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.

Those quotation marks weren't for a literal quote, it was just to denote my paraphrasing of what was being said.  Here are some actual quotes:

"USBC's specifications and limits regarding legal lane conditions are so wide open that thousands of league bowlers who never practice can show up to league once a week, shoot 750 with the only ball they own, and go home without so much as a thought."  Gizmo823 (that's you) --Letter to USBC Re: the state of bowling

"Any activity that requires zero practice and little effort to achieve "perfection" will eventually cease to exist."  Gizmo823 --Letter to USBC Re: the state of Bowling

"Now with the easier conditions, people don't need to practice, and if you can walk in drunk and shoot 230 every game, the challenge slowly falls away and people get bored."  Gizmo823 --Letter to USBC Re: the state of bowling

By this point, you're probably getting the point that you have been very loose with your criticism that 230 is a readily attainable number for anyone who can tell which direction the pins are, when in fact there are many, MANY bowlers who work hard to improve and are not at that level.  It is disrespectful to them to brush off a goal they have not attained yet as something anyone can do, and disrespectful to the 230 bowler who worked hard to get there.  I suppose I should have been more specific before and said that there have been multiple threads relating to the effects of high scoring patterns on bowling today, but that mostly it has in fact been you sharing the opinion that averages on a THS don't reflect anything.  I would wager a lot that this attitude is 10x more responsible for the decline in bowling than easy lane conditions.  My first of several grievances with a very long thread.  But I digress...more quotes.

"...and why try to be good when somebody else with no clue can occasionally shoot big numbers too?"  Gizmo823 --Letter to USBC Re: the state of bowling

"Now, it doesn't take any practice to shoot 700"  Gizmo823 --The most epic meltdown in the history of bowling

"Average really doesn't mean much anymore....I average 10 pins higher than a national title holder in my area and I am nowhere NEAR the bowler he is.  There are bowlers that average higher than me that are nowhere NEAR the bowler I am...."  Russell --200 average is no longer elite - deal with it and move on

"Do we all realize though that we're just talking about house shots here? What I mean is that averaging 200 or better is still somewhat respectable if you're doing it on demanding conditions. It's only in the house shot arena that 200 has lost all credibility."  Gene J. Kanak --200 average is no longer elite - deal with it and move on


As for the question you pose near the end...on a THS, the bowlers are exactly equal in ability.  MUAHAHAHAHA I SAID IT.  They are equal in ability.  The lower sport average has figured out how to score on a house shot, meaning HE HAS DEVELOPED THE TOOLS NECESSARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND USES THEM WELL.  Yes, THS requires tools.  People rag on it largely because it requires less of one in particular, precision (and there is a false equivalency that precision=good bowling, which is a terribly incomplete statement).  However, he has developed a solid spare game, can line himself up in practice, and can stay moderately ahead of the transition all while either hitting his target or missing it THE RIGHT WAY.  At that level, he's probably also fairly skilled at making hand position changes and is experienced enough to know if/when to make a ball change.  The higher sport average might have a larger tool box which gives him greater success on a wider variety of tough conditions, but apparently on a scoreable pattern he can't use his more developed toolbox any more effectively than the other guy.  IF YOU'RE INCAPABLE OF USING YOU'RE TOOLBOX EFFECTIVELY, IT DOESN'T MEAN SQUAT.  The situation is completely different on a sport shot.  Of course the 210 average bowler has more ability in that environment (although the only reason I could fathom a 60 pin difference in someone's THS and sport average is inexperience with sport shots).  I would say the 230/210 bowler is much more rounded and complete of a bowler, and more of a threat in a variety of extraordinary situations, but on a normal league night he's not any better.  If he wants to be better than the other guy on league night, he should figure out how to strike more instead of grabbing a beer and complaining about how all house shots are "carry contests".  Focus more on checking racks/flushing the pocket better to get the 8 out, or estimate how long before he starts ringing 10s and make an adjustment before it happens.  Bad carry has absolutely nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with not understanding the minute changes in the lane before making a shot.

Quote from: Mbosco on March 18, 2013, 02:38:16 PM

You are officially my hero.  For weeks these threads have been going on about "anyone can just walk in, drill a ball, and average 230 without knowing what they're doing".  It's amazing to me that I think you're the first to point out the truth of the situation.

Quote from: completebowler on March 18, 2013, 11:30:04 AM

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

I don't know when anyone ever said that . . it's just that it's easier to make a comparison based on the easiest difference to identify, which happens to be at the high end of the spectrum.  There have always been 180 average bowlers, so what contrast do we see by talking about them?  It's basically saying that everyone as a whole is "better" than they should be.  There are people averaging 230 that should be averaging 210, and people averaging 210 that should be averaging 190, and "accomplishments" as a whole are too easy to get based on your skill level.  There are bowlers today who have more honor scores in a year than people of similar talent 40 years ago had in an entire career. 

