(de)EVOLUTION or DESTRUCTION of BOWLING

  Has the game of bowling been devolving or slowly destroying itself thru the so-called evolution of technology?

  The game is competed in an ever changing, invisible environment (playing field) that has a multitude of variables that can dictate play, more now than ever.
  Many wish to point a finger at one single entity but it will always be the playing field & applied condition that will dictate scoring pace and play, along with competitors choices; in other words too many variables can affect the game & the scores. 

*For example take golf, how would you explain to a person void of sight, wind or rain?
  Imagine explaining to the them where to correctly place the golf ball (or not), avoiding any placed hazards (trees, sand or water) or ever-changing effects such as wind or rain?
  All while playing the game in front of them, in which they are unable to see?
  This would be comparable to explaining bowling and ball motion to a layperson.
  Another example would be playing tennis, with needing to hit a tennis ball inside lines that are constantly moving & changing, on every hit of the tennis ball; along with the player being unable to see the lines.

Equipment
  In the winter of 1991, the game of bowling would see the largest advancement in bowling ball technology, with the inception of NU-LINE bowling and a team led by Steve Cooper; a new era would arise termed as the 'reactive resin era' - referenced as such due to the fact that this new cover stock reacted to friction (due to heat) stronger than basic urethane or polyester cover stocks, which increased angularity & pin carry.
  'Reactive resin' is a combination of polyester, urethane (polyurethane) and a resin additive creating an all new reaction.
  Cooper also pointed out, in his last interview just before his passing (2012?), that the last true advancement in cover stock technology was in 1997, by Bill Wasserberger (then head of R and D for the Brunswick bowling ball division, before his passing in '06) with the introduction of particle or pro-active cover stock, an interesting thought to say the least.

  Many point to this single advancement (reactive resin) as the beginning of the end. In many purist's eyes, it changed bowlers true abilities, as it was perceived to produce reaction, with less effort or ability.
  In reality, it changed reaction overall.
  And to be fair, golf & tennis both evolved with technology as did the athletes, to compensate for the changes.

  Another factor that evolved or progressed, in the latter part of the '90's was core technology (or the inside dynamics) as they increased in strength; the more dynamic the core (higher RG differential numbers) the more potential for flare and flare creates traction.
  But in the truest form of effecting reaction, surface still dictates amount of ball motion, as well as length, by how it slows down and responds to the lane and the environment. 

  *It is best understood that in every explanation or situation, potential is implied...implied in the sense that any reaction is predicated by the bowlers attributes (rev rate, ball speed, length of levers, plus overall knowledge) nothing else.
  A bowling ball in a static state does nothing...it does not hook or hit in any prescribed manner or way until the bowler applies the necessary force.
  Bowling balls have potential, nothing else.
  A lane condition is only true until a bowling ball is delivered onto the lane, then it changes or transitions due to participants and their choices-area of the lane and/or surface choices.
  There are NO magic layouts in regards to ball motion, they merely enhance as surface dictates the majority of ball motion (70-75%) and truly only enhance when the bowling ball is allowed to slow down properly.
  Why do we talk about the bowling ball slowing down? It has to in order for it to change direction.

Hook
  Back to the cover stocks technology and reaction - confusion arises (in regards to bowling) in understanding & truly defining 'hook'.
  'Hook' is defined as any deviation from a straight line; this can occur in the front part of the lane, the middle or the back-end, wherever friction manifests itself, due to applied or created and the cover stock interacts with it.
  Before the inception of 'reactive resin', bowling balls had a smoother arc type reaction and tended to be considered hook lazy-slower response to the friction. Angles were created more through the front part of the lane than the down lane; bowling balls did not have the angularity they possess today.
  Reactive resin has a stronger response to friction side to side, as well down lane, thus creating entirely different angles, previously seen with urethane or polyester. This created a new thought in regards to 'hook'; bowlers now perceived 'hook' as any motion down lane more so than anywhere else on the lane.
  This changed how bowlers approached conditions; today's bowlers play an area down lane vs the front part of the lane as in previous eras, as well as changing how conditions are effected.
 
