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.

So shooting an 800 series (multiple times) on a condition that is considered the easiest in all of bowling equals an elite player. Disagree. Your a good bowler but not an elite bowler.

The flatter patterns are the true test. Excelling on them equals an Elite Bowler.

Well you all know I had to weigh in here . . but we have to discuss the big points here.  Yes, 220 is the new 200, but are bowlers really better or are the scores inflated?  That to me is the real question here.  The further above 220 it gets, the more vague and muddy it gets, because one tap in the middle of a string is an automatic 21 pins.  To me, 220 is one 9 pin a game away from being 240.  And on a THS, being "better" really equates to more speed and revs.  Power on a THS will dominate skill, period, so if we go by the true definition of elite, are we considering someone who can put up big scores on a house shot elite? 

And what kidlost is saying about wins . . you have to get into tournaments to get wins, and some people just don't bowl tournaments, so just because you don't win tournaments doesn't mean you're not good, but we're talking elite here.  Making an argument for saying 230 is an acceptable average is almost like saying golfers should regularly be shooting in the high 50's, because that's really what we're talking about here.  Yes, the sport has progressed, equipment has gotten better, etc, but a 30 pin inflation is pretty huge.  And going just by the numbers, 30 pin score increase is only a 13% increase from 200-230, but the real thing here is the increase in strikes needed.  A 200 game only requires a double somewhere and staying clean, a 230 requires an extra 3 strikes IN A ROW.  For a 200, it takes a minimum of 2 strikes, maximum of 6 (talking clean games here).  For a 230, it takes a minimum of 5, maximum of 9.  That equals a minimum 60% increase, maximum 33% increase of strikes, which is the real number we're after.  If you translate just the score percentage to golf, from an average par of 72, given the same trends as bowling, "elite" amateur golfers should be shooting 62 on easy courses.  I'm sure there's golfers out there that just want to have fun too right?  Not everything is supposed to be competitive, right? 

Now, discuss what effect, if any, the high level amateur golfer shooting in the low 60s every round, all across the country would have on the sport of golf as a whole.  Why has golf remained so popular, and bowling has declined?  Golf is every bit as expensive and time consuming, if not more, than bowling is.  Is it because golf is more visual?  It's easy to see the difference between an easy golf course and a tough one, but you can't tell the difference in bowling unless you actually bowl on something. 

I'm sure somebody will shoot me down here or say it doesn't translate, which it may not, but it doesn't make sense to me why the magical score in bowling was 200 for decades, and all the sudden is 230.  And if we're comparing it to golf, we should really go by 690, because it's way easier to just throw in a 230 game than it is to shoot a 72, but shooting a 690 requires a lot more.  Either bowlers all the sudden got a lot better, or the sport has gotten easier, and if that's the case, all the definitions are too muddy to apply without a consistent and verifiable measure for actual skill.  Back in the 70's, if you averaged over 200, you were good, there was no way around that or argument against it, same way with 72 in golf period. 

we do know this: Walter Ray Williams Jr. is elite! lol

we do know this: Walter Ray Williams Jr. is elite! lol

Apparently not, if you view the pro bowlers or primadonnas thread, apparently he's weak minded, overly sensitive, and can't handle pressure, and it sounds like that goes for all pro bowlers. 

There are bowlers in the USBC Hall of Fame for bowling ability -- such as Herb Lange and James Blouin -- that never rolled a sanctioned 300 or 800. And such great players as Ned Day and Andy Varipapa only rolled one certified perfect game.

We had a guy shoot 896 last week for a state record. Be bowls in several houses and Carey's around a 220 average.

Does the 896 make him the best bowler in the state? Does the 220 average make him elite?  My answer is no to both questions if we are talking about bowling on tough conditions. On a THS he is better than most.

Lane condition is the true test. THS= a carry contest.

I think you guys have become jaded. 220 and above average is elite for sure. I don't care if itis THS or Sport. I bowl in Metro Detroit and have attached some stats. Only 13.33% of sanctioned male bowlers averaged over 210. Only 3.8% averaged over 220.

Stats are not kept on 230+ averages but I guarantee that itnis less than 2%. I would consider being in the top 5-10-15 percent of bowlers elite. Unfortunately most of us are avid bowlers who look at the game as a sport and competition and bowl in higher end leagues and it strips us of our objectivitity on this issue. But numbers never lie.

I am 225-240 anywhere I go. Never won any titles anywhere but I don't bowl many tournaments. Sometimes it shows. But....I know I can compete with anyone on those shots too as I average 208 out at Nationals and am the only perso  I know who has an award score out there. (And I bowl with many staffers and regional players) I do well at States every year, I have won sweepers on PBA patterns, and I have stunk it up at times on every possible shot any of us have seen.

But 220 is still a phenomenal bowler. 200 is still decent and has potential. It is all about your perspective. But again....the numbers show us that we tend not to look at ALL bowlers when making our judgements.

http://mdusbc.com/Yearbooks/Yearbook_2012/stats_league.html