Author Topic: 900 series-- Should this even be possible? (Read 5883 times)

Juggernaut · « **on:** February 14, 2006, 05:57:44 AM »

I don't usually get caught up in subjects like this, but I have been thinking about all the supposed 900's being shot lately.

A 900 series would lead you to believe that, whoever shot it, must've bowled to a level of PERFECTION! And continued to do so for three consecutive games! However, as we all know, absolute perfection is absolutely un-attainable.

Before you get mad, go off, or decide to flame me, think about this. How does this look in relation to the "other" sports?

Has there EVER been a basketball player to make every single shot he throws up in a game? ( given that he is a regular and takes at least the obligatory 12 shots like a bowling game) How about for three consecutive games?

How about golf? ( Oh GOD, here comes the golf analogy ) Has ANYONE EVER managed to shoot 18? Isn't that a perfect game in golf? How about three 18's in a row? Ever shoot 54 for three rounds?

Yes, there have been several perfect games in baseball, but has ANYONE ever been able to do it three times in a row?

I know these analogies aren't perfect. Heck, they probably leave a lot to be desired, but they are intended to get you thinking.

Now that 900 has been shot, and repeatedly, it makes me think that it lends itself nicely to those who would like to dismiss bowling as nothing more than a "game", or perhaps a parlor trick that ANYONE can learn. I think the proliferation of all these "perfect" series only serves to make the game look a bit less legitimate than before.

That is all the naysayers and the olympic committees will need to keep on turning a blind eye to us.

I know we can't "put the genie back in the bottle" so to speak, but we NEED to find a way to take scoring back to a place where it is more believable. I don't think avaraging 200 is out of the question, and I believe that very accomplished bowlers should, at times, have a shot at a 300 game, I am just afraid that all these 900's are, for laypeople at least, making the sport look much more like a "game".

P.S. And no, I don't know how to return the scoring to a more "normal" pace, and I have my own opinions of modern bowling ball technology, but this (technology) isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about making 300 an achievment to be admired again, and a 900 just a wierd, wonderful, once in a lifetime achievment. (and I mean only one person in ALL our lifetimes)
--------------------
Why be difficult when, with just a bit more effort, you can be IMPOSSIBLE!

jd1319 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 14, 2006, 02:17:50 PM »

returning scoring is the easy part. Flood the lanes with very heavy oil gutter to gutter and oil to 48 feet or so. No more wall, no more house shot.

You can't really compare bowling to other sports though. In bowling, you don't have people trying to stop you from throwing the ball. You don't have teammates that have to make plays for you to get a strike. Golf, the length of the holes makes many of them virtually impossible to make on a single shot. Then, your not throwing the ball with your hand, your adding other elements like having to use a stick to hit it, wind currents, sand traps, lakes, etc...

The thing about 300's. They are luck combined with skill. How many times have you thrown a great ball, and a back row pin just laughs back? Every 300 has an element of luck. With THS, luck is on the bowlers side as it bails you out of a great many mistakes. 300's are bound to come, and yes, the occasional 900 because of the THS. The guys with many 3's are consistent and accurate enough that they give themselves the opportunity for luck to swing their way. You know they've had a great many more 279's and other games where they threw the ball just as well, but didn't get the carry. At least, that's my opinion.

shelley · « **Reply #2 on:** February 14, 2006, 02:44:27 PM »

quote:
A 900 series would lead you to believe that, whoever shot it, must've bowled to a level of PERFECTION! And continued to do so for three consecutive games! However, as we all know, absolute perfection is absolutely un-attainable.

This is the first place you're wrong. I've never thrown a 300 game, but for all of you out there that have, has every one of those 12 shots been perfect? I'd be willing to bet that more often than not, there is at least one shot that shouldn't have carried but did, whether with a flying messenger, late trip, or brooklyn.

There is an optimum strike, where the ball hits the 1-3-5-9, and the appropriate pins ricochet into the next pin in line. We've known about the "perfect strike" for a long time and that's why we throw hooking balls. Tests were done to show that a particular pattern or sequence of pin actions results in a strike fundamentally every single time.

But for those of you with so-called perfect games, have they all been with "perfect" strikes? As I said, probably not. So why would a 900 series indicate absolute perfection? For those of you with 3 perfect games or more (in series or not), has each individually been comprised of 12 "perfect" strikes? Or has at least one of those 36 shots been lucky? Why do we feel like a 900 series should be absolutely perfect, when any three individual 300 games are rarely so?

quote:
How about golf? ( Oh GOD, here comes the golf analogy ) Has ANYONE EVER managed to shoot 18? Isn't that a perfect game in golf? How about three 18's in a row? Ever shoot 54 for three rounds?

This is the second place where your argument breaks down. Honestly, I doubt you really buy it anyway. Still, you say a "perfect" round of golf is a score of 18. Consider, though, what that's comprised of and how it compares to bowling. An 18 round of golf is 18 holes-in-one. Forget "in-a-row" or 18 instead of 12. Ask your golf buddies if a hole-in-one is comparable to throwing a strike. None of them will say it is.

