BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Mighty Fish 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
-
Your story doesn't mention what oil machine was used in 1975 or the type of oil patterns used.
-
Your agenda continues.......
-
Your agenda continues.......
Dear northface28:
So just what do you perceive my "agenda" to be? And why do you apparently find such an article objectionable?
-
You still haven't mentioned what oil machine was used back then.
-
You still haven't mentioned what oil machine was used back then.
Dear kidlost2000:
What machines were used -- or how the oil was put down -- wouldn't have mattered that much 40 years ago, assuming of course, that the lanes were dressed in compliance with ABC rules then in existence, which provided for an even distribution of oil across the full surface of the lane.
-
Kidlost,
Black Flag
Fish,
Don't get all high and mighty like it was harder to hit the pocket back then. Every old timer I've ever spoken with says that lanes have always been easy. Carry has gotten better.
-
His agenda is to bash the USBC, along with bowling.
-
Fish,
Don't get all high and mighty like it was harder to hit the pocket back then. Every old timer I've ever spoken with says that lanes have always been easy. Carry has gotten better.
Dear itsallaboutme:
How can you say that the lanes -- at least in my area -- have always been easy when the high game in the entire association during a full season (in a total of 12 centers) was a 279 by John Bancs? And how can the lanes have been too easy when EIGHT SEASONS transpired between perfect games?
Further, would you consider Sarasota Lanes to be easy when (a) not one perfect game was rolled there between 1962 and 1980, and (b) it took the first 16 years of the house's history before I rolled a 732 that represented the very first 700+ series ever rolled in league there?
-
His agenda is to bash the USBC, along with bowling.
Dear sevenpin63:
Just how is anything mentioned in the column (or anything I've stated in this, or any other thread) so-called "USBC bashing"?
-
His agenda is to bash the USBC, along with bowling.
Dear sevenpin63:
Just how is anything mentioned in the column (or anything I've stated in this, or any other thread) so-called "USBC bashing"?
We all know your history.
-
I didn't bowl in the 70's but every person I know that did says it was never hard to hit the pocket. Just hard to carry. Even in the 80's with urethane very rarely was it hard to hit the pocket.
Carry is a different story.
-
I hate USBC for different reasons but that has nothing to do with today's scores.
My point is simply nothing today is remotely close to what it was 40 years ago. Automatic score machines, pin setters, and oil machine technology are all huge advancements in the game. In most cases it was created and used after 1975.
Knowledge and comprehension of bowling and the science behind why things do what they do is also relatively new in the past 10-15 years.
If everybody today went back to 1975 bowling ball technology in less then a year scores will still be higher then they were at that time.
The game has different levels of difficulty for those who seek to find it.
Done.
-
I name numerous situations in the 70's and 80's before today's perceived explosion with equipment that rival today's scoring...do you think the lanes were tough when the Budweiser's shot 3858 in '58?
-
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.
History is the word. It is the definition of things that used to be. You and I are a part of it. Things used to be different in the bowling world, but they are not the same now, things have changed, and history is something to be looked at and remembered, not touted as the way it should be.
Let the past go Bill. I had to, and you should too. Holding on to it will make you bitter, hateful, and resentful. And worse, it will make you irrelevant.
-
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).
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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).
-
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.
-
[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?
-
[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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I did bowl in the 70's. Actually the biggest increase in scoring came with the introduction of the soft polyester balls. They carried much better than the hard rubber balls that dominated prior to 1970 on the softer lacquer finishes. Scoring increased again with urethane balls, but that increase had as much to do with the move to shorter oil patterns which allowed some pretty awful power players to play strike or no count on their way to many more award scores. Resin balls again were a big factor in the next big scoring surge of the 90's.
In my opinion the impact of lane conditions has been the smallest factor over the past 40 years. Yes, lane machines have the ability to put out much more consistent conditions, but the balls transition the shot so rapidly that those transition trump any impact of $38000 lane machines.
Also, nobody seems to want to give people credit, but bowlers are much better than they were 40 years ago, and there is much more knowledge out there.
-
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.
Dear milorafferty:
In a way, your above-quoted post affirms my point ... but for whatever reason(s), don't you feel that a 180 or a 200 bowler is better able to take advantage of modern-day conditions and equipment and increase his/her average by a greater margin than a 150 or 160 bowler?
-
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.
Dear milorafferty:
In a way, your above-quoted post affirms my point ... but for whatever reason(s), don't you feel that a 180 or a 200 bowler is better able to take advantage of modern-day conditions and equipment and increase his/her average by a greater margin than a 150 or 160 bowler?
Isn't that what I said? Re-read the part where I made it bold and in italicized.
In my opinion, the 150/160 bowler doesn't have the tools, skills, athletic ability, physical strength or desire to achieve a higher level. There is probably not an oil pattern or ball that will change this situation for them.
With the exception of the bowler with some kind of physical limitation, I have yet to see a 180 bowler who has a good spare game. That being said, it becomes a matter of "desire" to improve since oil and/or equipment is not a factor in spare conversion.
-
Isn't that what I said? Re-read the part where I made it bold and in italicized.
In my opinion, the 150/160 bowler doesn't have the tools, skills, athletic ability, physical strength or desire to achieve a higher level. There is probably not an oil pattern or ball that will change this situation for them.With the exception of the bowler with some kind of physical limitation, I have yet to see a 180 bowler who has a good spare game. That being said, it becomes a matter of "desire" to improve since oil and/or equipment is not a factor in spare conversion.
Dear milorafferty:
Agreed ... BUT I was responding to your previously-stated contention that [and I quote you] ... 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? [end your quote]
I repeat my contention -- and you seem to agree in part (albeit, perhaps in a slightly different way) that the scoring gap is indeed different nowadays between the average- and high-average player than it was in years gone by. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but don't you agree with me that the "gap" is wider now?
-
Isn't that what I said? Re-read the part where I made it bold and in italicized.
In my opinion, the 150/160 bowler doesn't have the tools, skills, athletic ability, physical strength or desire to achieve a higher level. There is probably not an oil pattern or ball that will change this situation for them.With the exception of the bowler with some kind of physical limitation, I have yet to see a 180 bowler who has a good spare game. That being said, it becomes a matter of "desire" to improve since oil and/or equipment is not a factor in spare conversion.
Dear milorafferty:
Agreed ... BUT I was responding to your previously-stated contention that [and I quote you] ... 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? [end your quote]
I repeat my contention -- and you seem to agree in part (albeit, perhaps in a slightly different way) that the scoring gap is indeed different nowadays between the average- and high-average player than it was in years gone by. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but don't you agree with me that the "gap" is wider now?
That was YOUR contention, not mine. It wasn't a rhetorical question on my part. I was asking if the gap was wider, I have not been involved in bowling long enough to know.
-
Dear milorafferty:
With all due respect, it may appear that we disagree, but in reality, we are just responding to each other's opinions on a bowling-related subject, and we actually seem to agree about the basics of what we're discussing. I certainly don't take any offense to your posts, and I trust that you likewise respect my responses.
-
I don't have an opinion on the matter, I was curious and asking a question.
-
In my opinion, the 150/160 bowler doesn't have the tools, skills, athletic ability, physical strength or desire to achieve a higher level. There is probably not an oil pattern or ball that will change this situation for them.
Dear milorafferty:
The above-quoted statement sounds like an OPINION to me ... and in part, it's that opinion that I have responded to.
