Post by: lunk_wsu on April 30, 2009, 04:51:53 AM
No matter what shot is out there someone is always going to hit it. I think that ball technology is currently ahead of the lane conditioner technology, and when you put the right ball in the hands of an experienced bowler, you're going to have high scores. USBC can't be expected to put out an ungodly hard shot to keep the top 10% of bowlers down. This tournament brings in 10's of thousands of participants, and I believe most people going to this tournament don't have the knowledge and skill set to navigate a shot like this, much less a harder shot.
--------------------
~~~~ Procrastinating farmer packs dozen chicks in carton ~~~~
Post by: storm making it rain on April 30, 2009, 01:02:06 PM
Post by: another300 on April 30, 2009, 01:21:04 PM
When i shot my one and only 800. I was bowling with a ball I really didn't like. Ugly green color, plus it didn't react how I like. I like the arcing motion of Columbia balls. I was throwing an attitude from Brunswick i think. That combination along with the liquid courage of bud light, enabled me to shoot that series.
Post by: EagleHunter on April 30, 2009, 03:14:35 PM
Would you suggest that USBC put down a typical house pattern, since that is all that the vast majority of tournaments bowlers would have a chance at scoring on?
Scoring is relative and someone will always "hit it"...those are the Eagle winners. However, the scoring pace is getting out of control. Riggs pointed out in another thread that 1989 was the year everything changed...it was the first 2,200+ score. Since that year winning scores have routinely been over that score. Now someone has broken the 2,300 barrier. Perhaps the time is now to address the problem.
The vast majority of the USBC tournament bowlers are there for the vacation only. It doesn't matter that most of them have ZERO chance at scoring well. If it did, entries would be decreasing year after year...but that has not happened.
Making the condition easier won't bring more bowlers. Making the condition tougher will not make the tournament lose bowlers. What is at stake is the integrity of Nationals.
Non-sports people typically understand that the U.S. Open (bowling and golf) is the most demanding event in that sport. If either one became super-easy, the glow would disappear from those events.
The USBC Nationals is the U.S. Open for amateur players. If those amateur players want to win, they have to be the best. You do not put out an easier pattern so those less talented have a better chance to feel better about themselves...while those who do have talent continually break scoring records.
As for Mr. Voakes...he was in 6 brackets in Dbls and 6 in Sgls.
Post by: storm making it rain on April 30, 2009, 04:06:30 PM
quote:
The USBC Nationals is the U.S. Open for amateur players. If those amateur players want to win, they have to be the best. You do not put out an easier pattern so those less talented have a better chance to feel better about themselves...while those who do have talent continually break scoring records.
isnt the US OPEN an open tournament, yes it is..and if i remeber right the scores this year were pretty high in qualifying.
and i think its pretty early in the tournament to say it needs to change that much. i think we should wait and see what the low to cash scores and top 100's are before we speculate.
you are right that most people use it for a vacation, but with the advent of the classified division some lower average bowlers still go out to have a shot at winning.
this guy had a great set out there no question..change has to start at the bottom and work its way up to the national level...
remember back in the day when someone bowled a 300, you had to notify your association right away, not let the lanes be touched so they could tape them, have their ball weighed to insure legality, etc..now you just fill out the form and send it away..
btw, i cant believe he only was in 6 brackets
Post by: EagleHunter on April 30, 2009, 04:16:05 PM
That doesn't exactly approach high scoring...at least, not by today's standards (if you can call them that).
USBC can wait...but since they didn't address anything after 1989 (which is when Riggs rightly suggests "everything changed") should we assume they will be proactive now? It took roughly 70-80 years to break the 2,200 barrier, then 20 years to break the 2,300 barrier. So at this rate 2,400 will be broken in the next 5 years. Would it be a problem then?
Post by: lunk_wsu on April 30, 2009, 04:39:29 PM
quote:
lunk,
Would you suggest that USBC put down a typical house pattern, since that is all that the vast majority of tournaments bowlers would have a chance at scoring on?
Scoring is relative and someone will always "hit it"...those are the Eagle winners. However, the scoring pace is getting out of control. Riggs pointed out in another thread that 1989 was the year everything changed...it was the first 2,200+ score. Since that year winning scores have routinely been over that score. Now someone has broken the 2,300 barrier. Perhaps the time is now to address the problem.
