Author Topic: The physical changes in the game... (Read 2459 times)

CountryClubBowler · « **on:** January 21, 2004, 03:19:40 AM »

So I'm a young buck, but nevertheless am exposed to the constant debate about what is changing the game and how bowling is much easier today given the physical properties of bowling balls and lane oil patterns. But it seems that often people are quick to jump on one side of the fence and forget about the physical changes that have gone on concerning the evolution of the physical side of bowlers. People today are more coordinated, stronger, faster, etc than ever before. This is no more evident than in a cursory review of professional sports. If I were thrown into the 1950's or 40's in basketball I would school some of those old timers, professionals even. I wouldn't be able to do the same in bowling because I still suck at bowling, but the point I think is evident. When comparing sports across decades it is incredibly relevant to consider the physiological changes that happen.

When I see old videos of old bowlers I see that there are some serious flaws or gaps in terms of their form. A lot of people today have what can only be described as 'better' form when throwing a bowling ball than even old professionals. Unfortunately my experience is limited as I haven't been bowling too long (seriously for less than a year) and haven't been alive very long either (just 23 years.) But I have been a sports fan for a long time and I KNOW that in other sports a similar evolution has been taking place for a long time, such that athletes today are much more refined in their practice as athletes of previous generations are.

I'm sure I have more to say on the matter, but can't seem to think of much else. Point is, balls and oil definitely make up a lot of the difference, but people are getting better too.
--------------------
I bowl at country club bowl...not a very inventive name now is it.

CountryClubBowler · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2004, 06:35:51 PM »

I don't think it's much of a can of worms. People are more athletic in their given field than most others that competed in the past use to me. It doesn't seem all that debatable. Given the training and what we know today verses before, someone who trains hard today, given the same natural physical abilities will be better. Not in every case mind you, the all stars of the past would still be allstars today. Basketball has got to be the most relevant example (because I've been a fan of basketball my whole life) of physical changes going on in an athletic competition. (mind you I'm not using it as an analogy to prove anything but as an example of a more general principle I believe is relevant.) People jump higher and have better shooting form, dribble better, and do just about everything better than their peers in the past. Dunking is entirely differant than before. Jordan flew. People constantly push the bar higher and higher because they are better...well now I've said plenty...Other more wiser folk should chime in. I'm just a young lad.
--------------------
I bowl at country club bowl...not a very inventive name now is it.

CountryClubBowler · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2004, 01:59:59 AM »

I apologize for poorly stating the original matter that I had on my mind. I was concerned with the common person, not the professional athelete. I don't think too many people were debating that the pros are not as good as they use to be in bowling because of the new balls.

What I mean is that honor scores are on the rise even though league bowling is down as it is every year. It is the common league bowler and even competitive league bowler but non-pro who is making the difference. I have no doubt that the best would still be the best in bowling or other areas, which is why I said the all stars would still be at the top.

But the main debate concerning balls vs. oil and how the game is going down the tubes doesn't really have to do with pros, because guys like walter ray and brian voss can score with plastic just fine. I mean to bring up the point that the casual entrant into a bowling competition has a distinct physical advantage to those of the past based on more recent knowledge, physical evolution, more exposure to those at the top, etc.

The greats will be great any time, but they are not the reason people say the game is going down the tubes. It is mostly the balls and the oil in the hands of non professionals, I can admit that much. But I think there also has to be some credit given to the physical changes that have taken place in all sporting, athletic, or physical events.

PS - I don't think bowling is a sport. I did confuse the words I meant to stress. I think an athletic event is one that requires well coordinated physical action. A sport, in my book, requires the interaction of opposing teams and they physical component mentioned above. So track, golf, racing, bowling, throwing, etc. are not sports by my book. But they are athletic events in that they require an amount of coordinated physical activity. And of course there are exceptions to this rule like any other.
--------------------
I bowl at country club bowl...not a very inventive name now is it.

cgilyeat · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2004, 05:49:48 AM »

CCB, If you think that the balls don't make a difference even on the PBA Tour you are saddly mistaken. I suggest that you go to the PBA web page discussion boards and look at the topic titled "High Tech Bowling Balls" under the 2003-2004 Tour Topic and read it. It was started by Brian Voss and contains some very interesting comments from him and other PBA members. I think you will find it very enlightening.