-
Yea about current day bowlers.
-
Average for all male ABC members in the late 1960's was about 167. Today it is still less than 175. Top end averages really started to take off about 1975. Highest I ever averaged with hard rubber was right at 200. Highest with polyester was about 215. Highest with urethane was 229, and highest with resin was 237. Most common for me was about a 10 pin increase with each advance in balls. 200 with rubber, 210 with plastic, 220 with urethane, 230 with resin ( all on house shots ). Big difference was award scores. Never shot 300 with rubber. Had a couple with plastic, and maybe 5 or 6 with urethane. Over 30 with resin.
The big thing about lane conditions with the modern balls is that they are like the weather. Don't like the shot? Be patient it will change quickly. I have seen and bowled 300's on some conditions that started pretty nasty. Carrying potential of resin is very high when the pattern matches up to a players release, much higher than with prior equipment.
-
It is very difficult to compare apples to oranges or it truly impossible to make comparisons based on simplicity....not only were the bowling balls changed but so were the lane surfaces and lane oils...as well you probably getting smarter as well as becoming a better bowler...scoring is relative, plain & simple. You can use whatever bowling ball you like and I can make you average 185...look at the Peterson...how's scoring there been?
-
It is very difficult to compare apples to oranges or it truly impossible to make comparisons based on simplicity....not only were the bowling balls changed but so were the lane surfaces and lane oils...as well you probably getting smarter as well as becoming a better bowler...scoring is relative, plain & simple. You can use whatever bowling ball you like and I can make you average 185...look at the Peterson...how's scoring there been?
... or keep in mind that bowlers take the very best equipment to the USBC Open tournament every year, and yet, THE ENTIRE FIELD ONLY AVERAGES AROUND 170!
-
Does that 'entire field' include the Classified Division which is composed of mainly lower average bowlers? Even in the Regular Division there are many seniors bowling to collect their 35/40/45/50 year participation awards so they are probably not averaging as high as they used to.
-
Does that 'entire field' include the Classified Division which is composed of mainly lower average bowlers? Even in the Regular Division there are many seniors bowling to collect their 35/40/45/50 year participation awards so they are probably not averaging as high as they used to.
Dear MI 2 AZ:
Yes, it does include Classified Division bowlers ... BUT IMPORTANTLY, keep in mind that roughly 80 PERCENT of the bowlers are in the Regular Division, meaning that they carry entering averages of 181 or better ... and needless to say, many of them carry averages of 200 or far higher.
Following is a breakdown of the 2013 tournament scoring, by both event and division. You will note that EVEN IN THE REGULAR DIVISION (181+ averages), the composite average is just a fraction higher than 173.
* REGULAR TEAM ... 173.6 (120,335 games)
* REGULAR DOUBLES/SINGLES ... 173.8 (233,203 games)
* CLASSIFIED TEAM ... 152.1 (34,054 games)
* CLASSIFIED DOUBLES/SINGLES ... 149.3 (73,765 games)
* TEAM (both divisions combined) ... 168.9
* DOUBLES/SINGLES (both divisions combined) ... 168.0
* OVERALL (all divisions, all events) ... 168.3 (461,357 games)
That demonstrates that, whereas there are quite a few high scores, only a very few -- outside of the best players and shotmakers -- score at a high level.
-
That demonstrates that, whereas there are quite a few high scores, only a very few -- outside of the best players and shotmakers -- score at a high level.
That is how it should be at the Open
-
That demonstrates that, whereas there are quite a few high scores, only a very few -- outside of the best players and shotmakers -- score at a high level.
That is how it should be at the Open
Dear mainzer:
Agreed ... and I wouldn't mind if all lane conditions were similar to that utilized by the USBC Open.
-
Scoring is and always will be relative which most do not care to realize...no matter where an event may be contested the cream usually rise to the top
And where too many want to blame they need to blame ability & talent for not being able to compete
-
Like Rico says, scoring is always relative, but that relativity relationship is constantly changing with each new advent in the bowling world.
Back when rubber balls were still being used a lot, I was learning. When polyester was king, I was considered very good. I had a hard time making the adjustment to urethane (because it hooked so much more) but finally did, and have never been able to fully make enough changes in MY game to be able to utilize the full potential of the resin ball era.
While averages, and scores, have skyrocketed around me, I am still at about the same average level I was at 25 years ago. Scoring is relative to ones ability to utilize the environment you compete in.
I was able to manipulate the scoring environment I came up in very well, but cannot do that at the same level with the environment today. Slower speed, early roll release, and hitting the ball on the upstroke was very natural for me, so the game was actually easier for me BEFORE all the technological changes. My game was based on an entirely different set of parameters than those conducive to today's environment, and it shows.
Back then, I was a power to be reckoned with. Everything it took to score well, I did naturally. Today, a lot of what comes naturally to me is counter productive to scoring, so knowledge has helped keep me in the game, but all the "improvements" have done little or nothing for me.
Scoring is all relative to the baseline. When the baseline changes, so do the people who are able to best manipulate the "new" parameters.
-
Like Rico says, scoring is always relative, but that relativity relationship is constantly changing with each new advent in the bowling world.
Back when rubber balls were still being used a lot, I was learning. When polyester was king, I was considered very good. I had a hard time making the adjustment to urethane (because it hooked so much more) but finally did, and have never been able to fully make enough changes in MY game to be able to utilize the full potential of the resin ball era.
While averages, and scores, have skyrocketed around me, I am still at about the same average level I was at 25 years ago. Scoring is relative to ones ability to utilize the environment you compete in.
I was able to manipulate the scoring environment I came up in very well, but cannot do that at the same level with the environment today. Slower speed, early roll release, and hitting the ball on the upstroke was very natural for me, so the game was actually easier for me BEFORE all the technological changes. My game was based on an entirely different set of parameters than those conducive to today's environment, and it shows.
Back then, I was a power to be reckoned with. Everything it took to score well, I did naturally. Today, a lot of what comes naturally to me is counter productive to scoring, so knowledge has helped keep me in the game, but all the "improvements" have done little or nothing for me.
Scoring is all relative to the baseline. When the baseline changes, so do the people who are able to best manipulate the "new" parameters.
Well put, Darreyl.
As you know, I stand in exactly the same position these days.
-
It's funny how adapting is never considered a talent or given credit...
-
It's funny how adapting is never considered a talent or given credit...
No one ever said it wasn't. It's just that some of us just don't have those physical abilities, even more so as we get older. It's not as if Darreyl and I haven't been trying. It is what it is; we try to deal with it as well as we can.
-
That wasn't a personal attack on anyone it was a statement towards others not giving credit to those that have been able to adapt to the changing environments over the years...
-
That wasn't a personal attack on anyone it was a statement towards others not giving credit to those that have been able to adapt to the changing environments over the years...
... and the proprietors and lanemen have "adapted" also.
-
Dude what is your issue? The game has changed & evolved and you haven't? The game is what it is...the separation between the classes has changed as well...everybody has choices....you either accept and adapt or quit but leave the damn horse alone & peacefully dead...or buy a bowling center...dress the lanes as you see fit & only allow the equipment you deem acceptable and GOOD LUCK
-
You want to complaing about scoring? Blame to bowling public, the proprietor is just giving them what they want.
Joe average bowler likes to throw it wide, watch his ball hook 14 feet, and throw pins everywhere. Oh, and if he tugs it 10 boards, it should sit there and strike too.