So explain why some THS 230 average bowlers can average 210 on tougher shots and some fall to 170?  Which bowler is better?  Saying something is too easy doesn't mean it's actually easy by any stretch, it's just saying that it's not hard enough for what you're gaining.  It's like a greeter at Walmart getting paid 20 bucks an hour.

Mbosco and Complete -- excellent posts. Gizmo and others who are still in the "THS is too easy" camp should read and re-read as necessary.

I had a bunch typed, but I don't think you guys are going to get my point or the concept behind what I'm saying.  People shoot better scores than they should on easier shots, and because there's a cap at 230-240, no matter what you do, how hard you work, the logistics of the sport, aside from an isolated case here or there, just don't allow for a sustained average of any higher than that.  I got to 230 several years ago, before I should have.  I have honor scores I don't deserve.  Now I'm much smarter, much more experienced, and much more skilled in all aspects, but my THS average is unchanged and unaffected.  My sport average and success at sport tournaments has improved significantly, but that's not what matters to anyone. Maybe that just means I don't have to practice any more to maintain it, but there's tons of guys I bowl with that average 230 that struggle to shoot 500 at Nationals.  There are plenty of 230 average bowlers who criticize other 230 average bowlers, because some have actual bowling skill, and some have simply figured out how to take advantage of the conditions.  It's not fun to know that on a shot that requires actual accuracy, true skill, and knowledge, that you would take 10 out of 10 games from someone who you might split those games with on a THS.  If bowlers that can shoot 230 on a house shot can barely break 170 on a sport shot, shouldn't the bowlers who average 210 on a house shot be able to average 250+ on a THS?  Do you guys see what I'm actually getting at here? 

I'm saying the inflated scores are really hurting bowling from several angles.  If some bowler who has a 300 suggests a ball to a lower average or less successful friend, or tries to coach them, or gives them advice, the lower average bowler takes it to heart, whether the 300 guy really has a clue or not.  He has a 300, so he has to know something, right?  This is a guy who doesn't understand that putting the fingerholes in a ball in the same place will do completely different things for people with different paps.  If mr. 300 has a pap of 5 over and 1/2 up, and he tells a friend that likes the same ball and wants that reaction who has a 4 over and 1 up pap to get it drilled the same way, they're not going to get the same ball reaction unless the fingers are put in a different location.  Then if you as the pro shop guy do the RIGHT thing, then the 300 guy tells their friend, "oh wow, he really screwed that ball up."  Mr 300 can tell somebody, "oh, if you're having trouble releasing the ball, go get more reverse pitch."  Or he can tell them, "well, you have to keep your shoulders square to the line, that's proper form," when their friend is trying to play 20-5.  Or he develops some little quirk that works for him, and preaches that as gospel to everyone else.  Or someone can't get their hook monster to hook on light oil, so he sends them after something that hooks even more.  Or they say a Taboo is junk because a Vibe outhooks it on light oil. 

These are the guys that THS produces.  The guys that would average 170 30 years ago, the guys that wouldn't have the same "power" or influence as the guys who really know what they're doing.  The guys who have more knowledge and more skill won more often, not the big strong athletic guys who can figure out that speed plus revs plus throwing it right equals big numbers.  I've seen guys who hit different arrows on every shot shoot 300.  And you're saying that's skill?  You're saying they deserve it?  That's basically saying everyone who has ever shot 300 is just as good as Chris Barnes, Walter Ray, PDW, because those guys can't average any better on a house shot because it's a theoretical impossibility.  EARL the robot is perfectly accurate, but has never shot 300.  More accurate bowlers get penalized more because they burn their shots up faster.  It's a complete insult to guys who actually work and practice to suggest otherwise.  You give anybody 2+2+2, and ask them to add that up.  Give it to a 4th grader and give it to a trig professor.  Then say, "well, that 4th grader is every bit as good at basic math as the trig guy is!"  Ok, congratulations . . but that doesn't mean the 4th grader knows anything about math.  They start talking about why 2(2+2) should be 6, while the trig professor knows it's 8.  "Well, 2 times 2 is 4, plus 2 is 6!"  No, there's some rules in there you don't understand, and that's exactly the concept I'm getting at.  Too much emphasis is put on 300 as a number which means significantly less on a THS than it means on something tough, but because people don't understand this, it's throwing off the balance of the whole game.  They look at the numbers as numbers, completely unrelated to the challenge, or lack thereof. 

You can say, "well don't put down people who have never averaged that high or who have never gotten a 300 before."  Well sorry, but not everybody will average 200, not everyone will shoot 300, and for the benefit of all concerned, some things MUST be put into perspective.  There's a kid here in town who has a couple 300's and a couple 800's.  He was nearly disqualified from high school bowling this year because his grades were too low.  His dad went in to the athletic director at the school and had a shouting match with him over the qualifications.  Dad's words were, and I quote, "Well why do his grades matter?  He's going straight to the PBA after he graduates, he doesn't need good grades!"  So tell me, what 170 average bowlers 30 years ago had that attitude?  Back then, when the level of bowler was more clearly defined, everything was just fine.  Now we have debates like this. 

