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

Author Topic: Would you rather be good, or great.?  (Read 3483 times)

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Would you rather be good, or great.?
« on: August 10, 2003, 09:12:16 PM »
We hear arguments all the time about bowlers that are good, or which bowlers are only good on certain conditions, being 1 dimensional.

It seems to me that to be great, you have to put in more time practicing and/or practicing a certain thing. If a bowler wants to be great, they must practice a certain technique, so they can dominate when they hit a certain condition.

Because there are so many different conditions in bowling, there are many different techniques needed to be learned to be good on all of them. Many of the "good" bowlers like for the condition to be different, and usually tough.

Why is that..? Is it because they would rather be good, instead of great..? Or, is it because they are not good enough to beat the great bowlers, so they want different conditions, in order to beat them..?

Which would you rather be, good or great..? =:^D

Logged

 

Pinbuster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4583
  • Former proshop worker
Re: Would you rather be good, or great.?
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2003, 02:55:39 PM »
Then I would submit that no bowler ever would be considered great by this defintion.
Logged

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Would you rather be good, or great.?
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2003, 03:39:52 PM »
I would say that Mark Roth was, and/or could've been. The game of bowling needs stop changing, so that a player can dominate for a long period of time. This will allow them to trancend sports more easily.

Back in the 70's, Mark Roth was this player. He is the only bowler where "all/most of the kids" tried to, and did copy his style. He changed the way the game was played. =:^D
Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24523
Re: Would you rather be good, or great.?
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2003, 05:32:15 PM »
Myself, I'd like to be adequate on any and every condition I face.
--------------------
"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Psychoballtester

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
Re: Would you rather be good, or great.?
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2003, 03:46:52 AM »
I like this topic,

Ok,I can be great at being bad or horrible for being good!

This makes no sense!

Lets try this again,I'm just a great good ok bowler with horrible bad off days,I'm satisfied with that!!!

Oh Goshzilla!That was typed a bad as the first example!

As long as I have Life in me,NOT Newsweek,I can still throw a ball,I'm good ta go!!!

If I put a lil' concentration,I can bowl extra OK,I think?

Later Ballreviewyittes!!!

Moral to my goofy post;No one expects you to be great,getting there is half the fun!!Be ok,you'll be fine!!

Psycho.B.T
Logged

Zman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
Re: Would you rather be good, or great.?
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2003, 11:32:49 AM »
T-God - You know the definition of great in a sport is a sliding scale. It depends on the sport.

Lennox Lewis is con sided great and his winning percentage of fights is in the high 90's percentage wise.
The great hitters is baseball had averages in the mid to high 300's.
Thats over a 60 percent failure rate.

Until Tiger went nuts winning what 4 or 5 majors in a row in 200 I believe the golfers THAT won 1 major and 3-4 other tournaments out of 25-30 entries were considered great that year.

To me greatness is defined by your success against your competition.
Walter ray is great this year due to number of wins and high finishes.
he is dominant compared to his competition this year. To me he is a great bowler.

I agree 1000% with you about bowl needing a more dominant player.
I don't believe we have had anyone really really dominating since earl Anthony. If you say great bowler Earl is the 1st name that pops in my head.
We need 1 great dominant player or even better, two guys great having memorable matches.

I used to love it when Roth and Holman made a lot of shows and went head to head.

Now I'll answer your original question.

I want to be great and kill people certain tournaments rather than just cash and not win. I've also never understood the PBA stopping certain players from dominating with changing shots.

In golf you can see the changes in the courses and for major tourneys.
In bowling the subtilely's of "different" lane conditions is lost on the general public because you cannot see it and you have a hard time making just casual fans understand why it's tougher.      


--------------------
Zman
Cleveland State Vikings.
Logged

stanski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2709
Re: Would you rather be good, or great.?
« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2003, 12:20:56 AM »
you shuldnt strive to be great; strive to be perfect. in sports such as bowling or golf there is an element of perfection. the perfect score in golf would be 36 for 18 holes. all eagles. in my mind that is perfect and what i strive for. iin bowling, i strive to shoot 300 everytime im on the lanes, even if the conditions dont suit my style. this is just my thoughts, because if u strive to be great, u'll be dissapointed once ur on the top of the game and will never be able to judge how great u are.
--------------------
stanski
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »