Agree.  This is simply brutal to try and get through.  Voss essentially wants to make bowling better by getting rid of weight blocks, high performance covers, and forcing bowlers to bowl one handed and use their thumbs.  I made it about 40 minutes and then surrendered.

I also heard somewhere that Voss wants to either replace Chad Murphy or possibly start a competing bowling association.

I am not sure that we need Brian Voss as the head of the USBC.  If that were to happen, and he implemented his vision for bowling, we will all be throwing polyester balls with pancake weight blocks.

I listened to about 1/3 of that on the way to work today.  It really is kind of brutal, but I’ll slog through the rest of it on the way home.  Robert Smith and Brian Voss sound like a couple of old fogies reminiscing about some mythical golden age of bowling before this newfangled cheater equipment came along and ruined the sport.  Heaven forbid that a bowler dare to use their left hand, or even worse use two hands, that violates the Commandments brought down from the mountaintop when bowling was created.  “Thou shalt deliver thy ball with thy thumb inserted…”

I read Voss’ post on a lot of this same stuff from 2016, along with both Jason Belmonte’s and Chad Murphy’s responses.  Voss has a couple of good ideas rolled in – like making challenge or sport patterns more widely available to even casual bowlers that want to try them – but has several that would hurt the sport by depressing participation. 

Starting with his idea that everyone must use a thumb, this would hurt participation in bowling, especially by youth, if it was implemented.  I say this as a parent of two kids that bowl two handed.  I watch a lot of youth league and tournament bowling and see 25%+ of kids that bowl two handed.  Some are quite good, some not, but it’s a sizeable number of kids bowling without their thumb.  Suddenly telling them that they can’t bowl that way would cause most to quit the sport.  We need more kids sticking with bowling, not less for the future of the sport. 

It's not as if bowling two handed magically turns a new bowler into an elite one.  It accelerates score progression to a point, but to become really good requires patience and practice.  Being able to repeat shots is just as critical to put up big scores on harder patterns for no thumb two handers as it is for thumb-in one handed traditional bowlers. 

There’s a local coach and PSO near us who actually advocates that new bowlers with even a shred of athletic ability try out two handed because he sees it help retention.  Being able to hook the ball and hit some strikes really resonates with kids and keeps them coming back for more.  He finds that a higher percentage of kids that go two handed stick with the sport.    Kids picking up and sticking with the sport is good for bowling.

As for dumbing down coverstocks and cores to take balls back to the plastic or early urethane days, that a nonstarter.  First, from an economic viewpoint, the ball manufacturers are major sponsors of the sport.  Dumbing down the balls would hurt those companies which would in turn hurt the sport. 

Second, competitive bowlers and even casual league ones would not like that change.  Being able to hook a reactive ball and strike are a fun part of the game, even for the casual beer-league bowler.  Taking the hook out of the game and having averages plummet would for sure hurt participation in the sport.  People buy new balls and bowl in leagues because they like it way better than throwing a lane ball. 

Certainly there are things that the USBC could do better, but I just see most of Voss’ ideas as having a negative impact on bowling participation. 

I have also seen a lot of changes in the 25+ years I have been involved in the sport.  Even 25 years ago, 300/700 was a major accomplishment.  Bowlers would stop and watch. 

Over the years, it seems as though 800 is the new major achievement that garners attention.  Otherwise, 300/700 is just another day at the lanes.

There are people who have been bowling for only 1-2 years now shooting 300 and making comments such as "it's about time!  I have been bowling for 1-2 years now and thought it would never happen!"  Seriously?

I think there definitely needs to be some sort of "reset" in bowling.  However, taking everyone back in time to polyester balls with pancake weight blocks and forcing people to bowl one handed isn't the answer.  Making conditions impossibly hard isn't the answer either.  Perhaps regulating league house shots to require more accurate shot making to get that ball reaction that people like would help level the field.  Make that reaction possible, but only if you are within 3-4 boards, not 10-12.  Conditions have simply become way too soft.  If changing the shot is too much, then perhaps make the actual pins a few ounces heavier [hit the pocket correctly and they will carry...otherwise you get what you hit.]

Quote from: Bowler19525 on April 22, 2022, 01:07:36 PM

I have also seen a lot of changes in the 25+ years I have been involved in the sport.  Even 25 years ago, 300/700 was a major accomplishment.  Bowlers would stop and watch. 

Over the years, it seems as though 800 is the new major achievement that garners attention.  Otherwise, 300/700 is just another day at the lanes.

There are people who have been bowling for only 1-2 years now shooting 300 and making comments such as "it's about time!  I have been bowling for 1-2 years now and thought it would never happen!"  Seriously?

I think there definitely needs to be some sort of "reset" in bowling.  However, taking everyone back in time to polyester balls with pancake weight blocks and forcing people to bowl one handed isn't the answer.  Making conditions impossibly hard isn't the answer either.  Perhaps regulating league house shots to require more accurate shot making to get that ball reaction that people like would help level the field.  Make that reaction possible, but only if you are within 3-4 boards, not 10-12.  Conditions have simply become way too soft.  If changing the shot is too much, then perhaps make the actual pins a few ounces heavier [hit the pocket correctly and they will carry...otherwise you get what you hit.]

For those who know what they're doing, a slightly lower ratio house shot can be a lot easier than a giant cliff. Your average league bowler would potentially drop a few pins, but nothing too major like changing to full sport.

I actually disagree. I think in many cases slightly flattening the shot wouldn't lower scores/averages overall vs some of the extreme ratios we see that create such bad over under reactions. It would definitely make it easier 

Every center is different but ours could certainly use a little help

For all the 'old-timers' wanting bowling to go back to how it used to be, especially with no-core polyester balls, nothing is stopping you/them from doing so.


Just don't expect the rest of us to join in.

I would love to go back and will do so as soon as we go back to wood lanes with lacquer finish.  People who weren't bowling prior to 1970 have no idea what urethane lane finish did to the traditional game.  The only way it was playable was with a heavy crown or a super soft polyester ball.

Also you have to go back a lot further than 25 years to find that environment where 700 was a great series.  I knew white a few guys who already had a dozen or more 300s by 1997.