Author Topic: New Scoring System (Read 18395 times)

ITZPS · « **on:** January 26, 2015, 09:21:41 AM »

I've done a lot of thinking about this and let's look at it from both sides. With the new system, every frame is essentially a game, you just have to win it, no matter how pretty or ugly it is. I DON'T like that it doesn't really include spares, but at the same time, the name of the game is and has always been knocking them all down on the first try. The good thing about this system is that one bad shot won't ruin your game, just like why tournaments have longer formats so one bad game won't necessarily knock you out of it. It also is very easy for newbies to the sport to catch up or figure out the scoring, which I think will be good for international or Olympic competition, but obviously just head to head. Plus this system should make games go down to the wire more often than not. Instead of one person getting a big lead and then just playing defense by getting on cruise control and hitting the pocket and picking up spares, they are required to keep their foot on the pedal the whole game.

There are a few things broken with the traditional system. Is it really fair for someone who goes front 7, stone 8, sheet to lose to someone who goes through the nose and leaves a 6-10, picks up the spare, then rolls the next 10 and finishes with a big 4 to win the game? Shouldn't the winner be the person who threw the most strikes? I suppose I've never really liked the traditional scoring system to begin with. Every night your score doesn't depend on the overall quality of your shots, it just depends on where your misses were. If you throw 30 strikes in a night, with the other 6 being 9 counts, assuming you make the spares if applicable, you could either shoot a 258 triplicate for 774 or a 289 triplicate for 867. But shouldn't your score be more dependent on how good you played rather than where everything fell? It would be like giving bonus strokes for consecutive pars or birdies or something. Unless I'm mistaken, this sport is the only one that gives a bonus just because you did something several times in a row.

Can you imagine on the PGA tour if somebody gets off on a hot streak to start their day and has 5 consecutive birdies and gets say an additional 2 strokes dropped off their score per hole for that? Then another guy birdies every other hole and actually ends the round with more birdies, but loses just because they weren't all in a row? That sounds pretty ridiculous to me. But that's the way it is, and that's what everybody is used to.

I think it needs a few adjustments, but I actually like the new system better. I don't like that the first ball is all that matters, I think spares need to be shot every frame. If they both throw a 9 count, they need to shoot the spare to tie the frame. In my mind, if someone goes 8/, they should win the frame over someone that goes 9-0. However, that also doesn't make the first shot very important, it shouldn't be ALL about spares. If nobody is ever trying to strike, just get good count and pick up the spare, you most likely wouldn't have that occasional 7 count. It would make it more like No Tap. It's a lot different game if you're just trying to get 9 instead of trying to get a strike.

So in the first match, did Sandra really bowl better than Liz? I think Liz won the game fair and square. I don't know what the traditional scoring number would have been, but we forget Sandra went 8-10, washout the last two frames before the extra one.

If you read this article on the PBA website, the players have some extremely good points. http://news.pba.com/post/2015/1/25/K...-Unveiled.aspx I feel the same way they do. I think it was more exciting for me than the traditional scoring, it keeps you honest longer, and it makes the matches more closely contested. The person who wins the most frames should win the game every time, period. I still think spares should be included to some capacity, I like my suggestion of course, but does anybody else have a better idea? This new system is actually really good if you think about it. People are more obsessed with scores now than good bowling, and I think that's why people don't like it.

tommygn · « **Reply #31 on:** January 27, 2015, 01:43:16 PM »

Quote from: ITZPS on January 27, 2015, 01:04:40 PM

Not sure about that last point, the 8-10 and the washout at the end may have done Sandra in were it regular scoring . .

...Then you also can't forget that Liz also 4-9'd and 5-7'd in the middle of her match. Those certainly aren't gimme spare conversions.

Ken De Beasto · « **Reply #32 on:** January 27, 2015, 03:19:42 PM »

the new system sucks but my boy sean rash woop some1 ass pew pew and he was throwing a mighty fine line very sexy very powerful

avabob · « **Reply #33 on:** January 27, 2015, 05:45:27 PM »

I know I got off topic, but people aren't dumb. I don't know of any league bowler above 180 who doesn't understand that they are playing on something different than the pros play on. Bowling success at the top level is much more about diversity than is golf. And my point is that many people are looking at scores not execution. I am about a 12 handicap golfer. When I look at some kid shooting 65, he looks as good as a pro to me, even if I know he is not playing on US Open conditions.

