BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: txbowler on March 14, 2013, 10:35:36 AM
-
I wonder why today's bowlers seem to be stuck on what I fell is the old standard of 200 equals an elite bowler?
And maybe we are still in the transition period of generations of bowlers where the older bowlers were still young when 200 was the realistic standard back in the 60's-80's.
Or are they basing off the stupid PBA card requirement?
Let's be honest, on today's house conditions, elite is at least 215 in my opinion.
And I understand that it means we no longer can compare generations of bowlers.
But think about it, if you were old enough today to be involved with bowling in the 70's and 80's and you met a bowler, and asked him what he averaged, and he said 205, you'd think he was pretty darned good.
Meet a bowler today, ask him what he averages, and he says 205, I don't know about everyone else, but I think oh, average house hack.
The standard has evolved. Doubt it will ever go back. Adapt to to 215 not 200 and move on.
-
I feel it has more to do with resources. Sure equipment inflates scores, but people start bowling earlier and more often.
I currently average 215 for the year and I started bowling weekly when I was 9 (currently 24). Fifteen years of youth experience and collegiate sport patterns got me to where I am today. I'm sure I come off as some house hack because I hook the ball and don't have a ton of focus, but I'd imagine that fifteen years of practice and dedication would put somebody at an elite level 30 years ago.
Perhaps people have the ability to practice more, start younger, and get better coaching. It's far easier to emulate good form when you see it on TV or the computer screen.
I've been trying not to chime in on this topic because I enjoy bowling big scores from time to time. I go to tournaments and am perfectly happy with 650s, and I don't see this changing.
I'd rather bowl pot games after league and see high scores because it's more fun. 'Deal with it and move on' may seem a bit harsh, but meh. :)
-
I don't understand why so many people here have such an issue with this. There are a lot of bowlers who have not figured out how to score on a "house shot", much less flat oil.
I bowl in a couple of scratch leagues. One where everyone is over 200 and most are in the high 220's to low 230's, a couple in the 240's. The other has some older guys, and there are a few under 200 bowlers, but over all most are 200+ with the league average probably around 215 to 220.
I also bowl in a handicap league. 36 teams of 4, so with a few subs around 160 bowlers. There are maybe 10 people with a 200 or higher average. If you are a 140 average bowler, 200 looks pretty darn good in that league.
What's wrong with just letting these people enjoy themselves? It's a game that doesn't always have to be a sport.
-
Maybe its just me, but "Elite" is a much higher number than 215. I'd rather use the "average or par" terminology when using 200 or 215 or whatever number you're using.
In my opinion (center dependant) is "elite" would be 225+ or higher. I know a hand full of guys that average upwards of 220 and are as you say "league house hacks".
Just my opinion
-
I don't understand why so many people here have such an issue with this. There are a lot of bowlers who have not figured out how to score on a "house shot", much less flat oil.
I bowl in a couple of scratch leagues. One where everyone is over 200 and most are in the high 220's to low 230's, a couple in the 240's. The other has some older guys, and there are a few under 200 bowlers, but over all most are 200+ with the league average probably around 215 to 220.
I also bowl in a handicap league. 36 teams of 4, so with a few subs around 160 bowlers. There are maybe 10 people with a 200 or higher average. If you are a 140 average bowler, 200 looks pretty darn good in that league.
What's wrong with just letting these people enjoy themselves? It's a game that doesn't always have to be a sport.
People like living in the glory days ;)
I enjoy a good sport shot to see arrogant people get taken down a notch. I've always told my friends/family that my goal isn't to impress anyone, it's to piss people off. There is nothing better than having head to head points and beating the people who get the most frustrated.
-
I must have said my opinion wrong or something.
My point was why do people keep posting on here about wanting to reign back scoring so that 200 is again the magic elite level?
Why are bowlers unwilling to accept that 215, or 225 is the new definition of what an elite bowler is?
What is it about the "200" score that people are still focused on?
Thanks,
-
I am a house hack. I average 243, 234 and around 230 in another, put me on a sport pattern I am about 185 average.
-
Average really doesn't mean much anymore....I average 10 pins higher than a national title holder in my area and I am nowhere NEAR the bowler he is. There are bowlers that average higher than me that are nowhere NEAR the bowler I am....
It's all relative to matchup now. It's like saying you shot 73 in golf....but leave out that you played an executive course...
-
I must have said my opinion wrong or something.
My point was why do people keep posting on here about wanting to reign back scoring so that 200 is again the magic elite level?
Why are bowlers unwilling to accept that 215, or 225 is the new definition of what an elite bowler is?
What is it about the "200" score that people are still focused on?
Thanks,
Glory Days!!!!
I like to judge bowling ability by watching. I know many people who would pick me for a team over some higher average folks.
-
To answer "why bring it back to 200"...
It's not about making the bar 200...I think some of us would like to see 300 and 800 mean a lot more than they do now. Don't get me wrong...they are special...but not like they used to be. If the averages come down the honor scores will follow. USBC will also stop hemorrhaging money on 50,000+ rings each year.
-
The easiest way to know who your local elite bowlers are is to check on their wins. Average means nothing, especially from house to house. Honor scores aren't as relative either. Elite bowlers are measured in wins. If they bowl in one house and never do much else then they aren't elite. If they bowl the tournaments in their state and region and put up scores and bring home wins then you have your answer.
-
200 average is elite.... If you are bowling on the US open pattern.
Realistically, on a house pattern, 230+ average is elite. One league I sub in has a handful of guys in the 240's and probably 8 to 10 in the 230 range. To be elite, note only do you need physical skills, but also knowledge of reactions, adjustments, Surfaces, etc. Most house shot 200 average bowlers are missing one or more of those components.
Scott
-
There is such a huge disparity from house to house anymore in the type of house conditions you can no longer associate an average to the skill of the bowler. You can bowl in a place where 230 is the 25th best average in the house and you can go to another "easy" house and 230 is in the top 5. There are just too many types of "easy" and too many types of "hard".
You can bowl in one area of the state and the lanes are dry and then you can travel 2 hours away and the house shots are a heavy oiled. Bowlers at both places average in the 230s and think the shot is "easy".
-
My take....What has happend is that accuracy, power, and adjustments have been all but removed from the equation. Today you have a "game" (not a sport) that everyone has the better chance to score high and have fun.
Also a ball should not be able to over power a pattern. It should be the bowler's skills and abilties as the main factor not the ball. When bowling balls became the main focus for the bowler (and not practice) in my opinion this sport took a step backwards.
-
I agree with kidlost, bowlers who are competitive in their local county, state, regional tournaments and can put up numbers in any house, make good adjustments, and are solid spare shooters would fit my definition of an elite bowler. Also having a great mental game, making good shots under pressure.
Given having a 200 avg on a THS isn't much to cry about compared to the 70's-80's where three-piece pancake weight blocks and rubber/plastic/urethane shells ruled. Though if one can carry a 200 avg on a PBA Experience/Sport sanctioned league, 200 can still be considered an elite avg.
-
personally, 200 and 220 is easy to do the math. If I'm in a 4 person league I think 800. If I'm in a 5 man I use 1100. I also bowl scratch often so the +/- 200 in scoring is used. This is why I use those two numbers, it has nothing to do with being elite above that number. I expect the scoring pace to be at those numbers. For instance last night my team bowled 1108 in a game right at the 220 average.