Lane oils & machines
  In the early part of 2000, at the PBA stop at the Orleans in Las Vegas, the introduction of additives in the lane oil or conditioner appeared for the first time.
  There had many other instances where proprietors had used their own additives in their lane conditioning process, such as STP or Vaseline, but this was the first actual produced product to see the market.
  It was the first attempt at conquering the bowling ball or better controlling the playing field. Lane conditioner went from being described as mineral oils to motor oils through the increase in viscosities or thickness of the oils.
  As this process has went on, the industry has not only seen the inception of super oils or conditioners, but advanced computerized lane machines costing as much as a mid-sized automobile, ALL with the intent of better controlling the lane - playing field - environment.
  Super oils designed to minimize migration or mutilation of the 'patterns' applied by the highly technical machines used to apply them.

Patterns
  With technology came the roll out of 'patterns' as another move towards controlling the ever changing playing field or the attempt at purifying the game.
  Specific 'patterns' would attempt to force players into playing a prescribed portion of the lane, with the intent of controlling the playing field and scoring pace devoid of the topography or characteristics of said playing field; all allowing the 'condition' to transition in  certain prescribed manner.
  *This in itself has created a new version of mass confusion.
  Many of the middle-to-upper of the road level bowlers immediately subscribed to this theory but in a bigger sense, become less educated, by believing that they were being shown/told exactly how & where to play in the invisible environment, devoid of educating on how & why this should or could be happening.
  Too many instances, suggestions are posed based on what was perceived instead of actuality...if this so-called condition 'played' a certain way, at a certain center then it has to be the same everywhere, right?

  Bowlers have been brainwashed into believing there is absolution in pattern play, instead of understanding their ball motion.
  One of the main stays of the elite, in the game of bowling, has always been in their ability to understand what was occurring on the lane devoid of any 'road map' and adapting their games to it quicker than their competition.

  The largest portion of confusion is explaining what may occur in an invisible environment, where having the innate ability to correctly guess, in an educated manner, generally wins out, all without truly seeing any of it happen.

  As I write this, I must state, I vehemently detest the concept of patterns and teaching pattern play; the creation of patterns has had the largest impact of confusion (dummying down) on the game, as any other single entity created so far.
  We need to educate the masses on understanding what their bowling ball is doing and why, to allow them to attack any lane condition; bowlers are being told, mistakingly, how to properly attack nothing more than a piece of paper.

  There is a belief in purity or absolution that a pattern will bring to a tournament; there is also a belief in fairness or level playing field...one thing that will never change, conditions are dictated by the competitors and the scoring pace is generally always relative...

  In addition, another conundrum was the decision to name patterns...chameleon; viper; Taj Mahal; this implies a certain assumption of a characteristic or 'way to play' a condition; another misinformation in the game.
  A lane condition is dictated by applied conditioner in prescribed areas of the lanes. Varying amounts of conditioner plus length & ratios dictate potential ball motion and difficulty of scoring pace, all taking topography into play and competitors intended choices.

Topography
  The topography of the lane always wins out no matter the condition applied, in the smallest or largest way, depending on amount of games competed.
  Topography is the landscape as microscopic as it may be, it is best seen as peaks & valleys; friction or wear portions of the lane.
  Topography is created by underlying foundation & how foundation may settle, plus transition through age and friction...thus creating a different finger print on every lane bed.
  Every lane has an individual fingerprint & personality...
 
Environment
  Another area that is generally missed in explaining lane play is residual friction on any lane surface, especially synthetics.
  With the inception of higher friction cover stocks and the increase in competitors rev rate, the lane, through longer formats and continual play, heats up throughout the process of competition.
  With any plastic surface, it retains a certain amount of heat which takes longer to cool down - the lane surface is staying hotter longer; which in turns softens the surface thus creating more friction than a harder, less played or effected portion of the lane surface.
  Lane machines smartly apply the same condition onto a surface, that may or may not still be 'hot' from the previous day or timeframe of competition, thus creating a quicker dissipation of conditioner in these 'hot' zones.
  This effects the way the competitors will potentially see & attack the lanes, along with effecting the future of the environment by creating a wear spot (track area) on the lane. Bowlers see reaction they'll tend to camp out in these areas; reaction is easier to respond to than a lack of.

