I wonder why today's bowlers seem to be stuck on what I fell is the old standard of 200 equals an elite bowler?

And maybe we are still in the transition period of generations of bowlers where the older bowlers were still young when 200 was the realistic standard back in the 60's-80's. 

Or are they basing off the stupid PBA card requirement?

Let's be honest, on today's house conditions, elite is at least 215 in my opinion.

And I understand that it means we no longer can compare generations of bowlers.

But think about it, if you were old enough today to be involved with bowling in the 70's and 80's and you met a bowler, and asked him what he averaged, and he said 205, you'd think he was pretty darned good.

Meet a bowler today, ask him what he averages, and he says 205, I don't know about everyone else, but I think oh, average house hack.

The standard has evolved.  Doubt it will ever go back.  Adapt to to 215 not 200 and move on.

Elite? I think that word is being used too loosely. Comparatively speaking, I think 235+ is elite, with yhat said, ive seens some 235+ guys get on flat patterns and train wreck all the way to a 530 series. Its all relative I guess.

This is just my opinion, but I don't think you can call anyone "Elite" by looking at their THS averages. Some of the true best bowlers, actually struggle a little more on a THS pattern. They have become so good at repeating shots, that they wear out a line in only 4-5 frames and have trouble keeping up with transitions because of that. And when I say struggle, I'm talking a 220-225 average instead of 235-240 average. But put them on a Sport pattern/PBA pattern/flat pattern and they average 215-220 as well. Here the ability to repeat shots rewards them instead of penalizes them.
 
I tend to think in order to find an Elite bowler you need to look at their tournament scores, tournament finishes (I won't say wins because someone my finish top 5 in every tournament and not win and that is just as impressive as someone who wins 1 or 2 but finishes middle of the pack in the others), scores in Sports leagues, if there are any in their area, etc. A high average on THS doesn't mean much of anything. I can use myself as an example. I bowled since I was 10 (around 30 yrs now), bowled in College and averaged around 205 including a 300 and 800 series, usually average about 230-235 on THS leagues once as high as 242. I have also finished second in AE in the Houston City tournament and second in AE in the Texas State tournament a few years ago. I have cashed in about 1/2 of the PBA Regionals I have bowled in with a high finish of 3rd. I currently bowl in a Sport league in a house that plays very slick and am averaging right at 200, which is 4th in the league which includes a few amateur staffers and one member of Team Canada. But I don't consider myself "Elite" at all. I am averaging about 196 overall in my trips to the USBC Open (2013 will be 13th one overall). I know I wouldn't make it on the PBA tour, I know I don't stack up against the best bowlers in my area. I am proof that a high THS average doesn't make one "elite".
 
A high THS average, no matter how high it is, doesn't show the true skill of a bowler. Unless you are averaging Jeff Carter like 260, look elsewhere to find out if a person is an "elite" bowler.

It has always been the same way in many sports.

A guy can be great in league and another guy can be great at sport and yet very few can be great at both.  Those are our pro tourists and multi tournament winners.

We even find when we study it that very few even elite bowlers on the tour dominate on more than 1 or 2 type patterns.

I often think back to the 1 time I saw Danny White Quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys.  In warm ups that day he had the weakest arm of the 6 quarterbacks on the field by a measurable amount.

Came the game the awesome armed Jaws(Ron Jawarski) showed a measurable amount of happy feet when his protection broke down.  Danny White on the other hand as his moving pocket collapsed around him would flip a little 10 yard pass as all one would see was his arm sticking out of a gang of blockers and defenders.

During the game in very windy conditions I believe he completed almost a record, say 22 out of 24.  Showing absolutely no arm strength but just touch, composure, and accuracy.

When the game got done I believed Ron Jawarski was a talent I couldn't believe.  Danny White was a refined polished professional of much less talent.

In relating to bowling Ron Jawarski was the 245 average in your home house.  Danny White was the 219 average home house bowler who had 3 titles from the National tour!

Smarts, ball choices, lane play, and  sparemaking and guile go a long way on tougher conditions.

REgards,

Luckylefty
PS me....I wish I was the 24X local star!  With lots of 300s and 800s on my local shot!  FUN!

The replies here to me reveal part of the problem.

If you are with a casual group of golfers and ask how they score, no one replies with, I shoot 90 at Pebble Beach but 75 at my local muni course.  They just tell you they shoot around 75.

But it seems to me, at least from some of the replies here, that bowlers want that kind of answer.  Why?

If you are around a group of bowlers discussing average is it necessary to know what kind of conditions that average is bowled upon?

One poster said you cannot compare averages from THS.

I say, one could make the same argument for sport conditions.
If you got 100 "high" average bowlers from across the country into a room together that all bowled "sport" conditions at different houses and began discussing their sport averages, is it really a true comparison? 

I could say no because some sport shots are 3:1, some are 1:1.  Some houses carry better than others.

Is it a closer comparison than THS; sure.

The great majority of bowlers have never seen a sport shot, nor care about a sport shot.

However, they bowl and have discussions about bowling.  How are they supposed to compare themselves to each other if average is not the answer?
 

txbowler,
     I am thinking part of your reply was directed at my post. I think you may have read something I did not say. Of course, discussing average is a way to measure one bowler against another. It IS all we have. What I said is that you cannot classify someone as "elite" based on their THS average. That is unless they average some ungodly number such as Jeff Carter's 260+ average one season.
 
    But as many have said, some bowlers are 220 on a house shot and are a true 215-220 on a sport shot as well. Some bowlers are 220 on a house shot and 180 on a Sport shot. These two bowlers will compare their 220 average and think they are equal, well the 220/180 guy will. Are these two bowlers equal in talent, no, but they happen to be equal in average. THAT is why I say you can't judge an 'elite" bowler on THS average, most of the time. To use your golf analogy, a golfer may shoot 70 easily on his local course, he knows the course, the lies, the distances and can keep out of trouble, miss the hazards and score under par. But he can go across town, to the course he only plays once in while, that has more trees, and he struggles to break 80. While their is a golfer who plays all the courses all over town, shoots 75 on all of them. Who is the better golfer?

I now wished I never mentioned the word "elite" in my initial post.  A lot of replies are too focused on that.

I'll try to re-phrase the question in another way since Jorge gave me the idea.

Bowler A is a 225 THS/ 175 sport average bowler

Bowler B is a 225 THS/ 200 sport average bowler

In casual conversation, both bowlers consider themselves 225 average bowlers.

However, according to what I am reading today, bowler A should really say he is a 175 bowler and bowler B should say he is a 200 average bowler.

But more than likely on a weekly basis, they are bowling on THS conditions and both bowling 225.  That is there "normal" bowling condition average.

If both bowlers were to walking into a new house and bowl on a THS shot, both have an equal chance of beating the other.  And that's the conditions on the lanes in 99% of leagues being bowled today.  So isn't that what bowlers should say?

Golfer's don't go around saying what they score on the toughest conditions they play on.  The say what they score on the normal conditions they play under.  Shouldn't bowlers be able to do the same thing?  Even if it doesn't represent their true, talent?

 

I see two sides of this. On one hand, I agree with the comments of "what does it matter?". You can argue average until the cows come and never reach agreement on "elite".


But if you're going to try to drill down, it really comes down to how you perform in tournaments (local, state, nationals, regionals, etc.) relative to your peers. While carrying a 230+ THS average is usually a prerequisite to competing for tournament level success, it's not an absolute predictor. In my book, no tournament resume, no consideration.