When you call a 230 THS bowler with a handful of honor scores elite, you aren't giving them their due respect, you're insulting all the professionals.  Out of all these 230 avg THS bowlers, what is the percent that can ACTUALLY bowl rather than just abuse a house shot?  That's the number that should be looked at.  I'm a 230 THS bowler with a handful of honor scores, and there's no way in hell I'd put money on the line against a pro on a PBA shot, but I'd do it on a THS is a heartbeat.  THAT is the real story of the THS and its effect on bowling. 

Mbosco and Complete -- excellent posts. Gizmo and others who are still in the "THS is too easy" camp should read and re-read as necessary.

Why can't you read. Every statistic proves the THS is Easy. There are more honor scores and higher averages bowled on them. The pattern allows for room. The need for precision (release, speed, accuracy) has greatly reduced to produce a strike.

Why do bowling centers use this pattern?
Why do bowlers prefer this pattern?

Simple. It's easier to bowl on. Why is this so hard for you guys to understand?

Yes there are guys that bowl super high averages on this pattern, but just because someone bowls super high on the easiest shot designed in bowling should not make them an elite bowler. We as a comumnity of bowlers should recognize it.

We are not stating the every 230 THS average bowler isn't an ELITE bowler, we are stating that the score only on it's own is NOT ENOUGH to determine the elite status! How does the bowler do on flatter patterns? How good is he or she when they need to be more accurate, more precise in the release?

Many that have a high average on THS do bowl well on the flatter patterns and we should consider them ELITE, but there are just as many that can't handle those patterns. Should those bowlers be considered on the same level as the ones that do well on flatter patterns? I say no.

Why can't you read. Every statistic proves the THS is Easy. There are more honor scores and higher averages bowled on them. The pattern allows for room. The need for precision (release, speed, accuracy) has greatly reduced to produce a strike.

When roughly only 1-2% of league bowlers are able to achieve 230+ THS averages, it's not really all that easy to master. Averaging two turkey's a game without missing any spares over a 100+ game season is a challenge. That's the perspective I'm coming from.


I really don't care that with relatively little work someone can average 180-200 on a walled condition using a helpful resin ball. That's the 'easy' part. The harder part is taking it to the next level, which even on a THS isn't easy.


I don't believe achieving a 230+ average on a THS makes anyone automatically 'elite'. Your'e certainly elite among your THS peers, but as Jorge most recently pointed out, you're not necessarily elite among the best in the game. I would argue that if you can't hit the 230+ mark in your local center, your chances of achieving elite status among the best are slim to none, but there are always exceptions. I''m talking about what's generally true.


BTW, my reading skills are fine, thanks. 

You make very valid points and I agree with most of them but you maybe overlooking one big factor, whether or not the game can actually go the route of reducing scoring across the board.  In my opinion it cannot.  That can of worms has already been opened and if the USBC tried to toughen oil patterns and actually enforced this, the bowlers would go crazy since we are now so used to the current scoring levels.  The same goes for any sport; imagine the USGA limiting driving distance by prohibiting metal drivers, golfers would rebel for sure.  Yes, scoring is outrageous and yes, we all practice less, if at all, but I don't see anyway of ever turning back.

Well I attribute that to the fact that you have achieved great success on the conditions you are bowling on. When you find tougher conditions or want to take it to another level you will get back to practicing again.

But again 230 isn't so easy. Even 220 isn't so easy. I know a ton of decent bowlers who have bowled their entire life that don't average 220. I bowl with many of them on my teams.

Now they don't practice either which is why they can't get to the next level. You, me, and Steven put our time in the past working on our games so we can average that number. Doesn't mean we need to go bowl 30 games a week to stay there....we have built up the fundamentals and versatility to stay there.

Now if I want to average 230 on sport, chase the regional tour or Masters/US Open, or an Eagle at the Championships I am gonna have to put more time and effort in. But to be honest....as cool as any of those successes would be I don't have the time or energy to pursue them.

But again I think this boils down to a pissing contest in some ways. You see a guy averaging 230 who has bad form and fundamentals, knows nothing about lane play and ball reaction, has no clue as to what his equipment is designed to do, and it irritates you. You know you outscore him on sport so you want to point out the reasons you are better. I get that and have had similar conversations. But reality is.....on the THS you aren't any better than him.

And THS isn't going anywhere and it isn't the fault of the bowlers in my opinion. It falls on the proprietors. They have been fighting over the dwindling customer base for so long by putting out easier and easier shots that if they were to change it now bowlers would leave in droves. But who began this in the first place? I have never heard a bowler say he wants easier conditions. I have heard they want more consistient, more oil, less oil, better carry etc. but never just flat out easier.

The centers did this to our game by trying to lure bowlers over from the competing house. And now we have what the game is today. Get over it.

Very nice points, I can't argue any of them.  The first paragraph got me especially, haha, I'll be practicing before going to the Greater Ozarks Open next month and staying after the PBA league this summer to practice.  Well said.