Lane play
  So, we all realize bowlers compete in an ever changing environment, through the movement of the conditioner, created not only by -
*the type of conditioner applied
*the cleaner applied
*the thoroughness of the cleaning process
*the type of lane machine used
and lastly
*the topography of the environment (largest contributor)
but also the decisions the competitors make, through their perception of their environment, effect it greater going forward.
  The bowler generally chooses what may or may not look correct to their eye, in the appropriate portion of the lane, in creating the proper entry to the pocket, ALL in hopes of creating the strongest amount of strikes in conquering the environment, void of what they are forced to do through a prescribed 'pattern'.
  If a condition is created, forcing players to start or play an area a player may not be comfortable playing, the player will attempt to play where they are comfortable; this happens through equipment choices, surface prep (80 grit to 20k grit), area of the lane to play and rev rate.

Education
  The bottom line is, what has truly been the de-evolution of the game of bowling? The miseducation & confusing  of the competitors? Or the equipment used?
  Too many times, we hear bowlers are accused of knowing the alleged 'pattern' ahead of competition, some advantage is given, eliminating any credit given to competitor on succeeding on the condition, through proper choices and intelligent adjustments. The champions generally never say a pattern didn't play properly.
  Bowlers NEED to be EDUCATED on why they are failing NOT why the pattern didn't play right or correctly?
What is correctly? Who are said patterns exactly created for?
 
  The elite use their bowling ball to explain to them the applied condition and base judgements off of that, not what they've been informed by a piece of paper.

 

...the topic is EVOLUTION or DESTRUCTION of BOWLING.

The one thing about forums, we are all here because we are interested in the game of bowling. Whatever we were, or are now, is relative. It's what keeps us in the game.

There are at least 15 reasons why people have exited the bowling environment. I won't go into all of the detail. But, think about how people respond to anything that causes frustration or confusion. Generally, they will quit.

The MODERN GAME. What? We been executing the modern release since the inception of urethane. Oh, I see, someone just figured it out, they write, do seminars, or are gold level coaches. Whatever. It's not new. To take it further, the MODERN APPROACH is reminiscent of Andy Varipapa's approach and release technique. What is so new about that?

All eras of bowling have had their guru's. Tom Kouros and Fred Borden to name a couple. Then came along Bill Taylor. Please understand, I am not a Bill Taylor fan. His claim to fame was full of negativity. And unfortunately, the venom he spewed is the language of the modern game.

Bill wanted to make the game technical. Believing that the scores were too high, that the only good release was a full roller release, the pins are too light, the oil patterns too easy, Bill aggressively set out to defend his belief. Was he a profit or was he a salesman? His creation of the oil-less lanes and his own brand of pins leads me to believe it was the later. Yet, his message resonates to this day.

Guess who jumped on the Bill Taylor band wagon, ABC. From that point forward, bowlers felt harassed. Scores were being thrown out, balls were being banned, short oil conditions were mandated. Think about it. Who wants to put up with any of that? All of a sudden, bowlers no longer bowled in 3-4 leagues, they narrowed it down to two. Then, they narrowed it down to none.

People became sick and tired of the confusion.

When I first started bowling, I bowled in a great league. It was fun and competitive. ABC had just instituted the ban on sanding a bowling ball during league play. Well, there was this fellow who was one of the fun bowlers. Midway through the first game, he starts sanding his bowling ball. An argument ensued, he honestly did not know about the sand ban rule. Didn't matter, the others vehemently declared: "He should have known".

This fellow I'm referring to was a really good guy, well liked by everyone, a pleasure to be on the lanes with. He never wanted any trouble from anyone. But, that incident got real ugly. When it was all said and done, he said he would not be back. No problem right?

Remember the good guy part? How difficult is it replace a bowler on a team, let alone find someone everybody likes? The team ended up quitting.

So what, you'd say. Well, another team did not want to bowl in an odd number league. Another team didn't want to bowl because the league wasn't full. On and on. The league folded. Too bad, it was one of the longest running leagues in the area.

So, it doesn't take much. One incident, that's it.

The modern game is based on ridicule, "oh, you shot 300 - 800, must have been at an easy house". Sure, there are a lot of award scores, equipment is better, the bowlers are better. Why not compliment them, we certainly don't want them to leave the game because they bowled good. There are enough other reasons to leave.

many higher ups who don't bowl make bowling decisions for the masses lol.....