I'd guess maybe 2-3% of league bowlers want to be challenged. The average guy wants to drink, hang with his friends, and average 180-200 bowling 3 games a week.
-
Bring back manual score keeping, human pin setters, oil the lanes by hand, and only bowling balls using pancake weight blocks.
Then you have everything.
-
Can we sum this entire thread up by saying that scores are higher when there is a bigger build up of oil in the middle, and relatively less on the outside part of the lane. The point is that it is still relative so long as everyone is playing on the same condition. If I cant throw a strong enough ball to carry on the softer conditions whose problem is it.
I have bowled many hundreds of scratch tournaments over the years. I can count on one hand the number of times that the guys who executed the best were not at the top. Have I seen lots of sprayers score high and win? Absolutely, but they weren't usually spraying on that particular day. Remember the old blind squirrel and acorn adage.
-
Dude what is your issue? The game has changed & evolved and you haven't? The game is what it is...the separation between the classes has changed as well...everybody has choices....you either accept and adapt or quit but leave the damn horse alone & peacefully dead...or buy a bowling center...dress the lanes as you see fit & only allow the equipment you deem acceptable and GOOD LUCK
Dear JustRico:
Why do you apparently insist on making this a personal issue?
I fully realize that the game has changed. In my opinion, many of the changes haven't been for the better, but I respect your opinion on the matter, even though you don't seem to respect mine.
Again, the column wasn't written to "exploit an agenda" (or whatever your contention is). It was to REPORT on the rather large number of high scores at the seven centers in my area. And the column didn't venture opinions as to whether the modern-day scoring levels were good or bad, although you seem to be making an assumption that I'm complaining about the high scores.
You (and others) should be pleased that I continue to give a weekly recap of high scores, in view of the fact that no area newspapers even mention local bowlers' high scores, even when someone rolls a perfect game or an 800 series. Rather, you try to find some fault with my articles.
From a personal perspective, I admit that that my average didn't increase at all when the THS conditions replaced the old-time conditions, but I know it is due to the fact that I couldn't adapt my game to the new conditions, and that's MY fault and no one else's. And lane conditions don't affect me any longer, as multiple foot surgeries forced me to quit bowling several years back.
Nevertheless, thanks for stating your opinion(s), although I feel you could do so on a less-personal basis. GOOD LUCK to you, as well.
-
You want to complaing about scoring? Blame to bowling public, the proprietor is just giving them what they want.
Joe average bowler likes to throw it wide, watch his ball hook 14 feet, and throw pins everywhere. Oh, and if he tugs it 10 boards, it should sit there and strike too.
I'd guess maybe 2-3% of league bowlers want to be challenged. The average guy wants to drink, hang with his friends, and average 180-200 bowling 3 games a week.
Dear Mongo:
Again, you make a number of valid points.
-
Mighty Fish,
Though you say you were just REPORTING, why is it when you report information other than just the scores, you run into opinions you say you are not trying to incite. It seems to me you need the banter to justify your column and your supposed reporting which can be more of an op ed.
Do us a favor, report JUST SCORES and see if you get the same reaction. According to you, we would all find something to complain about, yet I think you would get zero comments and zero hits. Prove me wrong.
-
You want to complaing about scoring? Blame to bowling public, the proprietor is just giving them what they want.
Joe average bowler likes to throw it wide, watch his ball hook 14 feet, and throw pins everywhere. Oh, and if he tugs it 10 boards, it should sit there and strike too.
I'd guess maybe 2-3% of league bowlers want to be challenged. The average guy wants to drink, hang with his friends, and average 180-200 bowling 3 games a week.
Dear Mongo:
Again, you make a number of valid points.
If bowlers wanted to be challenged, sport leagues would be in every house and have 10-20 teams.
-
... and in my area, there hasn't been anything resembling a Sport league in many seasons.
-
In my area sport leagues are all the top bowler want to bowl in. All 3 of our top local houses have at least one sport league. The few remaining scratch tournaments are all conducted on Kegel sport patterns. And you know what? We are losing bowlers at the same pace we lost them before. Why, because no matter what the pattern, the cream comes to the top, and everyone is still getting older.
-
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
Forgot about this so will respond. I enjoy reading most of your stuff. What I don't enjoy is the BS that seems to follow in the posts, and not by you though eventually you get muddled around in it defending yourself.
My thought in the question was to see what your intention was in making the post and perhaps stating it. By making a blanket statement you simply invited in all of your house guests that seem to follow you around. And when that happens, the accusations start about your vendetta against the USBC, etc....etc, and then the thread goes to hell and people can't get through the thread without having to read 5-7 bickering posts until you find one that actually pertains to the original post.
Now, I had no objections in what you wrote. I commented on a statement made as I too have talked with plenty of people about the golden days. Hell I bowl with a gut that's closing in on 80 and that's all he talks about....how hard it was. But, when pressed he does agree on a lot of things that made the shot back then 'workable'. Sure, technology wasn't what it was, and today your average bowlers are made better because of the shot that's put out there and the balls that people throw today. But bowlers had their ways of getting to the pocket back then as well. The bigger difference is more carry today (as a result of soft lanes and strong equipment...sure).
So again...nothing wrong in what you posted. Just wish the posts stayed on track, which I guess I know they won't. Oh well.
-
It's funny how adapting is never considered a talent or given credit...
+1
the scientific analysis of the Sport has advanced, the ability to find that knowledge has adavced as per this website and others, oiling machines have advanced and made lanes more consistent, Coaching has improved and become a staple in youth leagues.
All of those things contributed to advancing scores not just lane conditions and bowling balls. If you want proof, take a older gentleman that does not understand the technology in a modern high end ball, it won't help his game if he cannot use it properly. It could potentially hurt his game more than help. .
-
I am 66 years old. It is not just technology. The knowledge of the bio mechanics of the game has advanced a bunch, just as it has in other sports. Take a look at instruction manuals from the 60's. They pretty much told you to throw a hook by putting your thumb at 9 oclock and aiming at second arrow.
The golden age of bowling was never that golden. The leaders of the PBA threw away opportunities to make the tour lucrative enough to be viable for more than the top 15 or 20 money winners. In 1975 I was one of the top players in my city. I was also a mid level accountant in large local company. I was making more in my job than all but the top 20 money winners on tour. 1/2 of the guys on tour couldn't have made my scratch league team, but they had nothing better to do, and found sponsors who would put them on tour for various reasons.
-
All of those things contributed to advancing scores not just lane conditions and bowling balls. If you want proof, take a older gentleman that does not understand the technology in a modern high end ball, it won't help his game if he cannot use it properly. It could potentially hurt his game more than help. .
Dear mainzer:
True enough. However, there are also a number of elderly bowlers who -- even in their 50s, 60s and sometimes even in their 70s -- carry higher averages than they did decades ago.
-
All of those things contributed to advancing scores not just lane conditions and bowling balls. If you want proof, take a older gentleman that does not understand the technology in a modern high end ball, it won't help his game if he cannot use it properly. It could potentially hurt his game more than help. .
Dear mainzer:
True enough. However, there are also a number of elderly bowlers who -- even in their 50s, 60s and sometimes even in their 70s -- carry higher averages than they did decades ago.
Bill,
This is true enough, yet I will go back to the statement I made before, and use that as a reference point.