Edited on 1/22/2004 6:50 AM

Edited on 1/22/2004 12:23 PM

cgilyeat · « **Reply #4 on:** January 22, 2004, 11:46:43 AM »

quote:
However, look at todays bowlers who have been bowling for only 5 years or so on the PBA. They are more defined as flingers (spraying the ball at there break points).

I'm going to have to take exception to this statment. You don't get to where any of these bowlers are by spraying your breakpoint. If you want to be successful on the PBA tour, you had better be able to hit your target. This goes for the Regionals as well, the guys who are cashing and winning on a regular basis aree anything but flingers/sprayers. The fact is, the talent pool is so much deeper now that it is much more difficult to dominate the way Anthony, Roth, etc did.

quote:
I would like to point out one fact that seem most relevent.

Today bowling is more technical, its about "matching" bowling balls (layouts, surface, weight blocks) with lane conditions. When done perfectly, it does not matter if you can hit two points on the lane because it gives you mistake room (and incrediable carry). Without a doubt the best physical bowler does not win very often. If you cant choose the correct equipement at the right times, no matter how well you bowl you dont stand a chance. But you can certianly bowl poorly and choose the correct equipment and still have a chance.

The emphasis should be on bowling and not on equipment. Bowlers today, bowlers yesterday is only secondary to equipement. And I am sure the ball manufacturers want to keep it this way.
--------------------
Still learning

Your last statement is the most important thing you said, but as you alluded to, equipment has become the "great equalizer" in todays game, NOT "skill". Not to harp on it, but I think that everyone should take the time to read the High Tech Balls thread on the PBA web page message boards. Whether you agree or disagree (and I completely agree with Brian Voss on this), it is a very enlightening thread.

CountryClubBowler · « **Reply #5 on:** January 22, 2004, 11:57:10 AM »

I have read the thread...well, what I can of the 100 page novel that they call a thread on pba forums. I think it is awesome.

Still not talkin a lick about what I was trying to direct the discussion to however. I really was not making the point in reference to the pros. they don't account for the 40,000 300's each year. Is that so difficult to understand? People are more coordinated than before. Screw it. Forget about it.

To call the pros flingers is quite an insult. A flinger as bones described it is one who has no accuracy and who just throws at the head pin with as few revs as is necessary and as much speed as is possible. If you think that ANY of the pros are flingers please list them. And also next time you watch these "flingers" on TV keep track of thier boards. I bet you will find that these low skill ball matchers are pretty darned accurate. I am really curious who you would consider a flinger on the pro tour...I can't think of a single person...cept for maybe eugene McCune. I'm fairly confident that flingers is a term reserved for league hacks and those not looking to make a living out of bowling.
--------------------
I bowl at country club bowl...not a very inventive name now is it.

CountryClubBowler · « **Reply #6 on:** January 22, 2004, 12:53:26 PM »

Yeah you are right. I relinquish the point. No more on this matter... I obviously can't express the point that is clear to me. That's ok though. But seriously that is one of the worst and least applicable examples to bring up...egyptians? That's almost as bad as the "would you buy meat from a vegetarian?" that got thrown at me last time I brought up a point people didn't want to agree with.

I wrote a long post in response but deleted it because it said nothing that I haven't said. I give up on it.
--------------------
I bowl at country club bowl...not a very inventive name now is it.

cgilyeat · « **Reply #7 on:** January 22, 2004, 01:02:10 PM »

quote:
quote:
People are more coordinated than before.

CountryClubBowler: With all due respect, you can't seriously believe that statement. If it were true, and we reverse the process, then the Egyptians weren't even able to stand up by themselves.

I believe I know what you're trying to say, but for some reason, it ain't comin' out right.
--------------------
"And after you deliver the message, you will remember nothing......I now say."

Peri, I think he is trying to say that bowlers today are "better", both because they are in better physical shape and have "better" skills than those in the past. Are they, I don't know. from my own perspective, I don't know if I am a "better" bowler now than I was in the late 60s, but my average is much higher. I think the difference is that I have more knowledge now, and I'm able to take advantage of the changes do to technology. Am I in beter physical condition than I was 30+ years ago, I seriously doubt it, but I still average much higher than I did then. Does that make me better, maybe/maybe not.

