Post by: DON DRAPER on November 02, 2007, 11:51:44 AM
Post by: BrianCRX90 on November 02, 2007, 07:58:49 PM
Post by: DON DRAPER on November 02, 2007, 08:14:57 PM
Post by: charlest on November 02, 2007, 08:18:49 PM
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ (http://"http://host4.fusiontools.net/~legion/forum/viewtopic.php?t=309")
Post by: charlest on November 02, 2007, 08:42:57 PM
Last 2 qualifiers: Koivuniemi and Eugene McKune.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ (http://"http://host4.fusiontools.net/~legion/forum/viewtopic.php?t=309")
Post by: chitown on November 02, 2007, 09:23:50 PM
Post by: DON DRAPER on November 03, 2007, 01:30:23 PM
Edited on 11/3/2007 2:01 PM
Post by: tonybowls on November 03, 2007, 02:23:10 PM
Post by: legend4life95 on November 03, 2007, 05:10:49 PM
quote:
Walter Ray is the BEST plain and simple. Please stop comparing anyone to him including Norm Duke!!! His career speaks for itself.
Better put on your flame retardant apparel.
--------------------
****Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause kids.****
Edited on 11/3/2007 5:11 PM
Post by: revTrex on November 03, 2007, 05:40:56 PM
Ask just about anybody who has the best game, and they will say Weber. Ask Hardwick, ask Carter, ask just about any of the truly experienced bowlers, and they will say Weber. If it wasn't for his head, and his problems in the 90s, he would have easily surpassed everybody. When he is on (think last year's U.S. Open), he is unstoppable -- he does things nobody else can do.
Norm Duke is right up there today, but I don't think you can put him as the best ever.
Looking back, you've got to say Carter, then the original Weber. You'd do a great disservice to bowling history, too, to not consider Smith, Varipapa, Gengler, Marino, etc. Then a little later, you've got Anthony, Roth, and those guys...it would be difficult, in my mind, to call Williams the best ever.
Just my .02.
Post by: BigDogBowling on November 03, 2007, 05:44:51 PM
Post by: chitown on November 03, 2007, 09:51:59 PM
Walter Ray Willams is a great bowler. I would put my money on him against anyone in the PBA. Weber is a great bowler as well but in my mind is not as good as WRW. That's just my opinion. Has Weber ever beat WRW head to head? I don't think he's had much success against WRW.
I also like NOrm Duke. I think he's right up there with both Weber and WRW.
Post by: DON DRAPER on November 03, 2007, 09:52:31 PM
Post by: revTrex on November 03, 2007, 10:08:49 PM
Greg, Walter has won more tournaments than Anthony...but only in more tries. More money is a relative thing, too.
NOTE: Barry Bonds has more home runs than both Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron. That might be an unfair comparison (given the steroid crap), but I'm sure you can get me real point (which has nothing whatsoever to do with steroids). The "most" doesn't equal the best.
Also, many of the bowlers I listed never got a chance to bowl in the PBA.
And, Chitown...Just because Walter always beats Weber doesn't take away from the fact that Weber has the best GAME. Winning can have nothing to do with true, pure, physical ability. Walter has a mental advantage over Weber these days.
Post by: DON DRAPER on November 03, 2007, 10:54:21 PM
you're not going to be able to convince me that pete weber has a better game than walter ray williams, jr. a better game would imply better at all aspects of bowling. when it comes to spare shooting walter ray williams, jr. is the best. every year his spare making percentage is the highest. most years pete weber is not in the top 10. most years on tour walter ray williams, jr., has a higher average for the season. if "the shot" is right of the 4th arrow walter ray williams, jr., is better. especially if the shot is right of the 2nd arrow. if "the shot" is left of the 4th arrow pete weber would be the better player. other aspects of bowling like lofting, speed control, and accuracy, walter ray comes out ahead. pete weber excels in the use of axis rotation-----he's better at manipulating his axis rotation from 45 degrees and beyond. walter ray is better below 45 degrees. both players are mentally tough but when they're against each other pete weber has a complex and it isn't good. there's no doubt they're both great players but walter ray has 42 titles----and that's more than anybody else.....including pete weber.
Post by: revTrex on November 03, 2007, 11:18:17 PM
Yes, Walter wins. He makes spares. He repeats. But have you seen his form, his physical game, his release, his coming up at the line on every shot? It is not, I repeat, it is not, anything special. PDW's is.
