Post by: bowl400 on June 29, 2010, 12:13:23 PM
--------------------
Tag Team Coaching success story
Post by: r534me on June 29, 2010, 11:11:38 PM
Post by: bowl400 on June 30, 2010, 12:43:20 AM
--------------------
Tag Team Coaching success story
Post by: kidlost2000 on June 30, 2010, 12:45:29 AM
--------------------
" men lie, women lie, numbers don't "
Post by: r534me on June 30, 2010, 01:46:39 AM
Post by: bowl400 on June 30, 2010, 01:57:16 AM
this person has no listed 09/10 average
08/09 average is sport 161 (which would be adjusted to 172)
07/08 non sport average 201
06/07 non sport average 205
competed 3 years prior in the regular division
hmmm...
--------------------
Tag Team Coaching success story
Post by: r534me on June 30, 2010, 02:06:19 AM
Post by: thekingshit on June 30, 2010, 05:30:31 AM
Post by: thekingshit on June 30, 2010, 05:37:15 AM
Post by: r534me on June 30, 2010, 08:35:32 AM
quote:
wow what a joke.... i think the rule is 15 pins.. but how do they allow that to happen in one year.. i could see if it was over 3 or 4... but a 30 pin drop over 1 year...BULL S@&T.. another way to ruin the game
I am unclear on that one. 15 pins is a tournament average for sure but how league averages come into play I don't know.
Either way it sounds like the average should have been questioned for classification purposes.
Post by: dogman666 on June 30, 2010, 08:54:03 AM
--------------------
Mr. Natural
Post by: r534me on June 30, 2010, 10:57:28 AM
If they didn't use his sport average he would not have been in classiifed division. Was that what you were referring to?
Post by: bowl400 on June 30, 2010, 11:17:08 AM
--------------------
Tag Team Coaching success story
Post by: r534me on June 30, 2010, 11:28:27 AM
Post by: dogman666 on June 30, 2010, 11:33:46 AM
--------------------
Mr. Natural
Post by: TWOHAND834 on June 30, 2010, 11:35:55 AM
We are being wayyyy too judgmental on this. We have no idea what his THS pattern is like nor do we know what their sport shot pattern is. This is exactly why the sport as a whole, league and tournaments, should be on tougher patterns. This guy did the exact same thing about 90% of us would do....drop in average from THS to sport shot. The guy is barely 200 on the THS conditions so this is not very far fetched at all. If he was 230+ and then dropped to 160, looks a little more fishy. Also, you are acting as though he dropped that average on the same THS league condition. The man bowled well when he needed to. I say CONGRATS!!!!!!
--------------------
If anyone out there is worried about the scores being too high, try duckpin!!
Post by: dogman666 on June 30, 2010, 11:45:06 AM
--------------------
Mr. Natural
Post by: TWOHAND834 on June 30, 2010, 11:47:48 AM
quote:
Yeah the sport average should only be used for other sport average leagues/tournies.
--------------------
Mr. Natural
USBCs are now "Sport Compliant" as of a couple years ago.
--------------------
If anyone out there is worried about the scores being too high, try duckpin!!
Post by: r534me on June 30, 2010, 12:16:58 PM
quote:
This whole thread is funny to me. Sport conditions were put out there to toughen the scoring and challenge people. He decided to bowl one league that year and happened to be a sport league and we are questioning the drop in average. What is the issue? Most guys averaging 220+ on a league condition would drop to 190-195. He obviously cant bowl more than one night a week. He tried something different. Big deal. How do you disqualify a person for that? Plus, he barely cracked 1800. He didnt shoot 2000.
We are being wayyyy too judgmental on this. We have no idea what his THS pattern is like nor do we know what their sport shot pattern is. This is exactly why the sport as a whole, league and tournaments, should be on tougher patterns. This guy did the exact same thing about 90% of us would do....drop in average from THS to sport shot. The guy is barely 200 on the THS conditions so this is not very far fetched at all. If he was 230+ and then dropped to 160, looks a little more fishy. Also, you are acting as though he dropped that average on the same THS league condition. The man bowled well when he needed to. I say CONGRATS!!!!!!
--------------------
If anyone out there is worried about the scores being too high, try duckpin!!
I think the topic is being in classified division at the Nats after being 200+ two previous years with 80 plus games. Wasn't the classifed division for 180 and under average bowlers?
