BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: ITZPS on January 26, 2015, 09:21:41 AM
-
I've done a lot of thinking about this and let's look at it from both sides. With the new system, every frame is essentially a game, you just have to win it, no matter how pretty or ugly it is. I DON'T like that it doesn't really include spares, but at the same time, the name of the game is and has always been knocking them all down on the first try. The good thing about this system is that one bad shot won't ruin your game, just like why tournaments have longer formats so one bad game won't necessarily knock you out of it. It also is very easy for newbies to the sport to catch up or figure out the scoring, which I think will be good for international or Olympic competition, but obviously just head to head. Plus this system should make games go down to the wire more often than not. Instead of one person getting a big lead and then just playing defense by getting on cruise control and hitting the pocket and picking up spares, they are required to keep their foot on the pedal the whole game.
There are a few things broken with the traditional system. Is it really fair for someone who goes front 7, stone 8, sheet to lose to someone who goes through the nose and leaves a 6-10, picks up the spare, then rolls the next 10 and finishes with a big 4 to win the game? Shouldn't the winner be the person who threw the most strikes? I suppose I've never really liked the traditional scoring system to begin with. Every night your score doesn't depend on the overall quality of your shots, it just depends on where your misses were. If you throw 30 strikes in a night, with the other 6 being 9 counts, assuming you make the spares if applicable, you could either shoot a 258 triplicate for 774 or a 289 triplicate for 867. But shouldn't your score be more dependent on how good you played rather than where everything fell? It would be like giving bonus strokes for consecutive pars or birdies or something. Unless I'm mistaken, this sport is the only one that gives a bonus just because you did something several times in a row.
Can you imagine on the PGA tour if somebody gets off on a hot streak to start their day and has 5 consecutive birdies and gets say an additional 2 strokes dropped off their score per hole for that? Then another guy birdies every other hole and actually ends the round with more birdies, but loses just because they weren't all in a row? That sounds pretty ridiculous to me. But that's the way it is, and that's what everybody is used to.
I think it needs a few adjustments, but I actually like the new system better. I don't like that the first ball is all that matters, I think spares need to be shot every frame. If they both throw a 9 count, they need to shoot the spare to tie the frame. In my mind, if someone goes 8/, they should win the frame over someone that goes 9-0. However, that also doesn't make the first shot very important, it shouldn't be ALL about spares. If nobody is ever trying to strike, just get good count and pick up the spare, you most likely wouldn't have that occasional 7 count. It would make it more like No Tap. It's a lot different game if you're just trying to get 9 instead of trying to get a strike.
So in the first match, did Sandra really bowl better than Liz? I think Liz won the game fair and square. I don't know what the traditional scoring number would have been, but we forget Sandra went 8-10, washout the last two frames before the extra one.
If you read this article on the PBA website, the players have some extremely good points. http://news.pba.com/post/2015/1/25/K...-Unveiled.aspx I feel the same way they do. I think it was more exciting for me than the traditional scoring, it keeps you honest longer, and it makes the matches more closely contested. The person who wins the most frames should win the game every time, period. I still think spares should be included to some capacity, I like my suggestion of course, but does anybody else have a better idea? This new system is actually really good if you think about it. People are more obsessed with scores now than good bowling, and I think that's why people don't like it.
-
Dude, this is the internet. People don't want to read a book.
-
This is bowling, not golf.
If the bowlers who participated in that jive were to convey their true feelings, they're likely to be fined and face probation or suspension, or all of the above.
-
It is very much like match play in golf. It has its place, but I wouldn't want to see it as the standard for match play in bowling.
-
With the new scoring system, a bowler could win even though it would have been a lower traditional score. Being a good spare shooter has won on many tough patterns.
Bowler A X X 9- X 9- X X X X XXX
Old 235
New .5 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5 5.5 6
Bowler B X 9/ X X X X X 9/ 9/ X9/
Old 238
New .5 1.5 2 3 3.5 4 4.5
-
That being said, this new scoring system is all about getting bowling into the Olympics.
-
Just trying to give it a fair shake from all sides, lots of points to cover.
Dude, this is the internet. People don't want to read a book.
-
That being said, this new scoring system is all about getting bowling into the Olympics.
The scoring system isn't what's keeping bowling out of the Olympics, no matter what they think. If the scoring and rules of a sport like Curling isn't too complex, then bowling isn't.
The fact is, the Olympic Committee doesn't consider bowling a real sport worthy of including.
-
There was an article in BJI that the Olympic future of bowling might rest with the Chinese. If the Chinese govt thinks that they have a chance to win gold in bowling, it would help.
Actually, there have been many articles about the new scoring system being one key to getting bowling into the Olympics. The new scoring system was brought by the world bowling assn whatever it's proper name is, to test it out with the Olympics in mind.
-
There was an article in BJI that the Olympic future of bowling might rest with the Chinese. If the Chinese govt thinks that they have a chance to win gold in bowling, it would help.
Actually, there have been many articles about the new scoring system being one key to getting bowling into the Olympics. The new scoring system was brought by the world bowling assn whatever it's proper name is, to test it out with the Olympics in mind.
Yes, I've read the same articles, I'm just saying it's not the complexity of the scoring that is keeping it out of the Olympics.
And I agree that if the Chinese get on board, bowling has a much better chance.
-
My gut feel has always been that the thing keeping bowling out of the Olympics is a perception by the committee that it would be totally dominated by Americans. I don't really think that has been the case for a few years, so the idea that a few more countries might feel as though they could competed for medals will probably do more than anything.
-
Milo, I agree, I was just stating what bowling's governing bodies feel.
At least bowling has a definitive scoring system, not something that is at the whim of politics, feelings of patriotism, or outright bribery, like diving or figure skating. Bowling has to be an indoor competition which means a building with climate control, seating, and lanes/machines, all of which would be expensive. And it has to be either popular or available in most other countries.
I'm out. Have to go bowl double shift today.
-
I believe the biggest reason bowling is not in the Olympics is that the winner can be determined by the lane condition.
Sure you could not narrow it to an individual but you could eliminate certain styles or a side of the lane.
The current scoring system works well as long as it is not a strikefest.
-
I didn't like the format. The scoring is probably one of the few parts of bowling that isn't broken. For example:
Person A: Front 5, 7-10 (open), back 6
Person B: Front 5 3-6-10 (spare), back 6
Traditional scoring, "B" wins. New scoring "A" wins because the 8 count trumps the 7 count.