I was really good, but much of that "goodness" came from the fact that many/most of the required techniques were things I did NATURALLY, without having to learn how to do them. When something comes as a natural function of your personal physiology, you can become EXTREMELY "good" at that given task. This us why I was very good back then.
Now, however, the parameters have changed, and they no longer favor my natural abilities, and I will NEVER be as good as those who DO fit the new ones naturally, no matter how much I learn, because it just doesn't come naturally, and I now have to think and work to achieve the results that once were so easy.
It is also very frustrating to watch people using what I was taught was bad/wrong/incorrect, only to see it work as well, or better, than anything I ever did.
As an example, there is a younger bowler here. He gets little, if any, lift on the ball. It appears he actually drops the ball at times. He LOVES dry conditions, and his release results in a shot that is just short of a spinner. I call him a twirler.
He throws the most aggressive ball he can find, drilled as strong as he can get it, twirls the ball up a track dry enough I have to use a urethane ball if I am even going to be close to that same area, and shoots big scores. He currently is averaging around 220, with several 300's this season.
20 years ago, he would've been lucky to average 160-170, and that's being honest. He does so many things that were "wrong" back then it isn't funny. Thing is, the environment has changed, and those things are no longer "wrong" enough to keep him from scoring.
I cannot do what he does, and wouldn't even if I could. It isn't his fault it works now, just like it wasn't my fault what I do worked back then. And, like me, he is just taking advantage of the fact that it is natural for him, easy for him, and it works for him.
If you want to know my feelings, you can pretty much read anything by Bill Taylor, because many times, my personal feelings are reflected there.
Bowling has changed, but the "window of scoring opportunity" has been thrown wide open by the advancements that have come along, that have allowed a wider and wider range of abilities to not only become acceptable, but predominant in today's game.
I WISH IT HAD NEVER CHANGED, but it did. I wish I could've mastered those changes as well as I did the ones that favored my style, but I could not. And I wish it was still a sport focused on the great bowlers, not a game driven by profit margins, but it isn't.
-
The best mechanics for throwing a ball has changed more times than anyone thinks. None of us remember the shellac era, but they didn't oil the lanes. Great hall of famers threw spinners or full rollers. The lacquer era of the 50's and 60's produced great stylist, strokers like Jim Stefanich, Nelson Burton, and Dick Ritger. I was a product of that era, but I had to evolve. How do you think I felt when a bunch of cup wristed crankers started to emerge in the late 70's. They could play strike or no count and beat me by 20 pins per game despite having 4 more opens per set than me. I almost quit the game during the 80's. I couldn't learn to crank the ball on the short oil, and couldn't or wouldn't learn to go dead straight and be niche player. My game revived with the change to the System of Bowling that allowed long oil so long as 3 units were applied outside. The resin era helped me even more, because the new balls combined with heavier longer oil allowed my stroker game to again become relevant to some degree. However the greater friction of the new balls still required changes in my release. More ball speed and higher rev rates could be obtained not by hitting up and lifting in the traditional manner, but by applying revs at the bottom of the swing with the so called soft hand delivery. People refer to this as less, because it requires less effort, but it is actually more powerful because the rev rate is achieved by fighting gravity less. Bottom line, I can still be almost the same stroker I was in the 70's, but with minor adjustments in timing to allow for a higher back swing, and some different pitches to more easily allow me to roll the ball off my hand rather than lifting on the upswing.
Please note that not one thing in the prior paragraph said anything about scoring levels. which I consider to be largely irrelevant in the evolution of the game
-
Bill,
This is true enough, yet I will go back to the statement I made before, and use that as a reference point.
I was really good, but much of that "goodness" came from the fact that many/most of the required techniques were things I did NATURALLY, without having to learn how to do them. When something comes as a natural function of your personal physiology, you can become EXTREMELY "good" at that given task. This us why I was very good back then.
Now, however, the parameters have changed, and they no longer favor my natural abilities, and I will NEVER be as good as those who DO fit the new ones naturally, no matter how much I learn, because it just doesn't come naturally, and I now have to think and work to achieve the results that once were so easy.
It is also very frustrating to watch people using what I was taught was bad/wrong/incorrect, only to see it work as well, or better, than anything I ever did.
As an example, there is a younger bowler here. He gets little, if any, lift on the ball. It appears he actually drops the ball at times. He LOVES dry conditions, and his release results in a shot that is just short of a spinner. I call him a twirler.
He throws the most aggressive ball he can find, drilled as strong as he can get it, twirls the ball up a track dry enough I have to use a urethane ball if I am even going to be close to that same area, and shoots big scores. He currently is averaging around 220, with several 300's this season.
20 years ago, he would've been lucky to average 160-170, and that's being honest. He does so many things that were "wrong" back then it isn't funny. Thing is, the environment has changed, and those things are no longer "wrong" enough to keep him from scoring.
I cannot do what he does, and wouldn't even if I could. It isn't his fault it works now, just like it wasn't my fault what I do worked back then. And, like me, he is just taking advantage of the fact that it is natural for him, easy for him, and it works for him.
If you want to know my feelings, you can pretty much read anything by Bill Taylor, because many times, my personal feelings are reflected there.
Bowling has changed, but the "window of scoring opportunity" has been thrown wide open by the advancements that have come along, that have allowed a wider and wider range of abilities to not only become acceptable, but predominant in today's game.
I WISH IT HAD NEVER CHANGED, but it did. I wish I could've mastered those changes as well as I did the ones that favored my style, but I could not. And I wish it was still a sport focused on the great bowlers, not a game driven by profit margins, but it isn't.
Dear Juggernaut:
Actually, I can totally identify with what you are saying. I, too, was really good, and I was the best league and tournament bowler in my area prior to the scoring explosion. But, like your situation, much of that "goodness" came from instinct and the natural execution of proper techniques.
As you also indicate, changing "parameters" of the high-scoring era no longer favored my natural abilities, and I was unable to successfully adjust my game to the new conditions, even though a large number of my peers was able to do so. And, indeed, it was frustrating to see people using techniques that I considered "bad/wrong/incorrect" (as you stated) suddenly being able to beat me by 10 or 20 pins a game.
I note your example of the bowler now averaging around 220, but whom you indicate would have been lucky to average 170 on old-time conditions, and obviously, that's a result of the changing scoring environment. And I don't begrudge the fact that such bowlers are utilizing what "works" now, and I agree that it wasn't the fault of you or I that we formerly did what worked back then.
I also agree with your comment about Bill Taylor, and like you, I agreed with almost everything he said or wrote. I was fortunate to have had the opportunity to personally meet and talk to Mr. Taylor on a number of occasions, and he claimed that he appreciated my style of bowling writing.
Agreeing with your summation, I, too, wish that things hadn't changed, but accepted the reality that it did. And like you, I never was able to master the changes that worked to the benefit of others.
It should be obvious that I agree (and identify) with your above-quoted post.
-
OK then Bill, here comes the hard part.
Learn to move on from it.
I do not have a grudge against you, nor do I think you should not report the scores in your area leagues and tournaments. What I am saying is, you need to change the perspective of where you are reporting from.
Stop reporting "now vs then" type stuff. What we did was great, but also a bit irrelevant with the way the game has changed, and for you to continue down that path is going to be nothing but detrimental to you.