The vast majority of the USBC tournament bowlers are there for the vacation only. It doesn't matter that most of them have ZERO chance at scoring well. If it did, entries would be decreasing year after year...but that has not happened.
Making the condition easier won't bring more bowlers. Making the condition tougher will not make the tournament lose bowlers. What is at stake is the integrity of Nationals.
Non-sports people typically understand that the U.S. Open (bowling and golf) is the most demanding event in that sport. If either one became super-easy, the glow would disappear from those events.
The USBC Nationals is the U.S. Open for amateur players. If those amateur players want to win, they have to be the best. You do not put out an easier pattern so those less talented have a better chance to feel better about themselves...while those who do have talent continually break scoring records.
As for Mr. Voakes...he was in 6 brackets in Dbls and 6 in Sgls.
Eagle Hunter,
I DO NOT believe that a house shot should be put down. No where in my original post did I say that. I agree that the USBC should reexamine the shot, but nothing is going to change that for this year. I'm of the opinion that the shot, no matter what is put down, is too easy to break down with today's high performance equipment. One way would be to re-oil after every squad, instead of just team event. IMO if the scores are to come down a break-through is going to have to take place in lane conditioner, or else maybe everyone should just throw plastic.
As far as the 2300 barrier goes, the mind is incredible. Once a barrier has been broke, other people start to believe that it's possible for them to hit that score too. The most memorable barrier was the 4 minute mile. Scientist said it wasn't possible for the human body to accomplish, and yet it happened.
--------------------
~~~~ Procrastinating farmer packs dozen chicks in carton ~~~~
Post by: EagleHunter on April 30, 2009, 07:16:37 PM
quote:
USBC can't be expected to put out an ungodly hard shot to keep the top 10% of bowlers down. This tournament brings in 10's of thousands of participants, and I believe most people going to this tournament don't have the knowledge and skill set to navigate a shot like this, much less a harder shot.
lunk,
Sorry if I misunderstood, but based on the above quote it seemed to imply that USBC should put out something easier. Some of what you said was said in another thread by Riggs and me.
All I know is that USBC has NEVER been proactive in addressing a problem. Riggs' opinion that everything changed, as far as Nationals, in 1989 seems correct. So that said, now that ANOTHER barrier is broken I do not expect USBC to address anything...not unless we make our thoughts known.
Post by: atltnpnr on May 01, 2009, 01:01:52 AM
You can view it here http://www.bowl.com/tournaments/usbcopen/National/lowtocash.aspx
--------------------
Bowling: It's cleaner than baseball.
Post by: EagleHunter on May 01, 2009, 01:18:26 AM
On top of that, the tourney is only about half over and most of the LTC scores are within 20 pins of last year or less. We'll find out the real answer once the tournament is over, but I agree with Riggs' idea of scoring comparison and comparing the top 20, 50, and 100 scores.
Comparing how the good bowlers hit the pattern gives a much better barometer of the ease of the scoring pattern.
Post by: atltnpnr on May 01, 2009, 04:17:25 AM
--------------------
Bowling: It's cleaner than baseball.
Post by: Jorge300 on May 01, 2009, 10:29:50 AM
If and when the day comes, when the stars align, and lady luck smiles on one fortunate individual and they shoot a 900 at Nationals, whose fault will it be then?
Look at the pattern graph.....compare it to last years, compare it to other years. The pattern isn't "easier" this year. The patterns are very similar year after year. The difference is the people. People have listened to the very good bowlers like Riggs, to coaches like Mike Jasnau, who have preached the need to work together for everyone's benefit. That won't change if you change the shot to something outrageously tough. All you will do is separate a few of the very very good teams, like Linds, like Riggs' team, like Browning Pontiac, etc from the pack of good teams, and the average teams will fall further from contention. You say you won't lose entries, I think you are incorrect. Go to any league and toughen uo the shot and watch the complaining begin. You may not lose entries the first few years, but in the long run you will I promise. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Just give the guy credit for shooting an awesome score. If we are here again in 3-4 years and this record has been broken 1 or 2 times, you can tell me "I told you so". But to continue like you are thread after thread sounds like a crybaby, IMHO.
--------------------
Jorge300
Post by: nd300 on May 01, 2009, 10:51:22 AM
I do,however,feel that there's been somewhat of the same advancement in bowling that's happened in other sports.....