Every few months, some bowler who also plays golf (and is frequently named "Sawbones") asks whether a hole-in-one means more or less than a 300 game, or what the bowling/golf equivalent is to a hole-in-one or 300 game. In my mind, a hole-in-one is much more comparable to picking up the 7-10 or Big-4 than a 300 game.

You don't mean to have a hole-in-one, nor do you mean to pick up the 7-10 split. It's a one-shot, absolute luck, Tiger-isn't-any-more-likely thing. If Randy Pedersen has picked up the 7-10 seven times (which I think he's said on TV), it's because he's bowled 10000 games to my 1000, not because he's that much better than me. 18 holes-in-one would be like an all-spare series with nothing but 7-10s, Big-4s, and Greek Churches.

Now, consider the 900 series in a statistical manner. So I look at last week's Spare Shots, and see that Mike Machuga has a 65.22 match-play strike percentage. He's at the top of the list (as of last week). If we take that to mean that there's a 65.22% chance he strikes on the first ball he throws, and assume that getting one strike is independent of getting another (which may or may not be true), then he has a 0.6522*0.6522=0.425 chance of throwing a double, about 42.5%. Think of it as flipping a coin that's weighted to land heads (strike) 65.22% of the time.

For him to throw a perfect game, his odds are 0.6522^12, approximately 0.6%. If he bowls 1000 games, he'll have 12-in-a-row roughly 6 times. The careful eye will notice I said "12-in-a-row", not "perfect games". For him to carry 36 shots in a row, there's a 2.08e-7 chance, or, 36-in-a-row one time in nearly 5 million frames. Statistically, not definitely.

Now, looking at the "Lonnie Whatshisname's 900" thread, his member info shows him averaging 220+, for the most part. Assuming the strike percentage for the typical 220-average bowler is comparable to Mike Machuga's, only there are thousands of 220-average bowlers, the 36-in-a-row is more reasonable. 850+ is more reasonable. Now, that's still not quite the same as a 900 series, since those 36-in-a-row have to happen in just the right places (specifically, the start of league night or tournament block), but the proverbial law of averages does say that 900 is not only possible, but inevitable.

SH

SH

dogman666 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 14, 2006, 02:45:30 PM »

Too many variables with the lane conditions. I was talking to a guy at the high roller event in vegas and the best he shot was 190 over 8 or so games and he has a 240 book average. I shot 3 games over that, albeit barely, with a measly 192 book from last year. It's all about the oil and how is matches up to your game and equipment.

shelley · « **Reply #4 on:** February 14, 2006, 02:50:42 PM »

quote:
returning scoring is the easy part. Flood the lanes with very heavy oil gutter to gutter and oil to 48 feet or so. No more wall, no more house shot.

That will only take you so far. The modern scoring environment is not just the lanes but the balls as well. It would only be a matter of time before equipment was developed that ate up that type of shot. Very heavy oil or very light oil would be irrelevant. Flat and 48' will necessarily make the shot harder, but eventually, we'll figure out how to score on that type of shot and averages will start to rise again. It took a while to figure out how to drill pin-out balls, it took a while to adapt to resin or urethane or particles and how to fit our physical games around the equipment. How to adjust to the types of breakdown we see now versus the types of breakdown we saw 20, 30, or 50 years ago.

Scoring is a science, and it may take time to figure out the optimal way to score given a particular set of conditions, it will be done.

SH

shelley · « **Reply #5 on:** February 14, 2006, 02:54:33 PM »

quote:
If the cuts at the PBA level were 260 or 270 every event then I would say that bowling as a whole has a problem. In this case I just think that bowling in a league and local tournament level has a problem.

Watching some of the old shows on ESPN Classic, I see the finalists averaging 220+ more often than not. And nowadays, the finalists are averaging 220+. No real difference. Maybe 5-10 pins today over 20+ years ago. So at the professional level, scoring hasn't significantly changed. Only at the league level do you see stuff like that.

SH

Gene J Kanak · « **Reply #6 on:** February 14, 2006, 03:09:03 PM »

There have been some interesting takes on this topic. I especially liked Shelly's astute statistical analysis. From my point of view, the biggest reason why we'll never see scoring return to "reasonable" levels is because the majority of the bowling world does not want it to. Think of you average league. How many guys/gals do you know who never leave their home house yet love to go around telling everybody how they average 210 or whatever? They don't want to get any better; they want to average what they average on a cake shot, toss a couple of honor scores per year and call it quits. That's just the reality of it. You could try to make things more difficult by mandating that all sanctioned leagues use the same oils and put down the same long, heavy, flat patterns, but there are two problems. 1) again, you'd see league membership go way down because most bowlers don't honestly want things to get any tougher and 2) eventually, bowling ball technology would catch up and find a way to exploit the new conditions as well. So, with that being said, bowlers have only a trio of choices: 1) Keep quiet and accept the fact that scoring will remain out of this world...2) Bowl tournaments and join sport leagues so at least they know that THEY are bowling on tougher patterns...or 3) Quit bowling and take up something else. You can't turn back the hands of time. As much as I hate the fact that 900 is becoming a two or three a year accomplishment, I don't plan on quitting, so I guess I'll just keep looking to tournaments to keep things interesting.
--------------------
I can't bowl 300, but I can bench 345 : )