You, and I, are enthusiastic about the "old days". Problem is, the "old days" are in the past now, and must be viewed that way. They aren't even a reference point anymore, and what happened back then has no bearing on what happens today. Sort of like it would've been for us if people kept telling us that we weren't REALLY good, because we weren't using a Lignum Vitae ball, the new guys get tired of being told that they're not good because they aren't using a polyester ball as well.
People like you, me, and Mr. Taylor are a bygone remembrance of a former time, when things were very different. Mr. Taylor was not listened to then, and we can't/won't be heard today. At least Mr. Taylor was still in a relevant period of time. We are no longer in one.
Bowling stopped being about bowling a long time ago. The focus shifted from bowling, to profit margins and power. When the people in charge (and I don't mean just the ABC/USBC) start to put their personal gains and well being first, and make the actual bowling secondary in importance, bowling can't do anything BUT continue to spiral downwards until it hits the bottom. I believe we are almost there.
Old men (like us) have either gotten out of the way of, or been run over by, the future, for as long as humanity has been civilized.
I (finally) got out of the way. Are you going to move, or get run over?
It is one, or the other, because it sure isn't going to stop OR slow down. It reminds me of the old cartoon I saw as a kid. A guy at the top of the mountain rolled a tiny snowball down the side. By the time it got half way down, it was huge and unstoppable. From there, it destroyed everything in its path, wreaking devastation, and finally destroying itself as well when it hit bottom.
As many others have decided, I would rather watch.
Don't get me wrong, I still care. Just nothing I can do anymore.
-
Please note that not one thing in the prior paragraph said anything about scoring levels. which I consider to be largely irrelevant in the evolution of the game
This quote and the last post by Juggsy should be framed and be the first post after some guy with an agenda ever posts a "scoring pace" article again. No matter who posts it.
-
Good points juggernaut, but I disagree about the money. One problem bowling has faced is that it has always been about a profit making recreation. ABC now USBC has many faults, both in the past and today, but not sure it is about the money so much. In the 70's the ABC was so technologically behind the curve that they didn't understand the ramifications of changing lane finishes and the impact of new balls. Indeed, the profit motive even became an issue back then. Urethane lane finish, and ultimately synthetic lanes were an economic decision for profit making businesses. Can anyone imagine golf going to synthetic greens, even if it saved courses thousands of dollars in maintenance.
It is those technological changes that had radical impacts on lane conditioning, and ultimately scoring levels.
-
I don't think bowling is in a unique category here with increased scoring. Look at many of the other sports....
Olympics - many world records were set at the latest winter and summer games
Baseball - high scoring games...more home runs
Football - higher scoring and much more passing
Golf - even with many golf courses lengthened, the scores are better
Etc
Bowling is not alone in this regard. Many of the people playing in sports today use science, technology an improvements in health and medicine to take there game to the next level. For many of the athletes today, it is their full time job unlike years ago where athletes would take jobs in the off season or even work during the season to make a living.
And no, I do not agree with cheating to try an gain an advantage.
-
No, but only bowlers tie themselves to the whipping post and give themselves 50 lashes about their sport. Its a ridiculous habit.
-
OK then Bill, here comes the hard part.
Learn to move on from it.
I do not have a grudge against you, nor do I think you should not report the scores in your area leagues and tournaments. What I am saying is, you need to change the perspective of where you are reporting from.
Stop reporting "now vs then" type stuff. What we did was great, but also a bit irrelevant with the way the game has changed, and for you to continue down that path is going to be nothing but detrimental to you.
You, and I, are enthusiastic about the "old days". Problem is, the "old days" are in the past now, and must be viewed that way. They aren't even a reference point anymore, and what happened back then has no bearing on what happens today. Sort of like it would've been for us if people kept telling us that we weren't REALLY good, because we weren't using a Lignum Vitae ball, the new guys get tired of being told that they're not good because they aren't using a polyester ball as well.
People like you, me, and Mr. Taylor are a bygone remembrance of a former time, when things were very different. Mr. Taylor was not listened to then, and we can't/won't be heard today. At least Mr. Taylor was still in a relevant period of time. We are no longer in one.
Bowling stopped being about bowling a long time ago. The focus shifted from bowling, to profit margins and power. When the people in charge (and I don't mean just the ABC/USBC) start to put their personal gains and well being first, and make the actual bowling secondary in importance, bowling can't do anything BUT continue to spiral downwards until it hits the bottom. I believe we are almost there.
Old men (like us) have either gotten out of the way of, or been run over by, the future, for as long as humanity has been civilized.
I (finally) got out of the way. Are you going to move, or get run over?
It is one, or the other, because it sure isn't going to stop OR slow down. It reminds me of the old cartoon I saw as a kid. A guy at the top of the mountain rolled a tiny snowball down the side. By the time it got half way down, it was huge and unstoppable. From there, it destroyed everything in its path, wreaking devastation, and finally destroying itself as well when it hit bottom.
As many others have decided, I would rather watch.
Don't get me wrong, I still care. Just nothing I can do anymore.
Dear Juggernaut:
Thanks for your comments and concerns regarding my bowling coverage, but your perspective is GREATLY skewed -- or perhaps, you've been listening to Long Gone Daddy a little too much.
You and Long Gone Daddy make it sound as if I constantly harp on modern-day scoring levels, and that's A LONG WAY from the truth. I write a weekly high-score report from area centers, but it has been A LONG TIME since any of those reports compared old-time and modern-day scoring. And if you don't believe it, take a quick glance at the subject of all my columns, and it will affirm what I'm saying.
A link to all of my columns ... www.examiner.com/bowling-in-st-petersburg/bill-herald
You and Long Gone Daddy are only looking at a small percentage of my columns and making a judgment based on that. And again, just take a look at the contents of my numerous columns -- and I now write well over 100 columns a year -- and even my harshest critics can't logically point to an "agenda" in very many articles. And Long Gone Daddy falsely claims that my article contain a lot of "USBC bashing" ... but if you scan the past several hundred of my article, I feel it's safe to say that you won't find ANY such "bashing."
You strongly imply that I should "move on" ... but keep in mind that I'm not even able to bowl any longer, due to multiple foot surgeries, so I certainly can't "move on" with regard to on-the-lanes participation, and again, I certainly don't harp on the "THS situation" in my columns, and I see no need to change the "perspective" of my reporting.
You also say that my writing style will "be nothing but detrimental to you" ... but how is that possible? On Examiner.com, I can write as often as I want, as lengthy as I want, and importantly, WHATEVER I want ... and NO ONE at Examiner.com edits or censors anything I write. So again, "detrimental" how? To avoid negative comments by posters such as you or Long Gone Daddy? LOL.
Again, I respect your opinions, but for reasons stated above, I feel that your opinions and presumptions are skewed. As for Long Gone Daddy, I could/would never please him, no matter what I write, and even if I did write some things that appealed to him, I doubt he'd ever admit it.
-
I think you are missing the boat here Fish.
We have been stating that it sounds to us like you are bashing the USBC and complaining about the state of the Sport and how it was better in the old days. You may not be trying to sound like that but in our opinion you do sound like that. We can have our opinions we are entitled to them. You can write whatever you want to the contrary. But making responses to everyone that posts on your threads makes you seem like you are attempting to stir up a argument. That is why you have some difficulty here.
OK then Bill, here comes the hard part.
Learn to move on from it.
I do not have a grudge against you, nor do I think you should not report the scores in your area leagues and tournaments. What I am saying is, you need to change the perspective of where you are reporting from.