-
Elite? I think that word is being used too loosely. Comparatively speaking, I think 235+ is elite, with yhat said, ive seens some 235+ guys get on flat patterns and train wreck all the way to a 530 series. Its all relative I guess.
-
I think the term elite, varies from house to house. where i bowl only 2 or 3 people average 230 +. some houses are reeeaaaaly hard to carry in. if a bowling center never replaces their pins and puts down a gravy shot, scores will be sky high. the 2 main houses in my area have a 20 pin difference in average for many bowlers.. you cant just say that every house shot is easy, sure you can get to the pocket, but seperation comes with small adjustments to kick the corners....those people generally fare better on tough shots
-
This is just my opinion, but I don't think you can call anyone "Elite" by looking at their THS averages. Some of the true best bowlers, actually struggle a little more on a THS pattern. They have become so good at repeating shots, that they wear out a line in only 4-5 frames and have trouble keeping up with transitions because of that. And when I say struggle, I'm talking a 220-225 average instead of 235-240 average. But put them on a Sport pattern/PBA pattern/flat pattern and they average 215-220 as well. Here the ability to repeat shots rewards them instead of penalizes them.
I tend to think in order to find an Elite bowler you need to look at their tournament scores, tournament finishes (I won't say wins because someone my finish top 5 in every tournament and not win and that is just as impressive as someone who wins 1 or 2 but finishes middle of the pack in the others), scores in Sports leagues, if there are any in their area, etc. A high average on THS doesn't mean much of anything. I can use myself as an example. I bowled since I was 10 (around 30 yrs now), bowled in College and averaged around 205 including a 300 and 800 series, usually average about 230-235 on THS leagues once as high as 242. I have also finished second in AE in the Houston City tournament and second in AE in the Texas State tournament a few years ago. I have cashed in about 1/2 of the PBA Regionals I have bowled in with a high finish of 3rd. I currently bowl in a Sport league in a house that plays very slick and am averaging right at 200, which is 4th in the league which includes a few amateur staffers and one member of Team Canada. But I don't consider myself "Elite" at all. I am averaging about 196 overall in my trips to the USBC Open (2013 will be 13th one overall). I know I wouldn't make it on the PBA tour, I know I don't stack up against the best bowlers in my area. I am proof that a high THS average doesn't make one "elite".
A high THS average, no matter how high it is, doesn't show the true skill of a bowler. Unless you are averaging Jeff Carter like 260, look elsewhere to find out if a person is an "elite" bowler.
-
I started bowling when I was 18.
Bowled for 3 years, took 2 years off due to work.
Now I'm starting to get back into it.
I'd kill to have a 190 everage. let alone 200.
-
It has always been the same way in many sports.
A guy can be great in league and another guy can be great at sport and yet very few can be great at both. Those are our pro tourists and multi tournament winners.
We even find when we study it that very few even elite bowlers on the tour dominate on more than 1 or 2 type patterns.
I often think back to the 1 time I saw Danny White Quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys. In warm ups that day he had the weakest arm of the 6 quarterbacks on the field by a measurable amount.
Came the game the awesome armed Jaws(Ron Jawarski) showed a measurable amount of happy feet when his protection broke down. Danny White on the other hand as his moving pocket collapsed around him would flip a little 10 yard pass as all one would see was his arm sticking out of a gang of blockers and defenders.
During the game in very windy conditions I believe he completed almost a record, say 22 out of 24. Showing absolutely no arm strength but just touch, composure, and accuracy.
When the game got done I believed Ron Jawarski was a talent I couldn't believe. Danny White was a refined polished professional of much less talent.
In relating to bowling Ron Jawarski was the 245 average in your home house. Danny White was the 219 average home house bowler who had 3 titles from the National tour!
Smarts, ball choices, lane play, and sparemaking and guile go a long way on tougher conditions.
REgards,
Luckylefty
PS me....I wish I was the 24X local star! With lots of 300s and 800s on my local shot! FUN!
-
200 - 230 arent Elite on open house shot but if you are avg 200 on the Sport shot I would consider you Elite because on sport I am 165... Much harder....
-
The replies here to me reveal part of the problem.
If you are with a casual group of golfers and ask how they score, no one replies with, I shoot 90 at Pebble Beach but 75 at my local muni course. They just tell you they shoot around 75.
But it seems to me, at least from some of the replies here, that bowlers want that kind of answer. Why?
If you are around a group of bowlers discussing average is it necessary to know what kind of conditions that average is bowled upon?
One poster said you cannot compare averages from THS.
I say, one could make the same argument for sport conditions.
If you got 100 "high" average bowlers from across the country into a room together that all bowled "sport" conditions at different houses and began discussing their sport averages, is it really a true comparison?
I could say no because some sport shots are 3:1, some are 1:1. Some houses carry better than others.
Is it a closer comparison than THS; sure.
The great majority of bowlers have never seen a sport shot, nor care about a sport shot.
However, they bowl and have discussions about bowling. How are they supposed to compare themselves to each other if average is not the answer?
-
The replies here to me reveal part of the problem.
If you are with a casual group of golfers and ask how they score, no one replies with, I shoot 90 at Pebble Beach but 75 at my local muni course. They just tell you they shoot around 75.
But it seems to me, at least from some of the replies here, that bowlers want that kind of answer. Why?
If you are around a group of bowlers discussing average is it necessary to know what kind of conditions that average is bowled upon?
One poster said you cannot compare averages from THS.
I say, one could make the same argument for sport conditions.
If you got 100 "high" average bowlers from across the country into a room together that all bowled "sport" conditions at different houses and began discussing their sport averages, is it really a true comparison?
I could say no because some sport shots are 3:1, some are 1:1. Some houses carry better than others.
Is it a closer comparison than THS; sure.
The great majority of bowlers have never seen a sport shot, nor care about a sport shot.
However, they bowl and have discussions about bowling. How are they supposed to compare themselves to each other if average is not the answer?
Tournaments entered, tournaments won, and finishes in tournaments.
If that bowler averages 260 but doesn't bowl tournaments then they are off the list. You want to be ELITE, prove it against others in tournaments. PBA Regionals, City Tournaments, State Tournament, Travel Scratch Tournaments, National Tournaments ect.
-
txbowler,
I am thinking part of your reply was directed at my post. I think you may have read something I did not say. Of course, discussing average is a way to measure one bowler against another. It IS all we have. What I said is that you cannot classify someone as "elite" based on their THS average. That is unless they average some ungodly number such as Jeff Carter's 260+ average one season.
But as many have said, some bowlers are 220 on a house shot and are a true 215-220 on a sport shot as well. Some bowlers are 220 on a house shot and 180 on a Sport shot. These two bowlers will compare their 220 average and think they are equal, well the 220/180 guy will. Are these two bowlers equal in talent, no, but they happen to be equal in average. THAT is why I say you can't judge an 'elite" bowler on THS average, most of the time. To use your golf analogy, a golfer may shoot 70 easily on his local course, he knows the course, the lies, the distances and can keep out of trouble, miss the hazards and score under par. But he can go across town, to the course he only plays once in while, that has more trees, and he struggles to break 80. While their is a golfer who plays all the courses all over town, shoots 75 on all of them. Who is the better golfer?
