Post by: Curt_Dupre on April 25, 2009, 04:22:14 PM
Post by: twister on April 26, 2009, 01:26:51 AM
--------------------
Post by: No Revs00300 on April 26, 2009, 01:37:07 AM
Post by: JOE FALCO on April 26, 2009, 07:48:54 AM
--------------------
Hit them light and watch them fight
J O E - F A L C O
RIP Thong Princess
Post by: shipper50 on April 26, 2009, 07:49:57 AM
Great bowling,
Shipper
Post by: Buddy Christ on April 26, 2009, 08:04:23 AM
quote:
WOW! 257 average for 9 games is just WOW! May sound stupid but that name (Ron Vokes) is not familiar to me .. should I know it? CONGRATULATIONS to RON!
--------------------
Hit them light and watch them fight
J O E - F A L C O
RIP Thong Princess
That's pretty crazy. That's at least 8-9 +/- strikes a game.
Congrats to him!
Post by: bass on April 26, 2009, 09:49:51 AM
Used to bowl team tournaments with a good team from Milwaukee called the Horsemen.
All around good guy.
Good see him post such a number.
--------------------
2nd arrow is for pansies.
Post by: themagician on April 26, 2009, 10:02:58 AM
--------------------
http://www.absolutebowling.com
Post by: riggs on April 26, 2009, 10:25:16 AM
http://77square.com/sweat/blog/frame11/entry_448685
Post by: JustRico on April 26, 2009, 10:30:03 AM
Have you heard what he used?
--------------------
Formerly BrunsRico
Post by: bass on April 26, 2009, 10:50:10 AM
--------------------
2nd arrow is for pansies.
Post by: riggs on April 26, 2009, 10:59:04 AM
Post by: rymacatthedisco on April 26, 2009, 08:38:46 PM
--------------------
RYAN MCDANIEL...University of Wisconsin Whitewater Men's Bowling...5th place at nationals in 07/08
throwing whatever i can get to strike...(900 global plus 2 track and a random hammer...)
http://ryan300.mybrute.com
Post by: Jorge300 on April 27, 2009, 09:16:08 AM
While anything is possible, and with the scores we have seen so far, I tend to agree, but even still I think he is 100% safe in A/E and about 95% safe in singles. Still a long way to go though.
Riggs, what is in the water up there in WI anyway, geez??? LOL
Great bowling from what I hear is a very good guy. Would love to get confirmation on what he was throwing, and what line he used.
--------------------
Jorge300
Post by: riggs on April 27, 2009, 09:21:12 AM
Post by: NOTHUMB on April 27, 2009, 10:59:59 AM
Riggs, can you give us an idea about his shot? Where he is most comfortable on the lanes? What style he throws? I'm curious more than anything else.
--------------------
Chris Barnes is not a choker---he is just a great opponent to draw on TV.
Post by: riggs on April 27, 2009, 11:15:44 AM
Post by: Mvpbowler on April 27, 2009, 11:36:16 AM
I will post here what I have posted in many other places as well. That would be my disgust with USBC. Please note before you read this I am not bashing or taking any credit away from Ron. Trust me anyone who is a bowler knows that this is a huge accomplishment, but please do not tell me it was simply because he threw it good. We all know that is BS..
This is beyond pathetic the fact that anyone can shoot 2300+ at USBC/ABC's most prestigious event. This is an event that use to require precious shot and decision making. Many years ago 1850 was considered a huge score and would get you a nice check. Now you shoot 1850 and your lucky got get back $50. It is bad enough that if you look at the singles standings, 750 might be 100th place by the end of the tournament. How bad is it when you have to average 250+ to be in the top 100!! The last few years of this tournament has become a total strike fest! The tournament here in Vegas is nothing short of that. Already 15 300s and we are not half way through the tournament. Almost had back to back days of 800s. Guy yesterday shot 300-789 in singles. This is just insane. Do you realize that if you want to win 2 different eagles you have to break or tie 2 different records. You have to at least tie the all time high of 858 to take over the singles lead and reset the all-events record to win that eagle. These scores are insane. Ron's previous high at nationals was roughly 1926 I believe, he beat that by 400 pins.. Really what is USBC doing to our sport. Let me tell you, running it straight into the ground. I know state and city tournaments that are bowled on house shots that the all events winner didn't even shoot 2250 and here at our premier event there is 2321 shot. Seriously there should never be a chance for anyone to EVER have the chance to shoot that much at this tournament.. Just pathetic of USBC to have this happen..