Stop reporting "now vs then" type stuff. What we did was great, but also a bit irrelevant with the way the game has changed, and for you to continue down that path is going to be nothing but detrimental to you.
You, and I, are enthusiastic about the "old days". Problem is, the "old days" are in the past now, and must be viewed that way. They aren't even a reference point anymore, and what happened back then has no bearing on what happens today. Sort of like it would've been for us if people kept telling us that we weren't REALLY good, because we weren't using a Lignum Vitae ball, the new guys get tired of being told that they're not good because they aren't using a polyester ball as well.
People like you, me, and Mr. Taylor are a bygone remembrance of a former time, when things were very different. Mr. Taylor was not listened to then, and we can't/won't be heard today. At least Mr. Taylor was still in a relevant period of time. We are no longer in one.
Bowling stopped being about bowling a long time ago. The focus shifted from bowling, to profit margins and power. When the people in charge (and I don't mean just the ABC/USBC) start to put their personal gains and well being first, and make the actual bowling secondary in importance, bowling can't do anything BUT continue to spiral downwards until it hits the bottom. I believe we are almost there.
Old men (like us) have either gotten out of the way of, or been run over by, the future, for as long as humanity has been civilized.
I (finally) got out of the way. Are you going to move, or get run over?
It is one, or the other, because it sure isn't going to stop OR slow down. It reminds me of the old cartoon I saw as a kid. A guy at the top of the mountain rolled a tiny snowball down the side. By the time it got half way down, it was huge and unstoppable. From there, it destroyed everything in its path, wreaking devastation, and finally destroying itself as well when it hit bottom.
As many others have decided, I would rather watch.
Don't get me wrong, I still care. Just nothing I can do anymore.
Dear Juggernaut:
Thanks for your comments and concerns regarding my bowling coverage, but your perspective is GREATLY skewed -- or perhaps, you've been listening to Long Gone Daddy a little too much.
You and Long Gone Daddy make it sound as if I constantly harp on modern-day scoring levels, and that's A LONG WAY from the truth. I write a weekly high-score report from area centers, but it has been A LONG TIME since any of those reports compared old-time and modern-day scoring. And if you don't believe it, take a quick glance at the subject of all my columns, and it will affirm what I'm saying.
A link to all of my columns ... www.examiner.com/bowling-in-st-petersburg/bill-herald
You and Long Gone Daddy are only looking at a small percentage of my columns and making a judgment based on that. And again, just take a look at the contents of my numerous columns -- and I now write well over 100 columns a year -- and even my harshest critics can't logically point to an "agenda" in very many articles. And Long Gone Daddy falsely claims that my article contain a lot of "USBC bashing" ... but if you scan the past several hundred of my article, I feel it's safe to say that you won't find ANY such "bashing."
You strongly imply that I should "move on" ... but keep in mind that I'm not even able to bowl any longer, due to multiple foot surgeries, so I certainly can't "move on" with regard to on-the-lanes participation, and again, I certainly don't harp on the "THS situation" in my columns, and I see no need to change the "perspective" of my reporting.
You also say that my writing style will "be nothing but detrimental to you" ... but how is that possible? On Examiner.com, I can write as often as I want, as lengthy as I want, and importantly, WHATEVER I want ... and NO ONE at Examiner.com edits or censors anything I write. So again, "detrimental" how? To avoid negative comments by posters such as you or Long Gone Daddy? LOL.
Again, I respect your opinions, but for reasons stated above, I feel that your opinions and presumptions are skewed. As for Long Gone Daddy, I could/would never please him, no matter what I write, and even if I did write some things that appealed to him, I doubt he'd ever admit it.
-
I think you are missing the boat here Fish.
We have been stating that it sounds to us like you are bashing the USBC and complaining about the state of the Sport and how it was better in the old days. You may not be trying to sound like that but in our opinion you do sound like that. We can have our opinions we are entitled to them. You can write whatever you want to the contrary. But making responses to everyone that posts on your threads makes you seem like you are attempting to stir up a argument. That is why you have some difficulty here.
OK then Bill, here comes the hard part.
Learn to move on from it.
I do not have a grudge against you, nor do I think you should not report the scores in your area leagues and tournaments. What I am saying is, you need to change the perspective of where you are reporting from.
Stop reporting "now vs then" type stuff. What we did was great, but also a bit irrelevant with the way the game has changed, and for you to continue down that path is going to be nothing but detrimental to you.
You, and I, are enthusiastic about the "old days". Problem is, the "old days" are in the past now, and must be viewed that way. They aren't even a reference point anymore, and what happened back then has no bearing on what happens today. Sort of like it would've been for us if people kept telling us that we weren't REALLY good, because we weren't using a Lignum Vitae ball, the new guys get tired of being told that they're not good because they aren't using a polyester ball as well.
People like you, me, and Mr. Taylor are a bygone remembrance of a former time, when things were very different. Mr. Taylor was not listened to then, and we can't/won't be heard today. At least Mr. Taylor was still in a relevant period of time. We are no longer in one.
Bowling stopped being about bowling a long time ago. The focus shifted from bowling, to profit margins and power. When the people in charge (and I don't mean just the ABC/USBC) start to put their personal gains and well being first, and make the actual bowling secondary in importance, bowling can't do anything BUT continue to spiral downwards until it hits the bottom. I believe we are almost there.
Old men (like us) have either gotten out of the way of, or been run over by, the future, for as long as humanity has been civilized.
I (finally) got out of the way. Are you going to move, or get run over?
It is one, or the other, because it sure isn't going to stop OR slow down. It reminds me of the old cartoon I saw as a kid. A guy at the top of the mountain rolled a tiny snowball down the side. By the time it got half way down, it was huge and unstoppable. From there, it destroyed everything in its path, wreaking devastation, and finally destroying itself as well when it hit bottom.
As many others have decided, I would rather watch.
Don't get me wrong, I still care. Just nothing I can do anymore.
Dear Juggernaut:
Thanks for your comments and concerns regarding my bowling coverage, but your perspective is GREATLY skewed -- or perhaps, you've been listening to Long Gone Daddy a little too much.
You and Long Gone Daddy make it sound as if I constantly harp on modern-day scoring levels, and that's A LONG WAY from the truth. I write a weekly high-score report from area centers, but it has been A LONG TIME since any of those reports compared old-time and modern-day scoring. And if you don't believe it, take a quick glance at the subject of all my columns, and it will affirm what I'm saying.
A link to all of my columns ... www.examiner.com/bowling-in-st-petersburg/bill-herald
You and Long Gone Daddy are only looking at a small percentage of my columns and making a judgment based on that. And again, just take a look at the contents of my numerous columns -- and I now write well over 100 columns a year -- and even my harshest critics can't logically point to an "agenda" in very many articles. And Long Gone Daddy falsely claims that my article contain a lot of "USBC bashing" ... but if you scan the past several hundred of my article, I feel it's safe to say that you won't find ANY such "bashing."
You strongly imply that I should "move on" ... but keep in mind that I'm not even able to bowl any longer, due to multiple foot surgeries, so I certainly can't "move on" with regard to on-the-lanes participation, and again, I certainly don't harp on the "THS situation" in my columns, and I see no need to change the "perspective" of my reporting.
