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

Author Topic: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close  (Read 19696 times)

Mighty Fish

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

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

 

Mighty Fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2014, 06:34:11 PM »
Quote from: sevenpin63 on April 21, 2014, 03:24:14 PM
We all know your history.
Dear sevenpin63:

That's just a generalized "spin-type" comment with nothing of substance to back it up. Then again, you possibly believe Long Gone Daddy and jorge300 when they say I made anti-Semitic remarks (even though they can't back up those allegations).
Logged

Mighty Fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2014, 06:36:47 PM »
Quote from: Juggernaut on April 21, 2014, 06:27:55 PM
Ok Bill, we get it, you were a very good bowler. So was I. Thing is,NOBODY GIVES A F**K!

Allie Brandt was good. Glen Allison was good. Many thousands of other bowlers have been good. Nobody cared then, and nobody cares now, other than to remember.
Dear Juggernaut:

Then why do you even care anything about what I write?
Logged

Juggernaut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • Former good bowler, now 3 games a week house hack.
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2014, 08:32:17 PM »
Quote from: Mighty Fish on April 21, 2014, 06:36:47 PM
Quote from: Juggernaut on April 21, 2014, 06:27:55 PM
Ok Bill, we get it, you were a very good bowler. So was I. Thing is,NOBODY GIVES A F**K!

Allie Brandt was good. Glen Allison was good. Many thousands of other bowlers have been good. Nobody cared then, and nobody cares now, other than to remember.
Dear Juggernaut:

Then why do you even care anything about what I write?

 I really don't. I'm just tired of seeing you beat your head on the proverbial wall in futility, especially when it really won't matter to anyone other than yourself.

You are probably a pretty decent guy, but you really need to lay it down and let go, or it is going to be the end of you.

 Do what old men have done for millennia, and that is get out of the way of "progress" and make room for the next generation. Either that, or get run over by it.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 08:41:25 PM by Juggernaut »
Logged
Learn to laugh, and love, and smile, cause we’re only here for a little while.

gsback

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2014, 06:07:38 AM »
Mighty Fish,

I've read a lot of the things you've written, both informative and plenty of the other stuff where I've wasted more than enough of my limited time in the mornings.  With that in mind, let me try something different; instead of making an assumption of your intent or telling you what I see in your article, let me simply ask you the intent of the article.  Simple answer...nothing long and drawn out.

Along with that is the note that I too have talked to plenty of the old timers and most of the bowlers that were better than average say the same things about getting to the pocket.  Carry will easily make a 250 plus game turn into a 190+ game, something that was more than respectable back in the 70s.  Only stating this as it was previously stated in response to your initial post and carries more than enough validity if thought through.
Logged
www.visionarybowling.com - Accept no substitute for the very best there is!!

Best line I've heard about politics....
REMEMBER....POLITICIANS AND DIAPERS SHOULD BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON!!

Mighty Fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2014, 02:25:40 PM »
Quote from: gsback on April 22, 2014, 06:07:38 AM
Mighty Fish,

I've read a lot of the things you've written, both informative and plenty of the other stuff where I've wasted more than enough of my limited time in the mornings.  With that in mind, let me try something different; instead of making an assumption of your intent or telling you what I see in your article, let me simply ask you the intent of the article.  Simple answer...nothing long and drawn out.
Dear gsback:

Every weekend (Saturday or Sunday), I publish a report on high scores and accomplishments from each of the seven area centers, and this is the first time I have prefaced such report with a comparison of high scores of previous years.

There was no ulterior motive in my REPORTING of the previous week's high scores, and all of the feedback from LOCAL bowlers (about that article) has been positive. Only in a forum such as this is such a column likely to be criticized, which prompts me to ask: What is YOUR motive for asking me about the "intent" of the article? Just what issue(s) do you take with it?

Obviously, if I used such scoring comparisons (with previous years) in all -- or even a more limited amount -- of such columns, I could understand your "objections" ... but the fact is that such is not the case. And if you don't believe me, here is a link to hundreds of my past columns, and see if you can find anything similar in previous weekly high-score reports. Frankly, I don't see a "problem" although you apparently do.

www.examiner.com/bowling-in-st-petersburg/bill-herald
Logged

TDC57

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2014, 02:45:19 PM »
kidlost and JustRico make very good points. I grew up bowling 40 years ago. I have been lucky enough to see all the big changes to bowling through the years. There was a dramatic uptick in scores when urethane balls came into play. Then reactive resin and more scoring. The balls keep getting more powerful and scores keep surging. As far as lane conditions, there has always been times when lanes were soft. As Rico says, how do you explain the Budweiser 3858? The ABC allowed short oil in the 80s and balls hooked like crazy and scores were high. Now easier shots exist in many houses and with the balls now, scores zoom. But let's never forget that this isn't new, it's happened during all eras. I remember in the early 80s, bowling at a house that I had never been before, with an AMF Angle and I couldn't miss the pocket if I just threw the ball decently. I wasn't that good but the lanes were. Arguing about this is futile, the game isn't that much different now than it has been before.
Logged

mainzer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4405
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2014, 05:45:04 PM »
Lane machines that can strip every drop of oil off the backend every time
Coaching is better
Science behind the game is better making it easier to understand
Kick backs being made out of harder material making carry better
Styles of bowling have changed

All of this has contributed to higher scoring. What is the issue?
Logged
"No one runs...from the conquerer "

MainzerPower

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2014, 06:03:43 PM »
Sure, there are more 300s and 800s(not to mention 900s), but is the scoring gap between the average bowler and the high average bowlers the same as it was in previous years? Or have the top bowlers achieved higher averages while leaving the field behind?
Logged
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