--------------------
George Palumbo
Post by: Mvpbowler on April 27, 2009, 11:50:59 AM
My guess is your talking about Jay. I know Jay very well. I also know there is a video posted of Ron bowling Singles. I was told, now I have not seen this myself. But again my best friend who knows about bowling and is working in a booth there said the video tells it all. He was playing roughly 4th arrow or just inside. A few shots he tugged to 5th arrow and it was like a frozen rope to the pocket and carried. A few others shots he hit about 16 at the arrows and got it going right and it still came back and carried. Now I understand that you have to throw it decent. But you need just about everything to line up for you to shoot that big of a number. Espically on 3 different conditions for 3 different events.
--------------------
George Palumbo
Post by: riggs on April 27, 2009, 12:38:32 PM
I shot a 9-pin tap 900 with every ball in the pocket in singles and could easily have had an 800 - I had 743 with a solid 8, a solid 9 and two ring 10s on strikes. And trust me I was not splitting cracks - I had hold and swing. Swing created by the bowling before us and hold by the pattern and being able to use a weak enough ball to help create hold because the track was so dry the weaker ball was plenty to create hook in the track.
Keep in mind that what Ron shot is 98 more than second and more than 150 pins more than third in all-events.
Edited on 4/27/2009 12:39 PM
Post by: spmcgivern on April 27, 2009, 12:40:26 PM
Also, the way people prepare for nationals has changed drastically. People bowl leagues with the USBC shot. They have team practice sessions learning how to shape shots as a team. People are developing arsenals that are more specific for what they expect to encounter. Today's bowler is not the same as the bowler from 20 years ago, but he/she is still a good bowler. I respect your opinion, but I feel you are being a little harsh on USBC. Now, this may be one of the few things I will back-up USBC on.
--------------------
I am not a pro-bowler, but I do play one on BallReviews.com
Post by: another300 on April 27, 2009, 12:46:41 PM
WOW, I guess i'll never be a good bowler. I should just give up now. lol
Post by: on April 27, 2009, 01:21:37 PM
I was 38 lanes away from Mr. Vokes, so our lane monitor was keeping us abreast of the situation, and the word was that he DID have a rather large area to play with. I (apparently) was playing the wrong part of the lane, because I had to be very accurate. Any small error produced huge mistakes down lane. I liked the look I had, but did have 4 pocket 7-10 splits as well as the usual washouts due to slight misses. Congrats to Mr. Vokes for taking what was there on the lanes.
By the way, I don't profess to being a great bowler, but I learn a little more each time I bowl Nationals.
--------------------
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
Brunswick Pro Shop Staff
www.brunswickbowling.com
The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer and not of Brunswick Corporation.
Edited on 4/27/2009 1:22 PM
Post by: Jorge300 on April 27, 2009, 02:36:18 PM
quote:
The Secret Wisconsin Shot remains even with the USBC abandoning Cheeseland for Texas.
As a Texas bowler, I hope it doesn't take long for a secret Texas shot to be developed.
--------------------
Jorge300
Post by: Jorge300 on April 27, 2009, 02:50:52 PM
quote:
At least in Singles he used a Kinetic... I was also told by a guy in the booth that is my best friend that he had a chance to shoot 880 basically, he didn't strike out in the 10th frame. SICK
I will post here what I have posted in many other places as well. That would be my disgust with USBC. Please note before you read this I am not bashing or taking any credit away from Ron. Trust me anyone who is a bowler knows that this is a huge accomplishment, but please do not tell me it was simply because he threw it good. We all know that is BS..
