Is it too easy to become a professional bowler? And when are you truly a professional bowler?

My definition of a professional athlete would be one who primarily makes their living by the sport they are engaged in, particularly during the active season of the sport.  By my standards many so called amateurs are really professionals. Many part time regional players would not fall into my definition. They have never gotten a check in a PBA event nor are they likely to. And they will never make a living at it.

In bowling one is only considered a professional if they join the PBA. The requirements  for joining PBA, I feel, are far too low in terms of average. I would think the bar today should be at least at 220 maybe higher. I know I’ll here from bowlers who will claim the bowl in brickyards and no one averages 220 and in a few (very few) cases that might be true. But I would be surprised if most of the successful full time national tour players couldn’t average 220+ on that condition. It is amazing how a good pro can make a condition the normal house bowler cannot hit look easy.

The PBA is going to an all exempt tour next year but up till then what other sport can you compete on it’s major league stage by simply paying a fee? None that I’m aware of.

I really think the PBA exempt tour is good idea in that you have to earn your way on now. The biggest problem I have with the system as currently defined is that too many players are protected. With only 64 slots available each tournament, 50 are from exempt players, 7 will have special exemptions given by the PBA, and last 7 are for the local regional players and sponsor exemptions. The last seven will never qualify for the next year, so you only have 57 bowlers going for 50 slots open the next year. Those are pretty good odds especially when some of the 7 exempt can’t compete anymore due to injury or age. The exempt number should be around 40 giving more regional qualifiers a chance to move up.

Averages really are pointless.  Even on tour, averages are only meaningful during the 18 games to qualify for match play.  Once you get to match play, you can lose 260-250 while the a guy next to you wins 190-170 and advances.

In the dark ages, the five bowlers with the highest 42 game average got to bowl for the title, with the highest average for the week guaranteed a 2nd place finish.  And if memory serves me correctly, some of the current stars, Williams, Duke, Voss and Weber, seemed to do OK, while at the same time allowing 160 bowlers a week to chase their dreams without making a full time commitment.

Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky, but if the original PBA would have promoted the game and spent money marketing the sport like the new regime, it may have survived.

sports fans, i think you're over-reacting.  carrying an average of over 200 is now easier, but you still need to have a pretty decent level of skill and knowledge.

a good example from another sport is golf.  there are over 25,000 pga professionals.  you have to be able to shoot 75-78 to pass the playing test, then there's an apprentice program of 2-4 years to become fully certified.  you don't have to be able to compete with touring professionals.

if there's a beef with becoming a pba member, it's that the only prerequisite is averaging 200.  wouldn't it be nice if pba pro's not on the tour were better trained in marketing, inventory management, teaching, ball dynamics, etc.?!?

also, i am against the fully exempt pba tour next year.  there should be a certain number of spots in each event reserved for qualifiers.  again, they do this in golf, as well as in tennis.  pba organizers are afraid of this concept . . . heaven forbid a qualifier beats walter ray in the first round!!!  it happens occasionally in golf and tennis, but who doesn't root for the underdog sometimes?!?

let's get the pro's accredited, and give the good bowlers a "chance" to compete with the big boys!