-
Do we all realize though that we're just talking about house shots here? What I mean is that averaging 200 or better is still somewhat respectable if you're doing it on demanding conditions. It's only in the house shot arena that 200 has lost all credibility.
Going further, Trash Heap said something about balls overpowering lane conditions and the need for accuracy being all but gone. Again, that is true in house shot leagues and tournaments, but I don't find that to be the case in tournaments contested on Sport patterns or an equivalent. At those events, you still need to hit what you're looking at in order to do well. You also need to make sure you match your ball choice, surface, tilt, speed, etc. in order to be at or near the top.
Don't get me wrong, like many of the people on here, I sometimes long for the glory days when the whole league stopped bowling and crowded around if a guy was going for 300 or 800. I sometimes wish the average board had more guys under 210 than over, but that's not going to happen. Rather than beating my head against the wall in frustration, I take it for what it is. When I bowl league, like everyone else, I try to put up the biggest numbers I can knowing all along that it doesn't take "good bowling" in order to do so. Now, when I practice or go to tournaments, that's when I'm actually trying to improve and see where my game measures up. I think there'd be far less griping if more guys could separate the two.
-
I now wished I never mentioned the word "elite" in my initial post. A lot of replies are too focused on that.
I'll try to re-phrase the question in another way since Jorge gave me the idea.
Bowler A is a 225 THS/ 175 sport average bowler
Bowler B is a 225 THS/ 200 sport average bowler
In casual conversation, both bowlers consider themselves 225 average bowlers.
However, according to what I am reading today, bowler A should really say he is a 175 bowler and bowler B should say he is a 200 average bowler.
But more than likely on a weekly basis, they are bowling on THS conditions and both bowling 225. That is there "normal" bowling condition average.
If both bowlers were to walking into a new house and bowl on a THS shot, both have an equal chance of beating the other. And that's the conditions on the lanes in 99% of leagues being bowled today. So isn't that what bowlers should say?
Golfer's don't go around saying what they score on the toughest conditions they play on. The say what they score on the normal conditions they play under. Shouldn't bowlers be able to do the same thing? Even if it doesn't represent their true, talent?
-
I don't understand why so many people here have such an issue with this. There are a lot of bowlers who have not figured out how to score on a "house shot", much less flat oil.
I bowl in a couple of scratch leagues. One where everyone is over 200 and most are in the high 220's to low 230's, a couple in the 240's. The other has some older guys, and there are a few under 200 bowlers, but over all most are 200+ with the league average probably around 215 to 220.
I also bowl in a handicap league. 36 teams of 4, so with a few subs around 160 bowlers. There are maybe 10 people with a 200 or higher average. If you are a 140 average bowler, 200 looks pretty darn good in that league.
What's wrong with just letting these people enjoy themselves? It's a game that doesn't always have to be a sport.
Couldn't agree more.
-
I see two sides of this. On one hand, I agree with the comments of "what does it matter?". You can argue average until the cows come and never reach agreement on "elite".
But if you're going to try to drill down, it really comes down to how you perform in tournaments (local, state, nationals, regionals, etc.) relative to your peers. While carrying a 230+ THS average is usually a prerequisite to competing for tournament level success, it's not an absolute predictor. In my book, no tournament resume, no consideration.
-
Being "elite" in any sport means u are performing and competing against within an extremely high level of your chosen sport where there is something on the line.. It may be titles, money, notoriety, high level competition,whatever.....
It doesn't make any sense what so ever, to say "I ave 245 on THS at my center, thats Elite level"... It really is a pointeless statement...It is awesome, fantastic, heck of an achievment, but not ELITE..
To be elite, u have to be around the best level of your sport, THS ain't it.. As other posters have said local scratch/regional/national tournaments would be a basic benchmark..
Bottom line for me, and I'm guessing many THS bowlers, is that 200 is an acomplishment, u may disagree, but u still need to get a lot of things right to get that.. Yes u have help, in terms of oiling patterns on THS and strong balls, but the operator still needs to get things right. Also I'm sure from a pyhsological point of view, we all like getting that 2 in front of our ave, rather than the 180-199 range.. People's vanity and egos have a part to play in it..
Hey I like my 205-208 ave, but I know what it really means, yet I do take some pride in it, and hopefully over time that ave will improve, as will rest of my game.
Everything comes back to perspective.. U still have to beat your opponent bottom line.
I wonder if we the THS bowlers had more opportunity to play at our center on a weekly league under tough conditions, over time, it would only help them in the long run.. Sadly, people's insecurity over that 200 house average comes into play.. Which is why most centers don't have that sports league.. People can't handle scoring lower than what they think they deserve....
I would be in a sports league in a minute, however at this point in my life, with work, wife, kids and mortgage, I won't drive an hour and a half on a weekend to find a sports league, it is not convenient to my lifestyle.. If my center had one, between a Mon-Fri night, well that would be totally different.. I guess I'm saying don't hate against scratch house bowlers, it really isn't their fault.. Life gets so darn busy!!!!
-
What do individual averages mean anymore today in leagues anyway? I think averages are useless except for handicap leagues and tournaments and even then averages are tarnished due to sandbaggers. You wanna talk about great bowlers talk to your house guys that have multiple 800 sets or multiple scratch tournament wins. Anyone can achieve 300's these days, that's been proven time and time again and we all see it every year. Don't get me wrong, 300's are awesome to shoot and watch other people shoot but anyone from a 150 average to a 250 average can bowl a 300. It takes a certain caliber bowler to achieve 800 sets multiple times. I say the guys that shoot multiple 800 sets are in the elite category.
-
So shooting an 800 series (multiple times) on a condition that is considered the easiest in all of bowling equals an elite player. Disagree. Your a good bowler but not an elite bowler.
The flatter patterns are the true test. Excelling on them equals an Elite Bowler.
-
Trash, I was merely talking about elite typical league bowlers only. Sport shot leagues and professional bowlers are in a category all of their own. I should have clarified more, my bad.
-
Well you all know I had to weigh in here . . but we have to discuss the big points here. Yes, 220 is the new 200, but are bowlers really better or are the scores inflated? That to me is the real question here. The further above 220 it gets, the more vague and muddy it gets, because one tap in the middle of a string is an automatic 21 pins. To me, 220 is one 9 pin a game away from being 240. And on a THS, being "better" really equates to more speed and revs. Power on a THS will dominate skill, period, so if we go by the true definition of elite, are we considering someone who can put up big scores on a house shot elite?
And what kidlost is saying about wins . . you have to get into tournaments to get wins, and some people just don't bowl tournaments, so just because you don't win tournaments doesn't mean you're not good, but we're talking elite here. Making an argument for saying 230 is an acceptable average is almost like saying golfers should regularly be shooting in the high 50's, because that's really what we're talking about here. Yes, the sport has progressed, equipment has gotten better, etc, but a 30 pin inflation is pretty huge. And going just by the numbers, 30 pin score increase is only a 13% increase from 200-230, but the real thing here is the increase in strikes needed. A 200 game only requires a double somewhere and staying clean, a 230 requires an extra 3 strikes IN A ROW. For a 200, it takes a minimum of 2 strikes, maximum of 6 (talking clean games here). For a 230, it takes a minimum of 5, maximum of 9. That equals a minimum 60% increase, maximum 33% increase of strikes, which is the real number we're after. If you translate just the score percentage to golf, from an average par of 72, given the same trends as bowling, "elite" amateur golfers should be shooting 62 on easy courses. I'm sure there's golfers out there that just want to have fun too right? Not everything is supposed to be competitive, right?
