BallReviews
General Category => PBA => Topic started by: joeyyant on February 21, 2016, 02:13:18 PM
-
To anyone watching this show now why is the scoring different? I don't understand bowling originally is not that hard to score. Why do they feel the need to change it? Just curious on what people think.
-
It's their attempt to try and find something different for the Olympics
-
Okay I thought I heard them mention that. I don't understand why though. It doesn't change the overall score (max is still 300). Maybe goes a little quicker because there isn't a tenth frame. I personally think it was to help viewers score easier as well. Just my opinion I guess.
-
Holy moly what happen!!! I didn't know wbt was on I watch Ryan cimenlli get crushed n didn't bother continuing!!
-
Holy moly what happen!!! I didn't know wbt was on I watch Ryan cimenlli get crushed n didn't bother continuing!!
It's funny I went to make lunch and left the channel on. Didn't know it was on either.
-
Spoilers
I have a hard time putting together 12 strikes in a row. They are getting paid 10,000 dollars to throw 10 in a row. I think that is a little stupid and devalues the 300 even more than it already was. But congrats to Dom Barrett.
-
I don't like this scoring system at all! Score keeping isn't that damn hard! Use the traditional scoring. If not, at least make the 10th frame 3 potential shots for this world b/s scoring system!
-
I don't like this scoring system at all! Score keeping isn't that damn hard! Use the traditional scoring. If not, at least make the 10th frame 3 potential shots for this world b/s scoring system!
I think most of the players didn't like the new scoring system but they understand the reasoning behind it. At least when they were talking with Dom Barrett. I understand the why now but come on traditional scoring is not that hard at all.
-
Apparently some people who have a hard time with basic math think it is.
-
I don't like this scoring system at all! Score keeping isn't that damn hard! Use the traditional scoring. If not, at least make the 10th frame 3 potential shots for this world b/s scoring system!
+1
It's just like the frame play they tested within the past few years where whoever got the highest count won the frame. They need to keep scoring traditional.
Props to Dom Barrett for bowling great today. It was also nice to see Mike Fagan come back and have a strong run on the show. Then Danielle McEwan is really bowling well lately and has been stepping up when it counts. Great to see.
-
I did not see the show. What was different about the scoring system? Don't you still need 12 strikes in a row for a 300?
-
I did not see the show. What was different about the scoring system? Don't you still need 12 strikes in a row for a 300?
The world bowling system is 10 frames, but the 10th is just like every other frame. Don't have to throw 3
-
I did not see the show. What was different about the scoring system? Don't you still need 12 strikes in a row for a 300?
Dom only needed 10 in a row for a 300. Stupid in my opinion.
-
I did not see the show. What was different about the scoring system? Don't you still need 12 strikes in a row for a 300?
Dom only needed 10 in a row for a 300. Stupid in my opinion.
So if only 10 strikes, then every strike is worth 30 pins per frame? What happens if after the first 9, the bowler gets 9/ in the 10th? Or 9-? Is it possible to get a 299?
I guess I just don't understand the new, modern math.
-
It seemed like 9/ = 19
X = 30
9/ = 19
8/ = 18
9- = 9
-
as I was watching, I was ok with the new scoring
but as I think about it I have two issues:
1- this will really inflate scores and make them incomparable to USBC averages
2- there won't be any high drama finishes (ie. Joe has to throw the first two in the 10th to win) one ball in the tenth won't stress the nerves as much
-
I know some of the announcers can be downright poor andmost of the timeI mute the voice BUT does anyone listen any more, even in personal conversations??? Duh?
The point of the whole change was to make it more easily understandable AT THE OLYMPICS for when and IF the WBT can convince the Olympics committee to accept bowling as a sport. Of course, as part of that they have to keep it similar to the rules as they are now,to keep some sense of consistency.
Even the article on the PBA web site explained this:
"Various versions of bowling’s traditional scoring system have been tested by World Bowling, the international governing body for tenpin bowling in the eyes of the International Olympic Committee, in an effort to create a scoring system that will be more easily understood by those who aren’t familiar with the traditional bowling system."
And, yes, I agree, Dom Barrett would probably be the first to admit he didn't deserve a true 300. In fact, if you watched he had to be told afterwards that he had won the $10,000.00 for the 10 strikes in a row.
-
I thought the scoring was easier to understand for the non-league bowler. But what the hell does that have to do with the Olympics?
With Gymnastics, Diving, Ice Skating, and some of the ski jumping, 99% of the people watching the Olympics have no clue how the score is calculated. Scoring isn't that hard, it can't be the only thing keeping bowling out of the Olympics.
-
I thought the scoring was easier to understand for the non-league bowler. But what the hell does that have to do with the Olympics?
With Gymnastics, Diving, Ice Skating, and some of the ski jumping, 99% of the people watching the Olympics have no clue how the score is calculated. Scoring isn't that hard, it can't be the only thing keeping bowling out of the Olympics.
Since they've denied bowling's entry into the Olympics for the past 20 - 30 years or so, while water ballet gains entry, I'd guess they're taking every opportunity to insure that it is not denied entry again.