Bottom line, in my mind, Walter still isn't the best. Carter easily bests him, and so does that other Weber. Not to mention Anthony. Walter is one of the best, but by no means the greatest ever.
Post by: DON DRAPER on November 04, 2007, 12:19:31 AM
Post by: revTrex on November 04, 2007, 12:36:50 AM
Also, have you looked at the comparison between Carter and Walter? It's quite clear who the best really is/was.
Anyways, I'm all for Walter being included as one of the Top 5. But, sorry, he's not at the top.
If I had to field a team:
1) Don Carter
2) Dick Weber
3) Earl Anthony
4) John "Count" Gengler (I have my reasons), Jimmy Smith (the original undisputed champ), Hank Marino, or Andy Varipapa
5) Walter Ray Williams Jr.
Post by: VBP-Dustin on November 04, 2007, 12:57:47 AM
he starting winning titles once resin came out which changed his game and carry. before 1993 he had 6 titles in 12 years! thats 1 title for every 2 years which isnt so great however once resin bowling balls came out what happened he started winning.
before 1993 pete weber had 19 titls wow what does say when they change the game by the way of bowling balls it also changes scoring and who scores better. if everyone used urethane you wouldnt see walter hardly at all you would see weber
Post by: revTrex on November 04, 2007, 01:14:12 AM
Exactly my point.
Post by: DON DRAPER on November 04, 2007, 07:16:47 AM
Post by: BowlingWolf on November 04, 2007, 08:41:21 AM
quote:
Because only in bowling (at least modern bowling) is the result not always determined by technical skill or physical talent. Tiger Woods wins because he is quite simply the most athletic and technically sound golfer. Walter wins...because he does, because his game has benefited tremendously because of modern equipment. Don't get me wrong, he's good -- but could he have won 40+ with just a rubber ball or Yellow Dot? How many spares would he be shooting? How many less strikes would he have?
Also, have you looked at the comparison between Carter and Walter? It's quite clear who the best really is/was.
Anyways, I'm all for Walter being included as one of the Top 5. But, sorry, he's not at the top.
If I had to field a team:
1) Don Carter
2) Dick Weber
3) Earl Anthony
4) John "Count" Gengler (I have my reasons), Jimmy Smith (the original undisputed champ), Hank Marino, or Andy Varipapa
5) Walter Ray Williams Jr.
Rev,
FYI, Don Carter has ALWAYS maintained that Dick Weber was THE BEST he's ever seen.
One could agree or disagree with that; it is his opinion.
In my book, however, I would rate Earl Anthony as the absolute best.
His knowledge level was unparallel, and his performance left more people in the dust at a higher rate than anyone in history. Too bad he didn’t bowl a few more years, this would be a moot point.
Another player, made very conspicuous by his absence on your list, is Mark Roth (and Mark happened to bowl during Earl's time, which goes to show how dominating those 2 were).
--------------------
Regards,
BowlingWolf
Post by: revTrex on November 04, 2007, 09:12:05 AM
I would stand by Anthony at #3, behind both Carter and Weber. You've got to remember that title wise, it's not like Carter was out on Tour for very long. He was from the decade or two just before Anthony.
That gets it down to the last 2 spots, and I don't think Mark Roth (as phenomenal as he was, as revolutionary as he was) stands a chance.
Pick one of the few old-timers for spot #4 -- those were the Carters and Anthonys of a bygone era. Jimmy Smith was the undisputed champ for more than a decade, and even after that, he was still the biggest name somebody could beat. Count Gengler never really got involved in the match game tournaments, but he toured with Smith, and could beat anybody, especially for the first several years after he arrived from Luxembourg. He suffered an injury, though, in 1917 or 1918, and, though he continued to bowl at a high level, I think this affected him (however, there is no mention of this in the history books; Gengler was like a ghost). It was well known that he palmed the ball when he first arrived and bowled; but in later matches, he used a two-finger ball, in a sense confirming my suspicion that his injury (an elbow related problem) may have caused him to modify his game slightly. Had he not been injured, and not been a mysterious Bavarian hustler, Gengler would be up for discussion -- the man was once seen hitting a nickel put on the five-pin spot over and over again. Marino (who pretty much took over for a few years after Smith and Jimmy Blouin) and Varipapa (winner of back-to-back All-Stars at ages 55 and 56 respectively), too, were great bowlers.