-
Which is why I said spares have to be added to it. I agree that I don't like the way it currently is, a second shot should be thrown if there are pins left period.
However, I still disagree about the current traditional scoring. To me it's extremely broken, but that's just an opinion. I also still participate and have a lot of fun and the scoring system doesn't change anything to me. Really doesn't feel any different than having different shots. On house shots, you gotta strike, on tougher conditions you gotta leave and make easy spares. Same game, two different approaches and mentalities, just like this alternate scoring method.
I didn't like the format. The scoring is probably one of the few parts of bowling that isn't broken. For example:
Person A: Front 5, 7-10 (open), back 6
Person B: Front 5 3-6-10 (spare), back 6
Traditional scoring, "B" wins. New scoring "A" wins because the 8 count trumps the 7 count.
-
Just think how much money the score system will cost bowling centers to change! lol
-
I didn't get a chance to see yesterday's show because my DVR is set up for PBA telecasts; this show must have just been dubbed "Bowling" or something else. I'm ticked because I would've liked to have seen it. That being said, this is going to be a tough call. Traditionalists will hate this system just because it's new and different, which is very similar to why so many people dislike two-handed bowling, reactive balls, and other changes. The long and short is this. I don't think you'll ever see that type of scoring become mainstream; it's something the WTBA and, hopefully, the IOC can use during certain international competitions. To me, there is room for both. I wouldn't want traditional scoring to go away or even become the minority, but it would be kind of fun to bowl events that used that format every once in a while. Whether you loved it or hated it, at least it got some people talking about bowling. That's part of the battle right now as it is. The sport is slowly dying in many capacities. If this new approach to scoring - or anything else - brings interest and attention to the sport, I say that's a good thing.
-
I didn't get a chance to see yesterday's show because my DVR is set up for PBA telecasts; this show must have just been dubbed "Bowling" or something else. I'm ticked because I would've liked to have seen it. That being said, this is going to be a tough call. Traditionalists will hate this system just because it's new and different, which is very similar to why so many people dislike two-handed bowling, reactive balls, and other changes. The long and short is this. I don't think you'll ever see that type of scoring become mainstream; it's something the WTBA and, hopefully, the IOC can use during certain international competitions. To me, there is room for both. I wouldn't want traditional scoring to go away or even become the minority, but it would be kind of fun to bowl events that used that format every once in a while. Whether you loved it or hated it, at least it got some people talking about bowling. That's part of the battle right now as it is. The sport is slowly dying in many capacities. If this new approach to scoring - or anything else - brings interest and attention to the sport, I say that's a good thing.
Your DVR probably did the same thing mine did, it missed it because it wasn't on ESPN, but on ESPN2. I don't know if it was changed, but my "To Do" list showed it was supposed to record, and I could see that it WAS recording at one point, but when I went to watch it, it wasn't listed.
Thanks again ESPN for making Bowling a second class citizen.
-
Usually there is a replay of these shows on at least once or twice during the following week. Does anyone know if this one will be rebroadcast at all? If so, I'll set it up to record the second time around. I am happy any time bowling is on TV, strange scoring system or not!
-
I had read a proposal I did like (I can no longer find the link).
4 frames. Strike = 10 pts, spare = count on first ball, open = 0 points
If you stirke in the 4th you keep going until you stop striking (or have won the match)
This system makes spares and stringing strikes important. It can speed up competition. Maybe the only downside is there is little time to make an adjustment and comeback to win.
-
I happened to be scanning the ESPN channels ahead of time and noticed "Bowling". Mine was also set for PBA, so I wouldn't have gotten it either. Problem wasn't ESPN2, but rather the different title.
-
I watched the show on Sunday and this is what I think. I ABSOLUTLEY DESPISE THE NEW SCORING SYSTEM. This is the most dumbest thing I have ever seen, and the most BOARING way to have a finals match. If this is the future of bowling then you may as well pack it in, because I wont be apart of it.
-
If you go onto youtube, the official PBA channel has been adding recently aired shows pretty quickly, this one may already be up.
I guess I didn't find it boring at all, I actually found it more exciting because every shot mattered more. Traditional scoring you just kind of have to wait until closer to the end to see what happens. In this, every single frame is a win or a loss. Every single shot matters NOW, and if you get into the 10th and one person is up 3, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. If you're up 30 in a traditional scoring match, the person that's ahead really just has to stay clean. Staying clean doesn't mean anything in this, you saw what happened to Sandra Andersson. Maybe you don't feel it's fair, but she went 8-10, washout, and Liz forced an extra frame. If Sandra just has to go 9/, 9/ to win in traditional scoring, all the sudden it's not as exciting, and I bet she gets it done, but because she HAD to keep striking, it was a different story. There's pressure on every shot, whereas with traditional scoring, there's always a way to catch up. If somebody leaves a split and drops 20-some pins, that's different than simply just losing a single frame.
I don't know, maybe I think too much, but the new scoring appeals to me more. Traditional scoring feels just like everything else in society today, over-inflated and over-blown. People focus too much on flash and excitement and style over substance. But I'm the type of person that could find watching a good game of chess enthralling, I don't really care about the pomp and circumstance, it actually annoys me. I'm glad the shows are back in a regular bowling alley instead of these sets and crap too.
-
There is nothing wrong with our scoring system. People keep trying to change the wrong things. The problem with bowling IS, the best in the world don't SCORE the best, hence confusion in what determines a good player from a bad player, period.
When score dictates ability, THEN and only THEN will you be able to measure bowling, and possibly push it into an Olympic sport.
In addition, the new scoring system didn't "fix" anything because Andersson bowled a better game than Liz in the first match. If there is already question as to if a system would work, with such a small sampling, then clearly, it isn't the correct one.
-
Sure. Let's make bowling as complicated to score as figure skating and bull riding. If they want to do it for exhibitions or something, great. If they implement in regular bowling they'll be driving a stake in the heart of league bowling. Tried a 30 pt system in a league and the howling and complaining put an end to it in two years.
-
The best in the world do in fact score the best. Why is it a crime for good local scratch bowlers to average 230 on house shots, but it great when good young golfers shoot 65 on 6400 yard munis in high school tournaments.