Yes, once you learn to keep score, it is not difficult, but how many younger bowlers, under the age of 35 or so, don't have clue #1 on how to keep score?? And they are participant sanctioned bowlers!!
Heck, I hate almost every change people try to make to bowling. Change for the sake of change is always bad, but I kind of like this new system. It makes some sense. I tried to keep track of how it would compare to our regular system and conceptually, it was not far off. I kind of like it. It wouldn't be hard to get used to.
-
I thought the scoring was easier to understand for the non-league bowler. But what the hell does that have to do with the Olympics?
With Gymnastics, Diving, Ice Skating, and some of the ski jumping, 99% of the people watching the Olympics have no clue how the score is calculated. Scoring isn't that hard, it can't be the only thing keeping bowling out of the Olympics.
Since they've denied bowling's entry into the Olympics for the past 20 - 30 years or so, while water ballet gains entry, I'd guess they're taking every opportunity to insure that it is not denied entry again.
Yes, once you learn to keep score, it is not difficult, but how many younger bowlers, under the age of 35 or so, don't have clue #1 on how to keep score?? And they are participant sanctioned bowlers!!
Heck, I have almost every change people try to make to bowling. Change for the sake of change is always bad, but I kind of like this new system. It makes some sense. I tried to keep track of how it would compare to our regular system and conceptually, it was not far off. I kind of like it. It wouldn't be hard to get used to.
I just don't see how the current scoring method is the one thing keeping bowling out of the Olympics.
-
X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/X -- USBC score = 200
X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/ -- WBT score = 245
-
I thought the scoring was easier to understand for the non-league bowler. But what the hell does that have to do with the Olympics?
With Gymnastics, Diving, Ice Skating, and some of the ski jumping, 99% of the people watching the Olympics have no clue how the score is calculated. Scoring isn't that hard, it can't be the only thing keeping bowling out of the Olympics.
Since they've denied bowling's entry into the Olympics for the past 20 - 30 years or so, while water ballet gains entry, I'd guess they're taking every opportunity to insure that it is not denied entry again.
Yes, once you learn to keep score, it is not difficult, but how many younger bowlers, under the age of 35 or so, don't have clue #1 on how to keep score?? And they are participant sanctioned bowlers!!
Heck, I have almost every change people try to make to bowling. Change for the sake of change is always bad, but I kind of like this new system. It makes some sense. I tried to keep track of how it would compare to our regular system and conceptually, it was not far off. I kind of like it. It wouldn't be hard to get used to.
I just don't see how the current scoring method is the one thing keeping bowling out of the Olympics.
I never said it was THE ONE thing. It's probably one thing that several someones mentioned and the WBT thought it was enough to work on.
Bowling's one major problem is appearances: the difference between the game of bowling and the sport is sometimes so fine as to escape the eye of everyone but the experienced bowler.
-
X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/X -- USBC score = 200
X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/ -- WBT score = 245
or
X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- USBC score = 140 WBT score 195
-
X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/X -- USBC score = 200
X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/ -- WBT score = 245
or
X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- USBC score = 140 WBT score 195
You are leaving out things like this though.
x /9 x /9 x /9 x /9 x xxx USBC= 220
/9 /9 /9 /9 x x x x x xxx USBC= 257
Exact same total pins, same strikes and same spares total, different order equals two different scores.
Maybe they are trying to avoid that as well for Olympic consideration.
-
Gee, guys, I guess there are about 7, 968, 432 different examples of games where the scores for the two systems won't match. Why not put them altogether in an email and send them to the WBT to tell them how wrong they are? :)
-
X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/X -- USBC score = 200
X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/ -- WBT score = 245
or
X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- USBC score = 140 WBT score 195
You are leaving out things like this though.
x /9 x /9 x /9 x /9 x xxx USBC= 220 WBT = 245
/9 /9 /9 /9 x x x x x xxx USBC= 257 WBT = 256
Exact same total pins, same strikes and same spares total, different order equals two different scores.
Maybe they are trying to avoid that as well for Olympic consideration.
point being, to shoot high numbers with USBC you have to string strikes, the WBT takes all that away
-
so if you don't shoot 300, your highest score is 289. Front 9 or any combination 9 strikes and 9/
-
I guess I think the scoring shouldn't be what is holding bowling back from the Olympics. I watched surfing and I literally have zero knowledge about surfing. It was interesting to watch and try and learn the scoring system and watching their technique. I had absolutely no idea what was going on. I think bowling is held back by appearances and preconceived ideas and stereotypes. Everyone assumes all bowlers drink beer and smoke. Granted a decent amount of people typically do both. That is typically what every nonbowler in the world thinks and I believe that is what is holding the sport back. Most people don't understand some of the complexities of the game. I have a couple more theories about oil and bowling balls nowadays but appearance might be one of the biggest factors in my opinion. I feel the scoring doesn't need to be changed or modify.