Now, discuss what effect, if any, the high level amateur golfer shooting in the low 60s every round, all across the country would have on the sport of golf as a whole. Why has golf remained so popular, and bowling has declined? Golf is every bit as expensive and time consuming, if not more, than bowling is. Is it because golf is more visual? It's easy to see the difference between an easy golf course and a tough one, but you can't tell the difference in bowling unless you actually bowl on something.
I'm sure somebody will shoot me down here or say it doesn't translate, which it may not, but it doesn't make sense to me why the magical score in bowling was 200 for decades, and all the sudden is 230. And if we're comparing it to golf, we should really go by 690, because it's way easier to just throw in a 230 game than it is to shoot a 72, but shooting a 690 requires a lot more. Either bowlers all the sudden got a lot better, or the sport has gotten easier, and if that's the case, all the definitions are too muddy to apply without a consistent and verifiable measure for actual skill. Back in the 70's, if you averaged over 200, you were good, there was no way around that or argument against it, same way with 72 in golf period.
-
This is just my opinion but who really goes around saying my avg is higher than yours so that means I am a better bowler... Each league house has it on shot and allot of center try and make things allot more comforterable for the bowlers because most high avg bowlers complain about the shot... ( TRUTH )
Again this is my opinion - league bowlers that range from 200 - 220 will only avg around 195 on sport shot and that avg doesnt make you elite... Any bowler can be beaten any given day so how do you really determine which bowler is really better... Sometimes you hit conditions that your equipment doesnt match and there is nothing you can do about it...
-
we do know this: Walter Ray Williams Jr. is elite! lol
-
This is just my opinion but who really goes around saying my avg is higher than yours so that means I am a better bowler... Each league house has it on shot and allot of center try and make things allot more comforterable for the bowlers because most high avg bowlers complain about the shot... ( TRUTH )
Again this is my opinion - league bowlers that range from 200 - 220 will only avg around 195 on sport shot and that avg doesnt make you elite... Any bowler can be beaten any given day so how do you really determine which bowler is really better... Sometimes you hit conditions that your equipment doesnt match and there is nothing you can do about it...
First statement, a lot of people. It's completely debatable as to what exactly determines skill level anymore. It's really hard to provide services to or to teach people who already think they're as good as it gets . . even though they struggle to break 500 at Nationals and come home crying about it and wondering what went wrong . . other than the condition being completely unfair and unscorable, of course.
-
we do know this: Walter Ray Williams Jr. is elite! lol
Apparently not, if you view the pro bowlers or primadonnas thread, apparently he's weak minded, overly sensitive, and can't handle pressure, and it sounds like that goes for all pro bowlers.
-
i think that not all typical house shots are the same. I bowl on a set of old wood lanes, with 5 year old overlays. i average around 200. i go to tourny's where i bowl on synthetics and find that i average say 210-215 for 6-8 games. i actually love bowling on the synthetic lanes because i do not have to move left and target as much on the synthetic lanes as on the overlays. when we host tourny's the guys who i see at the state high 5 struggle on our lanes cause they want to stay in the same area don't know how to move on the overlays because they bowl on the sythetics more. Skill is how you can bowl on your center, then go out and bowl the same or better on conditions that you do not see on a regular basis. my high game is 299 and a 775 series at my house, and a high of 297 and 710 away from my house. i recently bowled a tourny at another house on the other side of the state from us and bowled twelve games over two days and averaged 611. different lanes, different pattern from what i see. i believe that makes me a decent bowler. and for those of you who have never bowled on an overlay, i suggest you try it. overlays are a great test of a bowler, as if you put anything on the ball you will move 5+ boards by the second game. and for those of you who are about to say the owner is not putting out oil, he puts out enough that we can see it sheening on the lanes, i know it is about 1 1/2 + ml one would put on normal lanes
-
There are bowlers in the USBC Hall of Fame for bowling ability -- such as Herb Lange and James Blouin -- that never rolled a sanctioned 300 or 800. And such great players as Ned Day and Andy Varipapa only rolled one certified perfect game.
-
Even 215 is not elite on a house shot...
-
We had a guy shoot 896 last week for a state record. Be bowls in several houses and Carey's around a 220 average.
Does the 896 make him the best bowler in the state? Does the 220 average make him elite? My answer is no to both questions if we are talking about bowling on tough conditions. On a THS he is better than most.
Lane condition is the true test. THS= a carry contest.
-
We had a guy shoot 896 last week for a state record. Be bowls in several houses and Carey's around a 220 average.
Does the 896 make him the best bowler in the state? Does the 220 average make him elite? My answer is no to both questions if we are talking about bowling on tough conditions. On a THS he is better than most.
Lane condition is the true test. THS= a carry contest.
+1 What I've been saying for years . .
-
I think you guys have become jaded. 220 and above average is elite for sure. I don't care if itis THS or Sport. I bowl in Metro Detroit and have attached some stats. Only 13.33% of sanctioned male bowlers averaged over 210. Only 3.8% averaged over 220.
Stats are not kept on 230+ averages but I guarantee that itnis less than 2%. I would consider being in the top 5-10-15 percent of bowlers elite. Unfortunately most of us are avid bowlers who look at the game as a sport and competition and bowl in higher end leagues and it strips us of our objectivitity on this issue. But numbers never lie.
I am 225-240 anywhere I go. Never won any titles anywhere but I don't bowl many tournaments. Sometimes it shows. But....I know I can compete with anyone on those shots too as I average 208 out at Nationals and am the only perso I know who has an award score out there. (And I bowl with many staffers and regional players) I do well at States every year, I have won sweepers on PBA patterns, and I have stunk it up at times on every possible shot any of us have seen.
But 220 is still a phenomenal bowler. 200 is still decent and has potential. It is all about your perspective. But again....the numbers show us that we tend not to look at ALL bowlers when making our judgements.
http://mdusbc.com/Yearbooks/Yearbook_2012/stats_league.html
-
You are officially my hero. For weeks these threads have been going on about "anyone can just walk in, drill a ball, and average 230 without knowing what they're doing". It's amazing to me that I think you're the first to point out the truth of the situation.
I think you guys have become jaded. 220 and above average is elite for sure. I don't care if itis THS or Sport. I bowl in Metro Detroit and have attached some stats. Only 13.33% of sanctioned male bowlers averaged over 210. Only 3.8% averaged over 220.
Stats are not kept on 230+ averages but I guarantee that itnis less than 2%. I would consider being in the top 5-10-15 percent of bowlers elite. Unfortunately most of us are avid bowlers who look at the game as a sport and competition and bowl in higher end leagues and it strips us of our objectivitity on this issue. But numbers never lie.
I am 225-240 anywhere I go. Never won any titles anywhere but I don't bowl many tournaments. Sometimes it shows. But....I know I can compete with anyone on those shots too as I average 208 out at Nationals and am the only perso I know who has an award score out there. (And I bowl with many staffers and regional players) I do well at States every year, I have won sweepers on PBA patterns, and I have stunk it up at times on every possible shot any of us have seen.