This is beyond pathetic the fact that anyone can shoot 2300+ at USBC/ABC's most prestigious event. This is an event that use to require precious shot and decision making. Many years ago 1850 was considered a huge score and would get you a nice check. Now you shoot 1850 and your lucky got get back $50. It is bad enough that if you look at the singles standings, 750 might be 100th place by the end of the tournament. How bad is it when you have to average 250+ to be in the top 100!! The last few years of this tournament has become a total strike fest! The tournament here in Vegas is nothing short of that. Already 15 300s and we are not half way through the tournament. Almost had back to back days of 800s. Guy yesterday shot 300-789 in singles. This is just insane. Do you realize that if you want to win 2 different eagles you have to break or tie 2 different records. You have to at least tie the all time high of 858 to take over the singles lead and reset the all-events record to win that eagle. These scores are insane. Ron's previous high at nationals was roughly 1926 I believe, he beat that by 400 pins.. Really what is USBC doing to our sport. Let me tell you, running it straight into the ground. I know state and city tournaments that are bowled on house shots that the all events winner didn't even shoot 2250 and here at our premier event there is 2321 shot. Seriously there should never be a chance for anyone to EVER have the chance to shoot that much at this tournament.. Just pathetic of USBC to have this happen..
--------------------
George Palumbo
George,
I understand your complaint, but I think it is misplaced. For the first 1/4 of the tournament, all we heard was how much harder the shot was from last year. Now because some of the people, who are very very good bowlers in their own right, come out with some larges scores, it is a problem. No one was complaining when 2200 was broken. No one was complaining when the other 800's were shot in Singles. This guy is a very good bowler, found a match-up that worked and that gave him a little room. Isn't that what we all try for? And regardless of the fact that he tugged a few, or let a few out, he still carried for 30 straight balls. He did what he needed to do on the shot provided. This isn't the USBC's fault, or it is there doing. Sometimes the bowling gods smile on us and we do not know the reason why. This was Ron Vokes "Day" or days and blaming the USBC is just wrong in this case, IMHO.
--------------------
Jorge300
Post by: nutsforbowling on April 27, 2009, 03:49:22 PM
--------------------
Me stupid. Me believe anything. Please tell me what to do.
Post by: THEICEMAN on April 27, 2009, 04:12:28 PM
theiceman
Post by: riggs on April 27, 2009, 08:07:57 PM
This year's scores need to be kept in perspective. There have been a handful of very high scores but overall the scoring pace is not historically high. 1,474 leading doubles actually is somewhat low by standards of recent years. There are only two 800s in singles and I believe only one in doubles and none in team.
Third place in all-events is 2,168 - not high at all, and 2,223 in second is not that high and it was done by one of the greatest bowlers I've ever seen who didn't bowl full-time on Tour.
There are three 3,400s in team but when you look at what is 10th or 20th or whatever you pick out it is not really high. With higher volume of oil, good teams who work together have more of an opportunity to shoot a high score. Same thing can be said about team all-events, with caveat being that both of our teams who got 10,300 had right people in front of us in minors.
In one of my blogs I did a comparison of the scores down to 10th at the time we bowled and it was amazingly close over the last few years.
I know Ron Vokes and he is the type of bowler who when is on can strike a TON. And he is a fun-loving, easy-going guy who isn't AFRAID to strike a lot, which is a huge key.
He had an amazing tournament that is almost incomprehensible. Congrats are what he deserves.
It does not mean the sky is falling.
Post by: Mvpbowler on April 27, 2009, 11:23:09 PM
Spmc, they do extensive testing ( or so they claim to do ) so that the shot is fair for everyone and holds up for all 9 games. So please don't tell me about how sometimes you can't predict how the shot breaks down. Because every year it happens that someone gets the benefit of the people before them breaking the lanes down perfect. AKA Ron Vokes.
I really want to know who thinks these lanes are tough. They really aren't dead easy, but they aren't brutally tough either.
Compare here:
2008-
300s (31)
299s (11)
298s (2)
800s (2)
2009 so far not even HALF way through-
300s (17)
299s (7)
298s (0)
800s (3)
So they are on pace to beat the numbers from last year. Only proving that they aren't tougher this year!
--------------------
George Palumbo
Post by: icefiction on April 27, 2009, 11:43:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEzqcV8-FyI
--------------------
Post by: r534me on April 28, 2009, 12:08:32 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1YfBnBtVxQ&feature=related
I don't think so.
http://www.bowl.com/articleView.aspx?i=15516&f=4
Post by: icefiction on April 28, 2009, 12:11:00 AM
--------------------
Edited on 4/28/2009 0:40 AM
Post by: r534me on April 28, 2009, 01:05:27 AM
Now what would you think the response would be if that were him?
Post by: mrteach3 on April 28, 2009, 06:35:27 AM
I keep hearing the term "minors" being thrown around. I have never heard that before. Please enlighten. I think I know what it means, but want to be sure.
