win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO  (Read 7476 times)

MI 2 AZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8150
WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO
« on: April 29, 2003, 06:34:00 AM »
The WIBC membership rejected the USBC merger plan. Here is a link:

http://www.bowl.com/bowl/wibc/common/news/record.html?record=6803
_________________________________________
Six decades of league bowling and still learning.

ABC/USBC Lifetime Member since Aug 1995.

 

bowlin gr8

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO
« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2003, 09:42:44 AM »
Galaxy, you come in and criticize and when someone (me) asks you some questions on how the USGA and USBC proposal compare, you say you are out of here.  Have a nice day.
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?

mumzie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6914
Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO
« Reply #17 on: May 01, 2003, 09:44:42 AM »
I am not a local rep. I will not ever be a local rep. I give back to the sport in other ways, and there is no time left over for those committments. I do respect those who give their time and energy to volunteering, however.
That said,
I would have probably voted in favor of the SMO, just to get the inevitable over with. However -
JUST ONCE during the whole discussion period, I would have liked to see one of my local reps (ABC or WIBC - doesn't really matter) come talk to the league bowlers, and get their opinions. The local associations say that the bowlers don't come to their meetings. Duh. So why don't the associations come to the bowlers?
Our local association has an annual meeting. I don't know when the ABC meeting is. The WIBC - I only know because I got invited to it so I can receive an award.
I have NEVER been asked my opinion by anyone involved with my local WIBC association. I have given my opinions freely, however. I work closely on other things with our ABC executive director, so he knows my opinion.
I don't even know how our local reps voted.
So - as far as the local issues go - I know that it's about protecting the little empires here in this state. I have to assume that, because no one has asked for my opinion.


--------------------
One advantage of bowling over golf
is that you seldom lose the ball.
------------------------
www.Shirts4Bowling.com
We Know What Bowlers Want

Home of the HAMBONE shirt!

card79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1502
Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO
« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2003, 09:50:46 AM »
Just my opinion here.  It is like contract negotiations.  Not everyone will win.  Both sides must give a little.  Seems that at the meetings proposals should have been taken as to what the local reps think the SMO should be.  Then once all that is in.  Try to hammer things out with the knowledge that not everyone gets to have their cake and eat it too.  I think everybody truly wants a SMO.  The problem as I see it is that everyone still wants to be just as important as the see themselves now.
--------------------
I don't really play cards and I am not 79, but it fits together somehow.

bowlin gr8

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO
« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2003, 09:56:06 AM »
Fonedude, Sawbones, and Jimsey - Thank you for your replies and information.  It is with seeing both sides of a discussion that people like myself can become somewhat better informed and able to draw our own conclusions.  

It was after our local ABC rep came to our league a few months ago and gave us a somewhat one-sided view of the SBO that I became aware of the issue and I tried to get some info by reading the SMO proposal at www.bowl.com .  I also followed some of the discussions that were here earlier and appreciated seeing both sides of the issue but I did not know anything at all about the USGA.

Thanks to all who gave their views on this and tried to inform all bowlers who were interested in reading through all of this.
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?

Jerry Weller

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO
« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2003, 12:38:36 PM »
I've seen the ABC reject balls for competition - probably more "novelty balls" like the Quasar, the "Michael Jordan Basketball", etc. but I believe I just read here on this board about a company's equipment having to be recalled because it had too high a "coefficient of restitution".

Golf has it's own equipment issues with Big Bertha drivers, etc. and wasn't titanium used in golf long before it made it's way into bowling?

The area where I think golf does a better job than bowling is in labeling the courses and tees to reflect how difficult they really are. Unfortunately, given that there are a lot more lanes than there are golf courses and that those lanes can be modified at the proprietor's whim at any time by changing the oil pattern - labelling the difficulty of the lanes strikes me as a much more challenging proposition.

I do have an idea myself, but I'm sure people will find fault with it. For what it's worth - here goes...

I think the bowling powers that be should track the "house" average for every bowling center in America and using a bell curve, come up with a system to rate the difficulty of the houses by virtue of the house average. In order to have  sanctioned leagues in their house, proprietor's should be required to prominently post a decal on their front door with the rating of their house difficulty on it. In order to prevent easier and easier conditions from degrading the standards, a gold standard should be established based upon conditions from "the golden age of bowling" the 1950s.