But 220 is still a phenomenal bowler. 200 is still decent and has potential. It is all about your perspective. But again....the numbers show us that we tend not to look at ALL bowlers when making our judgements.
http://mdusbc.com/Yearbooks/Yearbook_2012/stats_league.html
-
You are officially my hero. For weeks these threads have been going on about "anyone can just walk in, drill a ball, and average 230 without knowing what they're doing". It's amazing to me that I think you're the first to point out the truth of the situation.
I think you guys have become jaded. 220 and above average is elite for sure. I don't care if itis THS or Sport. I bowl in Metro Detroit and have attached some stats. Only 13.33% of sanctioned male bowlers averaged over 210. Only 3.8% averaged over 220.
Stats are not kept on 230+ averages but I guarantee that itnis less than 2%. I would consider being in the top 5-10-15 percent of bowlers elite. Unfortunately most of us are avid bowlers who look at the game as a sport and competition and bowl in higher end leagues and it strips us of our objectivitity on this issue. But numbers never lie.
I am 225-240 anywhere I go. Never won any titles anywhere but I don't bowl many tournaments. Sometimes it shows. But....I know I can compete with anyone on those shots too as I average 208 out at Nationals and am the only perso I know who has an award score out there. (And I bowl with many staffers and regional players) I do well at States every year, I have won sweepers on PBA patterns, and I have stunk it up at times on every possible shot any of us have seen.
But 220 is still a phenomenal bowler. 200 is still decent and has potential. It is all about your perspective. But again....the numbers show us that we tend not to look at ALL bowlers when making our judgements.
http://mdusbc.com/Yearbooks/Yearbook_2012/stats_league.html
I don't know when anyone ever said that . . it's just that it's easier to make a comparison based on the easiest difference to identify, which happens to be at the high end of the spectrum. There have always been 180 average bowlers, so what contrast do we see by talking about them? It's basically saying that everyone as a whole is "better" than they should be. There are people averaging 230 that should be averaging 210, and people averaging 210 that should be averaging 190, and "accomplishments" as a whole are too easy to get based on your skill level. There are bowlers today who have more honor scores in a year than people of similar talent 40 years ago had in an entire career.
So explain why some THS 230 average bowlers can average 210 on tougher shots and some fall to 170? Which bowler is better? Saying something is too easy doesn't mean it's actually easy by any stretch, it's just saying that it's not hard enough for what you're gaining. It's like a greeter at Walmart getting paid 20 bucks an hour.
-
Those quotation marks weren't for a literal quote, it was just to denote my paraphrasing of what was being said. Here are some actual quotes:
"USBC's specifications and limits regarding legal lane conditions are so wide open that thousands of league bowlers who never practice can show up to league once a week, shoot 750 with the only ball they own, and go home without so much as a thought." Gizmo823 (that's you) --Letter to USBC Re: the state of bowling
"Any activity that requires zero practice and little effort to achieve "perfection" will eventually cease to exist." Gizmo823 --Letter to USBC Re: the state of Bowling
"Now with the easier conditions, people don't need to practice, and if you can walk in drunk and shoot 230 every game, the challenge slowly falls away and people get bored." Gizmo823 --Letter to USBC Re: the state of bowling
By this point, you're probably getting the point that you have been very loose with your criticism that 230 is a readily attainable number for anyone who can tell which direction the pins are, when in fact there are many, MANY bowlers who work hard to improve and are not at that level. It is disrespectful to them to brush off a goal they have not attained yet as something anyone can do, and disrespectful to the 230 bowler who worked hard to get there. I suppose I should have been more specific before and said that there have been multiple threads relating to the effects of high scoring patterns on bowling today, but that mostly it has in fact been you sharing the opinion that averages on a THS don't reflect anything. I would wager a lot that this attitude is 10x more responsible for the decline in bowling than easy lane conditions. My first of several grievances with a very long thread. But I digress...more quotes.
"...and why try to be good when somebody else with no clue can occasionally shoot big numbers too?" Gizmo823 --Letter to USBC Re: the state of bowling
"Now, it doesn't take any practice to shoot 700" Gizmo823 --The most epic meltdown in the history of bowling
"Average really doesn't mean much anymore....I average 10 pins higher than a national title holder in my area and I am nowhere NEAR the bowler he is. There are bowlers that average higher than me that are nowhere NEAR the bowler I am...." Russell --200 average is no longer elite - deal with it and move on
"Do we all realize though that we're just talking about house shots here? What I mean is that averaging 200 or better is still somewhat respectable if you're doing it on demanding conditions. It's only in the house shot arena that 200 has lost all credibility." Gene J. Kanak --200 average is no longer elite - deal with it and move on
As for the question you pose near the end...on a THS, the bowlers are exactly equal in ability. MUAHAHAHAHA I SAID IT. They are equal in ability. The lower sport average has figured out how to score on a house shot, meaning HE HAS DEVELOPED THE TOOLS NECESSARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND USES THEM WELL. Yes, THS requires tools. People rag on it largely because it requires less of one in particular, precision (and there is a false equivalency that precision=good bowling, which is a terribly incomplete statement). However, he has developed a solid spare game, can line himself up in practice, and can stay moderately ahead of the transition all while either hitting his target or missing it THE RIGHT WAY. At that level, he's probably also fairly skilled at making hand position changes and is experienced enough to know if/when to make a ball change. The higher sport average might have a larger tool box which gives him greater success on a wider variety of tough conditions, but apparently on a scoreable pattern he can't use his more developed toolbox any more effectively than the other guy. IF YOU'RE INCAPABLE OF USING YOU'RE TOOLBOX EFFECTIVELY, IT DOESN'T MEAN SQUAT. The situation is completely different on a sport shot. Of course the 210 average bowler has more ability in that environment (although the only reason I could fathom a 60 pin difference in someone's THS and sport average is inexperience with sport shots). I would say the 230/210 bowler is much more rounded and complete of a bowler, and more of a threat in a variety of extraordinary situations, but on a normal league night he's not any better. If he wants to be better than the other guy on league night, he should figure out how to strike more instead of grabbing a beer and complaining about how all house shots are "carry contests". Focus more on checking racks/flushing the pocket better to get the 8 out, or estimate how long before he starts ringing 10s and make an adjustment before it happens. Bad carry has absolutely nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with not understanding the minute changes in the lane before making a shot.
You are officially my hero. For weeks these threads have been going on about "anyone can just walk in, drill a ball, and average 230 without knowing what they're doing". It's amazing to me that I think you're the first to point out the truth of the situation.
I think you guys have become jaded. 220 and above average is elite for sure. I don't care if itis THS or Sport. I bowl in Metro Detroit and have attached some stats. Only 13.33% of sanctioned male bowlers averaged over 210. Only 3.8% averaged over 220.
Stats are not kept on 230+ averages but I guarantee that itnis less than 2%. I would consider being in the top 5-10-15 percent of bowlers elite. Unfortunately most of us are avid bowlers who look at the game as a sport and competition and bowl in higher end leagues and it strips us of our objectivitity on this issue. But numbers never lie.