I think the sport average is a red herring in the discussion.
Post by: Jorge300 on June 30, 2010, 12:29:15 PM
No DQ unless they find he has a tournament average of 21 games or more that is 10 pins higher or he failed to report winnings. Yes, he bowled over 200 on a THS league for 2 years. He bowled a sports certified league and average 160. He was rerated on that average to a 172, still a classified bowler. He bowled well for 2 days. Why do we immediately jump to the conclusion that he cheated? He went from bowling easy tophat THS patterns to a true sports pattern. A 30-40 pin drop isn't out of the question. If you are a marginally good THS bowler, which I am guessing he was with only a low 200 average on THS shot, a true sports pattern will eat your lunch. And after a year of practice on a sports pattern(s), he bowls well on a sports certified pattern at the USBC Open. Isn't that what you are supposed to do. Give up your ego, take it on the chin and bowl sport patterns to get better so you can do better at tournaments like the USBC Open. Yet as soon as someone does it, the whole world starts complaining and b!tching that they cheated. And people wonder why membership is declining. It is because of things like this, you people are a joke and are just b!itching to hear yourselves b!itch. How many of you bowled classified anyway??? How many of you does this really effect?
--------------------
Jorge300
Post by: Jorge300 on June 30, 2010, 12:30:26 PM
quote:
I think the topic is being in classified division at the Nats after being 200+ two previous years with 80 plus games. Wasn't the classifed division for 180 and under average bowlers?
I think the sport average is a red herring in the discussion.
He was a 172 average this year, adjusted from his sport average, that puts him in the classified division.
--------------------
Jorge300
Post by: TWOHAND834 on June 30, 2010, 12:39:12 PM
quote:quote:
This whole thread is funny to me. Sport conditions were put out there to toughen the scoring and challenge people. He decided to bowl one league that year and happened to be a sport league and we are questioning the drop in average. What is the issue? Most guys averaging 220+ on a league condition would drop to 190-195. He obviously cant bowl more than one night a week. He tried something different. Big deal. How do you disqualify a person for that? Plus, he barely cracked 1800. He didnt shoot 2000.
We are being wayyyy too judgmental on this. We have no idea what his THS pattern is like nor do we know what their sport shot pattern is. This is exactly why the sport as a whole, league and tournaments, should be on tougher patterns. This guy did the exact same thing about 90% of us would do....drop in average from THS to sport shot. The guy is barely 200 on the THS conditions so this is not very far fetched at all. If he was 230+ and then dropped to 160, looks a little more fishy. Also, you are acting as though he dropped that average on the same THS league condition. The man bowled well when he needed to. I say CONGRATS!!!!!!
--------------------
If anyone out there is worried about the scores being too high, try duckpin!!
I think the topic is being in classified division at the Nats after being 200+ two previous years with 80 plus games. Wasn't the classifed division for 180 and under average bowlers?
I think the sport average is a red herring in the discussion.
Maybe. But if the sport league was sanctioned and he has more than 21 games, then the sport league average of 161 will still go into the books.
--------------------
If anyone out there is worried about the scores being too high, try duckpin!!
Post by: bowl400 on June 30, 2010, 12:51:37 PM
--------------------
Tag Team Coaching success story
Post by: r534me on June 30, 2010, 01:05:57 PM
quote:quote:
I think the topic is being in classified division at the Nats after being 200+ two previous years with 80 plus games. Wasn't the classifed division for 180 and under average bowlers?
I think the sport average is a red herring in the discussion.
He was a 172 average this year, adjusted from his sport average, that puts him in the classified division.
--------------------
Jorge300
Wrong, that average is from 08-09 not 09-10.
Post by: r534me on June 30, 2010, 01:21:09 PM
quote:
I am in agreement with TwoHand here.