In turn, the ABC should modify it's awards according to the house difficulty. The ABC gold 300 ring should not be available by upgrade anymore. If you shoot your 300 in a cake house, you get a cheap ring with the level of difficulty of the house marked on the ring.

e.g.

300 - C means you shot your perfect game in a house of average difficulty, etc.

In order to get a gold 300 ring, your perfect game would have to be shot in a house that met the gold standard - the house average would be in line with the averages established in the 1950s - bowling's "golden era".

The same rules would apply to high series awards, etc.




Edited on 5/1/2003 1:33 PM

bowlin gr8

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO
« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2003, 02:46:55 PM »
Galaxy, Thank you for your input.
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?

Tex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO
« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2003, 02:49:08 PM »
Interesting concept. As they say "There is no such thing as a bad idea" it might inspire one that would really work well, if it doesn't itself.

On the ball or product rejection question. There are probably hundreds of balls that are rejected annually we never know about. We here about the ones that are made anyway, like the Quasar and Micheal Jordan. I think the first to be banned after the ball was out and approved was the old Orange DOt. There was another one a couple years ago, but can't remmember which one. I think the La Nina would be denied approval under the new standards or so I understand. The plastic pins were denied for something like 10 years or more. The new DBA Laneshield was denied approval for around 7 years. So, yes ABC does reject products on a regular basis. We just never hear about them unless the manufacturer makes it an issue or have friends in Wisconsin.

HOw exactly did we go from SMO to GOlf vs. Bowling. Bit of a tangent. Oh well, that is how it goes. I don't Golf, understand why some people do. It just is not my cup of tea. Love to bowl and have no idea why. Just do. I have friends that are 200++ bowlers and just as good at Golf. I know that many of the PBA tour guys enjoy both sports, hear them talking about it often.

Jerry Weller

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO
« Reply #23 on: May 01, 2003, 11:05:27 PM »
I did some homework on the USGA and came to the conclusion that if you want a similar organization to govern bowling all you have to do is let the BPAA run things...  Hmm why does it seem like that's been happening already? ;-)

Here's what the USGA website has to say about the organization...

"What Is The USGA?
More than 9,100 private and public golf courses, clubs and facilities make up the USGA.

An Executive Committee of 15 volunteers oversees the Association. More than 1,200 volunteers from all parts of the country serve on more than 30 USGA committees. A professional staff of approximately 250 directs the Association's day-to-day functions from Golf House, the USGA's headquarters in Far Hills, N.J.

In 1975, the Association formed the USGA Members Program to help individual golfers support the game and the USGA. Today, approximately 800,000 players from around the nation are USGA Members.

The USGA acts in cooperation with national, regional and local golf associations in areas of common interest. The Association also represents the United States in relations with golf associations of other countries."
--------------------------------------------------------------

And what do the members get?

"By supporting the United States Golf Association, you are taking an active part in preserving and protecting the game of golf. Join today and receive many benefits including the latest updates on the Rules of Golf, as well as preferences to purchase tickets to the U.S. Open and other USGA Championships."
Hoooo-rah! - NOT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------







Bill Thomas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO
« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2003, 04:19:54 AM »
Geez, where were all of you folks the past 3 years when the debate, pro and con, was going on about USBC?  Maybe the reason some are unhappy with the ABC/WIBC governance of bowling is they set on their duffs and do nothing but second guess what those who are involved do.  With the exception of Sawbones and Tex, I don't remember hardly any of you becoming involved when we tried to discuss USBC on this forum prior to the votes.  Yes, I am a local ABC volunteer, director and I opposed USBC vigorously for over 3 years not because I oppose an SMO but because the USBC proposal was an ill-conceived avomination.

Jerry Weller

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2003, 06:32:56 AM »
Probably busy bowling Bill. Most of us don't want to worry about all those rules and regulations unless you aim to go changing things on us. Then you get our attention ;-)


bowlin gr8

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO
« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2003, 10:52:15 AM »
Sorry Bill, just found this site this year.  I did start one thread on the SBO after our local rep came to our league and addressed us on the proposal but only gave one side of it.  Learned a lot more about it from that and from looking at the www.bowl.com site.  There is a lot of knowledge to learn from the people who visit this site and my thanks to all of you for sharing.
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?