But to intentionally affect the outcome by using a ball in practice that you would never use in competition is less than sporting.

Really?  LoL      

So how, ethically speaking, is "intentionally affecting the outcome" by effort and attempting to score as high as possible against a said opponent alone DIFFERENT than "intentionally affecting the outcome" by ball choice in practice?

Is the intent of both actions NOT a net negative for my opponent?

Perhaps if we're playing a similar line in competition, I should move somewhere else so that I don't use up the head oil in what is HIS line as well?  It would then be unethical for me to play there as I could "affect the outcome", not only for myself but my opponent as well.

I must concede though, I appreciate you (and bowlers like you) being so considerate of my line before competition!       

I use a plastic for spares, however you'll object to my using plastic in a certain zone of the lane (where my opponent is playing "b/c my opponent is playing there")?

Both ways, I'm trying to win.  Draw a distinction........we need to define "less than sporting".   Define ALL that fits this criteria.........

Quote from: Urethane Game on June 23, 2014, 01:16:15 PM

Jorge300, I believe he said imagine....

Lanes change.  Yes.  But to intentionally affect the outcome by using a ball in practice that you would never use in competition is less than sporting.  Whether it is Valenta, Duke or Daugherty, it is less than ethical regardless of what the rules say.

Play to your strength within the rules and win. Nothing wrong with that. The balls were legal and everybody had the right to burn a spot in if they chose that as a strategy.

From the looks of it, the shot was not nearly as blown up as some think. Oniel chose to stay right and make quality shots. He could have moved left, lofted the gutter throwing hard and hoping for lucky breaks like Valenta but he did not.

Don't be so dismissive, Valenta wasn't "hoping for lucky breaks". What a ridiculous statement.

avabob,
      I never took it as slam against Valenta.
 
      Also, I respect your opinions and your knowledge of this game. You've accomplished much more than I have in the sport and I am sure you are trying to think about what is best for this sport. I think the issue is some of the thinking you are articulating, I feel, isn't correct. I think the Badger pattern accomplished exactly what it was supposed to. It required players to play a much more direct line to the pocket. If you saw, in the match against Kent, Valenta moved right and tighted up his line to try and save what oil was left, and still had a good look. His style, allowed him to move further left than the others and allowed him to open the pocket more and created some of the breaks he got. It was a shot that played into his physical game. I think the cream did rise to the top. You saw 3 former major winners, and two of the brightest young stars in our game with two very distinct styles as your top 5. Doesn't get much better than that.
 
    I also disagree with your statement about crowning the most deserving player when you don't reoil. How can you crown the most deserving player in this format? Where the people bowling the 2nd, 3rd, 4th squads, their shots are determined by who played the lanes in front of them. Using Badger as an example, would it be fair for some people to follow the same draw and Valenta or Belmonte, where they would be playing so far left of center from game 1, while others may follow Bill O'Neill or Marshall Kent who would play a more direct line? Is it fair that someone like Valenta, Belmonte or Robert Smith can generate more revs than most players and can loft the left gutter so much better than a Marshall Kent when they both bowl on the 4th squad? Even if you did 4 days of qualifying so everybody bowls each squad once for the week. The only squad where the bowler really controls his own destiny, where the true cream of the crop rises to the top, is the first squad, because everyone is on an equal footing at that point.

Bob,

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the prize money. It's really a joke. The PBA should be focusing on locating a sponsor that will buy into bowling, and make it a big event.

Bass fishing was once ran and supported by BASS. In comes WalMart, and they start the FLW Tour. 100k, per tournament.(Here is an example of the payout http://www.flwoutdoors.com/bassfishing/flw/tournament/2014/7127/pickwick-lake-professional-results/)  500k to the winner of the final tournament, equivalent to the USBC Masters, The Forest Wood Cup. Second place pays 60k. 21st - 45th place gets 10k.

The FLW pulls in various sponsors for each tournament and pays the top 50 finishers enough to buy gas, food, and pay their light bill for showing up. Surely, bowling is as popular as bass fishing. Yet, the USBC has not figured out how to turn this populaity into a stable sport. I bet the guys working in the front office get paid way more than they are worth.