No DQ unless they find he has a tournament average of 21 games or more that is 10 pins higher or he failed to report winnings. Yes, he bowled over 200 on a THS league for 2 years. He bowled a sports certified league and average 160. He was rerated on that average to a 172, still a classified bowler. He bowled well for 2 days. Why do we immediately jump to the conclusion that he cheated? He went from bowling easy tophat THS patterns to a true sports pattern. A 30-40 pin drop isn't out of the question. If you are a marginally good THS bowler, which I am guessing he was with only a low 200 average on THS shot, a true sports pattern will eat your lunch. And after a year of practice on a sports pattern(s), he bowls well on a sports certified pattern at the USBC Open. Isn't that what you are supposed to do. Give up your ego, take it on the chin and bowl sport patterns to get better so you can do better at tournaments like the USBC Open. Yet as soon as someone does it, the whole world starts complaining and b!tching that they cheated. And people wonder why membership is declining. It is because of things like this, you people are a joke and are just b!itching to hear yourselves b!itch. How many of you bowled classified anyway??? How many of you does this really effect?
--------------------
Jorge300
You could be right. He could have practiced an entire year and gotten better and then decide he would bowl the Nationals. Of course, it's not his first nats..he's been to seven per bowl dot com, and his previous high was somewhere in the 1700's. The composite average of classified bowlers at the Nats is somewhere in the 150's and open is 170's. He's doing pretty good with either way.
Is he a bagger? Who knows...if his scores hold up then in the eyes of the USBC he isn't. If they don't he is. Has there been some people who were dq'd in the past? Yes, last year as a matter of fact. I can't remember the fellow's name but he went to classified and his team led the classified division. People voiced their concerns on bowl dot com. Later on, his scores were not honored and his team fell out of first place because they were missing his scores. I don't remember the rest of the story but because someone posts a score does not mean it will be honored if there is deception.
As far as membership, it's been declining before the Internet became popular and you can put that theory to rest that this site or it's member's contribute to it's decline.
Post by: Curt_Dupre on June 30, 2010, 02:11:49 PM
quote:
This whole thread is funny to me. Sport conditions were put out there to toughen the scoring and challenge people. He decided to bowl one league that year and happened to be a sport league and we are questioning the drop in average. What is the issue? Most guys averaging 220+ on a league condition would drop to 190-195. He obviously cant bowl more than one night a week. He tried something different. Big deal. How do you disqualify a person for that? Plus, he barely cracked 1800. He didnt shoot 2000.
We are being wayyyy too judgmental on this. We have no idea what his THS pattern is like nor do we know what their sport shot pattern is. This is exactly why the sport as a whole, league and tournaments, should be on tougher patterns. This guy did the exact same thing about 90% of us would do....drop in average from THS to sport shot. The guy is barely 200 on the THS conditions so this is not very far fetched at all. If he was 230+ and then dropped to 160, looks a little more fishy. Also, you are acting as though he dropped that average on the same THS league condition. The man bowled well when he needed to. I say CONGRATS!!!!!!
--------------------
If anyone out there is worried about the scores being too high, try duckpin!!
I have to disagree with you TWOHAND. Most 220 average bowlers would average around 180-185 on a sport shot.
--------------------
Trackbowling.com
Mccorveysproshop.com
Track Regional Staff
Post by: MrPerfect on June 30, 2010, 02:20:11 PM
quote:quote:
This whole thread is funny to me. Sport conditions were put out there to toughen the scoring and challenge people. He decided to bowl one league that year and happened to be a sport league and we are questioning the drop in average. What is the issue? Most guys averaging 220+ on a league condition would drop to 190-195. He obviously cant bowl more than one night a week. He tried something different. Big deal. How do you disqualify a person for that? Plus, he barely cracked 1800. He didnt shoot 2000.
We are being wayyyy too judgmental on this. We have no idea what his THS pattern is like nor do we know what their sport shot pattern is. This is exactly why the sport as a whole, league and tournaments, should be on tougher patterns. This guy did the exact same thing about 90% of us would do....drop in average from THS to sport shot. The guy is barely 200 on the THS conditions so this is not very far fetched at all. If he was 230+ and then dropped to 160, looks a little more fishy. Also, you are acting as though he dropped that average on the same THS league condition. The man bowled well when he needed to. I say CONGRATS!!!!!!
--------------------
If anyone out there is worried about the scores being too high, try duckpin!!
I have to disagree with you TWOHAND. Most 220 average bowlers would average around 180-185 on a sport shot.
--------------------
Trackbowling.com
Mccorveysproshop.com
Track Regional Staff
Yeah, this has been my same experience. I run a youth summer camp teaching them how to bowl on Sport Patterns and the first month we don't allow them to bowl for score, because the reality would be to much for a kid. So we go through and teach them the basics and build them back up, and then when they start bowling on the pattern for score it's not as bad.