Last, Walter has to be included, no matter what (including the resin thing). It might prevent him from being considered the best ever (in my book), but he still is one of the best -- no one can deny that he has triumphed over the likes of Norm, Pete, Bohn, and others 40+ times.
Post by: tonybowls on November 04, 2007, 05:28:19 PM
Post by: J_Mac on November 04, 2007, 05:34:59 PM
quote:
I have this to say. WALTER RAY IS THE BEST PERIOD!!! AND WHEN HE WINS PLAYER OF THE YEAR AGAIN THIS YEAR WHAT WILL YOU GUYS HAVE TO SAY THEN?
Why don't you just STFU?!
I like the guy as much as the next person does, but I'll say what I said earlier today when Randy/Rob was talking about Mika being a contender for player of the year already.
Thats absolutely ludicrous... It's only the 3rd week of the season! WRW Jr. could easily go without another win this year, just like last year.
--------------------
"A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice." Bill Cosby
"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Post by: JBracer2 on November 04, 2007, 05:37:12 PM
quote:
well walter ray has won more titles but when did he win the titles?
he starting winning titles once resin came out which changed his game and carry. before 1993 he had 6 titles in 12 years! thats 1 title for every 2 years which isnt so great however once resin bowling balls came out what happened he started winning.
before 1993 pete weber had 19 titls wow what does say when they change the game by the way of bowling balls it also changes scoring and who scores better. if everyone used urethane you wouldnt see walter hardly at all you would see weber
I second that Dustin!
--------------------
http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=1369&ms=2612&s=2006-2007
Post by: JBracer2 on November 04, 2007, 05:39:06 PM
quote:
I have this to say. WALTER RAY IS THE BEST PERIOD!!! AND WHEN HE WINS PLAYER OF THE YEAR AGAIN THIS YEAR WHAT WILL YOU GUYS HAVE TO SAY THEN?
Resin!!! And pipe it up 10 every show!
--------------------
http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=1369&ms=2612&s=2006-2007
Post by: revTrex on November 04, 2007, 06:06:48 PM
If only you could back up your assertion with historical evidence or a reasonable argument...I bet you don't have half a clue about how good any of the other bowlers I listed were...
Post by: charlest on November 04, 2007, 06:08:38 PM
quote:
well walter ray has won more titles but when did he win the titles?
he starting winning titles once resin came out which changed his game and carry. before 1993 he had 6 titles in 12 years! thats 1 title for every 2 years which isnt so great however once resin bowling balls came out what happened he started winning.
before 1993 pete weber had 19 titls wow what does say when they change the game by the way of bowling balls it also changes scoring and who scores better. if everyone used urethane you wouldnt see walter hardly at all you would see weber
BrunsDustin,
WRW was player of the year in 1986 (or thereabouts), a urethane year. Your argument does not hold water. WRW is still then and now better than Weber.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ (http://"http://host4.fusiontools.net/~legion/forum/viewtopic.php?t=309")
Post by: revTrex on November 04, 2007, 06:14:17 PM
Post by: VBP-Dustin on November 04, 2007, 06:15:07 PM
and thats true of all striaght players today
im sure jbracers can attest to this in st louis i can name about 25+ people here that average 235+ that when in their prime in the 80's and urethane era couldnt average 190 why do you think that is? the bowling balls today are 100 times better today for carry plain and simple
i now realize that only about 2% of ballreviews memebrs know anything about bowling
Post by: charlest on November 04, 2007, 06:24:50 PM
When both bowled together (at the same events), it was basically a given that Carter would win a high percentage of the time (like 80%+). I know it was way back in the dawn of prehistory for most of you, but Dick Weber did not come into his own as a premier player, until AFTER Carter retired.
When they were in the same events, it was acknowledged that Carter was the better money player.
One other thought about Carter: Remember he was the first MILLION DOLLAR athlete. Ebonite signed him to a contract for $1,000,000.00!! That says a lot in the 1950/1960s.
Of course, no one who knows the leastthing about bowling would ever say that Dick Weber was not a GREAT bowler.
Carter and Weber and WRW are the kind of people, who, when in front of the public, put themselves down as not as good as someone else, like Carter's praise of Weber in a previous reply. They were publicly humble, even if in their own minds, they knew they were veyr good bowlers.