--------------------
Who needs a 300 or 800, when I have a 294 and a 295!?!?!
Edited on 4/28/2009 7:38 AM
Post by: LuckyLefty on April 28, 2009, 06:52:31 AM
"NOT afraid to throw strikes"
One of the best statements ever stated out here....
REgards,
Luckylefty
--------------------
Open the door...see what's possible...and just walk right on through...that's how easy success feels..
Post by: riggs on April 28, 2009, 07:42:08 AM
Considering the number of entries this year, honor scores should be up a little bit.
More indicative to me are when you look at 10th, 25th, 100th, 200th, 500th and compare year to year.
As I said, such numbers were about the same when we went. We'll just have to see where they end up.
Edited on 4/28/2009 8:40 AM
Post by: riggs on April 28, 2009, 07:46:03 AM
Not being afraid is a huge key - you can't get caught up in what you're doing when something big is happening. You just have to focus on making shots and let the numbers add up.
If you start thinking about what you're doing and MIGHT do, it can be so intimidating that fear or whatever sets in.
I remember the year I won the all-events figuring out that I basically needed 550 the last two games to take the lead. I said to myself that two 279s are doable. But I never got out of focus on just making the shot I was making. (Finish was 279-269, which was just enough.)
Post by: bass on April 28, 2009, 07:46:13 AM
He gives maximum effort.
--------------------
2nd arrow is for pansies.
Post by: riggs on April 28, 2009, 08:00:29 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/etc/43836802.html
Post by: CharlieBrown on April 28, 2009, 08:13:51 AM
quote:
Not being afraid is a huge key - you can't get caught up in what you're doing when something big is happening. You just have to focus on making shots and let the numbers add up.
If you start thinking about what you're doing and MIGHT do, it can be so intimidating that fear or whatever sets in.
I remember the year I won the all-events figuring out that I basically needed 550 the last two games to take the lead. I said to myself that two 279s are doable. But I never got out of focus on just making the shot I was making. (Finish was 279-269, which was just enough.)
That's a simple, but GREAT tip for good mental game.
Thanks!
--------------------
I'm a THS hack and a ball junkie.
Post by: EagleHunter on April 28, 2009, 09:12:29 AM
Did you really suggest that 2,223 currently 2nd in All Events was NOT that high?
According to USBC records, since 1989 (the last 20 years) 2,223 would have won 14 eagles for AE, with 2 others having been lost by 1 pin. I don't know where such a score would rank all-time, but certainly you cannot really suggest such a score isn't high...at least for a USBC Nationals score...can you?
Upon further review...2,223 would have won EVERY AE eagle prior to 1989!
Post by: riggs on April 28, 2009, 09:52:26 AM
Heck, when I rolled 1,900s in 1984-85-86 I was the FIRST IN THE HISTORY OF THE TOURNAMENT to roll three straight 1900s. My teammate Mike Shady has now bowled 14 ABC/USBCs and had 1900 EVERY YEAR!!
Based on the winning scores SINCE 1989, no I don't consider 2,223 out of line.
Year Winner T D S Series
2008 Jay Futrell, Derby, Kan. 717 713 753 2,183
2007 Mike Rose Jr., West Henrietta, N.Y. 687 724 787 2,198
2006 Dave Mitchell, Farmington, Minn. 780 652 757 2,189
2005 Scott Craddock, Allen, Texas 672 754 705 2,131
2004 John Janawicz, Winter Haven, Fla 679 687 858 2,224
2003 Steve Kloempken, Ogden, Utah 691 781 743 2,215
2002 Stephen Hardy, Manchester, N.H. 799 720 760 2,279
2001 D.J. Archer, Amarillo, Texas 837 698 684 2,219
2000 Roy Daniels, El Paso, Texas 670 738 773 2,181
1999 Thomas Jones, Greenville, S.C. 643 763 752 2,158
1998 Chris Barnes, Wichita, Kan. 685 755 711 2,151
1997 Jeff Richgels, Oregon, Wis. 774 692 775 2,241
1996 Scott Kurtz, Somerset, N.J. 731 725 768 2,224
1995 Jeff Kwiatkowski, Maumee, Ohio 762 732 697 2,194
1994 Tom Holt, Lubbock, Texas 726 693 771 2,190
1993 Jeff Nimke, Oshkosh, Wis. 701 779 774 2,254
1992 Mike Tucker, Fountain Valley, Calif. 700 711 747 2,158
1991 Tom Howery, Madison, Wis. 782 662 772 2,216
1990 Mike Neumann, Buffalo 707 763 698 2,168
1989 George Hall, Mundelein, Ill. 747 747 733 2,227
Post by: EagleHunter on April 28, 2009, 10:09:07 AM
Based on the scores since 1989 I would probably agree that 2,223 would be "in line" with a winning score. But you said you didn't think this score was all that high...
