avabob wrote on 5/22/2011 9:39 AM:

I started bowling 50 years ago, and am probably wasting my time with this post, but here goes anyway. 

 

 What is wrong with the game today was wrong with it longer than any of you can remember, and what was good about the game then is still good about it.  The bad thing about bowling is that the lane condition can have proportionately more impact over who wins than it should compared to skill and execution.  However that was just as true 40 years ago as it is today. 

 

When I started the game the top players could play multiple angles, and most threw strong ( for the time ) semi roller releases.  However,  there were still plenty of corner shot specialists who usually threw full rollers, and were often unbeatable on their shot.  None of them were very competitive if there was oil on the corner and a decent track inside.  I knew guys who averaged 215+ in the early 70's who never even bowled scratch tournaments unless it was in their house.     Lots of guys who averaged 200 back then thought they were as good as guys on the tour, and so did the rest of the league bowlers who were always saying  "you should think about going pro". 

 

The game has been evolving for as long as any of us can remember.  The great bowlers of the pre 1950 era either totally changed their game, or became non competitive when lacquer lane finish replaced shellac.   As lane finishes got harder in the 70's with the introduction of urethane lane finish, and eventually synthetic surfaces, yet another style of release became dominant, and the straighter players were replaced by power players. 

 

In recent years as friction of balls has increased more ball speed is required to go with higher rev rates, necessitating yet a different type of optimum release. 

 

One thing has never changed.  Anyone can get hot in the short run, and it always takes more games for the cream to rise to the top.  In 1970 I might have lost to a house hack who shoots 230 with a bunch of brooklyns, while today it is to a power player who can only hit a wall, but blasts 260 at me while I leave 3 corner pins and shoot 210.  Neither of these guys can beat me over the course of a league season, or even a longer format tournament in most cases. 

 

Bottom line, bowling, like life, isn't always fair, and it is often better to be lucky than good.  However, the harder I work the luckier I get.  It feels just as good to make a great shot with my Nano today as it did with my Black Beauty in 1964. 

 

 

 

 

  

I agree with this 140%. Not only has there been a change in lanes finishes this includes synthetics, there has been changes to the oils, different lane machines and lane maintenance procedures. Lanes can be be blocked better today than years ago. The only change that has not occurred is how easy the pins fall. As for league bowling, luck has always been and always will be there. The true test for a bowler is sport patterns and the PBA. This is why I don't worry about house bowlers getting lucky to shoot honor scores and why a person's average on house shots has no relevance to me whatsoever.

avabob wrote on 5/22/2011 9:39 AM:

I started bowling 50 years ago, and am probably wasting my time with this post, but here goes anyway. 

 

 What is wrong with the game today was wrong with it longer than any of you can remember, and what was good about the game then is still good about it.  The bad thing about bowling is that the lane condition can have proportionately more impact over who wins than it should compared to skill and execution.  However that was just as true 40 years ago as it is today. 

 

When I started the game the top players could play multiple angles, and most threw strong ( for the time ) semi roller releases.  However,  there were still plenty of corner shot specialists who usually threw full rollers, and were often unbeatable on their shot.  None of them were very competitive if there was oil on the corner and a decent track inside.  I knew guys who averaged 215+ in the early 70's who never even bowled scratch tournaments unless it was in their house.     Lots of guys who averaged 200 back then thought they were as good as guys on the tour, and so did the rest of the league bowlers who were always saying  "you should think about going pro". 

 

The game has been evolving for as long as any of us can remember.  The great bowlers of the pre 1950 era either totally changed their game, or became non competitive when lacquer lane finish replaced shellac.   As lane finishes got harder in the 70's with the introduction of urethane lane finish, and eventually synthetic surfaces, yet another style of release became dominant, and the straighter players were replaced by power players. 

 

In recent years as friction of balls has increased more ball speed is required to go with higher rev rates, necessitating yet a different type of optimum release. 

 

One thing has never changed.  Anyone can get hot in the short run, and it always takes more games for the cream to rise to the top.  In 1970 I might have lost to a house hack who shoots 230 with a bunch of brooklyns, while today it is to a power player who can only hit a wall, but blasts 260 at me while I leave 3 corner pins and shoot 210.  Neither of these guys can beat me over the course of a league season, or even a longer format tournament in most cases. 

 

Bottom line, bowling, like life, isn't always fair, and it is often better to be lucky than good.  However, the harder I work the luckier I get.  It feels just as good to make a great shot with my Nano today as it did with my Black Beauty in 1964.