I guess my point is that ball reaction will always tell the truth. Several months ago I bowled on Dead Man's Curve for the first time, never looked at the graph. Found the shot inside 5 minutes, proceeded to do very well on it. We hit that pattern a few weeks ago in the Jr Gold league, where I finally did take a look at the pattern. Didn't tell me anything I didn't know, didn't help me out in any way, but I did notice it didn't quite play how the sheet said it was supposed to. The graph isn't completely irrelevant, but I guess it's like filling a bucket with water a cup at a time if you have a hose . . I just don't see the point or the need. The amount of variables in bowling make it overwhelmingly a feel sport. People need to be taught the feel supported by information, not the other way around.
Somebody earlier referenced Wes Malott's system. He starts in the same place on every pattern, then he moves a bit one direction, a bit more, then goes the opposite direction a few times. Those shots tells him pretty well all he needs to know. I would imagine he does the same, but I create a mental lane graph, and most of the time it doesn't match the one on paper. Obviously it will be similar, but the small details are the most important. That's why something as seemingly simple as telling someone where to start could be way off. Lane topography and surface friction can easily turn a pattern completely around.
For instance, our surface plays drier across the board. So a shot on paper may look like the best line is outside. In that case, most of the time the shot ends up being significantly deeper because what looks on paper to be predictable and stable usually ends up being too dry to play, and the oil in the middle that looks too wet to play on paper usually ends up being just about right.
So to circle back around to the original question of where to start? Start wherever you feel comfortable and adjust from there. You will always do better playing as close to your A game as possible than trying to play your C game just because that's where the graph said to play. Look at Norm Duke and Liz Johnson. They're extremely good at playing off the ditch regardless of the pattern. They start with where they're comfortable and make small adjustments. It's important to be versatile, but if you find a pro who doesn't play their A game if at all possible, you're fooling yourself. But more often than not people will read a graph and spend all of practice and possibly beyond trying to play where it says to, and if it doesn't work, they've just wasted 10 minutes. If you read the graph, start where it says to, and are able to adjust in a few shots, I'm not sure why you needed the graph in the first place. Also, just because you happen to find a shot where the graph says it should be doesn't mean there isn't a better one elsewhere that would suit your style more. Surface friction and topography may make another area wide open.
All this reduces the importance or usefulness of a graph down to a couple shots at the maximum, because once you're familiar with it, why would you need to look at it again? But at the same time, it also limits and focuses your brain. In a sport where you need to make big adjustments on the fly and be confident in them, having your brain tell you, "but the sheet said this won't work," is counterproductive. A graph will always cause more problems than it will solve. Might as well give a golfer a graph of a green, won't tell them a thing until they actually hit a few putts.
I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, but that's the absolute truth. You think Pete Weber cares what's on the lane graph? If you know how to bowl you don't need a lane graph. You think these guys learn anything about the Badger or the Wolf or anything from a lane graph? I can pretty well guarantee you the best in the world don't care what the graph says, they care what the lane and their ball reaction is telling them. So what if the graph tells you to play somewhere and the shot doesn't end up being there? What did people do before lane graphs?
Well have at it then. I'm sure none of the guys who actually make a living bowling ever look at a lane graph.
So what happens when that sheet isn't there? In this JR Gold prep league, they're allowing adults to bowl with the kids to simulate some tougher competition, and also to teach them. They have a little meeting with the kids before the league, show them the graph, talk a little about the shot, and then we go bowl. The guys running the thing were a little miffed at me at first because I wasn't playing the lanes the way the sheet said they were supposed to be played. I got several questions of, "Why are you playing inside when the sheet says the line is outside?" My reply was always, "Because I want to knock the pins down." Once they started seeing how much higher my scores were than everyone else's, they changed their thinking a bit. Plus all these shots are going down on 15 year old Anvilane, a couple of the houses at Jr Gold are WOOD. If you pay any kind of attention to the pattern or the graph down there, you're going to be completely screwed.
Bottom line, you can have your graphs and your sheets that give you all this information, and I'll just take your money.
[/quote
Of course Pete Weber doesn't need to see a lane graph. He bowls on the patterns all them time. But if it's a pattern Pete has never seen before, you mean to tell me he doesn't even bother to look at the lane graph? If that's what you are saying, then you are clueless.