Returning to the scoring system, not sure how it is boring, just different. People don't have any problem with Baker style team bowling for finals. If I was going to be stodgy, I would have at least as much trouble with that as the new scoring system. Most people aren't old enough to remember that the step ladder format was invented for tv by the PBA. I guarantee you that the pros at the time hated going into a 1 game crap shoot after 42 games of qualifying and match play.

Crash7189 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 27, 2015, 06:36:44 PM »

I don't think this will ever work in league play.

1. handicap how will you work that?
2. to many house hacks will not know how to brag about there ave.
3. the owners of the center will not like it. It could shorten the games and less beer they could sell.

I could see it being used in certain competitions like international/Olympics
But is should not be used for PBA titles.

I also had the same issue with my DVR I checked before I left it showed it was going to record but never did. I have had this issue when non PBA bowling items are on.

Even though it did not record I saw a much better show

American Sniper Well worth the money & time and missing the PBA

tommygn · « **Reply #35 on:** January 28, 2015, 10:15:54 AM »

This scoring system doesn't work because it doesn't take into account total pinfall, only comparing who has the "better" frame. It's not hard to figure out that a bowler who could washout then face, two frames in a row can still be in a match with a bowler who struck twice, and then gets tapped the next two frames, while the first bowler gets two strikes. In that scenario, they are tied, yet bowler A has bowled the better game, hitting the pocket 4 out of 4 frames but gets tapped, while bowler B only hit the pocket twice.

Again, there is nothing wrong with our scoring system. Why is it so hard to understand that a 224 is better than a 212, when comparing apples to apples? The problem is, when comparing a 224 by the best in the world on a hard condition, and a 235 by a mediocre player on an over walled miss your mark by 5 boards, yet still go flush for strikes house shoot. That is hard to explain, and be comprehend-able to a NON BOWLER who you are trying to get advertising dollars from. They only see the SCORE.

Jorge300 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 28, 2015, 10:41:17 AM »

Let me add a few things:

1) People need to take a step back. This wasn't a PBA event, it was the World Bowling Tour finals, A WBT event. Yes, the PBA recognizes their titles as a PBA win, but it was not their event, nor their rules.

2) The new scoring system wasn't designed for league play, it was designed for international competition. It was designed so that someone who knows nothing about bowling, like someone who may be watching the Olympics, can figure out who is winning and why. It is a first step to maybe getting bowling into the Olympics in the future.

3) How can anyone say it is boring after watching the final 4 frames of the Liz Johnson/Sandra Andersson match?

4) To those that say Sandra bowled a better game then Liz....would any of you look down upon this scenario: Golfer A birdies every hole on the front 9, while golfer B, Birdies 5, bogeys 4...then on the back 9 Golfer A pars the first 7, then double bogeys 17 and 18, while golfer B pars the first 5, then birdies the last 4 to tie Golfer A and then wins on the first playoff hole....would you be upset because Golfer A played a better round only missing par or under on two holes while Golfer B, missed par or under on 4?

These are just a few things people are missing....and why is that? Becuase it's change....people dislike change. All of you complaining, read the book "Who moved my Cheese?" and maybe you will gain a new perspective on it. And lastly, lighten up Francis!

milorafferty · « **Reply #37 on:** January 28, 2015, 10:47:40 AM »

Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 10:41:17 AM

Let me add a few things:

1) People need to take a step back. This wasn't a PBA event, it was the World Bowling Tour finals, A WBT event. Yes, the PBA recognizes their titles as a PBA win, but it was not their event, nor their rules.

2) The new scoring system wasn't designed for league play, it was designed for international competition. It was designed so that someone who knows nothing about bowling, like someone who may be watching the Olympics, can figure out who is winning and why. It is a first step to maybe getting bowling into the Olympics in the future.

3) How can anyone say it is boring after watching the final 4 frames of the Liz Johnson/Sandra Andersson match?

