Okay, Some pot stirring, just to see what discussion comes out of it.
I am not trying to brag because, quite frankly, I have no room to do so. But I won our county scratch singles and all-events tournament two years in a row (a while back, but fewer than 10 years ago.) My high winning series were small 700s. All event scores were just over 2000. Both tournaments were on old, beat-up, wood lanes. Machines broke down. Balls got chewed up. The best bowlers in the valley struggled to throw 6's.
This year, I threw something like 1900 scratch all-events. The lanes were walled and all the crankers were tossing pins everywhere. There were 9 scratch 800's (winner threw an 858), and nine 300's. The scratch all-events winner threw a 2337 and winning team tossed a 3564.
So, the question is...who bowled better? The guy who throws almost 860 when everyone else is throwing big numbers, too -- or the one who can throw a little 700 when no one else can score?
Years ago some PGA players were complaining that the USGA was putting out an unfair condition for the US Open. One of the pro's said something like, "They're trying to embarrass the best players in the world." To which the tournament director said, "No, we're trying to FIND the best players in the world."
So, the conditions at Sky Lanes are atrocious. But if everyone in the tournament has to bowl on the same atrocious condition, isn't the tournament still fair? To me, it just means that someone will find a way to bowl well, or at least better than the others. I thought that was the definition of a good bowler.
That said, and to prove I'm not a troll, I'll be at Sky Lanes at noon this Saturday. Whether I bowl well or embarrass myself, I will report back with all the gory details Monday.
Despite my position on the matter, I'm still afraid, very afraid. Text