-
throwing a perfect game will be a lot harder now, 7-0
-
Not sure about that last point, the 8-10 and the washout at the end may have done Sandra in were it regular scoring . .
There is nothing wrong with our scoring system. People keep trying to change the wrong things. The problem with bowling IS, the best in the world don't SCORE the best, hence confusion in what determines a good player from a bad player, period.
When score dictates ability, THEN and only THEN will you be able to measure bowling, and possibly push it into an Olympic sport.
In addition, the new scoring system didn't "fix" anything because Andersson bowled a better game than Liz in the first match. If there is already question as to if a system would work, with such a small sampling, then clearly, it isn't the correct one.
-
Well and that's one of my points, so what about the score? If you're playing for a win or a loss, the actual score doesn't matter, just whether you won or lost. Should be that way anyway.
throwing a perfect game will be a lot harder now, 7-0
-
The best in the world do in fact score the best. Why is it a crime for good local scratch bowlers to average 230 on house shots, but it great when good young golfers shoot 65 on 6400 yard munis in high school tournaments.
.....Because, in your golf analogy, you can visually see that a local golf course is easier than what the pros golf on, and there is no delusion as to who the best is. Bowling, people can't "see" the lane condition (and even with the blue oil, still doesn't translate properly).
Below is a link to the season averages on the PBA tour. High average is 226, but yet in leagues, there are multiple averages WAY above that. That doesn't translate, or compute when you are trying the sell the professional game to corporate America, and tell them that these are the best in the world.
http://pba.com/SeasonStats/TotalAverage/80
The other issue with your argument is, when a great bowler bowls on league conditions, he or she doesn't automatically average more than everyone else even if they are bowling better than the decent league bowler. Easier conditions just bring average to good players score up to, and able to compete with, better players.
The PBA tried a "house shot" tournament, and it failed. The PBA tried making the pros use plastic balls, and all the general public said was that they made the lanes too soft, even though the general public could never keep up with the pros who used those plastic balls.
My question to you is, what is wrong with the local "good" league player only averaging 215? If it's the high average in the league, then it's the high average in the league. A well thrown game should reflect in the score. This isn't necessarily the case.
-
Not sure about that last point, the 8-10 and the washout at the end may have done Sandra in were it regular scoring . .
...Then you also can't forget that Liz also 4-9'd and 5-7'd in the middle of her match. Those certainly aren't gimme spare conversions.
-
the new system sucks but my boy sean rash woop some1 ass pew pew and he was throwing a mighty fine line very sexy very powerful
-
I know I got off topic, but people aren't dumb. I don't know of any league bowler above 180 who doesn't understand that they are playing on something different than the pros play on. Bowling success at the top level is much more about diversity than is golf. And my point is that many people are looking at scores not execution. I am about a 12 handicap golfer. When I look at some kid shooting 65, he looks as good as a pro to me, even if I know he is not playing on US Open conditions.
Returning to the scoring system, not sure how it is boring, just different. People don't have any problem with Baker style team bowling for finals. If I was going to be stodgy, I would have at least as much trouble with that as the new scoring system. Most people aren't old enough to remember that the step ladder format was invented for tv by the PBA. I guarantee you that the pros at the time hated going into a 1 game crap shoot after 42 games of qualifying and match play.
-
I don't think this will ever work in league play.
1. handicap how will you work that?
2. to many house hacks will not know how to brag about there ave.
3. the owners of the center will not like it. It could shorten the games and less beer they could sell.
I could see it being used in certain competitions like international/Olympics
But is should not be used for PBA titles.
I also had the same issue with my DVR I checked before I left it showed it was going to record but never did. I have had this issue when non PBA bowling items are on.
Even though it did not record I saw a much better show
American Sniper Well worth the money & time and missing the PBA
-
This scoring system doesn't work because it doesn't take into account total pinfall, only comparing who has the "better" frame. It's not hard to figure out that a bowler who could washout then face, two frames in a row can still be in a match with a bowler who struck twice, and then gets tapped the next two frames, while the first bowler gets two strikes. In that scenario, they are tied, yet bowler A has bowled the better game, hitting the pocket 4 out of 4 frames but gets tapped, while bowler B only hit the pocket twice.
Again, there is nothing wrong with our scoring system. Why is it so hard to understand that a 224 is better than a 212, when comparing apples to apples? The problem is, when comparing a 224 by the best in the world on a hard condition, and a 235 by a mediocre player on an over walled miss your mark by 5 boards, yet still go flush for strikes house shoot. That is hard to explain, and be comprehend-able to a NON BOWLER who you are trying to get advertising dollars from. They only see the SCORE.
-
Let me add a few things:
1) People need to take a step back. This wasn't a PBA event, it was the World Bowling Tour finals, A WBT event. Yes, the PBA recognizes their titles as a PBA win, but it was not their event, nor their rules.
2) The new scoring system wasn't designed for league play, it was designed for international competition. It was designed so that someone who knows nothing about bowling, like someone who may be watching the Olympics, can figure out who is winning and why. It is a first step to maybe getting bowling into the Olympics in the future.
3) How can anyone say it is boring after watching the final 4 frames of the Liz Johnson/Sandra Andersson match?
4) To those that say Sandra bowled a better game then Liz....would any of you look down upon this scenario: Golfer A birdies every hole on the front 9, while golfer B, Birdies 5, bogeys 4...then on the back 9 Golfer A pars the first 7, then double bogeys 17 and 18, while golfer B pars the first 5, then birdies the last 4 to tie Golfer A and then wins on the first playoff hole....would you be upset because Golfer A played a better round only missing par or under on two holes while Golfer B, missed par or under on 4?
These are just a few things people are missing....and why is that? Becuase it's change....people dislike change. All of you complaining, read the book "Who moved my Cheese?" and maybe you will gain a new perspective on it. And lastly, lighten up Francis!
-
Let me add a few things:
1) People need to take a step back. This wasn't a PBA event, it was the World Bowling Tour finals, A WBT event. Yes, the PBA recognizes their titles as a PBA win, but it was not their event, nor their rules.
2) The new scoring system wasn't designed for league play, it was designed for international competition. It was designed so that someone who knows nothing about bowling, like someone who may be watching the Olympics, can figure out who is winning and why. It is a first step to maybe getting bowling into the Olympics in the future.
3) How can anyone say it is boring after watching the final 4 frames of the Liz Johnson/Sandra Andersson match?
