win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic: williams., jr. beats weber......again  (Read 6005 times)

DON DRAPER

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5576
williams., jr. beats weber......again
« on: November 02, 2007, 11:51:44 AM »
walter ray williams, jr., continues to own pete weber in matchplay competition by beating him 4 games to 0 in the round of 8. williams, jr. beat weber by an average of 53 pins per game in games of 246-182, 247-160, 268-237, and 246-215. on sundays telecast walter ray will take on jeff lizzi who beat edward vandaniker 4 games to 0.
Logged

 

Rileybowler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3458
Re: williams., jr. beats weber......again
« Reply #46 on: November 06, 2007, 11:24:24 AM »
Hey rev don't you think there are mor excellent bowlers on tour today then back in the old days thereby much harder to win
--------------------
Carl
Logged
Carl
Bless the LORD o my soul and all that is within me bless his holy name

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: williams., jr. beats weber......again
« Reply #47 on: November 06, 2007, 11:25:56 AM »
quote:
In fact, Amletto struggled AS A RESULT of resin.


On the flip side, one could just as successfully say that Amleto was deficient in adapting his game to modern times.  Just as there were guys who struggled moving from plastic to urethane, from pancakes to dynamic cores, and so on.  It's matching up, and the best players can do it and the second-runs, well, not so much.

People bitca about WRW having "only" 6 titles before resin came along.  6 titles in 12 years.  Suppose that we never got resin, that the urethane era lasted decades, like the plastic and rubber eras.  Fast forward 15 years to today and maybe WRW has 12-15 titles.  He's still not a second-rung guy.  12 titles is a damn successful career.  Even had he retired in '92 with 6 titles he had a very successful career.  How many guys have 6 titles?  Most have fewer.

SH
Logged

revTrex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
Re: williams., jr. beats weber......again
« Reply #48 on: November 06, 2007, 02:20:13 PM »
Shelley...12 isn't anywhere near 40+....that's the point...

For those that think winning a tournament now is more difficult, consider the differences in format:

Billy Hardwick or Don Carter bowl 60-100 games in a Major and are the final pin-count leaders. Clearly, the best won, right?

Walter qualifies 23rd, advancing to the round of 32. In matchplay, he beats the bowlers he needs to, until he winds up in the TV finals. There, he dispatches one or two bowlers and wins the tournament. Is it clear that the best bowler won?

Do I think the quantity of EXCEPTIONAL players has gone up? NO. Why? Try naming some really good players from different eras:

Smith, Marino, Blouin, Gengler, Daw, Day, Caruana, Scribner, Falcaro...

Salvino, Varipapa, Carter, Weber, Bluth, Campi, Mecurio, Fazio, Crimmins...

Hardwick, Weber (again), Johnson, Lillard, Asher, Allison...

Anthony, Weber (still), Petraglia, Zikes, Cohn, Roth...

Aulby, Ozio, Holman, Roth, Monacelli, Weber (both)...

Williams, Bohn III, Weber (Pete), Duke, Voss...

Williams, Weber, Couch, Duke, Jones, Barnes, Allen...

Future? Jones, Barnes, Rash, Malott, and maybe somebody we don't even know of...

If you look at these lists (which I will acknowledge are nowhere near complete), you will see that the number of names that are of truly historical importance are pretty much the same from era to era. You have to keep in mind that so-called competitors to the throne today are really just second-tier, and will be forgotten eventually. Can you remember the guys that won 3-4 tournaments, or could you say they are anywhere near being the greatest? Of course not. For this reason, in 20-30 years, you will also forget the modern incarnations of those bowlers.

The modern day players are deemed to be better, I think, because we are more familiar with them. We see the second-tier players today as being better than the second-tier players of the past because we have physically watched folks like Loschetter, Machuga, Reyes, et al. There were also people that won seven or so titles before; you have to keep that in mind when comparing the quality of players like Jaros and Koivuniemi to the seven-title winners of yesteryear.

Again, just my thoughts. Feel free to disagree. There are Williams worshipers out there, and I know that.

Logged

chitown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5876
Re: williams., jr. beats weber......again
« Reply #49 on: November 07, 2007, 07:27:30 AM »
quote:
^^^^

Greg, Walter has won more tournaments than Anthony...but only in more tries. More money is a relative thing, too.

NOTE: Barry Bonds has more home runs than both Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron. That might be an unfair comparison (given the steroid crap), but I'm sure you can get me real point (which has nothing whatsoever to do with steroids). The "most" doesn't equal the best.

Also, many of the bowlers I listed never got a chance to bowl in the PBA.

And, Chitown...Just because Walter always beats Weber doesn't take away from the fact that Weber has the best GAME. Winning can have nothing to do with true, pure, physical ability. Walter has a mental advantage over Weber these days.



I understand what your saying but I don't agree that Weber has a better game.  I would love to compare each bowlers pocket percentage.
Logged

BowlingWolf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
Re: williams., jr. beats weber......again
« Reply #50 on: November 07, 2007, 08:32:10 AM »
Bowling is a game of adaptation.

As such, some players have benefited from the resin era, while others were definitely left in its dust, most notably Amletto Monacelli (already mentioned), Mark Roth (he was still young enough that had technology not changed he would've won a few more titles with his brute "naturally-created" power), Wayne Webb and Marshall Holman.  From this particular era, the keglers that benefited the most from technology changes, were WRW Jr. and Parker Bohn.

Like someone else mentioned already about this post, this horse has been beaten to death (many times over now).
--------------------
Regards,
BowlingWolf
Logged

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: williams., jr. beats weber......again
« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2007, 08:47:14 AM »
quote:
Mark Roth (he was still young enough that had technology not changed he would've won a few more titles with his brute "naturally-created" power),


Really, though, Roth was done in '87.  He won one title after that, right?  In '93 or '94, I believe.  He wasn't harmed by the resin era, he was practically finished by that time.  He was astounding, 33 titles in something like 8 or 9 years, plus the outlier in the '90s.

Does anyone really complain about the guys who didn't adapt their games to the hard-throwing power game and short oil of the '80s?  I see a lot of people complaining about how resin was the worst thing that ever happened to bowling, how all these fantastic guys basically lost their jobs when reactive resin was introduced, but who stands up for the classic stroking full roller whose career was finished by the power players booming it on short oil?

SH
Logged

BowlingWolf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
Re: williams., jr. beats weber......again
« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2007, 10:12:00 AM »
quote:
quote:
Mark Roth (he was still young enough that had technology not changed he would've won a few more titles with his brute "naturally-created" power),


Really, though, Roth was done in '87.  He won one title after that, right?  In '93 or '94, I believe.  He wasn't harmed by the resin era, he was practically finished by that time.  He was astounding, 33 titles in something like 8 or 9 years, plus the outlier in the '90s.

Does anyone really complain about the guys who didn't adapt their games to the hard-throwing power game and short oil of the '80s?  I see a lot of people complaining about how resin was the worst thing that ever happened to bowling, how all these fantastic guys basically lost their jobs when reactive resin was introduced, but who stands up for the classic stroking full roller whose career was finished by the power players booming it on short oil?

SH


Having bowled quite a bit with Mark, I can tell you that although Mark was experiencing thumb problems at the end of the eighties, it was the advent of newer coverstocks that did him in; he was still young enough, but now his ball was reacting much more violently, and his brilliant career on the PBA tour was unceremoniously derailed (even though he tried to hang in there for a while).
--------------------
Regards,
BowlingWolf
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
« previous next »