I am 225-240 anywhere I go. Never won any titles anywhere but I don't bowl many tournaments. Sometimes it shows. But....I know I can compete with anyone on those shots too as I average 208 out at Nationals and am the only perso I know who has an award score out there. (And I bowl with many staffers and regional players) I do well at States every year, I have won sweepers on PBA patterns, and I have stunk it up at times on every possible shot any of us have seen.
But 220 is still a phenomenal bowler. 200 is still decent and has potential. It is all about your perspective. But again....the numbers show us that we tend not to look at ALL bowlers when making our judgements.
http://mdusbc.com/Yearbooks/Yearbook_2012/stats_league.html
I don't know when anyone ever said that . . it's just that it's easier to make a comparison based on the easiest difference to identify, which happens to be at the high end of the spectrum. There have always been 180 average bowlers, so what contrast do we see by talking about them? It's basically saying that everyone as a whole is "better" than they should be. There are people averaging 230 that should be averaging 210, and people averaging 210 that should be averaging 190, and "accomplishments" as a whole are too easy to get based on your skill level. There are bowlers today who have more honor scores in a year than people of similar talent 40 years ago had in an entire career.
So explain why some THS 230 average bowlers can average 210 on tougher shots and some fall to 170? Which bowler is better? Saying something is too easy doesn't mean it's actually easy by any stretch, it's just saying that it's not hard enough for what you're gaining. It's like a greeter at Walmart getting paid 20 bucks an hour.
-
I agree with the above poster. Many that struggle on sport shots do so because they haven't had much experience on them. There are kids in their early 20's floating around town that I used to coach that will kick my ass on sport because they bowled on it all through high school and MJMA tournaments.
Also, remember that bowling on certain conditions create a swing style appropriate to said conditions. I was reminded of this yesterday when bowling onsome tuff conditions. Shot 567 because the house I am bowling on has a TON of recovery. So....I see this as a bowler and open up the lane and use the miss room to the right. Why wouldn't I? That wasn't happening yesterday and I left many a split as the conditions demanded a higher level of accuracy than I have been faced with.
Remember when the PBA put out a house shot a few years back? Pederson was going on and on about how we were gonna see qualifiers average 250 and see 300 on t.v. and everything else. Turned out....they didn't tear it up like so many assumed. See the pros (as well as those of us who started before resins) learn to "help" the ball when the swing feels wide and "layoff" when the swing feels tight. On a house shot it is better to do the opposite.
So, a good fundamental bowler who has a good feel at the bottom of the swing is going to cover up some of his mistakes at the bottom of the swing. A guy who is averaging 230 cause he has the right match-up is going to struggle more on a sport shot as his release is the same if he misses 3 left or 4 right. Hope you see what I am saying here.
And finally, there are us pro shop guys. I know enough about the game that I can take a shot I am bowling on and match someone up with a ball that will give him at least 5-10 extra pins in average. Sometimes more. Does that mean he is a legit 225 anywhere he goes? Nope. But he is averaging 225 on the house he bos in which is what his goal was.
These are the majority of the guys you see struggle on sport. They have a ball that hides their flaws on the house shot. Elite bowlers have fundamentals that limit their flaws and hide them when they are off. So they score anywhere.
Then there is versatility. Sometimes important....other times it doesn't matter. But many guys can only hook it or can only play straight so depending on the sport shot they see they are locked out before they walk in the building.
-
Mbosco and Complete -- excellent posts. Gizmo and others who are still in the "THS is too easy" camp should read and re-read as necessary.
-
Mbosco and Complete -- excellent posts. Gizmo and others who are still in the "THS is too easy" camp should read and re-read as necessary.
Thanks Steven. It is all relative. A guy recently shot 822 and commented that it is a big deal to him because he isn't a big shooter. Armed with the stats from our local association I showed him he is top 1-2% of bowlers in the largest association in the world. (He is averaging 229). I call that elite....
-
I had a bunch typed, but I don't think you guys are going to get my point or the concept behind what I'm saying. People shoot better scores than they should on easier shots, and because there's a cap at 230-240, no matter what you do, how hard you work, the logistics of the sport, aside from an isolated case here or there, just don't allow for a sustained average of any higher than that. I got to 230 several years ago, before I should have. I have honor scores I don't deserve. Now I'm much smarter, much more experienced, and much more skilled in all aspects, but my THS average is unchanged and unaffected. My sport average and success at sport tournaments has improved significantly, but that's not what matters to anyone. Maybe that just means I don't have to practice any more to maintain it, but there's tons of guys I bowl with that average 230 that struggle to shoot 500 at Nationals. There are plenty of 230 average bowlers who criticize other 230 average bowlers, because some have actual bowling skill, and some have simply figured out how to take advantage of the conditions. It's not fun to know that on a shot that requires actual accuracy, true skill, and knowledge, that you would take 10 out of 10 games from someone who you might split those games with on a THS. If bowlers that can shoot 230 on a house shot can barely break 170 on a sport shot, shouldn't the bowlers who average 210 on a house shot be able to average 250+ on a THS? Do you guys see what I'm actually getting at here?
I'm saying the inflated scores are really hurting bowling from several angles. If some bowler who has a 300 suggests a ball to a lower average or less successful friend, or tries to coach them, or gives them advice, the lower average bowler takes it to heart, whether the 300 guy really has a clue or not. He has a 300, so he has to know something, right? This is a guy who doesn't understand that putting the fingerholes in a ball in the same place will do completely different things for people with different paps. If mr. 300 has a pap of 5 over and 1/2 up, and he tells a friend that likes the same ball and wants that reaction who has a 4 over and 1 up pap to get it drilled the same way, they're not going to get the same ball reaction unless the fingers are put in a different location. Then if you as the pro shop guy do the RIGHT thing, then the 300 guy tells their friend, "oh wow, he really screwed that ball up." Mr 300 can tell somebody, "oh, if you're having trouble releasing the ball, go get more reverse pitch." Or he can tell them, "well, you have to keep your shoulders square to the line, that's proper form," when their friend is trying to play 20-5. Or he develops some little quirk that works for him, and preaches that as gospel to everyone else. Or someone can't get their hook monster to hook on light oil, so he sends them after something that hooks even more. Or they say a Taboo is junk because a Vibe outhooks it on light oil.
These are the guys that THS produces. The guys that would average 170 30 years ago, the guys that wouldn't have the same "power" or influence as the guys who really know what they're doing. The guys who have more knowledge and more skill won more often, not the big strong athletic guys who can figure out that speed plus revs plus throwing it right equals big numbers. I've seen guys who hit different arrows on every shot shoot 300. And you're saying that's skill? You're saying they deserve it? That's basically saying everyone who has ever shot 300 is just as good as Chris Barnes, Walter Ray, PDW, because those guys can't average any better on a house shot because it's a theoretical impossibility. EARL the robot is perfectly accurate, but has never shot 300. More accurate bowlers get penalized more because they burn their shots up faster. It's a complete insult to guys who actually work and practice to suggest otherwise. You give anybody 2+2+2, and ask them to add that up. Give it to a 4th grader and give it to a trig professor. Then say, "well, that 4th grader is every bit as good at basic math as the trig guy is!" Ok, congratulations . . but that doesn't mean the 4th grader knows anything about math. They start talking about why 2(2+2) should be 6, while the trig professor knows it's 8. "Well, 2 times 2 is 4, plus 2 is 6!" No, there's some rules in there you don't understand, and that's exactly the concept I'm getting at. Too much emphasis is put on 300 as a number which means significantly less on a THS than it means on something tough, but because people don't understand this, it's throwing off the balance of the whole game. They look at the numbers as numbers, completely unrelated to the challenge, or lack thereof.