Earl Anthony must be regarded as the Babe Ruth or Sandy Koufax of bowling in that no one obliterated the competition and won such a high percentage of title and money in such a short period of time. Not for nothing was he known, amongst his peers, as a the DOOMSDAY STROKING MACHINE. No one before or since has has such a deadly reputation, and for darned good reason. No one since or before had such a nickname, indicating what his peers thought of him.
In 25 or 50 years, I believe bowlers will be listed in these categories:
FIRST
Carter
Dick Weber
Williams
Anthony
SECOND
Roth
Pete Weber
Holman
Duke
Hardwick
Parker Bohn (possibly)
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ (http://"http://host4.fusiontools.net/~legion/forum/viewtopic.php?t=309")
Post by: revTrex on November 04, 2007, 06:58:00 PM
So...charlest...you basically agree with me. I don't see any real difference between those thoughts and my own, except for you leaving out the "really"-old-timers, such as Smith, Gengler, Varipapa, and Marino.
I would also pretty much agree with your "second" tier.
Post by: Rileybowler on November 04, 2007, 07:11:31 PM
--------------------
Carl
Post by: revTrex on November 04, 2007, 07:29:46 PM
1) There is a clear difference between physical and mental games. PDW has a better physical game than Williams. That doesn't change who is better overall, FOR THE LAST TIME. I NEVER SAID PDW WAS BETTER OVERALL AS A BOWLER -- I ONLY SAID BETTER AS A "PHYSICAL BOWLING SPECIMEN."
2) To say Walter is the best is to blatantly ignore almost a hundred years of history. Clearly, you, too, don't have the slightest clue about bowling's past.
To all those who still think Williams is the best of all-time, I salute you. Somehow, you are able to remain firm in a belief even though the evidence at hand (i.e. history) tells us otherwise.
Post by: Dan Belcher on November 04, 2007, 08:07:14 PM
quote:So they can hook the snot out of a ball. Big deal. How does that make them "better?" I'm confused by your entire argument being based on that premise.
ok so he won player of the year during his best year of 12 before urethane it was one year im sorry i just dont see how everyone thinks walter ray is the best i know he has more titles than anyone anyone remember amelto? guess what he was great in the 80's any idea why? well HE MADE his ball hit he wasnt given power by a bowling ball
and thats true of all striaght players today
im sure jbracers can attest to this in st louis i can name about 25+ people here that average 235+ that when in their prime in the 80's and urethane era couldnt average 190 why do you think that is? the bowling balls today are 100 times better today for carry plain and simple
i now realize that only about 2% of ballreviews memebrs know anything about bowling
Post by: VBP-Dustin on November 04, 2007, 09:43:28 PM
Post by: JBracer2 on November 05, 2007, 05:21:41 PM
--------------------
http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=1369&ms=2612&s=2006-2007
Edited on 11/5/2007 6:22 PM
Edited on 11/5/2007 6:24 PM
Post by: charlest on November 05, 2007, 05:42:59 PM
quote:
its not about hook its about making a ball hit plain and simple
Sorry, but no, it is NOT about making a ball hit. It's about scoring under pressure. Just because you don't like him, WRW, and you say that it's only because of resin since 1993 that he, WRW, is only now in this era, the greatest, does not make it true. Resin is part of bowling, now and forever, whether you like it or not.
So you live in the past and worship Pete Weber, who just so happens to have be from St. Louis, all you like. Fortunately or unfortunately, that does not change reality.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ (http://"http://home.mchsi.com/~s-cross-7-28-71/FAQ.htm")
Post by: JBracer2 on November 05, 2007, 06:14:30 PM
--------------------
http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=1369&ms=2612&s=2006-2007
Post by: BowlingWolf on November 06, 2007, 09:03:45 AM
Granted that we can throw out some names along with fact about each, and proclaim their obvious virtues.
That doesn't change the fact that one athlete can not stand out head and shoulders above all others as the singular "greatest"; that is not possible to determine as a definite given.
We can state that so-and-so was the greatest for a certain time-frame, and perhaps many people would agree.
But to say that one is without a shadow of a doubt better than anyone else for all-time, is quite a difficult task to prove convincingly.
This applies to any sport, of course, as it does to other interests, such as music, acting, art, etc.
