty Fish on April 23, 2014, 11:24:28 AM
Quote from: milorafferty on April 22, 2014, 09:07:18 PM
Not so obvious to me actually. I have only bowled in the reactive era. But I see 150/160 average bowlers who are about the same no matter what ball they use. They just don't have the tools to exploit a reactive ball.
Dear milorafferty:

In a way, your above-quoted post affirms my point ... but for whatever reason(s), don't you feel that a 180 or a 200 bowler is better able to take advantage of modern-day conditions and equipment and increase his/her average by a greater margin than a 150 or 160 bowler?

Isn't that what I said? Re-read the part where I made it bold and in italicized.

In my opinion, the 150/160 bowler doesn't have the tools, skills, athletic ability, physical strength or desire to achieve a higher level. There is probably not an oil pattern or ball that will change this situation for them.

With the exception of the bowler with some kind of physical limitation, I have yet to see a 180 bowler who has a good spare game. That being said, it becomes a matter of "desire" to improve since oil and/or equipment is not a factor in spare conversion.
Logged
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

"If you don't stand for our flag, then don't expect me to give a damn about your feelings."

Mighty Fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2014, 08:34:24 AM »
Quote from: milorafferty on April 23, 2014, 11:43:59 AM
Isn't that what I said? Re-read the part where I made it bold and in italicized.

In my opinion, the 150/160 bowler doesn't have the tools, skills, athletic ability, physical strength or desire to achieve a higher level. There is probably not an oil pattern or ball that will change this situation for them.With the exception of the bowler with some kind of physical limitation, I have yet to see a 180 bowler who has a good spare game. That being said, it becomes a matter of "desire" to improve since oil and/or equipment is not a factor in spare conversion.
Dear milorafferty:

Agreed ... BUT I was responding to your previously-stated contention that [and I quote you] ... Sure, there are more 300s and 800s (not to mention 900s), but is the scoring gap between the average bowler and the high average bowlers the same as it was in previous years? Or have the top bowlers achieved higher averages while leaving the field behind? [end your quote]

I repeat my contention -- and you seem to agree in part (albeit, perhaps in a slightly different way) that the scoring gap is indeed different nowadays between the average- and high-average player than it was in years gone by. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but don't you agree with me that the "gap" is wider now?
Logged

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2014, 10:17:02 AM »
Quote from: Mighty Fish on April 24, 2014, 08:34:24 AM
Quote from: milorafferty on April 23, 2014, 11:43:59 AM
Isn't that what I said? Re-read the part where I made it bold and in italicized.

In my opinion, the 150/160 bowler doesn't have the tools, skills, athletic ability, physical strength or desire to achieve a higher level. There is probably not an oil pattern or ball that will change this situation for them.With the exception of the bowler with some kind of physical limitation, I have yet to see a 180 bowler who has a good spare game. That being said, it becomes a matter of "desire" to improve since oil and/or equipment is not a factor in spare conversion.
Dear milorafferty:

Agreed ... BUT I was responding to your previously-stated contention that [and I quote you] ... Sure, there are more 300s and 800s (not to mention 900s), but is the scoring gap between the average bowler and the high average bowlers the same as it was in previous years? Or have the top bowlers achieved higher averages while leaving the field behind? [end your quote]

I repeat my contention -- and you seem to agree in part (albeit, perhaps in a slightly different way) that the scoring gap is indeed different nowadays between the average- and high-average player than it was in years gone by. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but don't you agree with me that the "gap" is wider now?

That was YOUR contention, not mine. It wasn't a rhetorical question on my part.  I was asking if the gap was wider, I have not been involved in bowling long enough to know.
Logged
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

"If you don't stand for our flag, then don't expect me to give a damn about your feelings."

Mighty Fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #36 on: April 25, 2014, 04:23:08 PM »
Dear milorafferty:

With all due respect, it may appear that we disagree, but in reality, we are just responding to each other's opinions on a bowling-related subject, and we actually seem to agree about the basics of what we're discussing. I certainly don't take any offense to your posts, and I trust that you likewise respect my responses.
Logged

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #37 on: April 25, 2014, 04:37:37 PM »
I don't have an opinion on the matter, I was curious and asking a question.
Logged
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

"If you don't stand for our flag, then don't expect me to give a damn about your feelings."