4) To those that say Sandra bowled a better game then Liz....would any of you look down upon this scenario: Golfer A birdies every hole on the front 9, while golfer B, Birdies 5, bogeys 4...then on the back 9 Golfer A pars the first 7, then double bogeys 17 and 18, while golfer B pars the first 5, then birdies the last 4 to tie Golfer A and then wins on the first playoff hole....would you be upset because Golfer A played a better round only missing par or under on two holes while Golfer B, missed par or under on 4?
These are just a few things people are missing....and why is that? Becuase it's change....people dislike change. All of you complaining, read the book "Who moved my Cheese?" and maybe you will gain a new perspective on it. And lastly, lighten up Francis!
So what other sport(s) has different scoring criteria for the Olympics? And how many people who watch sports like Rhythmic Gymnastics and Ice Dancing(or Figure Skating) know how the scoring works? Or for some obscure sport like Curling?
-
Traditional scoring doesn't take total pinfall into account either . . You have someone that goes front 6 and spares the rest of the way out, then you have someone else who gets 7 strikes, but has a dutch going and then strikes out in the 10th. Bowler 1 wins with fewer strikes. How is that right? Bonus just because they all happen to be in a row?
Like I already said, each frame is like a game in itself. This is why tournaments are longer format, so that if you have one bad game, you're not out of it, and if you have one good game, you aren't running away with it. Should a guy that averages 240 all week then gets on tv and has a 170 get knocked out because of that? It makes every single frame important, there's no stringing strikes and getting a ton of bonus pins while your opponent gets tapped a couple times. The same thing can happen with traditional scoring by your logic, guy throws 3 or 4 splits to start off a game and then goes back 8 can beat somebody who never misses the pocket and just gets tapped.
This scoring system doesn't work because it doesn't take into account total pinfall, only comparing who has the "better" frame. It's not hard to figure out that a bowler who could washout then face, two frames in a row can still be in a match with a bowler who struck twice, and then gets tapped the next two frames, while the first bowler gets two strikes. In that scenario, they are tied, yet bowler A has bowled the better game, hitting the pocket 4 out of 4 frames but gets tapped, while bowler B only hit the pocket twice.
Again, there is nothing wrong with our scoring system. Why is it so hard to understand that a 224 is better than a 212, when comparing apples to apples? The problem is, when comparing a 224 by the best in the world on a hard condition, and a 235 by a mediocre player on an over walled miss your mark by 5 boards, yet still go flush for strikes house shoot. That is hard to explain, and be comprehend-able to a NON BOWLER who you are trying to get advertising dollars from. They only see the SCORE.
-
Let me add a few things:
1) People need to take a step back. This wasn't a PBA event, it was the World Bowling Tour finals, A WBT event. Yes, the PBA recognizes their titles as a PBA win, but it was not their event, nor their rules.
2) The new scoring system wasn't designed for league play, it was designed for international competition. It was designed so that someone who knows nothing about bowling, like someone who may be watching the Olympics, can figure out who is winning and why. It is a first step to maybe getting bowling into the Olympics in the future.
3) How can anyone say it is boring after watching the final 4 frames of the Liz Johnson/Sandra Andersson match?
4) To those that say Sandra bowled a better game then Liz....would any of you look down upon this scenario: Golfer A birdies every hole on the front 9, while golfer B, Birdies 5, bogeys 4...then on the back 9 Golfer A pars the first 7, then double bogeys 17 and 18, while golfer B pars the first 5, then birdies the last 4 to tie Golfer A and then wins on the first playoff hole....would you be upset because Golfer A played a better round only missing par or under on two holes while Golfer B, missed par or under on 4?
These are just a few things people are missing....and why is that? Becuase it's change....people dislike change. All of you complaining, read the book "Who moved my Cheese?" and maybe you will gain a new perspective on it. And lastly, lighten up Francis!
Your talking about "change" being the issue, and simplifying it so that anyone can understand, yet your analogy uses golf, that talks about bogies, and birdies and eagles and sparrows,... like that is simple?
224 beats a 223. It doesn't get much more simpler than the higher score wins.
Let's further that and talk tennis, What is a "love"??? Why does it go from a love to a 15 and then a 30? What happened to a simple point for a win, etc...?
-
Good points, but some of the sports do have different formats. Golf has the Ryder Cup, which is scored similarly. Total score doesn't matter, just gotta win every hole, can't have a couple great holes and then play it safe, gotta show up every hole.
Let me add a few things:
1) People need to take a step back. This wasn't a PBA event, it was the World Bowling Tour finals, A WBT event. Yes, the PBA recognizes their titles as a PBA win, but it was not their event, nor their rules.
2) The new scoring system wasn't designed for league play, it was designed for international competition. It was designed so that someone who knows nothing about bowling, like someone who may be watching the Olympics, can figure out who is winning and why. It is a first step to maybe getting bowling into the Olympics in the future.
3) How can anyone say it is boring after watching the final 4 frames of the Liz Johnson/Sandra Andersson match?
4) To those that say Sandra bowled a better game then Liz....would any of you look down upon this scenario: Golfer A birdies every hole on the front 9, while golfer B, Birdies 5, bogeys 4...then on the back 9 Golfer A pars the first 7, then double bogeys 17 and 18, while golfer B pars the first 5, then birdies the last 4 to tie Golfer A and then wins on the first playoff hole....would you be upset because Golfer A played a better round only missing par or under on two holes while Golfer B, missed par or under on 4?
These are just a few things people are missing....and why is that? Becuase it's change....people dislike change. All of you complaining, read the book "Who moved my Cheese?" and maybe you will gain a new perspective on it. And lastly, lighten up Francis!
So what other sport(s) has different scoring criteria for the Olympics? And how many people who watch sports like Rhythmic Gymnastics and Ice Dancing(or Figure Skating) know how the scoring works? Or for some obscure sport like Curling?
-
Traditional scoring doesn't take total pinfall into account either . . You have someone that goes front 6 and spares the rest of the way out, then you have someone else who gets 7 strikes, but has a dutch going and then strikes out in the 10th. Bowler 1 wins with fewer strikes. How is that right? Bonus just because they all happen to be in a row?
Really? It does take total pin fall into account??? You are rewarded for knocking down ALL the pins in one try, a strike, and moderately rewarded for knocking down all the pins with two shots, a spare, and given your total pinfall for the frame if not knocking them down in two tries. Makes perfect sense. Rewarding a better performance.