--------------------
Regards,
BowlingWolf
Post by: shelley on November 06, 2007, 09:23:09 AM
quote:
the bowling balls today are 100 times better today for carry plain and simple
Must be that only the people winning are the ones throwing these new balls. There's no way WRW would have started winning with resin in '93 had his opponents not been saddled with the plastic and urethane equipment from '92. Had all his opponents been able to throw reactive balls, he might never have won another tournament.
SH
Post by: BigDogBowling on November 06, 2007, 09:36:44 AM
Post by: DP3 on November 06, 2007, 10:17:02 AM
--------------------
-DJ Marshall
...The Twelve In a Row Pro Shop. Hyattsville, MD
Coach: University of Maryland Baltimore County Mens Bowling
..ranked 10th in the nation
Post by: revTrex on November 06, 2007, 11:10:41 AM
I'm not taking away from what Walter has done. But if you are to evaluate who might be the best, you can't separate him from the era in which he most dominated, i.e. resin.
Would it be better if you called him the best bowler of the resin era?
And yes, I am one of those few folks that think resin and synthetic lanes are two of the worst things that happened to this sport. Hell, I think there should be a game ball, or at least much more strict ball governance. But that's a whole other issue...in my mind, it would completely level the playing field. Those who can CREATE entry angle would do better than those that cannot. It would make bowling a legitimate sport again, because only those capable of a certain feat would find success. Yes, it would limit participation, and yes, it's elitist in an athletic sense. But that's what every other sport has (including golf, a la El Tigre).
Bottom line: Walter is ONE of the best. However, even he has not yet matched the greatness of Weber or Carter. And he doesn't have the winning percentage of Anthony. That puts him at 4 or 5, depending on how high you rank the really old guys.
ON EDIT: Shelley, we all know that everyone today uses the equipment, and should (hypothetically) benefit all the same. However, you can't deny that reactive resin and nigh-nuclear-powered cores benefit folks like Walter more than they do folks like PDW or Amletto. In fact, Amletto struggled AS A RESULT of resin. Meanwhile, Walter's title count went up. Again, not taking anything away from him (because he took advantage, and learned how to best play the modern game), but he was undoubtedly benefited as a direct result of evolving equipment, whereas others were not benefited to the same degree.
Edited on 11/6/2007 12:17 PM
Post by: Rileybowler on November 06, 2007, 11:24:24 AM
--------------------
Carl
Post by: shelley on November 06, 2007, 11:25:56 AM
quote:
In fact, Amletto struggled AS A RESULT of resin.
On the flip side, one could just as successfully say that Amleto was deficient in adapting his game to modern times. Just as there were guys who struggled moving from plastic to urethane, from pancakes to dynamic cores, and so on. It's matching up, and the best players can do it and the second-runs, well, not so much.
People bitca about WRW having "only" 6 titles before resin came along. 6 titles in 12 years. Suppose that we never got resin, that the urethane era lasted decades, like the plastic and rubber eras. Fast forward 15 years to today and maybe WRW has 12-15 titles. He's still not a second-rung guy. 12 titles is a damn successful career. Even had he retired in '92 with 6 titles he had a very successful career. How many guys have 6 titles? Most have fewer.
SH
Post by: revTrex on November 06, 2007, 02:20:13 PM
For those that think winning a tournament now is more difficult, consider the differences in format:
Billy Hardwick or Don Carter bowl 60-100 games in a Major and are the final pin-count leaders. Clearly, the best won, right?
Walter qualifies 23rd, advancing to the round of 32. In matchplay, he beats the bowlers he needs to, until he winds up in the TV finals. There, he dispatches one or two bowlers and wins the tournament. Is it clear that the best bowler won?
Do I think the quantity of EXCEPTIONAL players has gone up? NO. Why? Try naming some really good players from different eras:
Smith, Marino, Blouin, Gengler, Daw, Day, Caruana, Scribner, Falcaro...
Salvino, Varipapa, Carter, Weber, Bluth, Campi, Mecurio, Fazio, Crimmins...
Hardwick, Weber (again), Johnson, Lillard, Asher, Allison...
Anthony, Weber (still), Petraglia, Zikes, Cohn, Roth...
Aulby, Ozio, Holman, Roth, Monacelli, Weber (both)...