Considering such a score would have won or pin within 1-pin if winning AE in 16 of 20 years (not to mention EVERY AE title prior to 1989...regardless of circumstances), I would contend that such a score IS high...winning scores usually are.
So if you don't think 2,223 is high, then what is? I mean, this "in line" winning score was just best by about 100 pins.
What do you think the scoring ceiling for Nationals should be? Or should it be a scorefest, even if only for the best?
Post by: LuckyLefty on April 28, 2009, 10:31:51 AM
I don't think that type of thing is the result of "effort" or "trying".
I believe it is a result of getting out of your own way and letting it happen.
I think!
REgards,
Luckylefty
--------------------
Open the door...see what's possible...and just walk right on through...that's how easy success feels..
Post by: BeansProShop on April 28, 2009, 10:44:13 AM
We'd all like to see them since they are so easy..
Beans
--------------------
www.beansproshop.com
--------------------
Thomas "Beans" Biniek Jr.
PBA Member and Lane#1 National Sales Manager and Lane#1 Ball Drilling Expert
Check out current eBay auctions at:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=beanssecretsauce Official Pro Shop of "ALL" F.O.S. Members!!!
Post by: Dan Belcher on April 28, 2009, 10:50:04 AM
quote:Is it fair to consider only the winning score? That metric is flawed, in my opinion, because it's more subject to variation than taking a look at a larger sample size of scores. You could put down a super-tough shot next year where the field averages 20 pins less, yet one person could just get locked in and throw the ball amazing well, plus have a ball reaction that just perfectly matches their game, and shoot an even bigger number than we've seen this year. It's not likely, but it could very well happen. Therefore, it's not really a fair comparison point in and of itself.
Riggs,
Based on the scores since 1989 I would probably agree that 2,223 would be "in line" with a winning score. But you said you didn't think this score was all that high...
Considering such a score would have won or pin within 1-pin if winning AE in 16 of 20 years (not to mention EVERY AE title prior to 1989...regardless of circumstances), I would contend that such a score IS high...winning scores usually are.
So if you don't think 2,223 is high, then what is? I mean, this "in line" winning score was just best by about 100 pins.
What do you think the scoring ceiling for Nationals should be? Or should it be a scorefest, even if only for the best?
Post by: NOTHUMB on April 28, 2009, 10:51:30 AM
Congrats to him, just an amazing accomplishment. Why not wait until the end of the tourney to suggest they were too easy or too hard? Why, immediately after someone has unheard of success, do we have to attack him? Its stupid.
When Janawicz shot 858, that was an amazing accomplishment. He has proved himself to be solid since---just so happened that on that day, he was nutted.
--------------------
Chris Barnes is not a choker---he is just a great opponent to draw on TV.
Post by: riggs on April 28, 2009, 10:54:41 AM
1989 WAS totally different. 2009 OVERALL is not significantly out of context of scoring since 1989.
Scores are all relative. I don't look for the scores to be a certain number. I just want to know that the fresh condition - which is what USBC can control - requires good shots to hit the pocket, which it most certainly does. I have no problem with good teams working together creating area to shoot good scores. That rewards team play, which is what the tournament SHOULD do.
The one thing I have consistently campaigned for through the years is USBC sucking it up and doing what is necessary for all minors competition to be on fresh oil. You won't see 2,321 if they do that. And you probably won't see 2,200 if you do that.
************************
What I posted on the main PBA board on this topic:
This year's scores need to be kept in perspective. There have been a handful of very high scores but overall the scoring pace is not historically high. 1,474 leading doubles actually is somewhat low by standards of recent years. There are only two 800s in singles and I believe only one in doubles and none in team.
Third place in all-events is 2,168 - not high at all, and 2,223 in second is not that high and it was done by one of the greatest bowlers I've ever seen who didn't bowl full-time on Tour.