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

Mighty Fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2014, 07:38:49 PM »
Quote from: milorafferty on April 22, 2014, 06:03:43 PM
Sure, there are more 300s and 800s(not to mention 900s), but is the scoring gap between the average bowler and the high average bowlers the same as it was in previous years? Or have the top bowlers achieved higher averages while leaving the field behind?
Dear milorafferty:

Isn't the answer obvious? In past years, a 130 average female or a 160 average man were often only 50 or 20 pins, respectively, from the top-average players in their leagues. Now, a 160 average man is likely to be at least 40 pins from top league average (if not 50, 60, 70 on up).
Logged

sevenpin63

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2014, 08:01:43 PM »
Quote from: Mighty Fish on April 22, 2014, 07:38:49 PM
Quote from: milorafferty on April 22, 2014, 06:03:43 PM
Sure, there are more 300s and 800s(not to mention 900s), but is the scoring gap between the average bowler and the high average bowlers the same as it was in previous years? Or have the top bowlers achieved higher averages while leaving the field behind?
Dear milorafferty:

Isn't the answer obvious? In past years, a 130 average female or a 160 average man were often only 50 or 20 pins, respectively, from the top-average players in their leagues. Now, a 160 average man is likely to be at least 40 pins from top league average (if not 50, 60, 70 on up).

No not really, now that 160 average bowler is a 180 to 190 average bowler.

So its all relative.
Logged

Mighty Fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2014, 08:21:53 PM »
Quote from: sevenpin63 on April 22, 2014, 08:01:43 PM
[No not really, now that 160 average bowler is a 180 to 190 average bowler.

So its all relative.
Dear sevenpin63:

Do you seriously believe that a typical 150 or 160 bowler will routinely average 20 pins higher on normal modern-day conditions? And do you truly believe that a 160 bowler is more likely to increase his/her average as much (or more) than a bowler with legitimate 180+ or 200+ talent?
Logged

sevenpin63

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2014, 08:57:20 PM »
Quote from: Mighty Fish on April 22, 2014, 08:21:53 PM
Quote from: sevenpin63 on April 22, 2014, 08:01:43 PM
[No not really, now that 160 average bowler is a 180 to 190 average bowler.

So its all relative.
Dear sevenpin63:

Do you seriously believe that a typical 150 or 160 bowler will routinely average 20 pins higher on normal modern-day conditions? And do you truly believe that a 160 bowler is more likely to increase his/her average as much (or more) than a bowler with legitimate 180+ or 200+ talent?

If the carry is better, sure. Is that not we are talking about? Or some believe.

Isn't it logical to believe that every type of bowler would increase there average about the same amount, give or take a few pins.
Logged

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #28 on: April 22, 2014, 09:07:18 PM »
Quote from: Mighty Fish on April 22, 2014, 07:38:49 PM
Quote from: milorafferty on April 22, 2014, 06:03:43 PM
Sure, there are more 300s and 800s(not to mention 900s), but is the scoring gap between the average bowler and the high average bowlers the same as it was in previous years? Or have the top bowlers achieved higher averages while leaving the field behind?
Dear milorafferty:

Isn't the answer obvious? In past years, a 130 average female or a 160 average man were often only 50 or 20 pins, respectively, from the top-average players in their leagues. Now, a 160 average man is likely to be at least 40 pins from top league average (if not 50, 60, 70 on up).

Not so obvious to me actually. I have only bowled in the reactive era. But I see 150/160 average bowlers who are about the same no matter what ball they use. They just don't have the tools to exploit a reactive ball.
Logged
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

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

mainzer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4405
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #29 on: April 22, 2014, 10:30:19 PM »
Quote from: milorafferty on April 22, 2014, 09:07:18 PM
Quote from: Mighty Fish on April 22, 2014, 07:38:49 PM
Quote from: milorafferty on April 22, 2014, 06:03:43 PM
Sure, there are more 300s and 800s(not to mention 900s), but is the scoring gap between the average bowler and the high average bowlers the same as it was in previous years? Or have the top bowlers achieved higher averages while leaving the field behind?
Dear milorafferty:

Isn't the answer obvious? In past years, a 130 average female or a 160 average man were often only 50 or 20 pins, respectively, from the top-average players in their leagues. Now, a 160 average man is likely to be at least 40 pins from top league average (if not 50, 60, 70 on up).

Not so obvious to me actually. I have only bowled in the reactive era. But I see 150/160 average bowlers who are about the same no matter what ball they use. They just don't have the tools to exploit a reactive ball.

but if people don't want to learn they will never get better regardless of anything. In the end you do have to work to get better, no matter the era.

Logged
"No one runs...from the conquerer "

MainzerPower

itsallaboutme

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2001
Re: Old-time and modern-day scoring levels: not even close
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2014, 07:38:56 AM »
As Milo said, most 160 average bowlers do not have the skills needed to take advantage of a reactive ball.  This may be because of lack of effort, lack of knowledge or they just don't have the coordination to do it.  Some people have no athletic ability and no matter how much they would practice or educate themselves they won't get any better.  The 160 bowler of the past is not the 180 or 190 of today.  Today's 180-200 is the 170-180 of the past.

The scoring differential now is greater than it was in the past.  Every bowling center I walk into someone is averaging 240 something.  Way back when that number was 220, or even 215 if it was a tough house to carry.

It is very hard to compare as we now have a whole generation of bowlers who have never bowled with anything but a reactive ball.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
« previous next »