Bob,

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the prize money. It's really a joke. The PBA should be focusing on locating a sponsor that will buy into bowling, and make it a big event.

Bass fishing was once ran and supported by BASS. In comes WalMart, and they start the FLW Tour. 100k, per tournament.(Here is an example of the payout http://www.flwoutdoors.com/bassfishing/flw/tournament/2014/7127/pickwick-lake-professional-results/)  500k to the winner of the final tournament, equivalent to the USBC Masters, The Forest Wood Cup. Second place pays 60k. 21st - 45th place gets 10k.

The FLW pulls in various sponsors for each tournament and pays the top 50 finishers enough to buy gas, food, and pay their light bill for showing up. Surely, bowling is as popular as bass fishing. Yet, the USBC has not figured out how to turn this populaity into a stable sport. I bet the guys working in the front office get paid way more than they are worth.

The problem with this is there are no large conglomerates selling bowling equipment. Wal-Mart with the FLW Tour sells boats, fishing equipment and outdoor equipment to make it profitable for them. I'm sure there could be competition between Bass Pro Shop and Cabela's to keep this. Bowling doesn't have this who really makes money from bowling? Most alleys are individually owned , as are most pro shops, the ball companies are really the only names in bowling and I don't believe they turn that kind of revenue and have the will to spend it if they do.

The big investment banks don't sell golf equipment, but it doesn't stop  them from making the top 150 golfers millionaires. 

But the demographic for golf programs is vastly different from that of bowling shows. 99% of business executives, doctors, lawyers and politicians play golf and make business decisions on golf courses ; maybe 1 out of 500 or 1000 bowl. Plumbers and electricians and truck drivers bowl and make drinking decisions on the lanes. And never the twain shall meet.

Quote from: ccrider on June 24, 2014, 12:22:49 PM

Bob,

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the prize money. It's really a joke. The PBA should be focusing on locating a sponsor that will buy into bowling, and make it a big event.

Bass fishing was once ran and supported by BASS. In comes WalMart, and they start the FLW Tour. 100k, per tournament.(Here is an example of the payout http://www.flwoutdoors.com/bassfishing/flw/tournament/2014/7127/pickwick-lake-professional-results/)  500k to the winner of the final tournament, equivalent to the USBC Masters, The Forest Wood Cup. Second place pays 60k. 21st - 45th place gets 10k.

The FLW pulls in various sponsors for each tournament and pays the top 50 finishers enough to buy gas, food, and pay their light bill for showing up. Surely, bowling is as popular as bass fishing. Yet, the USBC has not figured out how to turn this populaity into a stable sport. I bet the guys working in the front office get paid way more than they are worth.

The problem with this is there are no large conglomerates selling bowling equipment. Wal-Mart with the FLW Tour sells boats, fishing equipment and outdoor equipment to make it profitable for them. I'm sure there could be competition between Bass Pro Shop and Cabela's to keep this. Bowling doesn't have this who really makes money from bowling? Most alleys are individually owned , as are most pro shops, the ball companies are really the only names in bowling and I don't believe they turn that kind of revenue and have the will to spend it if they do.

Ding, Ding, Ding.

So, is the fact that bowing equipment not sold by the major retailers good or bad? What effort has been made to address this. If Wally World can make a dollar off of it, they will sell it.

I remember a time when you could go to K Mart and buy a bowling ball. Some would say there is not enough demand. But, that again is the problem, not the solution. Someone at the USBC is getting paid to market. Doing a piss poor job of it too.

Dicks carries a limited selection of bowling balls, maybe the USBC should approach them.

They might be willing to do something but there not going to stick there necks out the way Walmart did with FLW there is just not enough money or interest there. Are you really going to go let some 18 year old clerk punch the holes in your next ball? Would you recommend that to even a newbie?

Something needs to be done but I'm not sure what it is. Maybe have the ball manufactures get together and raise the prices $20 bucks per ball and use it to sponsor pba and local tournaments. Probably illegal collusion but it's the only piece of the current system that really works.