4) To those that say Sandra bowled a better game then Liz....would any of you look down upon this scenario: Golfer A birdies every hole on the front 9, while golfer B, Birdies 5, bogeys 4...then on the back 9 Golfer A pars the first 7, then double bogeys 17 and 18, while golfer B pars the first 5, then birdies the last 4 to tie Golfer A and then wins on the first playoff hole....would you be upset because Golfer A played a better round only missing par or under on two holes while Golfer B, missed par or under on 4?

These are just a few things people are missing....and why is that? Becuase it's change....people dislike change. All of you complaining, read the book "Who moved my Cheese?" and maybe you will gain a new perspective on it. And lastly, lighten up Francis!

So what other sport(s) has different scoring criteria for the Olympics? And how many people who watch sports like Rhythmic Gymnastics and Ice Dancing(or Figure Skating) know how the scoring works? Or for some obscure sport like Curling?

ITZPS · « **Reply #38 on:** January 28, 2015, 10:50:19 AM »

Traditional scoring doesn't take total pinfall into account either . . You have someone that goes front 6 and spares the rest of the way out, then you have someone else who gets 7 strikes, but has a dutch going and then strikes out in the 10th. Bowler 1 wins with fewer strikes. How is that right? Bonus just because they all happen to be in a row?

Like I already said, each frame is like a game in itself. This is why tournaments are longer format, so that if you have one bad game, you're not out of it, and if you have one good game, you aren't running away with it. Should a guy that averages 240 all week then gets on tv and has a 170 get knocked out because of that? It makes every single frame important, there's no stringing strikes and getting a ton of bonus pins while your opponent gets tapped a couple times. The same thing can happen with traditional scoring by your logic, guy throws 3 or 4 splits to start off a game and then goes back 8 can beat somebody who never misses the pocket and just gets tapped.

Quote from: tommygn on January 28, 2015, 10:15:54 AM

This scoring system doesn't work because it doesn't take into account total pinfall, only comparing who has the "better" frame. It's not hard to figure out that a bowler who could washout then face, two frames in a row can still be in a match with a bowler who struck twice, and then gets tapped the next two frames, while the first bowler gets two strikes. In that scenario, they are tied, yet bowler A has bowled the better game, hitting the pocket 4 out of 4 frames but gets tapped, while bowler B only hit the pocket twice.

Again, there is nothing wrong with our scoring system. Why is it so hard to understand that a 224 is better than a 212, when comparing apples to apples? The problem is, when comparing a 224 by the best in the world on a hard condition, and a 235 by a mediocre player on an over walled miss your mark by 5 boards, yet still go flush for strikes house shoot. That is hard to explain, and be comprehend-able to a NON BOWLER who you are trying to get advertising dollars from. They only see the SCORE.

tommygn · « **Reply #39 on:** January 28, 2015, 10:50:40 AM »

Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 10:41:17 AM

Let me add a few things:

1) People need to take a step back. This wasn't a PBA event, it was the World Bowling Tour finals, A WBT event. Yes, the PBA recognizes their titles as a PBA win, but it was not their event, nor their rules.

2) The new scoring system wasn't designed for league play, it was designed for international competition. It was designed so that someone who knows nothing about bowling, like someone who may be watching the Olympics, can figure out who is winning and why. It is a first step to maybe getting bowling into the Olympics in the future.

3) How can anyone say it is boring after watching the final 4 frames of the Liz Johnson/Sandra Andersson match?

4) To those that say Sandra bowled a better game then Liz....would any of you look down upon this scenario: Golfer A birdies every hole on the front 9, while golfer B, Birdies 5, bogeys 4...then on the back 9 Golfer A pars the first 7, then double bogeys 17 and 18, while golfer B pars the first 5, then birdies the last 4 to tie Golfer A and then wins on the first playoff hole....would you be upset because Golfer A played a better round only missing par or under on two holes while Golfer B, missed par or under on 4?

These are just a few things people are missing....and why is that? Becuase it's change....people dislike change. All of you complaining, read the book "Who moved my Cheese?" and maybe you will gain a new perspective on it. And lastly, lighten up Francis!

Your talking about "change" being the issue, and simplifying it so that anyone can understand, yet your analogy uses golf, that talks about bogies, and birdies and eagles and sparrows,... like that is simple?
224 beats a 223. It doesn't get much more simpler than the higher score wins.
Let's further that and talk tennis, What is a "love"

Why does it go from a love to a 15 and then a 30? What happened to a simple point for a win, etc...?

