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.

Best point yet. 

I know one thing, if they want to try something outside of the norm and this is the best they could come up with they need some new people in charge.

Well that's because people are more obsessed with scoring than winning or losing.  Yeah I'm never happy when I shoot 200, but if my opponent shot 190, I feel a hell of a lot better about it.  I shot a 205 first game the other day in league and made it through 3 out of 7 brackets I was in, which were 3 more brackets than I thought I'd make it through and all the sudden I was pretty dang happy about it. 

Quote from: avabob on January 28, 2015, 12:28:49 PM

Shot a lot of 279 games a lot of 300 games and a few 290 and 280 games.  From a pressure point of view I see no difference in throwing the last strike for a 290 game than the last strike for a 279.

Biggest thing in bowling is that getting 2 in a row and spare is worth more than going strike, spare, strike.  However even there, the ability to throw a strike on both lanes should be more valuable than the ability to strike on one lane. 

But that is from a somewhat jaded perspective, and one that has already allowed you to reach perfection. I'm sure from the perspective of someone who was never thrown a 290 before, would have a harder time with it than a 279. Just like I'm sure it is easier for you to now throw a good shot for 300, than it was the first couple of times. I know it is for me. Is it not harder to roll an 800 than it is a 300? It's about consistent performance through a longer measure of activity. No matter how you want to look at it, it is still harder to carry 11 times in a row, than it is to carry 5, then the back 6. It's pure percentages.

I deal with plenty of customers in my shop that don't have 300, and probably never will. Believe me when I tell you, there is more pressure on them when they get a few strikes in a row, than when they throw peppered strikes throughout the game, even if it is the same total number of strikes.

Joe: Man, that Bob is a great spare shooter.
Phil: Who gives a crap about spares, that's old school. It's a new world old timer. Shooting spares is a waste of time. It's all about strikes brother. If you can't string em, you might as well stay home.
Joe: Your right, I'll see ya, I'm outa here.
Phil: Where are you going? I've got the first nine! Don't you want to stick around and see if I can shoot a 12?!

I agree with Tommy, but to me this is about something that will only be used at the highest level of competition, not the Tuesday night commercial league.  Didn't mean to sound jaded, I was just speaking to an audience that does play at a high level, or aspires to.