I provide the muscle for the Fellowship of the Saws

jd1319 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 14, 2006, 04:56:42 PM »

shelley, your right, people would figure out how to attack a pattern with no wall and totally flooded, but they won't score nearly as high. The wall is responsible for much of the inflated scores and averages, and eliminating that will bring back skill level into play instead of people just getting lucky with poor shots. Even with better equipment, they won't have the wall to bounce it off of, they would have to make accurate shots.

Supermo · « **Reply #8 on:** February 14, 2006, 05:16:44 PM »

How many blocks of 3 games have been bowled since the game began 60/70 yrs ago, i would imagine millions or even into the billions all over the world.Now bowling is like every other sport the equipment gets better the bowlers get better the lanes seem to get easier. So say we have had 20/900 series in all that time after all those games that averages out at 1or2 every 10 yrs and maybe 1 every million set of 3. Its just we've had a few in the last few months so your all saying the game is easy....I think not
--------------------

Hit em thin watch em Spin

If your Dog thinks you are the Best , Do not ASK FOR A SECOND OPINION !

Juggernaut · « **Reply #9 on:** February 14, 2006, 07:08:16 PM »

I see this got everyones brain in gear!

Supermo, you almost make my point for me in a way. It is the fact that all these 900's have been shot in the last few years that is the problem.

if it was purely by chance and luck to shoot 900, then they would be spread evenly over a period of time.

But, they aren't. They are all bunched up in an "after resin"era (except for Glen Allison's, which may have been that one flukey, freak of nature that we should be able to expect in a lifetime)

Scoring today is not in line with talent today. There are fewer bowlers each year, yet more and more honor scores. WHY?

Not trying to take anything away from anybody, just trying to figure out what to do before it is too late.
--------------------
Why be difficult when, with just a bit more effort, you can be IMPOSSIBLE!

No Open Tenths · « **Reply #10 on:** February 14, 2006, 09:02:54 PM »

quote:
Scoring today is not in line with talent today. There are fewer bowlers each year, yet more and more honor scores. WHY?

It would seem to me that is because you keep those that have sucess and therefore are more highly skilled.
Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but when the pool is more highly skilled the outcomes SHOULD be higher.
--------------------
Whether you think you can, or whether you think you can't... you're probably right.

chitown · « **Reply #11 on:** February 14, 2006, 09:11:04 PM »

Every bowling league should just use the PBA patterns. This would put an end to all of the rediculous avg.s and huge series. If someone does shoot a high game then it was most likely deserved.

Juggernaut · « **Reply #12 on:** February 14, 2006, 10:02:12 PM »

quote:
quote:
Has there EVER been a basketball player to make every single shot he throws up in a game?

Christian Laettner in the 1992 regional finals of the NCAA tournament against Kentucky. He made every shot and free throw he put up including the game winner at the buzzer. Not a Duke fan but that was the best basketball game I have ever seen. Just barely ahead of Illinois - Arizona from last year.
--------------------
Quicky
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice."
Albert Einstein

You are correct! And for the sport of basketball, this may be the "once in a lifetime" flukey game we could expect to see. But not 5-6-7 or more and all by different players. Not to mention a guy who now claims to have shot two or three of them by himself!

These things are not to be completely unheard of, but they should be so rare as to consider them almost freakish, like a masterstroke from lady luck herself. And so should a 900 series in bowling.

Supermo · « **Reply #13 on:** February 15, 2006, 03:59:50 AM »

The actual odds of having a hole ine one is 3000/1.. the odds of a good bowler having a strike is 6/4..no comparison
--------------------

Hit em thin watch em Spin

If your Dog thinks you are the Best , Do not ASK FOR A SECOND OPINION !

JoeBowler · « **Reply #14 on:** February 15, 2006, 06:35:58 AM »

In the history ov ten pins bowling none 900 were close to being recognzzzid before allisons 25 years ago. and all these have been in the last 10 years.

With a 70% decline in teh number of bowlers.

and only inthe US.

oh yeah we breed great athletes today int eh land of american fat buttts. Lanes, balls, pins, lane machines have nothing to do with it.

Author Topic: 900 series-- Should this even be possible? (Read 5883 times)

Juggernaut

900 series-- Should this even be possible?

jd1319

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

shelley

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

dogman666

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

shelley

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

shelley

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

Gene J Kanak

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

jd1319

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

Supermo

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

Juggernaut

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

No Open Tenths

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

chitown

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

Juggernaut

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

Supermo

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

JoeBowler

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?