Mighty Fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #38 on: April 25, 2014, 08:58:57 PM »
Quote from: milorafferty on April 23, 2014, 11:43:59 AM
In my opinion, the 150/160 bowler doesn't have the tools, skills, athletic ability, physical strength or desire to achieve a higher level. There is probably not an oil pattern or ball that will change this situation for them.
Dear milorafferty:

The above-quoted statement sounds like an OPINION to me ... and in part, it's that opinion that I have responded to.
Logged

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #39 on: April 25, 2014, 09:49:32 PM »
Yea about current day bowlers.
Logged
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

"If you don't stand for our flag, then don't expect me to give a damn about your feelings."

avabob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #40 on: April 26, 2014, 10:58:03 AM »
Average for all male ABC members in the late 1960's was about 167.  Today it is still less than 175.  Top end averages really started to take off about 1975.  Highest I ever averaged with hard rubber was right at 200.  Highest with polyester was about 215.  Highest with urethane was 229, and highest with resin was 237.  Most common for me was about a 10 pin increase with each advance in balls.  200 with rubber, 210 with plastic, 220 with urethane, 230 with resin ( all on house shots ).  Big difference was award scores.  Never shot 300 with rubber.  Had a couple with plastic, and maybe 5 or 6 with urethane.  Over 30 with resin. 

The big thing about lane conditions with the modern balls is that they are like the weather.  Don't like the shot?  Be patient it will change quickly.  I have seen and bowled 300's on some conditions that started pretty nasty.  Carrying potential of resin is very high when the pattern matches up to a players release, much higher than with prior equipment. 
Logged

JustRico

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2652
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #41 on: April 26, 2014, 11:05:36 AM »
It is very difficult to compare apples to oranges or it truly impossible to make comparisons based on simplicity....not only were the bowling balls changed but so were the lane surfaces and lane oils...as well you probably getting smarter as well as becoming a better bowler...scoring is relative, plain & simple. You can use whatever bowling ball you like and I can make you average 185...look at the Peterson...how's scoring there been?
Logged
Co-author of BowlTec's END GAMES ~ A Bowler's COMPLETE Guide to Bowling; Head Games ~ the MENTAL approach to bowling (and sports) & (r)eVolve
...where knowledge creates striking results...
BowlTEc on facebook...www.iBowlTec.com

Mighty Fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #42 on: April 26, 2014, 01:34:20 PM »
Quote from: JustRico on April 26, 2014, 11:05:36 AM
It is very difficult to compare apples to oranges or it truly impossible to make comparisons based on simplicity....not only were the bowling balls changed but so were the lane surfaces and lane oils...as well you probably getting smarter as well as becoming a better bowler...scoring is relative, plain & simple. You can use whatever bowling ball you like and I can make you average 185...look at the Peterson...how's scoring there been?
... or keep in mind that bowlers take the very best equipment to the USBC Open tournament every year, and yet, THE ENTIRE FIELD ONLY AVERAGES AROUND 170!
Logged

MI 2 AZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8152
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #43 on: April 26, 2014, 01:58:01 PM »
Does that 'entire field' include the Classified Division which is composed of mainly lower average bowlers?  Even in the Regular Division there are many seniors bowling to collect their 35/40/45/50 year participation awards so they are probably not averaging as high as they used to.
Logged
_________________________________________
Six decades of league bowling and still learning.

ABC/USBC Lifetime Member since Aug 1995.

Mighty Fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #44 on: April 26, 2014, 02:01:59 PM »
Quote from: MI 2 AZ on April 26, 2014, 01:58:01 PM
Does that 'entire field' include the Classified Division which is composed of mainly lower average bowlers?  Even in the Regular Division there are many seniors bowling to collect their 35/40/45/50 year participation awards so they are probably not averaging as high as they used to.
Dear MI 2 AZ:

Yes, it does include Classified Division bowlers ... BUT IMPORTANTLY, keep in mind that roughly 80 PERCENT of the bowlers are in the Regular Division, meaning that they carry entering averages of 181 or better ... and needless to say, many of them carry averages of 200 or far higher.

Following is a breakdown of the 2013 tournament scoring, by both event and division. You will note that EVEN IN THE REGULAR DIVISION (181+ averages), the composite average is just a fraction higher than 173.

* REGULAR TEAM ... 173.6 (120,335 games)
* REGULAR DOUBLES/SINGLES ... 173.8 (233,203 games)
* CLASSIFIED TEAM ... 152.1 (34,054 games)
* CLASSIFIED DOUBLES/SINGLES ... 149.3 (73,765 games)
* TEAM (both divisions combined) ... 168.9
* DOUBLES/SINGLES (both divisions combined) ... 168.0
* OVERALL (all divisions, all events) ... 168.3 (461,357 games)

That demonstrates that, whereas there are quite a few high scores, only a very few -- outside of the best players and shotmakers -- score at a high level.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2014, 02:08:01 PM by Mighty Fish »
Logged

mainzer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4405
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #45 on: April 26, 2014, 04:57:40 PM »
That demonstrates that, whereas there are quite a few high scores, only a very few -- outside of the best players and shotmakers -- score at a high level.

That is how it should be at the Open
Logged
"No one runs...from the conquerer "

MainzerPower
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
« previous next »