ITZPS · « **Reply #40 on:** January 28, 2015, 10:51:43 AM »

Good points, but some of the sports do have different formats. Golf has the Ryder Cup, which is scored similarly. Total score doesn't matter, just gotta win every hole, can't have a couple great holes and then play it safe, gotta show up every hole.

Quote from: milorafferty on January 28, 2015, 10:47:40 AM

Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 10:41:17 AM
Let me add a few things:

1) People need to take a step back. This wasn't a PBA event, it was the World Bowling Tour finals, A WBT event. Yes, the PBA recognizes their titles as a PBA win, but it was not their event, nor their rules.

2) The new scoring system wasn't designed for league play, it was designed for international competition. It was designed so that someone who knows nothing about bowling, like someone who may be watching the Olympics, can figure out who is winning and why. It is a first step to maybe getting bowling into the Olympics in the future.

3) How can anyone say it is boring after watching the final 4 frames of the Liz Johnson/Sandra Andersson match?

4) To those that say Sandra bowled a better game then Liz....would any of you look down upon this scenario: Golfer A birdies every hole on the front 9, while golfer B, Birdies 5, bogeys 4...then on the back 9 Golfer A pars the first 7, then double bogeys 17 and 18, while golfer B pars the first 5, then birdies the last 4 to tie Golfer A and then wins on the first playoff hole....would you be upset because Golfer A played a better round only missing par or under on two holes while Golfer B, missed par or under on 4?

These are just a few things people are missing....and why is that? Becuase it's change....people dislike change. All of you complaining, read the book "Who moved my Cheese?" and maybe you will gain a new perspective on it. And lastly, lighten up Francis!

So what other sport(s) has different scoring criteria for the Olympics? And how many people who watch sports like Rhythmic Gymnastics and Ice Dancing(or Figure Skating) know how the scoring works? Or for some obscure sport like Curling?

tommygn · « **Reply #41 on:** January 28, 2015, 10:54:42 AM »

Quote from: ITZPS on January 28, 2015, 10:50:19 AM

Traditional scoring doesn't take total pinfall into account either . . You have someone that goes front 6 and spares the rest of the way out, then you have someone else who gets 7 strikes, but has a dutch going and then strikes out in the 10th. Bowler 1 wins with fewer strikes. How is that right? Bonus just because they all happen to be in a row?

Really? It does take total pin fall into account??? You are rewarded for knocking down ALL the pins in one try, a strike, and moderately rewarded for knocking down all the pins with two shots, a spare, and given your total pinfall for the frame if not knocking them down in two tries. Makes perfect sense. Rewarding a better performance.

Jorge300 · « **Reply #42 on:** January 28, 2015, 10:57:25 AM »

Milo,
While not for the Olympics, but Golf holds many tournaments with different scoring. They have one every year using the Stableford scoring system. They hold many using the Match-Play scoring like the one in question here. All of their international events (Ryder Cup, President's Cup, etc) use the match-play scoring. I do assume that sports like Ice Dancing, Figure skating have lower tolerences on mistakes for the Olympics than they do for other competitions, but I don't know for sure. Curling scoring is actually pretty simple....just like horseshoes, only on ice. And it's only obscure to Americans, Curling is widely popular in other parts of the world, especially Canada and Europe. This isn't meant to replace the normal scoring of bowling. It's just a way to make it easier for the non-bowler to understand the score and why someone is winning. Do "real" golfers have 4 page threads about how bad match-play scoring is after the Match-Play championships every year? Or after the Ryder Cup? I doubt it...only bowlers who must find something to complain about daily....or our heads will explode. I just tend to complain about the complainers...but it does the trick just fine.

avabob · « **Reply #43 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:03:18 AM »

This scoring system wasn't designed for anything other than scratch match play. Not really much different than the PBA using best 2 out of 3, or 3 out of 5 games to determine a match. Total pins is pretty irrelevant in that too. A guy can shoot 300 and win by 100 pins, then lose a couple of 257-238 games, and lose the match. I remember when Earl lapped the field by 600 pins in a PBA major, and lost the step ladder match to finish second.