Post by: Bill Thomas on June 30, 2010, 03:35:45 PM
I find it ironic that I may well be in exactly the same position as this guy. I booked 161 in my only league, a PBAX league, and will probably carry an adjusted 172 into the 2011 Open. Is this a legitimate average. I don't really know. I have never broken 1700 in 18 Opens but have averaged 180+ to 190+ (high 198) on THS patterns. I don't believe I am a legitimate Classified bowler but know that, at my advanced age and with health problems, I have virtually no chance to compete in the Regular Division. I will probably solve my ethical problem by bowling in a THS shot league this fall and if history is any indicator I will probably be up enough in average to go back into the Regular Division.
Does any of this make any sense? I say no, that it is just evidence of what USBC and their ridiculous stances towards average, high scores, and legitimate conditions is doing to the sport. Their only concern seems to be $ in their treasury.
Post by: Wilbert on June 30, 2010, 04:08:32 PM
With that said, there could be a good reason for no current average and the low sport league average--heath problems?
Post by: triggerman on July 06, 2010, 11:06:23 AM
Lifetime Averages
pretty basic especially with USBC sanctioned leagues
--------------------
www.bowlingballexchange.com
Triggerman
F.O.S Loud, F.O.S. Proud
Lane #1 Baby
Post by: dogman666 on July 06, 2010, 11:32:20 AM
quote:
Lifetime Averages
pretty basic especially with USBC sanctioned leagues
Interesting concept but guys like me and older would be factoring in averages in the 160-170 range to go along with the 200's as equipment became stronger. Essentially it would give me an advantage over say a 22 year old who has only seen strong equipment.
--------------------
Mr. Natural
Post by: Jorge300 on July 06, 2010, 11:33:51 AM
quote:
two words
Lifetime Averages
pretty basic especially with USBC sanctioned leagues
And I have 3 words for you in return: Uncertified Sports Leagues.
Our summer league is a great example. For the last 4 years we have bowled on PBA, Kegel Sport, USBC Open, or other USBC tournament patterns. We have not certified as a sports league, so no one has to pay for the additional membership. Now we are a Summer League, so no real issues. But there are winter leagues out there doing the same thing. So we have Bowler A, joins one of these leagues and brings down their average, it won't take too long to get a lifetime average under 180. Plus, many more tournaments are deciding to go unsanctioned so the scores aren't reported to the USBC. This won't catch the people who want to cheat the system.
I agree with Mr. Thomas, use their USBC lifetime average and cash made. Look back at their 1099's to see how much they made in brackets, and what is their lifetime average at the Open. If someone wants to through away money for many years (for both them and their team) then so be it. And the reason I say to look at 1099's is to catch the guy who rolls 650 in team, cashed well in brackets, then throws 300 in Singles (where he isn't hurting anyone) to keep his average down.
I still see no reason to DQ this man, as of now.
--------------------
Jorge300
Post by: MrPerfect on July 06, 2010, 11:53:46 AM
quote:quote:
two words
Lifetime Averages
pretty basic especially with USBC sanctioned leagues
And I have 3 words for you in return: Uncertified Sports Leagues.
Our summer league is a great example. For the last 4 years we have bowled on PBA, Kegel Sport, USBC Open, or other USBC tournament patterns. We have not certified as a sports league, so no one has to pay for the additional membership. Now we are a Summer League, so no real issues. But there are winter leagues out there doing the same thing. So we have Bowler A, joins one of these leagues and brings down their average, it won't take too long to get a lifetime average under 180. Plus, many more tournaments are deciding to go unsanctioned so the scores aren't reported to the USBC. This won't catch the people who want to cheat the system.
I agree with Mr. Thomas, use their USBC lifetime average and cash made. Look back at their 1099's to see how much they made in brackets, and what is their lifetime average at the Open. If someone wants to through away money for many years (for both them and their team) then so be it. And the reason I say to look at 1099's is to catch the guy who rolls 650 in team, cashed well in brackets, then throws 300 in Singles (where he isn't hurting anyone) to keep his average down.
I still see no reason to DQ this man, as of now.
--------------------
Jorge300
Our house does the same on all of the competitive leagues, because why pay a ridiculous sport fee?