You also say that my writing style will "be nothing but detrimental to you" ... but how is that possible? On Examiner.com, I can write as often as I want, as lengthy as I want, and importantly, WHATEVER I want ... and NO ONE at Examiner.com edits or censors anything I write. So again, "detrimental" how? To avoid negative comments by posters such as you or Long Gone Daddy? LOL.
Again, I respect your opinions, but for reasons stated above, I feel that your opinions and presumptions are skewed. As for Long Gone Daddy, I could/would never please him, no matter what I write, and even if I did write some things that appealed to him, I doubt he'd ever admit it.
The TRUTH is hard for some people to accept. In some cases, impossible
-
Why is it that so many people, of diverse beliefs and backgrounds, come to the consensus that Mighty Fish is the one missing the point?
-
I think you are missing the boat here Fish.
We have been stating that it sounds to us like you are bashing the USBC and complaining about the state of the Sport and how it was better in the old days.
Dear mainzer:
All you, Long Gone Daddy and Good Times are doing is rehashing your anti-Fish "talking points" ... BUT the subjects and/or contents of my columns don't bear that out. And even if you claim repeated "USBC bashing" or "anti-THS bashing", only a very small percentage of columns could be even vaguely related to such "bashing" claims. But that won't prevent you from criticizing my writing, regardless of what I write about.
Actually, if any of you were to start complimenting me on my articles, THEN I might be concerned that I'm doing something wrong, but I don't think that any of you will ever issue such compliments.
-
Why is it that so many people, of diverse beliefs and backgrounds, come to the consensus that Mighty Fish is the one missing the point?
Dear Good Times Good Times:
So just what "point(s)" am I supposedly missing?
Actually, even if I'm a poor journalist -- as you seem to indicate -- you (and others) should applaud me for continuing to write bowling columns when so many other media venues have eliminated bowling columnists and bowling coverage altogether.
Do you know of ANY bowling writer ANYWHERE who writes more than 100 bowling articles per year? Do you think it would be great for all concerned if I were to stop writing about bowling? Is there ANYTHING at all, on the positive side, that you might bring yourself to say with regard to my columns?
-
A 6 page thread where over 31% of the posts come from 1 individual.....guess he wants to get applauded for that as well. And you know what, he's right, we should applaud. It takes a lot of work to be the biggest bag of hot air on THIS site.
-
A 6 page thread where over 31% of the posts come from 1 individual.....guess he wants to get applauded for that as well. And you know what, he's right, we should applaud. It takes a lot of work to be the biggest bag of hot air on THIS site.
Dear jorge300:
It's also a safe bet that I now write MORE THAN 31 PERCENT of all bowling columns published in the state of Florida. Is that a bad thing?
-
A 6 page thread where over 31% of the posts come from 1 individual.....guess he wants to get applauded for that as well. And you know what, he's right, we should applaud. It takes a lot of work to be the biggest bag of hot air on THIS site.
Dear jorge300:
Also keep in mind that after the original post, all of my subsequent posts have been in response to others' comments, and at least, I responded in a respectful manner (without a personal agenda or tone, unlike so many of your posts).
-
Go read Miss Manners if you're that concerned about ettiquette. Juggernaut and Avabob posted succinct responses that show how 99% of the people on here feel about your "reporting" but you refuse to accept it. How do you explain so many people wondering what your motives are with these threads you start? Wouldn't an experienced writer go back and look at what he wrote and try to figure out where he is failing to communicate his motives in his writings?
-
Maybe the most important observation made in this entire thread is about only bowlers whipping themselves and calling it cheating to take advantage of technology. I have never heard any PGA pros complain about 460 cc drivers that allow them to swing from their heals because the sweet spot is so big that even mis hits can stay in play.
More sour grapes among better bowlers than any sport. I hear all these stories about guys quitting because the game is too easy. Never met one, unless you are talking about the game being too easy for the other guy.
I have been their myself, so I am not guilt free. When the power players took over the game in the 80's all I did was complain, and didn't make the adjustments that could have kept me competitive. It wasn't their fault that they could shoot a lot more big scores with their style than I could.
-
Here's what I do know: I will be bowling 1 trio scratch league w/my driller and a teammate from Wednesday nights on a PBAX condition in a foreign house (to me) and another PBAX where I'll be alternating every other week.
I know we'll have 25 teams in that first league, and we'll have a full house of 16 in the other.
We have bowlers wanting a challenge.
IMO, I love league bowling b/c I enjoy the social aspect of it but over the summer I must concede is REAL bowling. I LOVE the challenge and have improved every season.
For those of you who hate modern ball power, get a life. Conditions can still be made so that premo shots HAVE to be made or one will pay the price. Spares are also a must. So no matter what the challenge was in the 70's or 80's that some of you all find as a utopia.....the challenge is still there.
-
Maybe the most important observation made in this entire thread is about only bowlers whipping themselves and calling it cheating to take advantage of technology. I have never heard any PGA pros complain about 460 cc drivers that allow them to swing from their heals because the sweet spot is so big that even mis hits can stay in play.
More sour grapes among better bowlers than any sport. I hear all these stories about guys quitting because the game is too easy. Never met one, unless you are talking about the game being too easy for the other guy.
I have been their myself, so I am not guilt free. When the power players took over the game in the 80's all I did was complain, and didn't make the adjustments that could have kept me competitive. It wasn't their fault that they could shoot a lot more big scores with their style than I could.
I recently made a similar post on here in another thread. Only in bowling do we whip ourselves over becoming better and learning how to bowl better and take what the lanes and equipment provide us.
-
Go read Miss Manners if you're that concerned about ettiquette. Juggernaut and Avabob posted succinct responses that show how 99% of the people on here feel about your "reporting" but you refuse to accept it.
Dear Long Gone Daddy:
IF your assumption is correct -- which I seriously doubt -- that would mean that 99 percent of the people on here ACTUALLY READ MY COLUMNS, and if they do, that's obviously a good thing from my perspective.
On the other hand, if 99 percent of people on here have a negative opinion of my writings WITHOUT READING THEM, such opinions would have NO MERIT whatsoever, especially when such opinions are offered by people taking pot shots at me behind anonymous screen names.
Another thought comes to mind. YOU, of all people, accuse me of "bashing" something or other, when YOU are obviously one of the biggest "bashers" in the forum. And you do something I don't do, in that I don't issue personal attacks against other posters.
Have a good evening, and thanks for your comments.
-
Go read Miss Manners if you're that concerned about ettiquette. Juggernaut and Avabob posted succinct responses that show how 99% of the people on here feel about your "reporting" but you refuse to accept it.
Dear Long Gone Daddy:
IF your assumption is correct -- which I seriously doubt -- that would mean that 99 percent of the people on here ACTUALLY READ MY COLUMNS, and if they do, that's obviously a good thing from my perspective.
On the other hand, if 99 percent of people on here have a negative opinion of my writings WITHOUT READING THEM, such opinions would have NO MERIT whatsoever, especially when such opinions are offered by people taking pot shots at me behind anonymous screen names.
Another thought comes to mind. YOU, of all people, accuse me of "bashing" something or other, when YOU are obviously one of the biggest "bashers" in the forum. And you do something I don't do, in that I don't issue personal attacks against other posters.
Have a good evening, and thanks for your comments.
Yeah. That's what its all about, isn't it? Clicks. Attention. Bad pub is better than no pub. Doesn't matter how many people are alienated. Doesn't matter how many people say "here we go again". Thanks for verifying what has always been thought about you.
