Author Topic: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess (Read 11288 times)

joeyyant · « **on:** February 21, 2016, 02:13:18 PM »

To anyone watching this show now why is the scoring different? I don't understand bowling originally is not that hard to score. Why do they feel the need to change it? Just curious on what people think.

LyalC52 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2016, 08:30:29 AM »

as I was watching, I was ok with the new scoring
but as I think about it I have two issues:

1- this will really inflate scores and make them incomparable to USBC averages

2- there won't be any high drama finishes (ie. Joe has to throw the first two in the 10th to win) one ball in the tenth won't stress the nerves as much

charlest · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2016, 08:54:39 AM »

I know some of the announcers can be downright poor andmost of the timeI mute the voice BUT does anyone listen any more, even in personal conversations??? Duh?

The point of the whole change was to make it more easily understandable AT THE OLYMPICS for when and IF the WBT can convince the Olympics committee to accept bowling as a sport. Of course, as part of that they have to keep it similar to the rules as they are now,to keep some sense of consistency.

Even the article on the PBA web site explained this:
"Various versions of bowlingâ€™s traditional scoring system have been tested by World Bowling, the international governing body for tenpin bowling in the eyes of the International Olympic Committee, in an effort to create a scoring system that will be more easily understood by those who arenâ€™t familiar with the traditional bowling system."

And, yes, I agree, Dom Barrett would probably be the first to admit he didn't deserve a true 300. In fact, if you watched he had to be told afterwards that he had won the $10,000.00 for the 10 strikes in a row.

milorafferty · « **Reply #18 on:** February 22, 2016, 09:34:07 AM »

I thought the scoring was easier to understand for the non-league bowler. But what the hell does that have to do with the Olympics?

With Gymnastics, Diving, Ice Skating, and some of the ski jumping, 99% of the people watching the Olympics have no clue how the score is calculated. Scoring isn't that hard, it can't be the only thing keeping bowling out of the Olympics.

charlest · « **Reply #19 on:** February 22, 2016, 10:51:01 AM »

Quote from: milorafferty on February 22, 2016, 09:34:07 AM

I thought the scoring was easier to understand for the non-league bowler. But what the hell does that have to do with the Olympics?

With Gymnastics, Diving, Ice Skating, and some of the ski jumping, 99% of the people watching the Olympics have no clue how the score is calculated. Scoring isn't that hard, it can't be the only thing keeping bowling out of the Olympics.

Since they've denied bowling's entry into the Olympics for the past 20 - 30 years or so, while water ballet gains entry, I'd guess they're taking every opportunity to insure that it is not denied entry again.

Yes, once you learn to keep score, it is not difficult, but how many younger bowlers, under the age of 35 or so, don't have clue #1 on how to keep score?? And they are participant sanctioned bowlers!!

Heck, I hate almost every change people try to make to bowling. Change for the sake of change is always bad, but I kind of like this new system. It makes some sense. I tried to keep track of how it would compare to our regular system and conceptually, it was not far off. I kind of like it. It wouldn't be hard to get used to.

milorafferty · « **Reply #20 on:** February 22, 2016, 11:20:00 AM »

Quote from: charlest on February 22, 2016, 10:51:01 AM

Quote from: milorafferty on February 22, 2016, 09:34:07 AM
I thought the scoring was easier to understand for the non-league bowler. But what the hell does that have to do with the Olympics?

With Gymnastics, Diving, Ice Skating, and some of the ski jumping, 99% of the people watching the Olympics have no clue how the score is calculated. Scoring isn't that hard, it can't be the only thing keeping bowling out of the Olympics.

Since they've denied bowling's entry into the Olympics for the past 20 - 30 years or so, while water ballet gains entry, I'd guess they're taking every opportunity to insure that it is not denied entry again.

Yes, once you learn to keep score, it is not difficult, but how many younger bowlers, under the age of 35 or so, don't have clue #1 on how to keep score?? And they are participant sanctioned bowlers!!

Heck, I have almost every change people try to make to bowling. Change for the sake of change is always bad, but I kind of like this new system. It makes some sense. I tried to keep track of how it would compare to our regular system and conceptually, it was not far off. I kind of like it. It wouldn't be hard to get used to.

I just don't see how the current scoring method is the one thing keeping bowling out of the Olympics.

LyalC52 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 22, 2016, 11:37:40 AM »

X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/X -- USBC score = 200

X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/ -- WBT score = 245

charlest · « **Reply #22 on:** February 22, 2016, 12:54:00 PM »

Quote from: milorafferty on February 22, 2016, 11:20:00 AM

Quote from: charlest on February 22, 2016, 10:51:01 AM
Quote from: milorafferty on February 22, 2016, 09:34:07 AM
I thought the scoring was easier to understand for the non-league bowler. But what the hell does that have to do with the Olympics?

With Gymnastics, Diving, Ice Skating, and some of the ski jumping, 99% of the people watching the Olympics have no clue how the score is calculated. Scoring isn't that hard, it can't be the only thing keeping bowling out of the Olympics.

Since they've denied bowling's entry into the Olympics for the past 20 - 30 years or so, while water ballet gains entry, I'd guess they're taking every opportunity to insure that it is not denied entry again.

Yes, once you learn to keep score, it is not difficult, but how many younger bowlers, under the age of 35 or so, don't have clue #1 on how to keep score?? And they are participant sanctioned bowlers!!

