Quote from: itsallaboutme on June 25, 2014, 08:40:06 AM

Chucking a urethane ball at the 1-2 is not grinding.

I disagree. Looking at the scores of the guys lofting the gutter, my thought was, someone like Duke, Voss or a number of the traditional female players could have balled down, play the twig or up five, and shoot 200 or better.  I was not impressed with the guys lofting the gutter cap. Even Belmo could not get a consistent ball reaction, and he missed his mark and through it out about as much as he made good shots.

Yup, lets play up the gutter on 50 feet, you should seriously consider applying for a ball rep position on tour. Im sure Del Ballard, Jim Callahan, Chuck Gardner and anyone else I'm missing didn't stop to think of this.

Your idea of playing up the gutter and throwing missiles at the "1-2 pocket" (which I'm sure is accompanied by the obnoxious pointing to left if you are right hander while performing this buffoonery) would have been an excellent idea. Im shocked no one has thought of this ground breaking, hard hitting, innovative strategy yet.

I know not thing, straighter ain't greater on a 40' flat pattern.  And straighter ain't greater on the PBA Tour right now.  The only straighty in the top 25 in points and earnings is Haugen. 

You can play anywhere on the lane you want if you can repeat perfectly and split a gnat's ass.  If you think there is more miss room moving right on a 40' flat pattern than there is chasing the hold in, you obviously haven't done much high level bowling. 

He hasn't, according to his profile, he's a 197 avg player on house, which is fine, but don't think your 197 skill set and line of thinking applies to the best players in the world.

"Straighter is greater", get out of here, Randy said it in the show, "You create hold with angle". But the average house bowler is so use to hugging to massive oil line on his home shot, he now thinks he "throws" it Norm Duke or WRW, when in actuality you don't, you just pull the ball up the oil line which is usually second arrow. Then you see these guys on TV playing second arrow, and think "Hey, I throw it Norm Duke" no, you don't.

Rant Over.

Are you guys sniffing glue or something? 

Do you really believe that a person has to have a high average to understand lane play?

Do you truly equate asking whether the pros could have scored better by attacking the lanes differently, with asserting that one could have done better than the pros did under the circumstances?

Northface,

Noone has asked you to believe anything. I guess reading really is a skill.  The question was posed as to whether the pros could have scored higher if they attacked had attacked the lanes differently. How is that asking you to believe anything. Rather than giving your holier than thou non response, think about responding to the question.

If you say no, tell us why. If you have no opinion, keep quiet and save your lopsided reasoning for another day.

Even the best make bad judgments, and sometime at inopportune times. Keep believing and never asking questions. You never have to worry about learning anything new.

Now, Oniel won a couple of weeks ago, deciding not to follow the crowd out to the gutter cap.

I seem to remember Ciminelli playing outside with urethane when everyone else moved inside and were trying to hook the lanes.

I have seen Duke stay right or move right, play straight and win on longer patterns when everyone else had moved deep and were hooking the lanes.

These are just a few examples. I would place great value on Duke's response to the question posed. Your response is utterly useless.

GTGT,

I have no issue with your last post. I would just point out that age, physical condition,  time to practice, the difficulty of the shot where a particular average is posted, and a number of other factors come into play.

But, back on topic, I set out several examples of players moving or statying out and playing straighter on longer patterns, rather than following the crowd towards the gutter cap. I did this only to illustrate the thought process involved in putting forth the initial question, which, in my opinion, deserves an intelligent, none insulting response or two.

What do you mean by huge difference. Presumably, the player's rationale for moving to the gutter cap was the same.

Someone posted that the lanes were hooking at the arrows on the right side. Is this conjecture or based on observation?  It's hard to believe as true considering this was a flat pattern, although volume will affect how early the ball goes from skid to hook.

Northface,

Noone has asked you to believe anything. I guess reading really is a skill.  The question was posed as to whether the pros could have scored higher if they attacked had attacked the lanes differently. How is that asking you to believe anything. Rather than giving your holier than thou non response, think about responding to the question.

If you say no, tell us why. If you have no opinion, keep quiet and save your lopsided reasoning for another day.

Even the best make bad judgments, and sometime at inopportune times. Keep believing and never asking questions. You never have to worry about learning anything new.

Now, Oniel won a couple of weeks ago, deciding not to follow the crowd out to the gutter cap.

I seem to remember Ciminelli playing outside with urethane when everyone else moved inside and were trying to hook the lanes.

I have seen Duke stay right or move right, play straight and win on longer patterns when everyone else had moved deep and were hooking the lanes.

These are just a few examples. I would place great value on Duke's response to the question posed. Your response is utterly useless.

Reading is a skill? Not really, comprehension is a skill, I can read what you post, I just can't comprehend it as it makes no sense to me. Lopsided reasoning? Yeah, ok. Clearly, you are either incapable or unwilling to read between the lines.

"Keep believing and never asking questions, you'll never learn anything new", this has to be my favorite line in your misguided drivel of a post. If I averaged 194, never sniffed a 800, or shot 300 I wouldn't be coming on a message board saying someone wouldn't learn anything new. When you clearly can't handle the most rudimentary tasks to average 200, whether its missing spares or missing the headpin. If you spent more time practicing instead of second-guessing, oops, I'm sorry, "asking questions and learning", you'd have a solid understanding of lane play and why the best do what they do. I guess in your haste to Monday Morning Quarterback you didn't see the part where I mentioned you use angle to create hold on a flat pattern? Can you grasp this concept? Should I explain further?

Cute stories supporting your hard on for throwing the ball straight, moving on, how about a few weeks ago when Fagan and Larsen played out with urethane and beat their heads against the wall? How about the time your hero Norm Duke won the US Open playing in? Shocking, I know. Straighter isn't greater, nor is hooking it, one is not superior than the other, you take whats there. I have more examples to support what I am saying just like all the stories you have in which to support yours. The point?

Again, I ask, what makes you think these guys didn't think to play right? Best shot makers in the world and they wouldn't think or attempt to play right either on their own or under the tutelage of some of the best minds/coaches/ball reps in the industry?

Ill wait patiently for your feeble response.

More dribble.  Write clear and you will not have two hope the reader reads between the lines into your imagination.

I have made no statement about what the bowlers considered. You did. The question posed is whether a different choice would have yielded a better result.

Continue in your belief that the pros are infallible.

More "dribble"? Did you mean drivel? "You will not have two hope" did you mean not have TO hope? In addition to expert analysis on what professionals should do, you also know the difference between TWO and TO when preparing a written response. Nice.