a friend of mine manages a bowling center here in the midwest. he bowled at wichita state in the early to mid 1990's. he bowled as an amateur in this country and abroad. he has bowled pba regionals and big money amateur events around the world. the past few years he had coached the national team from a country in the middle east, he has seen the best players in action from all over the world both amateur and professional. i don't have his resume but i too have been keeping an eye on bowlers when they come to bowl at the professional level.
when i asked my friend who he thought was the best of the amateurs who came to the pba tour since the mid 1990's he mentioned two(2) names: chris barnes and mika. he said these two players were by far the most versatile and adaptable players he'd seen. when i pressed him further about some other players he said the following: "these players are good---very good, however their game isn't versatile enough to win or be in the hunt consistently on the pba tour":
robert smith
patrick healey, jr.
paul fleming
tim mack
rudy kasimakis
chris sand
brett wolfe
i'm sure i've left off some names but you see the point i'm making. all the players mentioned here are good, there's no doubt about that. some like robert smith and patrick healey, jr., have won multiple pba titles, yet don't bowl well enough consistently from tournament to tournament, year to year. i was correct in my assesment of rudy kasimakis not winning a pba national title----he simply wasn't versatile enough and his spare shooting was a bit suspect. brett wolfe won the 2001 abc masters but when he bowled on the pba tour full time the next year he wasn't a factor. i'll be surprised if tim mack bowls on the pba tour full time. other than the usbc masters, the pba world championship, and the us open, he'll have to bowl the rabbit squads to qualify for a tournament. then he'd have to win a tournament to be exempt for the next season. we'll see, i don't think it will happen.
