To the defense for Mike Scroggins. The just like a league bowler was a reflection of a poor shot holding where it shouldn't have and striking. It seems unlikely it was meant the way a lot of people are taking it and if it was, we deserve it. Think of the times on the THS we have thrown a shot like that -- poor release, lofted, hard around, and gotten lucky as the oil pattern holds it, but because it was close to our line, we assure ourselves it is a good shot. Frankly, these guys are probably teed off by the league bowlers that think they can compete against them consistently -- they are better and far better in fact than even most of the best of us will ever be.
As to the you can't beat that, I just took it as "that" was the great shot. Which, it was.
Finally, Scroggins deserved the win. He was the most consistent bowler through the week. The Masters format, qualifying and then double elimination is interesting, but it doesn't guarantee the best bowler will win. The matches are too short, and one big game can blow them open. In essence, the shorter three game matches plus the luck of the draw created chance in their essence. Brown and Muscato are fine bowlers, but on a normal tour stop or at the U.S. Open -- which I believe has the best format for identifying the best bowler -- I doubt either would have made it nearly so far. Scroggins and Duke got where they were by bowling great, bowling consistently and by being very lucky. Since luck is such a part of the format, Getting lucky at the right time is part of what is needed to win. Scroggins got the luck at the right time. Duke didn't. It's what happens when you roll imperfectly round things at imperfectly round things over an imperfectly smooth, flat thing and the round things bounce off imperfectly round and flat things.
--------------------
"Some guys get the world. Other guys get ex-hookers and a trip to Arizona."
