Author Topic: Too short of oil (Read 9627 times)

back to it · « **on:** September 20, 2016, 05:23:34 PM »

As a member of the USBC,most of us agree that this ridiculous of 36 ft oil,even 38 is a ruination of of sport! Like tennis first,then tennis, bowling has become a power sport. Don Carter,Dick Weber,even Earl Anthony wouldn't stand a chance on todays lanes. Throw 18+mph with lots of revs or stroke "IT" at 20+ mph ala Norm, or your out of luck. If you throw 13mph with a reactive ball,the controllability is difficult at best. All that is needed is43 ft of oil minimum. Perfect without hiigh ball speeds don't have to force or loft the ball,the "strokers"can buy their lastest hook in the box. According to the BOD of the USBC, the BPA is the one preventing a minumum oil requirement. Save 3-4ft of oil ever week,how much $ do you save a year?

Gene J Kanak · « **Reply #16 on:** September 21, 2016, 10:26:56 AM »

Exactly. I always look at it as my job to play them right, not the center's job to give me what I'm hoping for.

Necromancer · « **Reply #17 on:** September 21, 2016, 10:28:56 AM »

If you are bowling that slow, then you should be using a weak reactive ball or urethane. Our lead off guy who bowls around 200 avg uses just 1 ball - Storm Pitch Black. He uses a ton of revs and bowls pretty slow. If he used any of my balls, he would be hitting the 7 pin all night. I no longer believe oil is the issue. I've seen it all. Last night when I missed 9 spares I didn't blame the grip or the thumb hole like I see others doing. Instead I blamed myself lol.

Good Times Good Times · « **Reply #18 on:** September 21, 2016, 10:36:07 AM »

At the end of the day the goal is to strike.......I fail to see why going outside and up the boards to strike with a MoJave or Breeze is inferior to striking on a different line with my Eternal Cell or Snap Lock.

spmcgivern · « **Reply #19 on:** September 21, 2016, 10:53:56 AM »

My posts have been a "devil's advocate" point of view. So to continue that view, the OP didn't say what equipment he was using. The OP didn't say what his experience is in making physical adjustments.

For conversation's sake, let's say putting out more difficult conditions causes bowlers to quit bowling league (this is the belief of SEVERAL people). Let's say centers start going rogue and start putting out more difficult shots ultimately causing a reduction of a substantial number of USBC members. Do you think USBC would embrace that change? Of course not. USBC wants or needs money depending on your point of view.

And without explicitly saying so, USBC wants easy conditions. They go out of their way to devalue bowlers who seek only difficult conditions. There are even those on this site who would call it sandbagging if bowlers only bowled at dungeons and then went on to clean house at state and local tournaments.

So which is it? Has USBC and BPAA fostered an environment where easy THS is "expected"?

Impending Doom · « **Reply #20 on:** September 21, 2016, 11:07:06 AM »

This all goes back to what I've always said. Let house shots be as easy as possible, but not recognize the scores in any manner. If you want rewards and recognition, bowl on a compliant condition. We could go back to taping the lanes and verifying because honor scores would go way down.

Gene J Kanak · « **Reply #21 on:** September 21, 2016, 01:42:34 PM »

I know from first-hand experience that USBC doesn't want easy conditions; however, for various reasons, they're never going to step in and place rigid mandates on proprietors in regard to what they put out.

When I worked there, some of the most-heated discussions had were about looking for more ways to cut down honor scores and bring integrity back to the sport. The problem is the fear that mandates will be ignored or manipulated (faulty tapes) and that making things tougher will drive more members away, which is something the company just can't afford.

In the end, the proprietors are always going to put down what the bowlers demand unless the demands are unreasonable from a logistic and/or financial standpoint. If 150 men or women go to a proprietor and demand Red, White, and Blue patterns, Sport patterns, PBA patterns, etc., the proprietor will put them out rather than risk losing all of that business.

However, most bowlers don't truly want that. There are many who will claim to want tough shots out there, but they're usually the first ones threatening to quit after shooting 520 for a solid month.

Bowlaholic · « **Reply #22 on:** September 21, 2016, 02:08:02 PM »

The question proposed "So which is it? Has the USBC & BPAA
fostered an environment where easy THS is expected?"

Last season one house of two in my local area had on-going problems with their oil machine. Bottom line on just one league alone of 30 teams (5man) where averages dropped from 10 to 20 pins for a lot of folks, resulted in over half the teams jumping ship this year to the other house as did a lot of folks in other leagues. The word was many wanted to bowl where they could score close to their past averages. (Note: The house that lost all the teams finally invested in the robot FLEX machine, but a little to late to save the day at least for this season).
So YES, I do think a fairly easy THS that let's bowlers score high and makes them feel good is what most want & expect. Once a house gives bowlers a taste of the "good life" so to speak (high scores/average because of easy THS), try taking it away.....you won't like the results.