Edited on 1/22/2004 5:33 PM

CountryClubBowler · « **Reply #8 on:** January 22, 2004, 01:28:08 PM »

Bob,
I have a question for you since I have no real way of answering it myself. How would robert smith fare in the 1960's given his physical abilities to put an inhuman number of revs on the ball and his strength? I don't know the conditions back then so I'm not really even able to guess. Would he be able to hook it if he slowed down to say...18 mph? He throws an average of 22-23 by the way, that is if what I saw on TV a couple of years ago is average of what he does. By the way, this would of course be with the equipment of the day, manhatten rubbers or what have you. Thanks.

--------------------
I bowl at country club bowl...not a very inventive name now is it.

MichiganBowling · « **Reply #9 on:** January 22, 2004, 01:29:17 PM »

I think CCB (Country Club Bowler) has a very solid point to make, but he's mixing other theories in with his statement, and people are jumping on those theories, which are a tad off.

One error in his basketball analogy came from stating that the players dribble better today, bla bla bla. Please remember how the rules have changed. Players do not dribble today, they carry the ball. Players also back other players down in the post (Shaq) when that used to be called a foul. Remember back when we were taught that a player standing in one spot has the right to that spot? And if someone pushed you out of that spot, then it was a foul on the other person.

Anyways...I think it is a very interesting statement indeed that CCB has made. And I will do as he says and stick to the average bowler. When I look around my leagues and tournaments that I bowl in, there are some that seem to rev the snot out of the ball and average about 230+, simply because they are physically very strong. They are able to create area for themselves with that power. Who's to say that being able to do that 40 years ago wouldn't have done the same for such a physically strong bowler?

Now I also see 60-70 year olds with very little strength, revs, or accuracy that can average 220 and above just because the shot is so simple, and their equipment is so superior. But alas, CCB did not say that the physicality of the bowlers today was the ONLY reason that the sport is hurting and that scores are up, he is simply saying that it may be a contributing factor for some guys.

Let's take a strong young man from the 1950's (his name is Jimmy), and let's say he wants to take up bowling. He gets himself a ball, and watches the others bowling, and tries to emulate what they do. Jimmy is probably not going to be any more successful because of his physical nature, simply because he is going to stroke the ball and play like the others do.

Now in 2004, take Jimmy's grandson (Zach), and give him a bowling ball and some shoes. Zach too is a strong young man. He's going to see a variety of styles out there, and he's going to see the crankers and emulate them. Within a year or two, if Zach sticks with it just as our 1950's counterpart did, he can now average 200+, and within about 3 or 4 years he could be the best bowler in the county!

I've seen it happen, so I know it's true. So what CCB sees is that there are a few more physically stronger bowlers today that are successful. But the real reason isn't that bowlers buffed up over the years, it's because the mindset has changed, and so have the styles. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I would have to say the equipment, oil viscosity and patterns, the vanishing of lacquer lanes, and just all around better technology has lead to the change in mindsets and the change in styles. Then slowly over time, people started to bowl a little differently...more revs, more speed, bla bla bla. Then before too long, Zach picked up a bowling ball and threw it with two fingers and saw that he could hook the ball all over the place. Then we all know what happened from there, don't we?

--------------------
Brian
MichiganBowling.com
http://www.MichiganBowling.com

Famous Last Words of a Pot Bowler--"Ok, but this is my last game!"

Author Topic: The physical changes in the game... (Read 2459 times)

CountryClubBowler

The physical changes in the game...

CountryClubBowler

Re: The physical changes in the game...

CountryClubBowler

Re: The physical changes in the game...

cgilyeat

Re: The physical changes in the game...

cgilyeat

Re: The physical changes in the game...

CountryClubBowler

Re: The physical changes in the game...

CountryClubBowler

Re: The physical changes in the game...

cgilyeat

Re: The physical changes in the game...

CountryClubBowler

Re: The physical changes in the game...

MichiganBowling

Re: The physical changes in the game...