-
Milo,
While not for the Olympics, but Golf holds many tournaments with different scoring. They have one every year using the Stableford scoring system. They hold many using the Match-Play scoring like the one in question here. All of their international events (Ryder Cup, President's Cup, etc) use the match-play scoring. I do assume that sports like Ice Dancing, Figure skating have lower tolerences on mistakes for the Olympics than they do for other competitions, but I don't know for sure. Curling scoring is actually pretty simple....just like horseshoes, only on ice. And it's only obscure to Americans, Curling is widely popular in other parts of the world, especially Canada and Europe. This isn't meant to replace the normal scoring of bowling. It's just a way to make it easier for the non-bowler to understand the score and why someone is winning. Do "real" golfers have 4 page threads about how bad match-play scoring is after the Match-Play championships every year? Or after the Ryder Cup? I doubt it...only bowlers who must find something to complain about daily....or our heads will explode. I just tend to complain about the complainers...but it does the trick just fine.
-
This scoring system wasn't designed for anything other than scratch match play. Not really much different than the PBA using best 2 out of 3, or 3 out of 5 games to determine a match. Total pins is pretty irrelevant in that too. A guy can shoot 300 and win by 100 pins, then lose a couple of 257-238 games, and lose the match. I remember when Earl lapped the field by 600 pins in a PBA major, and lost the step ladder match to finish second.
-
So in your mind, what is a better performance....someone throwing 7 strikes in a game or someone throwing 6 strikes in a game? Why is it better for someone to throw 11 strikes in a row from frame 1 versus throwing 11 strike in a row from frame 2? And I think it was mentioned earlier....what other sport rewards participants for an accomplishment just because you do it multiple times in a row? You don't get any strokes deducted in golf if you birdie 5, 6,or even 18 holes in a row....you just get your score. But bowling will reward someone more for throwing six strikes in a row, versus someone who throws more strikes but doesn't have them all in a row. How can you justify that to a non-bowler watching? Even though bowler B did what is the goal of the sport, more times in one game, Bowler A won just because theirs happen to be in a row. Or in the 290 versus 29x scenario above...bowler A actually knocks down more pins then bowler B, because they make their spare in frame 1 (10) then get 11 Strikes (110 pins), versus bowler B getting the first 11 (110 Pins) and leaving something on the last ball (9, 8, etc). So who "should" win the game to a non-bowler?
Traditional scoring doesn't take total pinfall into account either . . You have someone that goes front 6 and spares the rest of the way out, then you have someone else who gets 7 strikes, but has a dutch going and then strikes out in the 10th. Bowler 1 wins with fewer strikes. How is that right? Bonus just because they all happen to be in a row?
Really? It does take total pin fall into account??? You are rewarded for knocking down ALL the pins in one try, a strike, and moderately rewarded for knocking down all the pins with two shots, a spare, and given your total pinfall for the frame if not knocking them down in two tries. Makes perfect sense. Rewarding a better performance.
-
Really....so everyone knows what Turkey, Hambone, Greek Church, Big 4 mean.... ::)
Let me add a few things:
1) People need to take a step back. This wasn't a PBA event, it was the World Bowling Tour finals, A WBT event. Yes, the PBA recognizes their titles as a PBA win, but it was not their event, nor their rules.
2) The new scoring system wasn't designed for league play, it was designed for international competition. It was designed so that someone who knows nothing about bowling, like someone who may be watching the Olympics, can figure out who is winning and why. It is a first step to maybe getting bowling into the Olympics in the future.
3) How can anyone say it is boring after watching the final 4 frames of the Liz Johnson/Sandra Andersson match?
4) To those that say Sandra bowled a better game then Liz....would any of you look down upon this scenario: Golfer A birdies every hole on the front 9, while golfer B, Birdies 5, bogeys 4...then on the back 9 Golfer A pars the first 7, then double bogeys 17 and 18, while golfer B pars the first 5, then birdies the last 4 to tie Golfer A and then wins on the first playoff hole....would you be upset because Golfer A played a better round only missing par or under on two holes while Golfer B, missed par or under on 4?
These are just a few things people are missing....and why is that? Becuase it's change....people dislike change. All of you complaining, read the book "Who moved my Cheese?" and maybe you will gain a new perspective on it. And lastly, lighten up Francis!
Your talking about "change" being the issue, and simplifying it so that anyone can understand, yet your analogy uses golf, that talks about bogies, and birdies and eagles and sparrows,... like that is simple?
224 beats a 223. It doesn't get much more simpler than the higher score wins.
Let's further that and talk tennis, What is a "love" ??? Why does it go from a love to a 15 and then a 30? What happened to a simple point for a win, etc...?
-
And Golf was in the Olympics when? Like 1900 or something? It will be again in 2016 but I've read that it will be a 72 hole Individual stroke match play. That sounds like a regular PGA event to me. The Ryder Cup is a team event which has no real roots in the everyday sport, so changing the scoring format for a special even like the Ryder Cup doesn't mean much.
The one thing I can see is that Golf isn't bastardizing itself just to get into the Olympics. But if Bowling must do that, then use the simplest method of scoring available which is the Petraglia Scoring method. It's simply total balls needed per frame to knock down all the pins. It places a premium on strikes AND spare shooting over the duration of the entire game just like regular bowling. If the people who watch the Olympics can understand "total strokes" as the scoring method in Golf, then they can understand "total throws" in bowling.
Good points, but some of the sports do have different formats. Golf has the Ryder Cup, which is scored similarly. Total score doesn't matter, just gotta win every hole, can't have a couple great holes and then play it safe, gotta show up every hole.
Let me add a few things:
1) People need to take a step back. This wasn't a PBA event, it was the World Bowling Tour finals, A WBT event. Yes, the PBA recognizes their titles as a PBA win, but it was not their event, nor their rules.
2) The new scoring system wasn't designed for league play, it was designed for international competition. It was designed so that someone who knows nothing about bowling, like someone who may be watching the Olympics, can figure out who is winning and why. It is a first step to maybe getting bowling into the Olympics in the future.
3) How can anyone say it is boring after watching the final 4 frames of the Liz Johnson/Sandra Andersson match?