You can say, "well don't put down people who have never averaged that high or who have never gotten a 300 before." Well sorry, but not everybody will average 200, not everyone will shoot 300, and for the benefit of all concerned, some things MUST be put into perspective. There's a kid here in town who has a couple 300's and a couple 800's. He was nearly disqualified from high school bowling this year because his grades were too low. His dad went in to the athletic director at the school and had a shouting match with him over the qualifications. Dad's words were, and I quote, "Well why do his grades matter? He's going straight to the PBA after he graduates, he doesn't need good grades!" So tell me, what 170 average bowlers 30 years ago had that attitude? Back then, when the level of bowler was more clearly defined, everything was just fine. Now we have debates like this.
When you call a 230 THS bowler with a handful of honor scores elite, you aren't giving them their due respect, you're insulting all the professionals. Out of all these 230 avg THS bowlers, what is the percent that can ACTUALLY bowl rather than just abuse a house shot? That's the number that should be looked at. I'm a 230 THS bowler with a handful of honor scores, and there's no way in hell I'd put money on the line against a pro on a PBA shot, but I'd do it on a THS is a heartbeat. THAT is the real story of the THS and its effect on bowling.
-
Mbosco, you say that someone should be given credit for using the toolset they have to score well on an easy THS. They have learned how to miss correctly and still strike and should be given credit for that. Let's take the philosophy to other sports shall we?!? In baseball, you miss hitting the center of the ball by an inch, what do you get? An easy groundball or a pop-up most of the time. You miss hitting a golf ball with the center of the club what do you get? A hook or a slice. You miss hitting the puck directly by an inch, do you still get a goal? You miss kicking a soccor ball by an inch, do you still get a goal? I can go on and on. Missing what you are aiming at, consistently should not be rewarded. It isn't in any other sport out there. Why should it be in bowling? Athletes who can't repeat consitently are not the elite of any sport, yet we are supposed to think they are in bowling because the easier THS conditions reward them for their inconsistentcy?
There will always be varying levels of talent. For some, even THS is hard. They just don't have the skills or talent to score well. Maybe they will get better with time and practice or maybe they have maxed out their potential. I, for one, don't think anyone can walk into a bowling alley and average 230. But I also don't think someone who bowls on a THS pattern and averages 220-230 is elite either. Are they good, yes. Do they have talent, yes. I don't think anyone is disputing that. But they are not elite, they are not the best in their sport. To go back to my baseball reference, the 220-230 THS/205-210 Sport average bowlers are the "stars" of the sports, the 230 THS/180 Sport average bowlers are major-league players, the good players every team needs, but not the "stars". These bowlers can break through and have a great day, win a big tournament, a top 100 finish at the USBC Open, etc., just like the good MLB players can have that 2 homer game. But until they do that kind of thing consitently, they aren't a true star, in both cases.
-
Mbosco and Complete -- excellent posts. Gizmo and others who are still in the "THS is too easy" camp should read and re-read as necessary.
Why can't you read. Every statistic proves the THS is Easy. There are more honor scores and higher averages bowled on them. The pattern allows for room. The need for precision (release, speed, accuracy) has greatly reduced to produce a strike.
Why do bowling centers use this pattern?
Why do bowlers prefer this pattern?
Simple. It's easier to bowl on. Why is this so hard for you guys to understand?
Yes there are guys that bowl super high averages on this pattern, but just because someone bowls super high on the easiest shot designed in bowling should not make them an elite bowler. We as a comumnity of bowlers should recognize it.
We are not stating the every 230 THS average bowler isn't an ELITE bowler, we are stating that the score only on it's own is NOT ENOUGH to determine the elite status! How does the bowler do on flatter patterns? How good is he or she when they need to be more accurate, more precise in the release?
Many that have a high average on THS do bowl well on the flatter patterns and we should consider them ELITE, but there are just as many that can't handle those patterns. Should those bowlers be considered on the same level as the ones that do well on flatter patterns? I say no.
-
We have established that there are various levels of vuys that average 230. A good friend of mine is a lefty with around 25-300's and over 30-800's. Carries at least 230 anywhere he goes. But struggles on sport shots because he isn't very versatile.
I have long said I think I am a better all around player. I can pipe it up 5 or play 5th arrow. But when he gets a good look he is gonna whack them. Period. He repeats the shit out of his shots. So....which is better? The guy who has mastered one style and beats he pins up when it matches.....or the guy who is more versatile and can stay more consistient?
You guys want to label the different bowlers too much. We don't need to figure out who is better, what defines elite, or anything else. But....if you do want to then 230 average is elite....yes even on THS. The stats speak for themselves. Less than 2% of bowlers will average over 230.
Now where you guys get screwed up is trying to say WHICH 230 bowler is better. Well.....the answer is both of them. And neither of them. At that level anyone can win on any given day.
This is why we see amatures on t.v. much more often these days. Short format tournaments allow them to have a shot. The longer the format the more the cream rises to the top. League bowling is the same way. Long format leads to thebest bowlers having the highest average most years.
-
Why can't you read. Every statistic proves the THS is Easy. There are more honor scores and higher averages bowled on them. The pattern allows for room. The need for precision (release, speed, accuracy) has greatly reduced to produce a strike.
When roughly only 1-2% of league bowlers are able to achieve 230+ THS averages, it's not really all that easy to master. Averaging two turkey's a game without missing any spares over a 100+ game season is a challenge. That's the perspective I'm coming from.
I really don't care that with relatively little work someone can average 180-200 on a walled condition using a helpful resin ball. That's the 'easy' part. The harder part is taking it to the next level, which even on a THS isn't easy.
I don't believe achieving a 230+ average on a THS makes anyone automatically 'elite'. Your'e certainly elite among your THS peers, but as Jorge most recently pointed out, you're not necessarily elite among the best in the game. I would argue that if you can't hit the 230+ mark in your local center, your chances of achieving elite status among the best are slim to none, but there are always exceptions. I''m talking about what's generally true.
BTW, my reading skills are fine, thanks.
-
But there has to be qualifications. If you're going by THS only standards, then yes, 230 is elite, I have no problem with that. If someone can hit shots, then they should be able to at least hit a sport pattern here or there, one has to match up with them. But 95% of bowlers don't understand the difference, that is the problem caused here. They think if you average 230 and have honor scores that it universally translates, it's giving people a false idea and false impressions overall. It's driving people to easier shots, and away from tougher shots. I'm ready to quit the pro shop and walk away from bowling altogether because of people who don't "get it." Some pro shoots 230 and wins a tournament, no one cares. "I shot 250 at league last week, if they're so good they should shoot 270's every game." The misconceptions created by the THS are dangerous for bowling, point and case.
