Here is my 11 cents.  I have written and asked WRW about his style and he was nice enough to write me back and explain how he plays and why he plays where he plays.  He came to the conclusion that winning on the tour consistently was, for him, a matter of accuracy and speed control.  He decided that if possible, he would cover fewer, rather than more boards to preserve more hit and to reduce the severity of his misses.  He can hook the lane, but he prefers not to and, because the the versatility of his end over end roll and his speed control, generally can find a straighter line to the pocket.  His "strike" percentage is among the highest on the tour.

While I maintain that Anthony was the greatest bowler I have ever seen, WRW is the only one who can be mentioned in the same breath.  He has the odd combinations of humility and arrogance, self-understanding and external focus, and absurdly honed hand-eye coordination to make him arguably the Jack Nicklaus of his sport.  Pure, unbleached brilliance.  Watch it and accept the privilege of seeing greatness.  It does not come around often.
--------------------
"Some guys get the world.  Other guys get ex-hookers and a trip to Arizona."

"The Priveledge of seeing greatness"

I like those words.

I have thought that as I have watched Sam Snead golf, Greg Louganis dive,
Michael Jordan basket, Ben Wallace team play, Earl and Walter bowl, Joe Montana quarterback.  Bobby Jones play effortless golf from tapes!

REgards,

Luckylefty
PS there was just somethin they all had.  The ability to do the very difficult and make it look very easy.
PPS Clearly there are so many greats even in my medium length lifetime to never be forgotten.  Arnold Palmer, Lee Trevino, Gary Player, Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, saw Don Carter tapes, Dave Davis(=Sam Snead of bowling), Roger Clemons, Nolan Ryan, Walter Davis in basketball..... on and on, Bob Gibson, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente, Bobby Bonds, Reggie Jackson!

Mr. Hanson,
Is it ok that a player can so drastically alter the scoring environment?  The reason he burns the pattern outside is because his ball hits like a turd inside the second or third arrow.  Back to what I said in my earlier post...without reactives, he is a good player, probably a hall of famer...but no way he's the best in the history of the game.  

Is it coincidence that he won one title in five years prior to the introduction of reactives and then proceeded to be the most dominant player in history?

If everyone thinks he can't hook the ball wait til he get "The Machine" in his hands and he'll probably cover more boards than Robert Smith!

So Bob, do you think WRW just practiced real hard after the 1992 season and became the best player in the history of the game?  His first ten years on tour gave no hint that he would be the best ever...that just doesn't happen so the logical mind would look for another factor that contributed to a sudden rise to greatness.

Morpheous - who’s record are you looking at?  

Prior to resin (1992) Walter Ray won 6 titles, a player of the year, and over $100k 4 years, and 41 TV appearances. That would be considered an outstanding career for most pro bowlers.

I discount his first two years as he was a part time player. Virtually every player out there will tell you it takes several years of touring to learn how to excel.

As he reached his early 30’s, generally the 30’s are a bowlers peak performance times, he started winning more.

How much of his surge was fueled by resin? I don’t know and neither does anyone else.

Did he adapt to resin or resin fit his game better than many of the other players out there? Possibly so but so what? Every change in the scoring environment has helped some set of bowlers and hurt others. Adapt or you get left behind.

I have seen him play any part of the lane. If memory serves me right he won the US open a couple years back playing around third arrow.

The biggest thing is the respect he has from the other touring pro’s. Whether they like him personally or not they all respect his abilities.

Arguments on whether he is the greatest of all time can have merit on both sides but the mere fact that his name is mentioned in those arguments says that he is one of the all time greats.