-
so if you don't shoot 300, your highest score is 289. Front 9 or any combination 9 strikes and 9/
Yep even someone who would shoot a 280 normally would tie to a 279 in the new scoring system. It doesn't matter as long as you have the same amount of strikes and same count on spares. I guess one of the biggest things I hate is the fact that there seems to be way less pressure on the people bowling on this system. Only needed one in the tenth vs three. It makes sense to look at as a non bowler but everyone on this page clearly has bowled to understand the scoring system already in place.
-
You are leaving out things like this though.
x /9 x /9 x /9 x /9 x xxx USBC= 220 WBT = 245
/9 /9 /9 /9 x x x x x xxx USBC= 257 WBT = 256
I'm no expert, but I don't think so. In both cases the 10th would be 1 strike in WBT, giving 6 strikes for 30 ea and 4 19's for 76 for 256 in both cases.
point being, to shoot high numbers with USBC you have to string strikes, the WBT takes all that away
Exactly my point. I can't think of another sport where the order matters, just the score.
-
Player 1 has a 9 count open in the first and strikes out for 279
Player 2 has an 8 count in the third and picks up the spare, strikes the other frames for 278
Player 3 has the same as player 2 except his spare is in the 2nd for 280.
Player 2 had 11 strikes and a spare but lose to player one with 11 strikes and an open
Player 2 had 11 strikes and a spare but lose to player three with the exact same game other than the location of the spare.
Maybe there are people that think that doesn't make sense, hard to disagree.
-
I don't really mind the newer scoring system, so long as it doesn't usurp the traditional method. I'm all for innovative and progression in the sport, and the WBT scoring is kind of fun and more intuitive; however, I think the usual system is just objectively better for professional and amateur competition.
I could just feel the super-traditionalist bowling fan cringe and fume over Barrett's 300. While WBT scoring sort of cheapens the perfect game, I think Barrett would've thrown a 300 if there were 12 shots necessary. He was locked in and had a perfect reaction.
One concession: if WBT scoring helps bowling get into the Olympics, I will support it wholeheartedly in that style of competition. I think the sport's international appeal proves that bowling deserves to be included in the Olympics, and if for some reason, WBT scoring makes a strong push for its inclusion, we should suck it up and get behind it.
-
I'm still in the fence but can see some merit to the new scoring. I can see were it can level the game by evening the lanes out. I you have one lane that plays harder than the other for what ever reason both bowlers will have the same number of shots on it. No more penalty for drawing the harder lane to finish on. It also takes away the importance of certain frames under the existing scoring. I think I would rather see 12 frames with a strike equal to 25 so that a 300 is still a pure 300.
-
This new scoring makes me want to pull out the "R" word from retirement because it's pretty "R". Changing the scoring system isn't going to make bowling more fun, more interesting, or even put more people on the lanes. This just seems like a unnecessary gimmick that ultimately dumbs down the sport by making the scoring "easier" (as if it's really that hard to figure out as is).
-
The only thing I don't like about the scoring system is the devaluing of the 10th frame. Why couldn't they simply reduce the value of a strike to 25 and award extra balls in the tenth for spares and strikes the same way they do under traditional scoring. Then it would still take 12 strikes to throw 300. Two strikes and 9 would be worth 59 in the tenth. 9 spare and strike would be worth 44. Making the tenth frame more important rather than less important would seem to be a good thing for excitement. Frames 1 thru 9 would be the same as on the show except for the reduction in value of a strike from 30 to 25.
As an old timer I really don't see a big benefit in changing, but if they did it seems like the simplicity could be achieved with less damage to the structure of scoring. My proposal would also inflate scoring under some scenarios, but not as bad as the one used last week
-
The only thing I don't like about the scoring system is the devaluing of the 10th frame. Why couldn't they simply reduce the value of a strike to 25 and award extra balls in the tenth for spares and strikes the same way they do under traditional scoring. Then it would still take 12 strikes to throw 300. Two strikes and 9 would be worth 59 in the tenth. 9 spare and strike would be worth 44. Making the tenth frame more important rather than less important would seem to be a good thing for excitement. Frames 1 thru 9 would be the same as on the show except for the reduction in value of a strike from 30 to 25.
As an old timer I really don't see a big benefit in changing, but if they did it seems like the simplicity could be achieved with less damage to the structure of scoring. My proposal would also inflate scoring under some scenarios, but not as bad as the one used last week
I believe that this is the best of both worlds so to speak. It still keeps scoring easy enough for non bowlers and keeps 12 shots.
-
Isn't it supposed to speed up the amount of time per game bowled?
-
I don't think the intent was to speed up the game, but rather to simplify the scoring for those who don't understand scoring.
-
Just one more thing to ruin bowling.Leave well enough alone.In the last 25 years I haven't seen one thing help bowling.Balls,lane conditions Oh it will save the game.Lets make it fair so everyone is great.Glad my 40 year run is about over.Bowling is soon gonna be like the old dart machines in all the old run down bars.Nobody uses them because everybody can hit a bullseye or score 21.Not much fun in that.