4) To those that say Sandra bowled a better game then Liz....would any of you look down upon this scenario: Golfer A birdies every hole on the front 9, while golfer B, Birdies 5, bogeys 4...then on the back 9 Golfer A pars the first 7, then double bogeys 17 and 18, while golfer B pars the first 5, then birdies the last 4 to tie Golfer A and then wins on the first playoff hole....would you be upset because Golfer A played a better round only missing par or under on two holes while Golfer B, missed par or under on 4?
These are just a few things people are missing....and why is that? Becuase it's change....people dislike change. All of you complaining, read the book "Who moved my Cheese?" and maybe you will gain a new perspective on it. And lastly, lighten up Francis!
So what other sport(s) has different scoring criteria for the Olympics? And how many people who watch sports like Rhythmic Gymnastics and Ice Dancing(or Figure Skating) know how the scoring works? Or for some obscure sport like Curling?
-
So in your mind, what is a better performance....someone throwing 7 strikes in a game or someone throwing 6 strikes in a game? Why is it better for someone to throw 11 strikes in a row from frame 1 versus throwing 11 strike in a row from frame 2? And I think it was mentioned earlier....what other sport rewards participants for an accomplishment just because you do it multiple times in a row? You don't get any strokes deducted in golf if you birdie 5, 6,or even 18 holes in a row....you just get your score. But bowling will reward someone more for throwing six strikes in a row, versus someone who throws more strikes but doesn't have them all in a row. How can you justify that to a non-bowler watching? Even though bowler B did what is the goal of the sport, more times in one game, Bowler A won just because theirs happen to be in a row. Or in the 290 versus 29x scenario above...bowler A actually knocks down more pins then bowler B, because they make their spare in frame 1 (10) then get 11 Strikes (110 pins), versus bowler B getting the first 11 (110 Pins) and leaving something on the last ball (9, 8, etc). So who "should" win the game to a non-bowler?
Again, explain to me how it is justifiable that bowler A goes X, X, 9, 9, and bowler B goes 5 count washout, 6 count face, X, X, and still be tied at 2 frames a piece? What is the better rolled game thus far? You can try and look at every frame as being a "game" but it isn't because in the end, it is the "real" game that determines the winner, which is all the frames accumulated.
-
Milo,
While not for the Olympics, but Golf holds many tournaments with different scoring. They have one every year using the Stableford scoring system. They hold many using the Match-Play scoring like the one in question here. All of their international events (Ryder Cup, President's Cup, etc) use the match-play scoring. I do assume that sports like Ice Dancing, Figure skating have lower tolerences on mistakes for the Olympics than they do for other competitions, but I don't know for sure. Curling scoring is actually pretty simple....just like horseshoes, only on ice. And it's only obscure to Americans, Curling is widely popular in other parts of the world, especially Canada and Europe. This isn't meant to replace the normal scoring of bowling. It's just a way to make it easier for the non-bowler to understand the score and why someone is winning. Do "real" golfers have 4 page threads about how bad match-play scoring is after the Match-Play championships every year? Or after the Ryder Cup? I doubt it...only bowlers who must find something to complain about daily....or our heads will explode. I just tend to complain about the complainers...but it does the trick just fine.
Sorry, but Curling IS NOT "widely popular in other parts of the world", only in Canada. There are only about one million people in the entire world who participate in the sport and it's estimated that 90% of them live in Canada. That only makes it widely popular in Canada. China is said to have only had about 60(that's 60 out of 1,500,000,000) registered curlers in the ENTIRE country, yet they took home a medal in the Vancouver Olympics.
-
Really....so everyone knows what Turkey, Hambone, Greek Church, Big 4 mean.... ::)
Difference being that just about EVERY golfer talks in "golf" lingo, but not every bowler talks in "bowling" lingo. My guess is, that pro golfers use the slang, but I can tell you, pro bowlers aren't saying they just rolled a "turkey" or "hambone" during competition. They, for the most part, say I threw 3 in a row or 4 in a row etc....
-
What I see are two frames where each bowler threw good shots and two frames where they didn't....so that is 2 versus 2 which would mean a tie....which is what you get in the new scoring format. The actual count makes no difference....the 5 count washout could have been a 2 board miss right, while the 9 count could have been a 5 board miss left, runaway brooklyn 5 pin. Which is the better ball in the case??? You can nit pick it and come up with endless scenarios... and each can be countered. You still haven't answered have an 11 Strike game, that knocks down 120 total pins, is worse then an 11 Strike game that knocks down 119 total pins.
So in your mind, what is a better performance....someone throwing 7 strikes in a game or someone throwing 6 strikes in a game? Why is it better for someone to throw 11 strikes in a row from frame 1 versus throwing 11 strike in a row from frame 2? And I think it was mentioned earlier....what other sport rewards participants for an accomplishment just because you do it multiple times in a row? You don't get any strokes deducted in golf if you birdie 5, 6,or even 18 holes in a row....you just get your score. But bowling will reward someone more for throwing six strikes in a row, versus someone who throws more strikes but doesn't have them all in a row. How can you justify that to a non-bowler watching? Even though bowler B did what is the goal of the sport, more times in one game, Bowler A won just because theirs happen to be in a row. Or in the 290 versus 29x scenario above...bowler A actually knocks down more pins then bowler B, because they make their spare in frame 1 (10) then get 11 Strikes (110 pins), versus bowler B getting the first 11 (110 Pins) and leaving something on the last ball (9, 8, etc). So who "should" win the game to a non-bowler?
Again, explain to me how it is justifiable that bowler A goes X, X, 9, 9, and bowler B goes 5 count washout, 6 count face, X, X, and still be tied at 2 frames a piece? What is the better rolled game thus far? You can try and look at every frame as being a "game" but it isn't because in the end, it is the "real" game that determines the winner, which is all the frames accumulated.
-
Let me throw this out (pun).
So in baseball, two hitters hit a long ball out but for one of them, it hits a wall and is a double. The other is just a few inches higher and clears the wall for a home run. Both balls were hit well but maybe the wind or the spin on the ball made one end up a few inches lower at the wall. If the wall wasn't there, they would both have ended up in almost the same spot.
Bowling's scoring system is what it is.
-
I can only say what I saw....and that many countries having multiple teams competing at the events. Some where in Canada, some were elsewhere. And country team make-up is very subjective at the Olympics....you have people that live 100% of their time in the US or Canada competing for "home" countries in Olympic competition.