Bill Taylor had great ideas but was sand paper in regards to the industry...thus too many chose not to listen to him 
Too many bowlers who have nothing invested, want what they want and how they want it
Bowling center owners want to run a profitable business as simple as possible thus the bowlers that have all the great ideas on saving bowling, which doesn't need saving btw, are the ones bowling center owners are running away from
Too many wish to talk abt integrity in the game...generally for their own egos when honestly it's credibility that's lacking...integrity won't sell tickets 
Integrity would be designing conditions that allowed ability to shine not certain players...and recreating that condition consistently...credibility would arise from that
Generally the ones that choose to boast abt their own well being or accomplishments are the same that choose to blame equipment for their lack of success

At one point in time, Bill Taylor and Fred Borden had some interesting debates. And, it basically boiled down to, who did you believe. Personally, I leaned more toward Borden. Borden is a class guy and his book KNOWLEDGE IS THE KEY, is full of fundamentally sound advice. Taylor? Like I mentioned earlier, didn't care much about his theory or his approach to bowling. That doesn't mean I didn't get an earful about his philosophy though. My pro shop partner, (honestly, the brightest person in the business ever) was a Bill Taylor "disciple".

Taylor constantly challenged the integrity of the game and it fell on just enough ears. He had people believing some sort of standardized system should be implemented. Ok, but, then he tries to introduce his own brand of bowling. Sorry Bill, you lost me there. I was a national sales trainer for a very large company, I know a sales pitch when I hear one.

Taylor expounded upon the integrity of the game, at least from his perspective. Integrity? What is that in bowling?

My partner came up to me one time and asked me (obviously had just read something from Taylor) which is most the difficult to bowl on, oil or dry? My answer, oil to the pin deck. My pro shop partner's answer, dry. In reality, it's both, not one or the other. Having said that, how is it possible to satisfy all types of bowlers. Who is better, the person who can bowl on oil or the person who can bowl on dry? Both would require a specific "touch" in order to score effectively. Very, very few people would ever be capable of scoring well on either of those two conditions.

I'm not trying to stir up emotions when I say this, but there can never be, nor was there ever integrity in bowling. Simply, there are too many variables and it starts with the fact that there are ten objects, 60 feet away, that must be knocked down. Integrity would be very specific, only two pins to shoot at. They would be orientated like a 4-9 or a 6-8 split. Because, no sport is absolute, there are always variables, converting those splits would provide just enough margin of error to make "bowling" a sport with specific parameters. Accuracy will prevail. Integrity! No more pulling the magic rabbit out of the bag.

Not very realistic though. We have ten pins and always will.

In other sports, if a golfer, basketball player, baseball pitcher or hitter, or any other sport where a foreign object (ball) is utilized in a specific manner to create a desired reaction (score), the sensation of 100% execution results in absolute success.

Taking it further, let's say we could create a bowling environment that was consistent across all surfaces. Is it possible to absolutely guarantee, no solid 9's?

In bowling's attempt to create this atmosphere of so called integrity, they have alienated 100's of 1000's of bowlers. No, let's make that millions and millions of people who enjoyed a trip to a bowling alley at least once a week.

Bowling is a universal game of which some of us have become proficient. It is our lives, bowling is in our blood. Why we try to push our passion for the game down the average bowling patron's throat is beyond me.






 

 

Honestly, I totally understand and agree with the "sight and invisibility" philosophy. I use it all the time while instructing. It falls on deaf ears, especially if the person is not a very efficient bowler.

Bowling has specific parameters though that anyone can see. The average bowler does understand, there is a foul line and there are pins you try to knock down. It is that basic. It is so basic that blind people can actually bowl. I use the term blind affectionately. I had a young who suffered from cancer on the high school team I was coaching, it rendered her legally blind. She was a very bright young lady, full of questions, and had the desire to do things as normally as possible. Her last game was in the 190's (no, she was not a 190 ave bowler). That's pretty incredible!

Why was she able to shoot that score?

Simply, it was a matter of repetition and the desire to execute the shot to the best of her ability. All she had to rely on was the "line in her mind". The other part of the equation, her ball went absolutely straight. We had drilled her a plastic ball.

Integrity and credibility are not as separate in the bowling world as one would think.

Given the illustration of oil application to make the game more fair to a larger number of bowlers, how would that translate to, let's say, high jumping?

We are witnessing very low scores at the National. People do not expect the conditions they are confronted with. They are frustrated and many will not go back. They are tired of being blindsided. And, a least a few of them will stop bowling in leagues all together.

Has bowling finally reached the point where the bar has been raised a little too high?