There are three 3,400s in team but when you look at what is 10th or 20th or whatever you pick out it is not really high. With higher volume of oil, good teams who work together have more of an opportunity to shoot a high score. Same thing can be said about team all-events, with caveat being that both of our teams who got 10,300 had right people in front of us in minors.
In one of my blogs I did a comparison of the scores down to 10th at the time we bowled and it was amazingly close over the last few years.
I know Ron Vokes and he is the type of bowler who when is on can strike a TON. And he is a fun-loving, easy-going guy who isn't AFRAID to strike a lot, which is a huge key.
He had an amazing tournament that is almost incomprehensible. Congrats are what he deserves.
It does not mean the sky is falling.
Edited on 4/28/2009 10:58 AM
Edited on 4/28/2009 11:00 AM
Post by: EagleHunter on April 28, 2009, 11:03:27 AM
All such discussion is relative. Was Billings really the highest scoring event? Perhaps, but there were so many fewer bowlers can the scores be adequately compared with Reno events? Perhaps all of the "destination bowlers" who go for the vacation only (and consequently may not be very good bowlers) decided to stay home?
What about the fact that possibly greater than 60% of the bowlers have no chance of EVER shooting 1800 because they simply are not that good...should scoring comparisons only use bowlers of a certain level in order to gain a better understanding about the scorability of the pattern?
Looking at average scoring or low-to-cash scores for events that are held in "popular" locations doesn't give a fair indication of the relative ease of a scoring pattern. I think looking at the scoring of the good bowlers gives a much better indication.
Post by: another300 on April 28, 2009, 11:10:47 AM
quote:
Just make sure you post your scores Mvpbowler....
We'd all like to see them since they are so easy..
Beans
Yeah, i'd like to see them too!
Post by: EagleHunter on April 28, 2009, 11:27:00 AM
Originally posted by riggs:
Scores are all relative. I don't look for the scores to be a certain number. I just want to know that the fresh condition - which is what USBC can control - requires good shots to hit the pocket, which it most certainly does...The one thing I have consistently campaigned for through the years is USBC sucking it up and doing what is necessary for all minors competition to be on fresh oil. You won't see 2,321 if they do that. And you probably won't see 2,200 if you do that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riggs,
I am 100% in agreement with you. Good shot making should be rewarded, poor shot making should be punished. The USBC must step up and find a way to make the lane conditioning situation work better.
That said though, I still think that regardless of the shot making ability of any bowler, the scoring pace should be regulated. The very reason that the U.S. Open is held in such high regard (in bowling and in golf) is due to the credibility of the scoring. USBC Nationals should be held in the same regard.
No bowler should ever be villified for the scores he/she puts up at Nationals. If a bowler has a career tourney and bowls a record score everyone's hat should be off to them. But USBC should be looked at very hard if those winning scores keep going in the wrong direction.
You seemed to suggest a soft cap of 2,200 should USBC condition lanes as suggested. I think that is a reasonable "ceiling" for Nationals, which may be broken from time to time, but honestly should never be shattered. If it is shattered it's time to look at USBC again.
Post by: riggs on April 28, 2009, 11:36:08 AM
Again I say that the best way to compare scoring levels is by looking at 10th, 25th, 50th, 100th and 500th. Those scores aren't really impacted by the "tourist" bowlers who skip places like Billings and Corpus Christi. Will be interesting to see where they end up - they weren't out of place when we were there:
http://77square.com/sweat/blog/frame11/entry_445644
And if they went to minors all fresh I don't think you'd see 2,200 hardly at all.
Post by: themachine300 on April 28, 2009, 11:38:53 AM
--------------------
www.bowlingsolutions.com
Bowl to win!!!
Move left, hook it more.....
Tommy Jones and Kenny Simard are Gamecock fans...are you???
Post by: uwscooter on April 28, 2009, 12:51:35 PM
Edited on 4/28/2009 12:52 PM
Post by: EagleHunter on April 29, 2009, 09:20:07 AM
The 1977 AE winning score was 2,117. The first 2,200 score was shot in 1989...the year that Riggs referred to when he said "everything changed."