Jorge300 · « **Reply #44 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:04:42 AM »

So in your mind, what is a better performance....someone throwing 7 strikes in a game or someone throwing 6 strikes in a game? Why is it better for someone to throw 11 strikes in a row from frame 1 versus throwing 11 strike in a row from frame 2? And I think it was mentioned earlier....what other sport rewards participants for an accomplishment just because you do it multiple times in a row? You don't get any strokes deducted in golf if you birdie 5, 6,or even 18 holes in a row....you just get your score. But bowling will reward someone more for throwing six strikes in a row, versus someone who throws more strikes but doesn't have them all in a row. How can you justify that to a non-bowler watching? Even though bowler B did what is the goal of the sport, more times in one game, Bowler A won just because theirs happen to be in a row. Or in the 290 versus 29x scenario above...bowler A actually knocks down more pins then bowler B, because they make their spare in frame 1 (10) then get 11 Strikes (110 pins), versus bowler B getting the first 11 (110 Pins) and leaving something on the last ball (9, 8, etc). So who "should" win the game to a non-bowler?

Quote from: tommygn on January 28, 2015, 10:54:42 AM

Quote from: ITZPS on January 28, 2015, 10:50:19 AM
Traditional scoring doesn't take total pinfall into account either . . You have someone that goes front 6 and spares the rest of the way out, then you have someone else who gets 7 strikes, but has a dutch going and then strikes out in the 10th. Bowler 1 wins with fewer strikes. How is that right? Bonus just because they all happen to be in a row?

Really? It does take total pin fall into account??? You are rewarded for knocking down ALL the pins in one try, a strike, and moderately rewarded for knocking down all the pins with two shots, a spare, and given your total pinfall for the frame if not knocking them down in two tries. Makes perfect sense. Rewarding a better performance.

Jorge300 · « **Reply #45 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:15:07 AM »

Really....so everyone knows what Turkey, Hambone, Greek Church, Big 4 mean....

Quote from: tommygn on January 28, 2015, 10:50:40 AM

Quote from: Jorge300 on January 28, 2015, 10:41:17 AM
Let me add a few things:

1) People need to take a step back. This wasn't a PBA event, it was the World Bowling Tour finals, A WBT event. Yes, the PBA recognizes their titles as a PBA win, but it was not their event, nor their rules.

2) The new scoring system wasn't designed for league play, it was designed for international competition. It was designed so that someone who knows nothing about bowling, like someone who may be watching the Olympics, can figure out who is winning and why. It is a first step to maybe getting bowling into the Olympics in the future.

3) How can anyone say it is boring after watching the final 4 frames of the Liz Johnson/Sandra Andersson match?

4) To those that say Sandra bowled a better game then Liz....would any of you look down upon this scenario: Golfer A birdies every hole on the front 9, while golfer B, Birdies 5, bogeys 4...then on the back 9 Golfer A pars the first 7, then double bogeys 17 and 18, while golfer B pars the first 5, then birdies the last 4 to tie Golfer A and then wins on the first playoff hole....would you be upset because Golfer A played a better round only missing par or under on two holes while Golfer B, missed par or under on 4?

These are just a few things people are missing....and why is that? Becuase it's change....people dislike change. All of you complaining, read the book "Who moved my Cheese?" and maybe you will gain a new perspective on it. And lastly, lighten up Francis!

Your talking about "change" being the issue, and simplifying it so that anyone can understand, yet your analogy uses golf, that talks about bogies, and birdies and eagles and sparrows,... like that is simple?
224 beats a 223. It doesn't get much more simpler than the higher score wins.
Let's further that and talk tennis, What is a "love" Why does it go from a love to a 15 and then a 30? What happened to a simple point for a win, etc...?

Author Topic: New Scoring System (Read 18395 times)

ITZPS

New Scoring System

tommygn

Re: New Scoring System

Ken De Beasto

Re: New Scoring System

avabob

Re: New Scoring System

Crash7189

Re: New Scoring System

tommygn

Re: New Scoring System

Jorge300

Re: New Scoring System

milorafferty

Re: New Scoring System

ITZPS

Re: New Scoring System

tommygn

Re: New Scoring System

ITZPS

Re: New Scoring System

tommygn

Re: New Scoring System

Jorge300

Re: New Scoring System

avabob

Re: New Scoring System

Jorge300

Re: New Scoring System

Jorge300

Re: New Scoring System