I think some of you are looking at this wrong.
No one is questioning Barnes talent or saying he is not a very good bowler. And I think everyone knows how difficult it is to make show after show on different patterns, different cities, week after week. But there is a line to cross from very good to great. That is true in every sport.
As it was said before would you consider the Buffalo Bills of the early 90's a great team? Most would say no, because they could not win the Super Bowl. Even though they got there 4 straight years, they are just a very good team. WRW is a great bowler, so are the likes of Anthony, Weber (both Pete and Dick), Don Carter, Mark Roth (who was never a saint on or off the lanes)....all were great. What made them great, they won. WRW 43 times, Anthony 41, Roth and Weber 34.....winning separates the very good from the great. The Pittsburgh Steelers from 1995-2005 made the AFC championship game 6 times. They won 2 and won 1 Super Bowl, are they mentioned as a great team during that time?
Hopefully this illistrates the point I think most are making. No one is taking anything away from Chris Barnes, he is a very good bowler, one of the best out there today, but he is not great and won't be considered great until he wins more. That is not a slight against him, it is just the truth.
--------------------
Jorge300
"Hell of a situation we got here. Two on, two out, your team down a run and you've got the chance to be the hero on national television... if you don't blow it. Saw your wife last night. Great little dancer. That guy she was with? I'm sure he's a close personal friend, but tell me, what was he doing with her panties on his head?
Uh-oh, Rexie, I don't think this one's got the distance."