All I know is that is was on TV all the time when I was in Canada, lol. And it was more then just Canadians doing it.
Milo,
While not for the Olympics, but Golf holds many tournaments with different scoring. They have one every year using the Stableford scoring system. They hold many using the Match-Play scoring like the one in question here. All of their international events (Ryder Cup, President's Cup, etc) use the match-play scoring. I do assume that sports like Ice Dancing, Figure skating have lower tolerences on mistakes for the Olympics than they do for other competitions, but I don't know for sure. Curling scoring is actually pretty simple....just like horseshoes, only on ice. And it's only obscure to Americans, Curling is widely popular in other parts of the world, especially Canada and Europe. This isn't meant to replace the normal scoring of bowling. It's just a way to make it easier for the non-bowler to understand the score and why someone is winning. Do "real" golfers have 4 page threads about how bad match-play scoring is after the Match-Play championships every year? Or after the Ryder Cup? I doubt it...only bowlers who must find something to complain about daily....or our heads will explode. I just tend to complain about the complainers...but it does the trick just fine.
Sorry, but Curling IS NOT "widely popular in other parts of the world", only in Canada. There are only about one million people in the entire world who participate in the sport and it's estimated that 90% of them live in Canada. That only makes it widely popular in Canada. China is said to have only had about 60(that's 60 out of 1,500,000,000) registered curlers in the ENTIRE country, yet they took home a medal in the Vancouver Olympics.
-
Like I said, I am not particularly fond of the new scoring system, but I don't see it as a major sell out or that it demeans the game in any real sense.
The long term trend toward shorter or no qualifying, and step ladder finals does more harm to the integrity of the game than a change in the scoring format in an already abbreviated format that discounts the long term success of a participant over a significant number of games
-
But the fact is, there are only about one million people in the entire world who participate in Curling. That's not wildly or even mildly popular. Especially when 90% of them live in Canada. The United States is estimated to have seventy million bowlers by itself, with over 200 million bowlers world wide. That's bowlers being defined as "at least once a year". I suspect the numbers for curling includes the casual participates as well. But we do know that there are over three million league bowlers in the U.S. alone.
I can only say what I saw....and that many countries having multiple teams competing at the events. Some where in Canada, some were elsewhere. And country team make-up is very subjective at the Olympics....you have people that live 100% of their time in the US or Canada competing for "home" countries in Olympic competition.
All I know is that is was on TV all the time when I was in Canada, lol. And it was more then just Canadians doing it.
Milo,
While not for the Olympics, but Golf holds many tournaments with different scoring. They have one every year using the Stableford scoring system. They hold many using the Match-Play scoring like the one in question here. All of their international events (Ryder Cup, President's Cup, etc) use the match-play scoring. I do assume that sports like Ice Dancing, Figure skating have lower tolerences on mistakes for the Olympics than they do for other competitions, but I don't know for sure. Curling scoring is actually pretty simple....just like horseshoes, only on ice. And it's only obscure to Americans, Curling is widely popular in other parts of the world, especially Canada and Europe. This isn't meant to replace the normal scoring of bowling. It's just a way to make it easier for the non-bowler to understand the score and why someone is winning. Do "real" golfers have 4 page threads about how bad match-play scoring is after the Match-Play championships every year? Or after the Ryder Cup? I doubt it...only bowlers who must find something to complain about daily....or our heads will explode. I just tend to complain about the complainers...but it does the trick just fine.
Sorry, but Curling IS NOT "widely popular in other parts of the world", only in Canada. There are only about one million people in the entire world who participate in the sport and it's estimated that 90% of them live in Canada. That only makes it widely popular in Canada. China is said to have only had about 60(that's 60 out of 1,500,000,000) registered curlers in the ENTIRE country, yet they took home a medal in the Vancouver Olympics.
-
But I guess I don't understand why it makes sense for someone with 7 strikes in a game to lose to someone who had 6 just because the one who had 6 had them all in a row . .
So in your mind, what is a better performance....someone throwing 7 strikes in a game or someone throwing 6 strikes in a game? Why is it better for someone to throw 11 strikes in a row from frame 1 versus throwing 11 strike in a row from frame 2? And I think it was mentioned earlier....what other sport rewards participants for an accomplishment just because you do it multiple times in a row? You don't get any strokes deducted in golf if you birdie 5, 6,or even 18 holes in a row....you just get your score. But bowling will reward someone more for throwing six strikes in a row, versus someone who throws more strikes but doesn't have them all in a row. How can you justify that to a non-bowler watching? Even though bowler B did what is the goal of the sport, more times in one game, Bowler A won just because theirs happen to be in a row. Or in the 290 versus 29x scenario above...bowler A actually knocks down more pins then bowler B, because they make their spare in frame 1 (10) then get 11 Strikes (110 pins), versus bowler B getting the first 11 (110 Pins) and leaving something on the last ball (9, 8, etc). So who "should" win the game to a non-bowler?
Again, explain to me how it is justifiable that bowler A goes X, X, 9, 9, and bowler B goes 5 count washout, 6 count face, X, X, and still be tied at 2 frames a piece? What is the better rolled game thus far? You can try and look at every frame as being a "game" but it isn't because in the end, it is the "real" game that determines the winner, which is all the frames accumulated.
-
You still haven't answered have an 11 Strike game, that knocks down 120 total pins, is worse then an 11 Strike game that knocks down 119 total pins.
Do you think it is harder for a pro baseball player to throw a perfect pitch in the bottom of 9th with 2 outs, to complete a no-hitter, or to allow a hit the very first pitch, and then strike out everyone from that point on? I believe the former a greater accomplishment than the latter, based on having much more pressure on the player. It is a much greater feat to have to fill the "fill ball" for a 300 and reach perfection, than it is to of already had a mistake along the way. Ask any bowler what is harder, throwing a strike for a 290 game or throwing a strike for a 300? In bowling, you are rewarded for striking from the very first frame, on. It's not complicated. In your justification, why not mention the bowler who throws 5 in a row, single pin spare, then the back 6. The 279 knocked down just as many pins as the 290, both with 11 strikes, but common sense would dictate that it was harder to throw 11 strikes, all in a row, compared to only five strikes, then six strikes.
-
But I guess I don't understand why it makes sense for someone with 7 strikes in a game to lose to someone who had 6 just because the one who had 6 had them all in a row . .
