Quote from: tommygn on September 26, 2018, 08:57:30 AM

I don't have a disdain for anything spmcgivern. Life is way to short for that.  I can disagree with some ones point of view, but still like them and respect their opinion. Something that must be lost on certain people on here.

I have nothing, nothing against the individuals who throw two handed, just because they use two hands. They are bowling within the written rules as stated. I have a problem with a lack of rule that allows it to happen. two very different things.

I will say this. The average rev rate of a two handed player is much higher then the average rev rate of the traditional player. Rev rate and the subsequent higher ball speed and needed surface on a ball is what destroys pattern integrity, contrary to what the USBC wants to believe (cough, balance holes). We have a few DRASTIC changes coming down the pike in 2020, that WILL influence league participation. To what degree, we will see. These changes are a direct reflection of the two handed style, like it or not.


Who do you think had the higher rev rate and hooked it more and why, at 7 years old, Belmo or EJ Tackett? Think about it instead of just looking to throw shade.

I get it.  I will not shy away from those issues I feel need to be addressed by USBC, just as you won't.  I have been trying to get my leagues to at least consider Challenge Patterns or something with a similar ratio.  Guess which demographic doesn't want it..... the older "middle-aged" bowlers.  The younger bowlers are more up to the challenge than the older bowlers.  Perhaps it is style related.  The older bowlers may not want to give away what they perceive as the higher scoring shot for them.

I used to run a monthly WTBA sport compliant tournament.  Each month was a different shot based on the WTBA patterns.  Older bowlers didn't come out.  A majority of older bowlers told me they felt they couldn't compete with the younger bowler.  Perhaps they are correct.  Modern styles (aka younger bowlers) appear to be better suited for the volumes seen on most sport shots.  What the older bowler doesn't see is the advantage they may have in accuracy that allows them to nearly eliminate the ridiculous low game.  May not have the 250+ game, but they don't have the 120 game either.

Out of curiosity, how would you word a rule that eliminates the two-handed delivery as it is demonstrated by Belmo and the such?  It comes across more as a dislike of the release specs than the method applied to achieve the specs.  Most young two-handers I see do not have the elevated rev rates you see on tour.  If they imitate anyone it is more like Simonsen than Belmo or Jesper.

I don't know why so many people are against 2 handed bowlers as if they have an UNFAIR advantage. As good as Belmo and Jesper are they don't win every time they compete. If you make that style illegal than what about bowlers that use 1 hand and no thumb like me? Do you really want to tell Belmo, Jesper, and Tom Daughtery, to name a few, that they need to learn to throw a different way? What about Tackett and Rash as they have high rev rates, should we eliminate cupped wrist to make bowlers more even? Isn't that what handicap is to? As far as carry, I have seen a lot of 120 average get lucky strikes where I have to earn mine sometimes. High rev rates and speed do not always equate to better carry. You can have all the rev rate and speed in the world if you don't hit your mark it means nothing. If you think I'm wrong just watch Belmo the majority of the time he misses right it doesn't come back the majority of the time he misses it left it goes left.

This is all I really have to say I wish we could get this particular thread back on topic as Mo's seminar was interesting and if need be we can always start a separate thread to discuss whether or not two handed bowling should be illegal.

Jason

Quote from: milorafferty on September 26, 2018, 10:36:46 AM

Quote from: DP3 on September 26, 2018, 06:23:21 AM

You just proved my point again. Everyone that left has priorities way more important than bowling. 30-40 years ago there was no such thing as a an internet bill, cell phone bill, FIOS bill, Netflix subscription, and the multitude of services, now bills, than the everyday adult in 2018 has. Living expenses have risen 300% since 1985 while the average salary with inflation has only risen 10%.

I stand by socioeconomic issues of the shrinking middle class bring the #1 issue of declining participation in bowling.

I haven't proven anything. I'm just stating that bowling isn't in decline because it's to expensive. Bowling is no more expensive now than it was 30 years ago when indexed for inflation. People just chose to spend their money elsewhere.


And by the way, "internet bill, cell phone bill, FIOS Bill, Netflix subscription" are not living expenses, they are luxuries. Just like that daily Starbucks visit, people are just choosing to spend their disposable income in other places.

Bowling may not be anymore expensive today but it is still expensive, especially when you take into consideration what luxuries there are today compared to what was available 20 years ago.  Nobody is going to give up cell phones and internet except those who can't afford it and those people don't have the money to spend on bowling anyways.

I have 7 kids and a great paying job and I can't afford to take all my kids bowling. Thank God for the kids bowl free program.

Our bowling alley is empty during the day and crowed at nights where the bowling is less than a third of the cost at night time compared to daytime.

Jason

So indexed for inflation, it was cheap to take a family with 7 kids bowling 30 years ago?

I say it again, internet, cell phone, Nike/Reebok/Addias etc shoes, Starbucks Coffee, SUVs are all luxuries that people choose to spend extra money on. These things are not necessities, they are luxuries. Just like taking a family bowling is a luxury. I'm just stating a fact, not judging.

The bowling industry is somewhat trying to correct this problem, but there is a huge mountain of problems to over come, none of which are two handed bowlers, reactive resin balls, oil patterns etc.

If you dont like 2 handed bowling, you dont outlaw it,  you change the environment that rewards it.  This whole argument reminds me of 35+ years ago when the plant and reef cup wristers were driving the great strokers out of the game.  If anything that was even worse.  The strike or no count advantage to the power players was almost unbreachable.   Ever wonder why all the great strokers like Neff, Hudson, Laub, Stefanich disappeared almost over might.   The best of the power players like Roth Holman Webb werr immensely talented,  but the short oil environment brought in a hist of other one hit wonder champions on tour during the early to mid 80s. 

I remember bowling 6 game tourneys where I shot under and didnt cash with maybe 2 opens while guys were shooting 100 over with 8 opens. The carry avantage was so extreme to those crankers.  My lack of success was partly my own fault.   I had the ability to go even straighter and become a niche player like a Dickenson, but was tio stubborn. 

Agree.  Also, the trend back to longer oil had already started befire resin came in.  That helped strokers l8kw me too.