Riggs,
You are probably correct that this discussion would not be occurring if not for Mr. Voakes spectacular bowling. However, as you suggested 1989 was the year everything changed as someone broke 2,200 for the first time. For all we know, this could be the next time that "everything changed" as now the 2,300 barrier has been broken. Time will tell...
Post by: LuckyLefty on April 30, 2009, 06:09:36 PM
I've noticed that on tough flat conditions sometimes the heavy hands guys can just create area!
Especially if bowling with helpful teammates!
Once they have that area if they can relax and let it happen they can really lay down the law...with a bit of area no one else is quite seeing!
REgards,
Luckylefty
--------------------
Open the door...see what's possible...and just walk right on through...that's how easy success feels..
Post by: psaunders300 on May 06, 2009, 08:09:09 AM
--------------------
Thanks,
Paul Saunders
USBC Bronze Level Coach
http://bowling.psaunders.net
Post by: riggs on May 06, 2009, 08:35:15 AM
Very interesting especially regarding idea of paying off folks in front of you for minors. Can't see that happening for many, many, many reason but it's interesting point.
Real answer is finding a way to make all minors squads fresh!
And there is NO way USBC will EVER go to random drawing of lanes that would split up companion teams. 1) It would tick off thousands of teams that are more interested in camaraderie than winning eagles. 2) It penalizes teams for something that should be REWARDED for - working together. TEAMWORK!!
Post by: Mvpbowler on May 06, 2009, 08:40:55 AM
As for Mr. Vokes, I watched the video on him yesterday. I won't talk much about the bowling because it speaks for itself. I am just disappointed that someone who is probably going to win 2 eagles can't even show up in slacks. It has been pointed out to me in another post on here that if he were to tuck in his shirt it would make him look even bigger. That is fine, but seriously for someone who has been so successful as I have been told on here, I would expect a little more respect at our most prestigious event in our bowling history. Why they ever allowed jeans at this tournament I have no idea. I know of many local events you can't even wear jeans to. Just seems to make our sport look Pathetic. It is pretty sick to think that video will be on for many years to come because I really don't see that AE score going down and that is what I would have to watch everytime.
I feel that things like this is why the sport is on the decline right now. We can't get any big sponsors or anyone to help support the sport because well what does everyone think bowling is and bowlers are. You can answer that for yourself.
--------------------
George Palumbo
Post by: riggs on May 06, 2009, 09:29:30 AM
Open posting is the ONLY FAIR WAY TO DO IT!!!!!!
Post by: mjames1229 on May 07, 2009, 12:03:47 PM
quote:
I am just disappointed that someone who is probably going to win 2 eagles can't even show up in slacks.
It's reasonable to assume that when getting dressed that morning, he didn't KNOW he was going to win two eagles...
I agree that slacks and a shirt with a collar should be the rule (sorry, don't like mocks that look like glorified T-shirts, regardless of how great the sponsor is). But to be disappointed that someone followed the rules is kinda silly.
--------------------
http://www.westallisnow.com/blogs/communityblogs/sponsors_name_here.html
Edited on 5/7/2009 12:06 PM
Post by: Kid Jete on May 07, 2009, 12:22:43 PM
quote:quote:
I am just disappointed that someone who is probably going to win 2 eagles can't even show up in slacks.
It's reasonable to assume that when getting dressed that morning, he didn't KNOW he was going to win two eagles...
I agree that slacks and a shirt with a collar should be the rule (sorry, don't like mocks that look like glorified T-shirts, regardless of how great the sponsor is). But to be disappointed that someone followed the rules is kinda silly.
--------------------
http://www.westallisnow.com/blogs/communityblogs/sponsors_name_here.html
Edited on 5/7/2009 12:06 PM
He could have on a cutoff and mesh shorts as far as I'm concerned. The score he posted is all that matters. There's not going to be an asterisk beside the score saying, "Although the score was shot without any rules violations we are deeply disappointed with Mr. Vokes' attire."
Post by: mjames1229 on May 07, 2009, 01:14:17 PM
quote:
He could have on a cutoff and mesh shorts as far as I'm concerned. The score he posted is all that matters. There's not going to be an asterisk beside the score saying, "Although the score was shot without any rules violations we are deeply disappointed with Mr. Vokes' attire."
Um, not with Ronnie. You don't want to see him in mesh shorts. I love the guy, but really!
--------------------
http://www.westallisnow.com/blogs/communityblogs/sponsors_name_here.html