Author Topic: Deciding the best (Read 1254 times)

C-G ProShop-Carl · « **on:** August 06, 2003, 11:35:19 PM »

There have been many posts on here about who the best bowler of all time is. There are many names thrown out there, but usually it comes down to Earl Anthony and WRW.
Many of us say WRW, but this could simply be because we have seen him bowl much more than we ever saw Anthony bowl.
The older group of people that respond to this say it is Anthony. They saw him bowl, and bowl well with inferior equipment to what Williams has had to use.
So what factors should we consider to determine who the best ever is/was? Average? Well, you could use average but the bowling balls out today could be a huge deciding factor for a modern bowler to carry a better average. Career earnings? I think that should pretty much be thrown out, the higher prize funds of today can inflate earnings.

Deciding between the 2 is very difficult considering the eras in which they bowl/bowled. I do not see a true way to pick. They both have dominated the eras they bowled in.

Another factor is lane conditions. From everything I have heard there was always pretty close to a flat shot put out back then. Bowlers had to wear a track in the oil or they would not find any dry. Today, the lanes are well taken care of, cleaned dayly

Some of you would not choose either of the 2. Please, state who you think is tops.

After what I have stated above (and I am sure it is lacking), how can we really compare bowlers from different eras, and be accurate doing so?

NevadaBowl · « **Reply #1 on:** August 07, 2003, 03:44:47 PM »

I like Ragnar's post... never thought of it that way.

Walter has done some enormous things in bowling, and is definitely the best of our time. My vote for all-time, however, has to still go with Earl. He not only has the titles, he did it in a shorter amount of time. And if I remember correctly, he would take time away from the tour, come back, and win again. Then he quit until it came time for the Senior Tour, and while he wasn't a full-time player on the Senior Tour, he was still a winning force to be reckoned with.

Also, as I have been told, he would routinely be on the telecast during weeks when other lefties weren't even on the radar screen.

C-G ProShop-Carl · « **Reply #2 on:** August 07, 2003, 04:23:10 PM »

Every bowler can be beaten. Not only does Earl Anthony hold the record for titles, but isn't it true that he has more second place finishes than wins?
I do not know these numbers, so if someone does, please chime in for sure-----Anthony may have done it sooner, but were there more tour stops at that time? That is something that should be taken into consideration.

WRWjr made many shows last year. He has dominated his sport for the last 13-14 years or maybe a little longer.

I am not biassed in this decision, I am merely trying to look at things from both sides. Let me add another name into the mix---Mark Roth. He pioneered the sport to the point that many people out today want to cover all of those boards. He has just a few titles less than WRWjr. He made equipment that was not meant to cover that many boards do it-----and do it strongly.

TWOHAND834 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 07, 2003, 05:08:32 PM »

Remember in the movie Fast and the Furious when Vin says, "It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." Well, same goes for bowling. Does not matter if you win or lose by 1 pin or 100 pins. Winning is winning and losing is losing. Believe me. Earl lost in the same ways that WRW lost. Now, if you put these 2 HOFs against each other today or 25 years ago on the same conditions, it is VERY HARD to say who the better will be. You could make the same analogy with Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods. You don't think they did not ask the same questions when Jack was in his prime? The entire world has already thought of who would be better if they played in the same era. You could throw in Arnold Palmer into that mix, too. Who was better? Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, Bobby Jones, Walter Hagen, or Ben Hogan? The only REAL response to this question, is that Earl was the best THEN, and WRW is the best, NOW. Jack was the best, THEN. Tiger is the best, NOW. Another one: Michelle Wie is only 13 years old, but she has already won several national tournaments and hits the ball farther than Annika. When Michelle hits her prime (another 10-15 years), is Annika still going to be as dominate as she is now in order to compare the 2 as to who is better? Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity to have more than one dominate player in bowling or golf to really as the question, "WHO IS THE BEST OF ALL TIME?"
--------------------
If anyone out there is worried about the scores being too high, try duckpin!!

Author Topic: Deciding the best (Read 1254 times)

C-G ProShop-Carl

Deciding the best

NevadaBowl

Re: Deciding the best

C-G ProShop-Carl

Re: Deciding the best

TWOHAND834

Re: Deciding the best