Does anyone else have a problem believing in a level playing field when
3 right-handers can't shoot above 203, and the sole left-hander can't shoot below
235?  I'm not here to stoke the usual flames about lefties always having an easier
lane condition, because that simply isn't true.  Some would argue that the pattern
just breaks down that way, but this is hard to believe when the number of games
bowled on the pair is only 6!  If a pattern can't hold up equitably for lefties and righties over a measly 6 games, it simply shouldn't be used.  Watching this particular telecast, I am reminded again of what a lousy job the PBA is doing marketing the sport--let's not forget the lack of live coverage, and how about the recent posting that only Dexter shoes will be allowed on Tour?  I haven't checked, but they're probably owned by Storm. Is this kind of totalitarian clubbiness really necessary?
It really looks bad.

 

Still leaves the question unanswered:  why should a particularly handed bowler
be enabled to so easily dominate opposite handed bowlers of equal ability?  All these
folks are at the same basic skill level.

Why should the righties have to work together to "manufacture" a shot?  The sole
lefty got to play HIS own game.

If I am to accept your explanation, then winning or losing comes down to some sort of collusion among the same-handed players; none of them is free, as was the sole lefty in this case, to let his freak flag fly.  Something's rotten in Denmark, but I'm not sure what . . .

The allotted amount of time to practice on the tv pair prior to the next seeds match was decreased to less time than last year's WSOB. PBA tried doing this to limit the guys from changing the "integrity" of the pattern.

Whether or not it worked remains arguable.

Does anyone else have a problem believing in a level playing field when
3 right-handers can't shoot above 203, and the sole left-hander can't shoot below
235?  I'm not here to stoke the usual flames about lefties always having an easier
lane condition, because that simply isn't true.  Some would argue that the pattern
just breaks down that way, but this is hard to believe when the number of games
bowled on the pair is only 6!  If a pattern can't hold up equitably for lefties and righties over a measly 6 games, it simply shouldn't be used.  Watching this particular telecast, I am reminded again of what a lousy job the PBA is doing marketing the sport--let's not forget the lack of live coverage, and how about the recent posting that only Dexter shoes will be allowed on Tour?  I haven't checked, but they're probably owned by Storm. Is this kind of totalitarian clubbiness really necessary?
It really looks bad.

 

It is also interesting how Ciminelli could play the same spot on the lane with the same ball on two completely different patterns.  Ryan is a great bowler.  Don't get me wrong.  But I thought the reasoning to have 5 different patterns was so each pattern has its own characteristics of where each pattern should be played.  So....Chameleon, Cheetah, and Viper can all be played outside by 5-8 boards?  I guess since the bowlers are given 20-30 minutes to carve their shot; if they took a ball at 500 abralon and piped it up 3-4-5, they could create some hook area out there. 

What I would like to see for 5 different patterns: is something like Bear, Badger, Scorpion, Viper or Chameleon, and Wolf.  Have one really long pattern, one really short pattern, one extremely flat pattern (modified US Open), one medium length pattern, and maybe even the USBC Tournament pattern just to shake it up a bit.

I still maintain that these players are of approximately equal talent; otherwise they wouldn't be there.  Their skill levels, if allowed expression, could never produce the huge disparity in scoring seen at the Chameleon event.  And then we would have competitive, close matches worth watching. What, all three righties had a bad hair day? Judging from the Chameleon results, obviously the amount of practice prior to each match, in combination with the 3-1 imbalance in bowler handedness, did indeed compromise the "integrity" of the pattern.  How about everyone restricted to practice on a separate pair (if possible; arena settings often preclude this)?  Bowlers at this level really just need to loosen up, and can learn ENOUGH by watching the ball reaction of same-handed others.  A sole lefty or rightie already has the advantage of being the only one on the road. Advancing by winning matches thus has the added EARNED bonus of gaining familiarity with the pair, and the TV pair itself has a better chance of playing neutral.

I'm guessing yes, we can't have everything--some "right," somewhere, has to be compromised to level the playing field.  Unless the patterns are designed to be challenging to everyone from the get-go.

Interesting the amount of commentary this topic has generated--I think that clearly shows that things just aren't right.  It would also be instructive if some pros had the
courage to speak freely on this issue;  but I would guess they are hamstrung by peer pressure, sponsors, and fear of PBA blowback.  Is this an accurate scenario?  Or I am just ranting, as is often my habit?

Well, Chris Barnes, that's a whole other topic.

What are us peons to judge by if not TV?  And from the PBA's point
of view, this is their best chance to get it right, to show real competition--and live,
if possible.  Gimmickry like blue oil and trick shot competitions just don't cut it.
They just show desperation at a shrinking audience.

If you want to judge equality look at the results for qualifying.  If you want to watch bowling on TV, tune in. 

The audience is shrinking regardless of what they do.  They are doing the team nonsense to have the few familiar faces the PBA has on TV every week.  They did the best they could to make Belmonte a familiar face, but the rest of the guys people recognize are getting old.