Because it is harder to throw 6 strikes ALL in a row, compared to having them broken up throughout the game. It would for the most part, dictate more repetition, and hence a more quality performance, because to throw seven strikes not in a row, and score less than the player with six, then those other three frames are going to be worse than the four frames of the six strike game. It's about building the entire game through consistence. This modified scoring system they tried on Sunday, doesn't show that in anyway. You can get away with some awful shots, and not be penalized, but in traditional bowling score, you are.
-
Shot a lot of 279 games a lot of 300 games and a few 290 and 280 games. From a pressure point of view I see no difference in throwing the last strike for a 290 game than the last strike for a 279.
Biggest thing in bowling is that getting 2 in a row and spare is worth more than going strike, spare, strike. However even there, the ability to throw a strike on both lanes should be more valuable than the ability to strike on one lane.
-
Shot a lot of 279 games a lot of 300 games and a few 290 and 280 games. From a pressure point of view I see no difference in throwing the last strike for a 290 game than the last strike for a 279.
Biggest thing in bowling is that getting 2 in a row and spare is worth more than going strike, spare, strike. However even there, the ability to throw a strike on both lanes should be more valuable than the ability to strike on one lane.
But that is from a somewhat jaded perspective, and one that has already allowed you to reach perfection. I'm sure from the perspective of someone who was never thrown a 290 before, would have a harder time with it than a 279. Just like I'm sure it is easier for you to now throw a good shot for 300, than it was the first couple of times. I know it is for me. Is it not harder to roll an 800 than it is a 300? It's about consistent performance through a longer measure of activity. No matter how you want to look at it, it is still harder to carry 11 times in a row, than it is to carry 5, then the back 6. It's pure percentages.
I deal with plenty of customers in my shop that don't have 300, and probably never will. Believe me when I tell you, there is more pressure on them when they get a few strikes in a row, than when they throw peppered strikes throughout the game, even if it is the same total number of strikes.
-
I know one thing, if they want to try something outside of the norm and this is the best they could come up with they need some new people in charge.
-
Well 6 great shots followed by 6 terrible shots is worse to me than 7 great shots and 5 terrible shots mixed together. But just like longer format tournaments, you can get away with some pretty awful games as long as the rest are good. And you get penalized for bad shots with the frame play too, you lose the frame. I don't think it's much different than throwing a terrible shot and bailing yourself out with a great spare attempt. Throw a terrible shot one frame and bail yourself out with a great shot the next.
But I guess I don't understand why it makes sense for someone with 7 strikes in a game to lose to someone who had 6 just because the one who had 6 had them all in a row . .
Because it is harder to throw 6 strikes ALL in a row, compared to having them broken up throughout the game. It would for the most part, dictate more repetition, and hence a more quality performance, because to throw seven strikes not in a row, and score less than the player with six, then those other three frames are going to be worse than the four frames of the six strike game. It's about building the entire game through consistence. This modified scoring system they tried on Sunday, doesn't show that in anyway. You can get away with some awful shots, and not be penalized, but in traditional bowling score, you are.
-
Best point yet.
I know one thing, if they want to try something outside of the norm and this is the best they could come up with they need some new people in charge.
-
This is being compared to golf. Comparing this to something in golf would be a long drive on every hole and if they were tied it would be closest to the pin on your second shot. Match play in golf is a hole, usually 3-5 shots, not one. A game of bowling is closer to a hole of golf. Something like a best of 5 ninth and tenth frame roll off would be closer to match play in golf.
-
Well that's because people are more obsessed with scoring than winning or losing. Yeah I'm never happy when I shoot 200, but if my opponent shot 190, I feel a hell of a lot better about it. I shot a 205 first game the other day in league and made it through 3 out of 7 brackets I was in, which were 3 more brackets than I thought I'd make it through and all the sudden I was pretty dang happy about it.
Shot a lot of 279 games a lot of 300 games and a few 290 and 280 games. From a pressure point of view I see no difference in throwing the last strike for a 290 game than the last strike for a 279.
Biggest thing in bowling is that getting 2 in a row and spare is worth more than going strike, spare, strike. However even there, the ability to throw a strike on both lanes should be more valuable than the ability to strike on one lane.
But that is from a somewhat jaded perspective, and one that has already allowed you to reach perfection. I'm sure from the perspective of someone who was never thrown a 290 before, would have a harder time with it than a 279. Just like I'm sure it is easier for you to now throw a good shot for 300, than it was the first couple of times. I know it is for me. Is it not harder to roll an 800 than it is a 300? It's about consistent performance through a longer measure of activity. No matter how you want to look at it, it is still harder to carry 11 times in a row, than it is to carry 5, then the back 6. It's pure percentages.
I deal with plenty of customers in my shop that don't have 300, and probably never will. Believe me when I tell you, there is more pressure on them when they get a few strikes in a row, than when they throw peppered strikes throughout the game, even if it is the same total number of strikes.
-
The game is not broke so why does everyone want to change it? The PBA has tried several times: heavier gold pins, arena bowling, bowling outside, bowling in stadiums, blue oil to see the "pattern"....
So now the WBT has eliminated spares? What's next?
1. How about we eliminate the 7 and 10 pin. Nobody likes them and the average bowler struggles to pick them up. Every frame you should get those 2 pins as a given.
2. Shorten the lane. 60ft is too long. I can create more power over a shorter distance which will lead to more strikes. This will also save new bowling centers on square-footage and everyone will save on oil.
3. Handicap leagues and tournaments will be 100% of 300. That should be fair to someone.
4. Everyone has to bowl on a Nintendo Wii.
-
Joe: Man, that Bob is a great spare shooter.
Phil: Who gives a crap about spares, that's old school. It's a new world old timer. Shooting spares is a waste of time. It's all about strikes brother. If you can't string em, you might as well stay home.
Joe: Your right, I'll see ya, I'm outa here.
Phil: Where are you going? I've got the first nine! Don't you want to stick around and see if I can shoot a 12?!
-
LoL!! The last 2 posts, Dog & Tip, both nailed my sentiments on this.
-
I agree with Tommy, but to me this is about something that will only be used at the highest level of competition, not the Tuesday night commercial league. Didn't mean to sound jaded, I was just speaking to an audience that does play at a high level, or aspires to.
-
COMPETITIVE KNITTING > WBT SCORING SYSTEM