1. Many,many people have actually taken an interest in improving their game and started to practice and take lessons to improve themselves. While the end results may be noticeable in league play,the practice and coaching really shows up on the tougher shots,aka,Nationals.
2. Physical fitness has also taken hold to many bowlers. Leg strength, wrist strength,etc,have given birth to bowling specific fitness programs that also help with scoring.
3. Some of us have gotten smart enough to spend the money on lessons. I took the Mike Jasnau session in Vegas. All I can say is wow. Well worth the feeit's also paid off in lessened arm/shoulder fatigue. Now it's a matter of retraining the muscle memory needed to be consistent.
--------------------
Chris
JTTDB---Just Throw The Damn Ball
Don't "think"---that ball isn't in your bag yet..........
Post by: EagleHunter on May 01, 2009, 11:09:35 AM
Great bowling is no one's fault. I have already stated numerous times that the bowling that Mr. Voakes did was simply awesome. There is no way that anyone can take anything away from him, period.
That said, great bowling doesn't necessarily have to come with a record score. If Mr. Voakes bowled just as well, left the tourney leading two categories, but only shot 2150...is there something wrong with that?
The issue is scoring pace and credibility. I would assume that you have read the other thread regarding this topic...if not, please do.
I'm not going to rehash all of the arguments already made...but it took almost 80 years for ANYONE to break 2,200, it took another 20 for someone to break 2,300...so in 5 years, perhaps we'll see 2,400?
If anyone shoots 900 at Nationals I will absolutely place blame on USBC. This is the USBC's premier event for all of its members (much like the U.S. Open is for the Professionals, despite the fact it is "open"). It should not be easy and it should require close to perfection for the winners.
I have no idea how you think toughening the condition will make people stay home. How many of the 17,000 teams went home probably 20+ pins underaverage given the condition out there now? And how many of those have been doing so for the last 5-10 years? If being that far under your average doesn't deter you, then what is the magic number that will?
The league argument you make is hollow as it pertains here. Most of the people that bowl Nationals are in it for the vacation...their scoring (or lack of) proves that out in many cases. A league is not a vacation...Nationals often is.
Post by: Jorge300 on May 01, 2009, 11:43:34 AM
I am not asking for it to be easy, no one is. Yes, I did read the other thread, and responded in it as well.
So let me ask you this, if someone is taking a "vacation" to Nationals, shoots 20 pins under their average/game, and goes home content ( I won't say happy), but now they go and because you got your wish to make the shot something more difficult, they are 50 pins under their average/game, do you think they will still be content? As they see their teams fall further and further out of contention, and cashing, will they still be content? Or will they take the money they spend on Nationals and just go on vacation somewhere else?
Also, if someone cures 36 shots, and strikes on all of them, that is the USBC's fault? If the person is missing a board or two left or right every so often and still getting strikes, that is the USBC's fault? Cmon man, that is just ridiculous. When will it be enough for you, when winning an AE Eagle is just shooting plus? I can see it now.....the 2011 AE Champion EagleHunter with a score of 1825. Look I hate easy conditions, I look forward to bowling in our summer league where they put out true sport patterns, look forward to bowling PBA Regionals to bowl on those patterns. I even stay away from the monthly scratch tournament they run around my area for the most part, because they use the house shot for it, probably costing myself some money. But this isn't the USBC's fault. They put a challenging shot out there. You said it yourself, most house bowlers come in and average 10-20 pins less a game. How is that not challenging?
And as far as your year stats, look at any competitive sport, technologies change. It took 80 yr for someone to break 2200 because they were using equipment that is far below the equipment out at that time. Just like the 4 minute mile, just like the 200mph barrier, just like the sound barrier. Look at swimming in the last Olympics. Records fell almost anytime someone got in the pool. No one said anything about that being bad for their sport, so why is it bad for ours? Things that people think can never happen do. You can't stop progress. I do favor a tweaking of the shot to make it mildly more difficult, but not some monsterously difficult shot that you are advocating.
--------------------
Jorge300
Post by: nutsforbowling on May 01, 2009, 12:10:36 PM
quote:
Jorge,
Great bowling is no one's fault. I have already stated numerous times that the bowling that Mr. Voakes did was simply awesome. There is no way that anyone can take anything away from him, period.