BTW, attention whore. Don't mis-read what I wrote. 99% of people on here do NOT
read what you post, but of those that do read it 99% feel your negativity towards bowling and don't see the "impartiality" to your so-called "reporting".
Glad I made you day. Have a great night.
-
Yeah. That's what its all about, isn't it? Clicks. Attention. Bad pub is better than no pub.
Dear Long Gone Daddy:
What a ridiculous comment! Do you really believe that there is a journalist anywhere who doesn't want people to read what he/she writes? And regardless of what you (and others) say in this forum, I can assure you that many people -- including virtually all current members of my local association's board of directors -- approve of my columns, my writing style and extensive coverage of area bowling.
-
Go read Miss Manners if you're that concerned about ettiquette. Juggernaut and Avabob posted succinct responses that show how 99% of the people on here feel about your "reporting" but you refuse to accept it.
Dear Long Gone Daddy:
IF your assumption is correct -- which I seriously doubt -- that would mean that 99 percent of the people on here ACTUALLY READ MY COLUMNS, and if they do, that's obviously a good thing from my perspective.
On the other hand, if 99 percent of people on here have a negative opinion of my writings WITHOUT READING THEM, such opinions would have NO MERIT whatsoever, especially when such opinions are offered by people taking pot shots at me behind anonymous screen names.
Another thought comes to mind. YOU, of all people, accuse me of "bashing" something or other, when YOU are obviously one of the biggest "bashers" in the forum. And you do something I don't do, in that I don't issue personal attacks against other posters.
Have a good evening, and thanks for your comments.
Fish
The problem I see is you keep saying all the articles you have written about bowling, and people have not read them, true?
But your problem is not all the articles you have written, but all the negativity you have expressed about bowling while you have been on BR. Granted you may have wrote a lot of good articles about bowling in your time but you don't post them on BR.
We see a lot of negativity on your part. And I have seen one good article you wrote about bowling while you have been on BR. and I told you so. You cant expect everyone to go to your papers web site and read every article you have ever written, just not going to happen. People have lives and don't have the time read every article.
Maybe if you post or write positive articles on bowling people might change there mind about you over time.
-
We see a lot of negativity on your part. And I have seen one good article you wrote about bowling while you have been on BR. and I told you so. You cant expect everyone to go to your papers web site and read every article you have ever written, just not going to happen. People have lives and don't have the time read every article.
Dear sevenpin63:
In response ...
Are you kidding? How many posters here DON'T express A LOT OF NEGATIVITY? Are you saying that posters such as Long Gone Daddy DON'T keep saying negative things?
And interestingly, people criticize my writings, but they don't take the time to even scan the subject matter (meaning that they really have no idea what most of my articles consist of). Some of those same people won't even take a look at my past columns (to prove their point), but they will sure review all my forum posts with a fine-toothed comb to find reasons to personally attack me.
-
We see a lot of negativity on your part. And I have seen one good article you wrote about bowling while you have been on BR. and I told you so. You cant expect everyone to go to your papers web site and read every article you have ever written, just not going to happen. People have lives and don't have the time read every article.
Dear sevenpin63:
In response ...
Are you kidding? How many posters here DON'T express A LOT OF NEGATIVITY? Are you saying that posters such as Long Gone Daddy DON'T keep saying negative things?
And interestingly, people criticize my writings, but they don't take the time to even scan the subject matter (meaning that they really have no idea what most of my articles consist of). Some of those same people won't even take a look at my past columns (to prove their point), but they will sure review all my forum posts with a fine-toothed comb to find reasons to personally attack me.
I think the personal attacks come from the fact that when anyone posts their opinion and it does match your opinion you feel the need to respond to it. Why not just let people have their opinions and leave it at that?
You also draw criticism because you seem to want to hang on to the old days, but the old days are gone, we all know about the old days and how different it was then but that time is gone.
Nothing personal just stating what I see
-
Let's call a spade a spade, everyone. The only reason this thread is seven pages long and counting is Fish is killing time while he waits for his hero Mike Aleshire to shoot 292 or some garbage.
-
I think the personal attacks come from the fact that when anyone posts their opinion and it does match your opinion you feel the need to respond to it. Why not just let people have their opinions and leave it at that?
Dear mainzer:
What's wrong with my responses? Do you have objection to differing opinions?
When people have differing opinions, WHY, ALL TOO OFTEN, IS THERE PERSONAL CRITICISM INVOLVED? Why can't there be a discussion and comparison of those opinions, rather than constant attempts to make it PERSONAL?
If a person disagrees with another's opinion, why not simply say something such as, "With all due respect, I disagree" (followed by discussion as to the reasons why there is disagreement)? But some posters obviously enjoy taking personal pot-shots at others, usually behind the veil of an anonymous screen name.
If I disagree with someone's opinion, I don't start attacking that poster on a personal basis, and I don't call such poster a moron or an idiot (or worse) because they have a differing opinion. Wouldn't this be a more polite and constructive forum if all posters conducted themselves likewise?
-
Fish is killing time while he waits for his hero Mike Aleshire to shoot 292 or some garbage.
HAHAHA!
-
HAHAHA!
Yet another appropriate on-topic post ... NOT!
-
I think the personal attacks come from the fact that when anyone posts their opinion and it does match your opinion you feel the need to respond to it. Why not just let people have their opinions and leave it at that?
Dear mainzer:
What's wrong with my responses? Do you have objection to differing opinions?
When people have differing opinions, WHY, ALL TOO OFTEN, IS THERE PERSONAL CRITICISM INVOLVED? Why can't there be a discussion and comparison of those opinions, rather than constant attempts to make it PERSONAL?
If a person disagrees with another's opinion, why not simply say something such as, "With all due respect, I disagree" (followed by discussion as to the reasons why there is disagreement)? But some posters obviously enjoy taking personal pot-shots at others, usually behind the veil of an anonymous screen name.
If I disagree with someone's opinion, I don't start attacking that poster on a personal basis, and I don't call such poster a moron or an idiot (or worse) because they have a differing opinion. Wouldn't this be a more polite and constructive forum if all posters conducted themselves likewise?
Mighty Fish,
While you might not come across and blatantly attack people, the manner in which you respond can be taken that way. Prime example was in what you replied back to me in response to a simple question.
In my post, I clearly state that you've had informative stuff written and I won't dispute that. The reference to the crap that's there isn't specific to what you write, but the never ending posts that make the original topic too much to bear as it takes way too much time to sift through the name calling and everything else there to read posts that comment on the topic at hand.
Let's see how you responded :
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.
While not an attack, it still is. There was no name calling, but the manner in which you respond is no different than you coming back and calling me an idiot because I asked a simple question. I asked the question because I wanted an honest answer from you without you knowing my intent. After you answered, I gave you the reason for why I asked it. But had I done that before, your answer would have been based on what my opinion....not my question.
I responded to your post and will say the same thing again....I enjoy reading your posts. I don't care that they might be about 'the good ole days' or that you were a great bowler, etc. Fact is I asked a question and you attacked the question...period.
Now, in response to many of the other comments about who reads what, I think that because of the way many of your posts go, people have a hard time reading them for the reasons mentioned above: original post...plenty of attacks...counter attacks...oh, legitimate post on original topic...more counter attacks on the counter attack...and so on...and so on.
After a while, it gets hard to go through post to actually find something. But I still do.