Author Topic: New Scoring System (Read 18240 times)

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.

milorafferty · « **Reply #46 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:17:07 AM »

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.

Quote from: ITZPS on January 28, 2015, 10:51:43 AM

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.

Quote from: milorafferty on January 28, 2015, 10:47:40 AM
Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 10:41:17 AM
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?

tommygn · « **Reply #47 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:24:46 AM »

Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 11:04:42 AM

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.

milorafferty · « **Reply #48 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:32:35 AM »

Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 10:57:25 AM

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.

tommygn · « **Reply #49 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:32:52 AM »

Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 11:15:07 AM

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....

Jorge300 · « **Reply #50 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:43:56 AM »

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.

Quote from: tommygn on January 28, 2015, 11:24:46 AM

Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 11:04:42 AM
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.

MI 2 AZ · « **Reply #51 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:44:09 AM »

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.

Jorge300 · « **Reply #52 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:53:52 AM »

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.

Quote from: milorafferty on January 28, 2015, 11:32:35 AM

Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 10:57:25 AM
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.

avabob · « **Reply #53 on:** January 28, 2015, 12:00:29 PM »

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

milorafferty · « **Reply #54 on:** January 28, 2015, 12:03:51 PM »

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.

Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 11:53:52 AM

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.

Quote from: milorafferty on January 28, 2015, 11:32:35 AM
Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 10:57:25 AM
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.

ITZPS · « **Reply #55 on:** January 28, 2015, 12:16:48 PM »

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 . .

Quote from: tommygn on January 28, 2015, 11:24:46 AM

Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 11:04:42 AM
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.

tommygn · « **Reply #56 on:** January 28, 2015, 12:17:55 PM »

Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 11:43:56 AM

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.

tommygn · « **Reply #57 on:** January 28, 2015, 12:20:51 PM »

Quote from: ITZPS on January 28, 2015, 12:16:48 PM

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.

avabob · « **Reply #58 on:** January 28, 2015, 12:28:49 PM »

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.

tommygn · « **Reply #59 on:** January 28, 2015, 01:00:14 PM »

Quote from: avabob on January 28, 2015, 12:28:49 PM

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.

itsallaboutme · « **Reply #60 on:** January 28, 2015, 01:18:43 PM »

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.

Author Topic: New Scoring System (Read 18240 times)

ITZPS

New Scoring System

milorafferty

Re: New Scoring System

tommygn

Re: New Scoring System

milorafferty

Re: New Scoring System

tommygn

Re: New Scoring System

Jorge300

Re: New Scoring System

MI 2 AZ

Re: New Scoring System

Jorge300

Re: New Scoring System

avabob

Re: New Scoring System

milorafferty

Re: New Scoring System

ITZPS

Re: New Scoring System

tommygn

Re: New Scoring System

tommygn

Re: New Scoring System

avabob

Re: New Scoring System

tommygn

Re: New Scoring System

itsallaboutme

Re: New Scoring System