Heck, I have almost every change people try to make to bowling. Change for the sake of change is always bad, but I kind of like this new system. It makes some sense. I tried to keep track of how it would compare to our regular system and conceptually, it was not far off. I kind of like it. It wouldn't be hard to get used to.

I just don't see how the current scoring method is the one thing keeping bowling out of the Olympics.

I never said it was THE ONE thing. It's probably one thing that several someones mentioned and the WBT thought it was enough to work on.

Bowling's one major problem is appearances: the difference between the game of bowling and the sport is sometimes so fine as to escape the eye of everyone but the experienced bowler.

LyalC52 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 22, 2016, 01:50:28 PM »

Quote from: LyalC52 on February 22, 2016, 11:37:40 AM

X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/X -- USBC score = 200

X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/ -- WBT score = 245

or

X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- USBC score = 140 WBT score 195

bambalam · « **Reply #24 on:** February 22, 2016, 02:07:39 PM »

Quote from: LyalC52 on February 22, 2016, 01:50:28 PM

Quote from: LyalC52 on February 22, 2016, 11:37:40 AM
X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/X -- USBC score = 200

X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/ -- WBT score = 245

or

X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- USBC score = 140 WBT score 195

You are leaving out things like this though.

x /9 x /9 x /9 x /9 x xxx USBC= 220
/9 /9 /9 /9 x x x x x xxx USBC= 257

Exact same total pins, same strikes and same spares total, different order equals two different scores.

Maybe they are trying to avoid that as well for Olympic consideration.

charlest · « **Reply #25 on:** February 22, 2016, 02:40:21 PM »

Gee, guys, I guess there are about 7, 968, 432 different examples of games where the scores for the two systems won't match. Why not put them altogether in an email and send them to the WBT to tell them how wrong they are?

LyalC52 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 22, 2016, 03:05:03 PM »

Quote from: bambalam on February 22, 2016, 02:07:39 PM

Quote from: LyalC52 on February 22, 2016, 01:50:28 PM
Quote from: LyalC52 on February 22, 2016, 11:37:40 AM
X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/X -- USBC score = 200

X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/-X-9/ -- WBT score = 245

or

X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- X 9- USBC score = 140 WBT score 195

You are leaving out things like this though.

x /9 x /9 x /9 x /9 x xxx USBC= 220 WBT = 245
/9 /9 /9 /9 x x x x x xxx USBC= 257 WBT = 256

Exact same total pins, same strikes and same spares total, different order equals two different scores.

Maybe they are trying to avoid that as well for Olympic consideration.

point being, to shoot high numbers with USBC you have to string strikes, the WBT takes all that away

htotheizzo3561 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 22, 2016, 03:25:34 PM »

so if you don't shoot 300, your highest score is 289. Front 9 or any combination 9 strikes and 9/

joeyyant · « **Reply #28 on:** February 22, 2016, 03:26:28 PM »

I guess I think the scoring shouldn't be what is holding bowling back from the Olympics. I watched surfing and I literally have zero knowledge about surfing. It was interesting to watch and try and learn the scoring system and watching their technique. I had absolutely no idea what was going on. I think bowling is held back by appearances and preconceived ideas and stereotypes. Everyone assumes all bowlers drink beer and smoke. Granted a decent amount of people typically do both. That is typically what every nonbowler in the world thinks and I believe that is what is holding the sport back. Most people don't understand some of the complexities of the game. I have a couple more theories about oil and bowling balls nowadays but appearance might be one of the biggest factors in my opinion. I feel the scoring doesn't need to be changed or modify.

joeyyant · « **Reply #29 on:** February 22, 2016, 03:31:32 PM »

Quote from: htotheizzo3561 on February 22, 2016, 03:25:34 PM

so if you don't shoot 300, your highest score is 289. Front 9 or any combination 9 strikes and 9/

Yep even someone who would shoot a 280 normally would tie to a 279 in the new scoring system. It doesn't matter as long as you have the same amount of strikes and same count on spares. I guess one of the biggest things I hate is the fact that there seems to be way less pressure on the people bowling on this system. Only needed one in the tenth vs three. It makes sense to look at as a non bowler but everyone on this page clearly has bowled to understand the scoring system already in place.

bambalam · « **Reply #30 on:** February 22, 2016, 04:02:07 PM »

Quote

You are leaving out things like this though.

x /9 x /9 x /9 x /9 x xxx USBC= 220 WBT = 245
/9 /9 /9 /9 x x x x x xxx USBC= 257 WBT = 256

I'm no expert, but I don't think so. In both cases the 10th would be 1 strike in WBT, giving 6 strikes for 30 ea and 4 19's for 76 for 256 in both cases.

Quote

point being, to shoot high numbers with USBC you have to string strikes, the WBT takes all that away

Exactly my point. I can't think of another sport where the order matters, just the score.

Author Topic: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess (Read 11288 times)

joeyyant

WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

LyalC52

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

charlest

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

milorafferty

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

charlest

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

milorafferty

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

LyalC52

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

charlest

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

LyalC52

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

bambalam

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

charlest

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

LyalC52

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

htotheizzo3561

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

joeyyant

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

joeyyant

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess

bambalam

Re: WBT scoring. Potential spoilers I guess