That said, great bowling doesn't necessarily have to come with a record score. If Mr. Voakes bowled just as well, left the tourney leading two categories, but only shot 2150...is there something wrong with that?
The issue is scoring pace and credibility. I would assume that you have read the other thread regarding this topic...if not, please do.
I'm not going to rehash all of the arguments already made...but it took almost 80 years for ANYONE to break 2,200, it took another 20 for someone to break 2,300...so in 5 years, perhaps we'll see 2,400?
If anyone shoots 900 at Nationals I will absolutely place blame on USBC. This is the USBC's premier event for all of its members (much like the U.S. Open is for the Professionals, despite the fact it is "open"). It should not be easy and it should require close to perfection for the winners.
I have no idea how you think toughening the condition will make people stay home. How many of the 17,000 teams went home probably 20+ pins underaverage given the condition out there now? And how many of those have been doing so for the last 5-10 years? If being that far under your average doesn't deter you, then what is the magic number that will?
The league argument you make is hollow as it pertains here. Most of the people that bowl Nationals are in it for the vacation...their scoring (or lack of) proves that out in many cases. A league is not a vacation...Nationals often is.
I think you WILL see a significant drop in entries the next 2 years with both being in Reno. There are probably quite a few first timers this year who have no desire to bowl bad again and simply won't come back. Plus Reno is not the draw that Vegas is. If the ecomony doesn't improve, it might be worse. I forsee somewhere around 12,500 teams next year, then less in 2011.
I think the conditions are just about right the way they are now. The only difference I would make is fresh oil for each set of d/s, but the time constraints of that probably will not allow it to happen. I mean who would want to bowl the last s/d of the night at beginning at 2 in the morning?
--------------------
Me stupid. Me believe anything. Please tell me what to do.
Post by: EagleHunter on May 01, 2009, 08:04:14 PM
Apparently you didn't READ the discussion that I was having with Riggs. I posed a question regarding a "soft ceiling" for scoring...Riggs replied that if USBC conducted all events on fresh that we probably wouldn't see 2,200.
Without putting words in his mouth, I think we could agree that such a score would be satisfactory. That isn't to say that someone would not have to bowl spectacularly well to win. The point is...why does a winning score have to be so high?
Perhaps this is a once-in-a-lifetime situation...I'm sure some said the same thing in 1989, but look what has happened since. If you want to see 2,300 or 2,400 or more, you probably need only look to your local association or state tournament. Nationals should NOT be the same.
As for someone "puring" 36 shots...when you meet that individual let me know. No professional that I know of has ever achieved, let alone claim to have achieved, such a feat. I'm sure Earl Anthony himself would say he never did it.
Records are made to be broken, but there is descending possibility and probability for most. Why is it bad for our sport? Can you prove that it has been good? Did the Shammy Burt experience more entries after a team tied the National high series? Did the Hamtramck get more notoriety and entries when a bowler almost posted 1200 (for 4 with handicap)? The answer is no...in both cases entries went down...I wonder why?
Posting scores that most have never dreamed of or, in most cases, have ever seen is not going to help entries. Nationals has the benefit that all entries are prepaid. So if a team shot 3700 and someone shot 900 for Sgls with 2600 for AE, everyone would still have to show up. Do that where entries are paid as they go...kiss the tournament good-bye.
Look, I think overall we agree. I never advocated for a U.S. Open condition. I referenced the U.S. Open as the STANDARD for professional bowlers and it is TOUGH. Nationals is the STANDARD for amateurs and it should be TOUGH. 1800 top score tough? Certainly not, but not 2300 top score tough either.
Post by: Gazoo on May 02, 2009, 09:50:05 AM
--------------------
"I don't want to be remembered, I want to be forgotten"
Edited on 5/2/2009 11:14 AM
Post by: rvmark on May 02, 2009, 11:00:24 AM
Is the goal make it into the the US Open? Is it your contention that the best bowler is not winning? Not really sure from the posts what you are really wanting eagle hunter.
In answer to an earlier statement about looking at the state tournaments for higher scores, the leading score this year so far at our tournament is a 2,188 all events scratch.