Good Times Good Times · « **Reply #23 on:** September 21, 2016, 02:25:37 PM »

Quote from: Bowlaholic on September 21, 2016, 02:08:02 PM

So YES, I do think a fairly easy THS that let's bowlers score high and makes them feel good is what most want & expect. Once a house gives bowlers a taste of the "good life" so to speak (high scores/average because of easy THS), try taking it away.....you won't like the results.

I'll preface this with the fact that I'm likely the minority here and I'm not disputing it's what most want........but I find this to be a very very bizarre mindset. I'm way, WAY, more proud of having a career average at Nationals at 201 (through 27 games) than averaging 234 (my career best in league) on an easier THS. It's not even close!

I averaged 198 over the summer in an extremely tough and challenging PBAX league and that was much more respectable than any 220-225 average for a season I could put up.

The argument for the THS, as presented, is that I should feel better about the 225+ THS scores than the roughly 200 average on sport conditions. I think that is retarded.

Again, I'm not the problem b/c I'll bowl on anything but that's my take.

spmcgivern · « **Reply #24 on:** September 21, 2016, 02:37:27 PM »

Quote from: Gene J Kanak on September 21, 2016, 01:42:34 PM

I know from first-hand experience that USBC doesn't want easy conditions; however, for various reasons, they're never going to step in and place rigid mandates on proprietors in regard to what they put out.

When I worked there, some of the most-heated discussions had were about looking for more ways to cut down honor scores and bring integrity back to the sport. The problem is the fear that mandates will be ignored or manipulated (faulty tapes) and that making things tougher will drive more members away, which is something the company just can't afford.

In the end, the proprietors are always going to put down what the bowlers demand unless the demands are unreasonable from a logistic and/or financial standpoint. If 150 men or women go to a proprietor and demand Red, White, and Blue patterns, Sport patterns, PBA patterns, etc., the proprietor will put them out rather than risk losing all of that business.

However, most bowlers don't truly want that. There are many who will claim to want tough shots out there, but they're usually the first ones threatening to quit after shooting 520 for a solid month.

I agree that USBC truly wants the conditions to be such that more emphasis is on skill, or at least the perception of skill. But by not mandating more difficult conditions, USBC is saying easy conditions are what members should be expecting when bowling league.

And out of curiosity Gene, when you say USBC wanted to:

Quote

...cut down honor scores and bring integrity back to the sport.

are you implying by reducing the number of award scores integrity is achieved? I agree shots are probably easier than what they should be, but integrity is more than award scores and averages. I would view USBC as having integrity when they are more proactive and do what bowlers feel they should be doing instead of what they think they should be doing. It comes across as USBC is in a silo with no contact with the outside world. But today's bowler typically complains about anything USBC does or says so I understand to some extent why things are the way they are.

Gene J Kanak · « **Reply #25 on:** September 21, 2016, 03:29:19 PM »

Well, are we talking integrity or credibility? Obviously, USBC has a huge credibility issue with many members. For my part, I still believe that 99.9% of the men and women working there truly love the sport and want it to thrive. Sadly, they're fighting a war on way too many fronts. Plus, far too many members want the benefits of yesteryear and more even though the company is pulling in less and less revenue. Obviously, that won't really work.

If we're talking integrity, honor scores aren't the only element, but the scoring environment does play a big part. Now, there is nothing wrong with people shooting big numbers if they're earned through quality lane play and shot-making. Sadly, I think we both know that that isn't the case often enough these days. The fact that some houses can see 8-10 300s and 5-7 800s during a typical league set proves this point. I'm sure some of those bowlers are quite talented, but the videos that go up on facebook to show their shots usually illustrate just how much room there is in some of these centers. That's why USBC tried Sport Bowling/PBA Exp. and went to Red, White, and Blue. They're trying to put more-challenging patterns out there for people. Sadly, most bowlers just don't want them.

bcw1969 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 21, 2016, 03:54:15 PM »

Quote from: Gene J Kanak on September 21, 2016, 10:13:26 AM

Quote from: bcw1969 on September 20, 2016, 09:01:22 PM
I believe the main point of this thread was that if it gets to the point where a bowler can't have average at best ball speed, and square up and play down and in(like I do) and keep the ball from crossing over without using something other than Reactive resin, then the problem in my opinion is the lane patterns and the volumes, and the NOT the bowler. I am not talking about an 85 year old guy with 10 mph ball speed, more than likely that person won't be able to use reactive...but the bowling environment SHOULD be such that normal adult with average speed and revs who is a stroker can square up and play down and in with reactive on a league shot.

Brad

So, if the center doesn't put out a shot that allows you to play the lanes in the manner you enjoy, something is wrong? You aren't the first person I've heard say things like that. I once heard a fellow league bowlers say, "this is ridiculous; I should be able to use my favorite ball and play the lanes from here if I want to." Again, when did it become the center's responsibility to give us all the look we want?