Williams, Bohn III, Weber (Pete), Duke, Voss...
Williams, Weber, Couch, Duke, Jones, Barnes, Allen...
Future? Jones, Barnes, Rash, Malott, and maybe somebody we don't even know of...
If you look at these lists (which I will acknowledge are nowhere near complete), you will see that the number of names that are of truly historical importance are pretty much the same from era to era. You have to keep in mind that so-called competitors to the throne today are really just second-tier, and will be forgotten eventually. Can you remember the guys that won 3-4 tournaments, or could you say they are anywhere near being the greatest? Of course not. For this reason, in 20-30 years, you will also forget the modern incarnations of those bowlers.
The modern day players are deemed to be better, I think, because we are more familiar with them. We see the second-tier players today as being better than the second-tier players of the past because we have physically watched folks like Loschetter, Machuga, Reyes, et al. There were also people that won seven or so titles before; you have to keep that in mind when comparing the quality of players like Jaros and Koivuniemi to the seven-title winners of yesteryear.
Again, just my thoughts. Feel free to disagree. There are Williams worshipers out there, and I know that.
Post by: chitown on November 07, 2007, 07:27:30 AM
quote:
^^^^
Greg, Walter has won more tournaments than Anthony...but only in more tries. More money is a relative thing, too.
NOTE: Barry Bonds has more home runs than both Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron. That might be an unfair comparison (given the steroid crap), but I'm sure you can get me real point (which has nothing whatsoever to do with steroids). The "most" doesn't equal the best.
Also, many of the bowlers I listed never got a chance to bowl in the PBA.
And, Chitown...Just because Walter always beats Weber doesn't take away from the fact that Weber has the best GAME. Winning can have nothing to do with true, pure, physical ability. Walter has a mental advantage over Weber these days.
I understand what your saying but I don't agree that Weber has a better game. I would love to compare each bowlers pocket percentage.
Post by: BowlingWolf on November 07, 2007, 08:32:10 AM
As such, some players have benefited from the resin era, while others were definitely left in its dust, most notably Amletto Monacelli (already mentioned), Mark Roth (he was still young enough that had technology not changed he would've won a few more titles with his brute "naturally-created" power), Wayne Webb and Marshall Holman. From this particular era, the keglers that benefited the most from technology changes, were WRW Jr. and Parker Bohn.
Like someone else mentioned already about this post, this horse has been beaten to death (many times over now).
--------------------
Regards,
BowlingWolf
Post by: shelley on November 07, 2007, 08:47:14 AM
quote:
Mark Roth (he was still young enough that had technology not changed he would've won a few more titles with his brute "naturally-created" power),
Really, though, Roth was done in '87. He won one title after that, right? In '93 or '94, I believe. He wasn't harmed by the resin era, he was practically finished by that time. He was astounding, 33 titles in something like 8 or 9 years, plus the outlier in the '90s.
Does anyone really complain about the guys who didn't adapt their games to the hard-throwing power game and short oil of the '80s? I see a lot of people complaining about how resin was the worst thing that ever happened to bowling, how all these fantastic guys basically lost their jobs when reactive resin was introduced, but who stands up for the classic stroking full roller whose career was finished by the power players booming it on short oil?
SH
Post by: BowlingWolf on November 07, 2007, 10:12:00 AM
quote:quote:
Mark Roth (he was still young enough that had technology not changed he would've won a few more titles with his brute "naturally-created" power),
Really, though, Roth was done in '87. He won one title after that, right? In '93 or '94, I believe. He wasn't harmed by the resin era, he was practically finished by that time. He was astounding, 33 titles in something like 8 or 9 years, plus the outlier in the '90s.
Does anyone really complain about the guys who didn't adapt their games to the hard-throwing power game and short oil of the '80s? I see a lot of people complaining about how resin was the worst thing that ever happened to bowling, how all these fantastic guys basically lost their jobs when reactive resin was introduced, but who stands up for the classic stroking full roller whose career was finished by the power players booming it on short oil?
SH
Having bowled quite a bit with Mark, I can tell you that although Mark was experiencing thumb problems at the end of the eighties, it was the advent of newer coverstocks that did him in; he was still young enough, but now his ball was reacting much more violently, and his brilliant career on the PBA tour was unceremoniously derailed (even though he tried to hang in there for a while).
--------------------
Regards,
BowlingWolf