Can't get to the article, but the man deserves a 900 ring.  For his original award to be denied due to "non-complying lane condition rules" at the time of the series is just wrong.  He had no control over the lane conditions at the house.  Actually, if the lane conditions were out of compliance they should have erased ALL scores from that night for everyone that bowled.

Then the USBC comes along 32 years later and says “Any official change to Glenn Allison’s 900 would also impact thousands of scores in that era...As a National Governing Body with a legal responsibility to enforce rules uniformly, we simply can’t re-write history for one score and apply a different standard more than 30 years later.” 

One can argue that the current USBC is doing anything BUT enforcing rules uniformly.  Officially acknowledging Glenn Allison's 900 series from 1982 would be the right thing to do.  I am glad that he is getting a ring that he deserves even if it isn't from the USBC.

While I whole-heartedly agree that Mr. Allison's score should have been recognized at the time, you have to look at it from the USBC perspective. If they, rewrite history and say his score is now approved, any bowler from the past that an honor score thrown out can ask to get theirs approved retroactively. And the USBC can't say no, they set a precedent by approved Mr. Allison's score. So the USBC would be forced to pay for all the rings/awards for everyone who has had a score disapproved in the past. This is a sure-fire way to end up in bankruptcy. It's a no win situation for the USBC, they can't approve it, and by sticking with the original ruling, they get shat upon by the bowling public.

I disagree with you on this one. I don't have to look at it from the USBC's viewpoint. I look at it from a bowler's point of view. This consideration would an exception to policy. The circumstances involved make it so. What he did compares compares favorably to Babe' Ruth's 60 home runs and Ty Cobb's 4191 base hits and the Miami Dolphin's undefeated season in 1972. All of which are exceptional beyond any measuring stick.

Don't forget Glenn did it a plastic bowling ball. Plus in that league which had a large number of 190-200 average bowlers, virtually none of them even broke 600 that night. Add in the fact that the oil violation was found on the LEFT side of the pair they bowled on.

If the USBC is the "powerful" governing body that they claim to be, they could easily have said this is one exception and no others will be allowed. Any sober bowler with 2 cents worth of common sense would agree wholeheartedly, if the USBC allowed this.

But they won't because their precious egos are valued more than bowling propriety. This is and always will be the right thing to do.

Problem is if usbc said this is the one exception you know what next for the other people they could sue to get their award.  We all bowled back then knowing the lanes had to pass and when they did not they punish the center & the bowler.  That is why even during the later ABC days they just punish the center and NOT the bowler (approved the awards).

If it is the case that the ABC/USBC went to a model that punished only the center for non-compliance, and not the bowler, then they have already set a precedent and should officially approve Glenn Allison's series and be done with the matter.

I am not certain anyone is going to spend the time and money to sue for an award, even in small claims court.

I will address a few things here:

1) People sue for the dumbest and strangest things. If you think someone won't sue the USBC if they approve Mr. Allison's score now, you are delusional. Someone will and they would win if the USBC went ahead and approved the 900.

2) Now, if someone takes the time to sue, they would also take the time to make sure they get the award. There may be no requirement, but it will be expected and if the scores get approved, whether by court order, or by USBC order, people would expect awards, and the number of them needed would be too costly for the USBC.

3) Charlest, it is your right to disagree. And you are correct, Mr. Allison's accomplishment is historic and it should have been recognized at the time. Unfortunately, at that time, the ABC didn't want anyone to have a 900, I believe, and found anyway possible to disallow the score. But, you are wrong in your assessment of the situation. People sue people/organizations for the dumbest things, even their own stupidity. And they win. If the USBC approves Mr. Allison's scores, they will be sued, I guarantee it. And I would bet any amount of money you wish on that. ANY amount. This has nothing to do with how powerful the USBC is or isn't, it is human nature today. No one, as far as I know, is trying to take away from what Mr. Allison accomplished that night. You don't have to tell me how impressive it was. And from a bowler's perspective, you are 100% correct. That is why I specifically asked you to look at it from the USBC's perspective. I can't make you do that, but if you step back for a minute and do it, you will see that I am correct.

Not sure how it would expose the USBC to a lawsuit if they simply recognized the achievement and put it in the record books.  They could also agree to include all other award scores thrown out during that period, and include them in historical records in any case where a documented request was submitted.  ABC unilaterally cheapened and ultimately discontinued awards shot on THS patterns.  Big difference between a potential suit on barring the men from a tournament classified as "open", which was not winnable, and a nuisance suit at best in this case.   

It has never been about the hardware with Mr Allison. There wasn't even a 900 award available when he shot the score.  Recognize the achievement, and give him a special achievement award for the 900, which would not be a precedent for any other standard award, unless there was another 900 shot and thrown out. Most important, just give the guy the recognition in the record books. 

I have to say I see another side to this story I never though of.  I guess Pete Rose is a little easier of a decision than to allow Allison's 900.  I guess they would have to make everyone pay for their honor scores that were turned down.

What a self absorbed egomaniac.

So you think your opinion is gospel?  Bwaahahahaha.

I will address a few things here:

1) People sue for the dumbest and strangest things. If you think someone won't sue the USBC if they approve Mr. Allison's score now, you are delusional. Someone will and they would win if the USBC went ahead and approved the 900.

2) Now, if someone takes the time to sue, they would also take the time to make sure they get the award. There may be no requirement, but it will be expected and if the scores get approved, whether by court order, or by USBC order, people would expect awards, and the number of them needed would be too costly for the USBC.

3) Charlest, it is your right to disagree. And you are correct, Mr. Allison's accomplishment is historic and it should have been recognized at the time. Unfortunately, at that time, the ABC didn't want anyone to have a 900, I believe, and found anyway possible to disallow the score. But, you are wrong in your assessment of the situation. People sue people/organizations for the dumbest things, even their own stupidity. And they win. If the USBC approves Mr. Allison's scores, they will be sued, I guarantee it. And I would bet any amount of money you wish on that. ANY amount. This has nothing to do with how powerful the USBC is or isn't, it is human nature today. No one, as far as I know, is trying to take away from what Mr. Allison accomplished that night. You don't have to tell me how impressive it was. And from a bowler's perspective, you are 100% correct. That is why I specifically asked you to look at it from the USBC's perspective. I can't make you do that, but if you step back for a minute and do it, you will see that I am correct.