I didn't really mean it like that. The Ideal league shot(for me) would be one that allows me to use my Purple Ice Executioner to start the night---sadly, not able to do that since 2008-2009. With most league shot volumes and lengths being what they are, isn't league bowling these days sort of catering to the higher speed "scenic route" bowlers moreso than the average speed/avg revs down and in strokers like myself? It almost seems like current league bowlings motto these days would be "Either jump on the bandwagon, or get left behind in their dust"..just my impressions is all.

Brad

spmcgivern · « **Reply #27 on:** September 21, 2016, 04:34:38 PM »

Quote from: Gene J Kanak on September 21, 2016, 03:29:19 PM

Well, are we talking integrity or credibility? Obviously, USBC has a huge credibility issue with many members. For my part, I still believe that 99.9% of the men and women working there truly love the sport and want it to thrive. Sadly, they're fighting a war on way too many fronts. Plus, far too many members want the benefits of yesteryear and more even though the company is pulling in less and less revenue. Obviously, that won't really work.

If we're talking integrity, honor scores aren't the only element, but the scoring environment does play a big part. Now, there is nothing wrong with people shooting big numbers if they're earned through quality lane play and shot-making. Sadly, I think we both know that that isn't the case often enough these days. The fact that some houses can see 8-10 300s and 5-7 800s during a typical league set proves this point. I'm sure some of those bowlers are quite talented, but the videos that go up on facebook to show their shots usually illustrate just how much room there is in some of these centers. That's why USBC tried Sport Bowling/PBA Exp. and went to Red, White, and Blue. They're trying to put more-challenging patterns out there for people. Sadly, most bowlers just don't want them.

Personally, totally agree. But we have to be careful if we try to define quality lane play and shot-making. No matter the era, there were/are those who feel the current environment doesn't compare to the previous. People want to move to urethane because it was tougher in the 80s. Then those from the 70s say it was too easy in the 80s and so forth until you get to that one old guy who bowled when there were only one finger and the thumb in the ball.

avabob · « **Reply #28 on:** September 21, 2016, 07:03:54 PM »

It is not about skill. Who is to say I am more skilled because I can beat you 200 to 180 on a sport pattern even though you can beat me 230 to 210 on a house shot. It is really about versatility over the long run.

back to it · « **Reply #29 on:** September 21, 2016, 07:40:42 PM »

To clarify,I do use entry level reactive,urethane and a symmetical core plastic ball.There have been occasions when I've had to swing a blue dot $:-\$ . I'm also not advocating making the shot tougher,adding a few feet of oil with only 3 units of oil on the outside shouldn't make it much tougher,personally I think it should be though.As a local USBC board memberI know we are losing bowlers nationally at an alarming rate and we can't do anything about it,the USBC has very little power.Btw I have bowled sport patterns and always averaged over190 beause its about throwing good consistent shots and making spares,not being able to sting 6 strikes in a row.Bowlmor is trying to get rid of leagues,one year we couldn't even get a house to host the city tournament. I now use half the hand I had.I doubt it will ever change,but as a representative I'll still fight to return to a sport that takes talent.

back to it · « **Reply #30 on:** September 21, 2016, 07:40:55 PM »

To clarify,I do use entry level reactive,urethane and a symmetical core plastic ball.There have been occasions when I've had to swing a blue dot $:-\$ . I'm also not advocating making the shot tougher,adding a few feet of oil with only 3 units of oil on the outside shouldn't make it much tougher,personally I think it should be though.As a local USBC board memberI know we are losing bowlers nationally at an alarming rate and we can't do anything about it,the USBC has very little power.Btw I have bowled sport patterns and always averaged over190 beause its about throwing good consistent shots and making spares,not being able to sting 6 strikes in a row.Bowlmor is trying to get rid of leagues,one year we couldn't even get a house to host the city tournament. I now use half the hand I had.I doubt it will ever change,but as a representative I'll still fight to return to a sport that takes talent.

Author Topic: Too short of oil (Read 9627 times)

back to it

Too short of oil

Gene J Kanak

Re: Too short of oil

Necromancer

Re: Too short of oil

Good Times Good Times

Re: Too short of oil

spmcgivern

Re: Too short of oil

Impending Doom

Re: Too short of oil

Gene J Kanak

Re: Too short of oil

Bowlaholic

Re: Too short of oil

Good Times Good Times

Re: Too short of oil

spmcgivern

Re: Too short of oil

Gene J Kanak

Re: Too short of oil

bcw1969

Re: Too short of oil

spmcgivern

Re: Too short of oil

avabob

Re: Too short of oil

back to it

Re: Too short of oil

back to it

Re: Too short of oil