I have a question for some of you on here.  We all know that Walter Ray has the most titles ever on the National Tour and many of them have come in the non exempt format.  However, Earl Anthony had all of his titles in a non exempt format, meaning he had to qualify for each event and bowl more games.

What is more impressive to you?  Really would it be fair to say someone like Tommy Jones who's titles have all come in the exempt era, if he were to surpass WRW, to say that Tommy is better or as good as WRW and EA have been?

I'm just curious to your thoughts on this.
--------------------
Formerly SGC300

All of these guys are good, no doubt about it.  Trying to define who is better is sort of like saying "a pound of gold is better than 16 ounces of gold."  Having said that, I am more impressed by Earl's achievements.  He did it quicker, against larger fields, and completely revamped his game to get to that level.  WRW always seems beatable, if you ask me.  Maybe not easily so, but there just seems to be that possibility.  Earl wasn't called the Doomsday striking machine for nothing.  As has been said of Earl - he never lost a tournament, just ran out of frames.  While neither of them had a form that I would try to teach, Earl seemed to just let it flow more than WRW.  I wouldn't bowl either of them for a farthing.  

(BTW, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Norm Duke just may be the best bowler ever to walk the planet, if you consider that he has the total package.)
--------------------
"I do desire that we may be better strangers."  Willie the Shake, As You Like it(III,ii)
"I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are, Dimitri."

I agree with all of your statements.  I was thinking along the lines of:

The exempt players don't have to bowl qualifying just to make the round of 64 meaning less games, and a smaller field to bowl against and win.

Don't get me wrong, I don't consider Tommy Jones even close to what EA and WRW and PDW and ND are, but just using that as an example.

9 titles in 3 years is nothing to sneeze at, but he has done it all in the exempt field without having to qualify for the tournament itself.
--------------------
Formerly SGC300

Blah blah blah Walter Ray.  Blah blah blah, Earl Anthony.  Blah blah blah, two Masters titles (just waiting).

Number of titles is not necessarily the best way to determine the best bowler ever.  They bowled with different competition on different lane conditions with different equipment and different tournament formats.  I don't think they bowled head-to-head much at all.  One is welcome to argue that Earl Anthony won with mostly rubber and plastic while WRW has had modern high-tech, high powered equipment.  Dumb argument, on account of everyone else in both cases had the same stuff.  The exempt field, in a sense, limits the number of actual competitors while guaranteeing WRW the opportunity to win.

Saying WRW is better because he has more titles or Earl is better because he did X, Y, and Z is silly.  That's like saying that Hank Aaron was the best baseball player ever because he has the most home runs.  One or two statistics does not make the best anything.  WRW has that 100% single-pin spare percentage and 99% for the last few years.  Should we use that to declare him the "best"?

Neither, in my opinion, is as versatile as Duke.  WRW can play in or out but I don't see him altering his game quite as much as Duke does.  I haven't seen enough of Earl Anthony to really say for sure, but every time I've seen him, he's played that straight line with the same release (I know, I know, he had 427 completely different releases depending on the lane conditions, loft, speed, angle, tilt, rotation, phase of the moon, and prevailing wind).

SH

Missing the question?


--------------------
________________________________________

I am the SGT Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________
I just want 2C was'zzub.