Mark
Post by: TWOHAND834 on May 02, 2009, 11:29:17 AM
USBC is in a damned if you do damned if you dont position. They do not want to lose entries into the tournament so they want people to be able to enjoy their experiences to the Nationals each year. So, they take one year and make the shot a little softer. Learning experience as the scores are soaring? Who knows. Maybe there is a reason for that such as Las Vegas is not a cheap place to visit. Unless you stay at a hole in the wall roach motel, most hotel/casinos want $100+ a night to stay there. Anywhere else, including Reno, you can stay in a nice place for almost half that. If USBC puts out a almost impossible to score type of shot, do you think the majority of bowlers would want to return? On the flip side, they cant really put out a THS. If they did, it would take 2400 to take all events.
My ideas, would be to do one less squad a day, extend the tournament by an extra month, and put fresh oil for all events and not just the team events and first s/d squad in the morning. Another idea, is like they do with association tournaments, do nothing but team events one day, then singles/doubles the following day oiling after every other s/d squad.
--------------------
Steven Vance
Pro Shop Operator
Striking Results Pro Shop
Red Carpet Lanes
Duluth (NE Atlanta), Georgia
If anyone out there is worried about the scores being too high, try duckpin!!
Post by: riggs on May 04, 2009, 06:57:47 AM
Post by: dr300 on May 05, 2009, 10:54:06 AM
The USBC commissioned a year-long study on Ball Motion (see Phase I & II Final Report on website) and concluded that coverstock chemistry and on-lane friction were the primary drivers of the extreme ball motion we see on the lanes today. There is no question that this allows "opening up the lanes" and results in ensuing scores.
Basically, their conclusion was this: there's too much friction. Furthermore, there's been so much friction for so long that its become ingrained in play-styles.
This doesn't take anything away from great bowlers like Riggs. They are just taking advantage of available friction, and as opposed to 95% of league bowlers, they're capable of playing the lanes front-to-back instead of side-to-side. I'm shocked that, in this thread, nobody has tied bowling's scoring pace to escalating friction levels. Just note that the first reactive resin balls (say, the Pearl X-Calibur, which exhibited a very obvious non-linear friction-with-respect-to-velocity behavior) came out roughly the same time the scores started escalating ...
--------------------
=============================
"In my experience, there's no such thing as luck" -- Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Post by: riggs on May 05, 2009, 12:21:37 PM
Sort of like a Porsche - in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to drive or on sheer ice, it's a disaster.
A lane man still can eliminate the impact of ball technology. Petersen is the ultimate proof.
Post by: EagleHunter on May 05, 2009, 01:20:20 PM
Post by: TDC57 on May 05, 2009, 01:39:43 PM
I again question your intelligence as I did a while back. Are you losing your cookies over one guy shooting a high score? If you are, then you're not the bowling snob I accused you of being, you're just a mental midget. Geezus man why so much angst over one guy. As someone said, somebody will always score well no matter how tough the shot. I also maintain some good bowler will always score poorly even if the shot is easy. By listening to your line of thinking the USBC should start putting out a shot that nobody scores over 550 and leaves miserable. The shot this year is not easy. Do guys put together teams that work to blow the shot open? Yes they do! How would the USBC stop that from happening? Go crawl back in you hole, you've made your one moronic appearance for the year!!
Post by: EagleHunter on May 05, 2009, 02:51:45 PM
I'm not sure what your problem is, but I suggest you keep your next psych appointment.
Riggs and I have already had a lengthy, informed discussion about the things that concern me. I don't care who wins, as long as he/she executes better than everyone else.
Riggs' contention that things changed in 1989 is spot on...among other things, it represented the first time the 2,200 barrier was broken. What this "change" for the better? Now the 2,300 barrier has been broken...
We can argue all day as to whether USBC should have done something about this back in 1989. I think most bowlers agree that something should have been done, but it never was. This year could be an anomaly, and if so, that just underscores Mr. Voakes phenomenal bowling. On the other hand, it COULD become a trend...much like every year since 1989.
Now if YOU are incapable of understanding this possibility...buck up tiny.
Post by: rvmark on May 05, 2009, 06:39:13 PM
I think you are making the assumption that most bowlers felt that the USBC should have done something. Have you done an actual statistical analysis poll of bowlers to determine this? (the bowlers I visited with coming back from nationals felt that the shot was anything but a piece of cake)
Maybe the answer is to put out a shot with basically little to no oil and see how we fare on that, this would take out of play all the new reactive resin technology would it not?
Sorry for the length but you still have yet to prove your case IMHO.
Mark
Edited on 5/5/2009 6:39 PM