Steven and complete, I'm not going to argue with your points one bit . . because I think you "get it." But there are too many out there who don't, and the THS is only serving to create a larger gap and more problems. The challenges facing bowling are multi-faceted, yes, but you CAN'T tell me people didn't bowl more and practice more when scores were lower, that translates into tons more revenue, which centers in turn could use to balance things like being in "prime" areas. Lower scores equalled more money, and money in this world fixes everything. Yeah, it's a really simplistic viewpoint, but I believe that's the key that holds everything else together. I used to practice 30 games a week and bowl 3 or 4 leagues, now that I'm 230 whether I practice or don't, bowling really isn't fun anymore, so I never practice and had to be talked into 2 leagues this year. At a 200 average, the cap wasn't there.
-
You make very valid points and I agree with most of them but you maybe overlooking one big factor, whether or not the game can actually go the route of reducing scoring across the board. In my opinion it cannot. That can of worms has already been opened and if the USBC tried to toughen oil patterns and actually enforced this, the bowlers would go crazy since we are now so used to the current scoring levels. The same goes for any sport; imagine the USGA limiting driving distance by prohibiting metal drivers, golfers would rebel for sure. Yes, scoring is outrageous and yes, we all practice less, if at all, but I don't see anyway of ever turning back.
-
Well I attribute that to the fact that you have achieved great success on the conditions you are bowling on. When you find tougher conditions or want to take it to another level you will get back to practicing again.
But again 230 isn't so easy. Even 220 isn't so easy. I know a ton of decent bowlers who have bowled their entire life that don't average 220. I bowl with many of them on my teams.
Now they don't practice either which is why they can't get to the next level. You, me, and Steven put our time in the past working on our games so we can average that number. Doesn't mean we need to go bowl 30 games a week to stay there....we have built up the fundamentals and versatility to stay there.
Now if I want to average 230 on sport, chase the regional tour or Masters/US Open, or an Eagle at the Championships I am gonna have to put more time and effort in. But to be honest....as cool as any of those successes would be I don't have the time or energy to pursue them.
But again I think this boils down to a pissing contest in some ways. You see a guy averaging 230 who has bad form and fundamentals, knows nothing about lane play and ball reaction, has no clue as to what his equipment is designed to do, and it irritates you. You know you outscore him on sport so you want to point out the reasons you are better. I get that and have had similar conversations. But reality is.....on the THS you aren't any better than him.
And THS isn't going anywhere and it isn't the fault of the bowlers in my opinion. It falls on the proprietors. They have been fighting over the dwindling customer base for so long by putting out easier and easier shots that if they were to change it now bowlers would leave in droves. But who began this in the first place? I have never heard a bowler say he wants easier conditions. I have heard they want more consistient, more oil, less oil, better carry etc. but never just flat out easier.
The centers did this to our game by trying to lure bowlers over from the competing house. And now we have what the game is today. Get over it.
-
Well I attribute that to the fact that you have achieved great success on the conditions you are bowling on. When you find tougher conditions or want to take it to another level you will get back to practicing again.
But again 230 isn't so easy. Even 220 isn't so easy. I know a ton of decent bowlers who have bowled their entire life that don't average 220. I bowl with many of them on my teams.
Now they don't practice either which is why they can't get to the next level. You, me, and Steven put our time in the past working on our games so we can average that number. Doesn't mean we need to go bowl 30 games a week to stay there....we have built up the fundamentals and versatility to stay there.
Now if I want to average 230 on sport, chase the regional tour or Masters/US Open, or an Eagle at the Championships I am gonna have to put more time and effort in. But to be honest....as cool as any of those successes would be I don't have the time or energy to pursue them.
But again I think this boils down to a pissing contest in some ways. You see a guy averaging 230 who has bad form and fundamentals, knows nothing about lane play and ball reaction, has no clue as to what his equipment is designed to do, and it irritates you. You know you outscore him on sport so you want to point out the reasons you are better. I get that and have had similar conversations. But reality is.....on the THS you aren't any better than him.
And THS isn't going anywhere and it isn't the fault of the bowlers in my opinion. It falls on the proprietors. They have been fighting over the dwindling customer base for so long by putting out easier and easier shots that if they were to change it now bowlers would leave in droves. But who began this in the first place? I have never heard a bowler say he wants easier conditions. I have heard they want more consistient, more oil, less oil, better carry etc. but never just flat out easier.
The centers did this to our game by trying to lure bowlers over from the competing house. And now we have what the game is today. Get over it.
Very nice points, I can't argue any of them. The first paragraph got me especially, haha, I'll be practicing before going to the Greater Ozarks Open next month and staying after the PBA league this summer to practice. Well said.
-
And THS isn't going anywhere and it isn't the fault of the bowlers in my opinion. It falls on the proprietors
I disagree. The proprietors have every right to put out whatever shot they want. It's their business. However, I will put the blame on the USBC. You have to realize this was an organization at one time upheld integrity to the Sport of Bowling. Things were checked and verified. Honor scores were denied. Now the flood gates are wide open. For the fear of losing anymore members the USBC has become a shell of what it once was. Today its about keeping members and keeping as much money as possible.
I have never heard a bowler say he wants easier conditions. I have heard they want more consistient, more oil, less oil, better carry etc. but never just flat out easier. And now we have what the game is today. Get over it.
Of course they will never state they want it easier. That would be admitting the truth. If a center would put out a flat pattern accidently on a league night, you not going hear "Hey what happenned to our THS". You will hear:
"My ball is not hooking!"
"The lanes have too much oil!"
"My series is 100 pins below my average, something is wrong!"
That's what you are going to hear. So to me that equals; "We want our easy shot back!"
And now we have what the game is today. Get over it.
I understand the game will never change, but I sure find it odd that many who enjoy competing in this sport, settle for a condition that takes away the skills and abilities that made this sport great. I will never change my opinion on this matter. What ever accomplishment someone does on THS, my personal thought is "I am not impressed." Will I congratulate them....Sure will! No need to downplay their success because of my opinion. I know I am not going to change their mind. Not the right approach.
I will however encourage bowlers to bowl on tougher conditions. I say things like:
"Give it try!"
"Sure its a challenge, but isn't that what this Sport is all about!".
"You will learn so much more about your own game!" "What do you got to lose?".
But again I think this boils down to a pissing contest in some ways. You see a guy averaging 230 who has bad form and fundamentals, knows nothing about lane play and ball reaction, has no clue as to what his equipment is designed to do, and it irritates you. You know you outscore him on sport so you want to point out the reasons you are better. I get that and have had similar conversations. But reality is.....on the THS you aren't any better than him.
He sure is better than me on THS. Highest scores wins everytime. A guy can throw 12 brooklyns in row against me and it wouldn't bother me a bit. The name of the game is to out score your opponent. It doesn't matter how pretty or how ugly. But staying with the category of him being an elite bowler. I am entitled to my opinion.
-
First, there is no question that the degree of knowledge and ability of bowlers has increased tremendously over the years, and it is not generally given enough credit. As for scoring and averages take this from an old timer. Biggest jump in scoring came when the first soft polyester balls were introduced in the mid 70's. All increases in averages have been incremental since then, including when the resin balls came out. What did jump radically was the amount of award scores with resin balls. Way more 300's, but the balls blew up the pattern so fast that we didn't get as big a jump in averages as the award scores would seem to indicate.
Only thing wrong with the game today has nothing to do with averages, but is about how quickly and badly the balls blow up the oil patterns when you have a high powered field of bowlers. It would be better for the top tier of the game if the lane conditions forced the players to play the shot set out, rather than just burn in a pattern in no time.