Author Topic: My Experience (Read 8911 times)

Strapper_Squared · « **on:** March 17, 2012, 02:32:00 AM »

Quick report. Bowled the team event tonight. I found the conditions to be nearly impossible. Decided to start outside. Had absolutely zero area. Miss a board outside and missed the head pin right... Missed two plus boards and it was ditch. Going the other way, zero hold. Anything slightly projected off left absolutely took off.
After starting terrible, moved inside and found nothing there.
Several 230+ average bowlers on the pair, high set was 570, and drastically dropped off from there (into the 400's)..

I don't even know what to say right now. Frustrating and disappointing... Not really looking forward to s/d.

S^2

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Edited by Strapper_Squared on 3/17/2012 at 0:33 AM

Jorge300 · « **Reply #91 on:** March 21, 2012, 04:43:29 PM »

Bill,

Let me address something in your first paragraph, even though it wasn't addressed to me. The fact that the USBC Open makes money, you seem to have an issue with that? The profit is used by the USBC to fund it's operation, instead of raising membership fees, which have people up in arms if they did that. You are correct, Reno does offer something that allows them to maximize their profit. Again, why is this bad, especially in the bad economic environment the word is in? I hear people complaining that the economy is in such bad shape that they can't afford to practice for the Open, they can't afford to travel to Reno, etc. Yet when the USBC does something to help itself through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression that is seen as a bad thing. Why? Don't get me wrong, I liked traveling around the country, seeing new cities. I would like the tournament to return to that, and maybe 2015 is a start. But I understand the reasoning behind Reno so often and I think others would too if they take the time to think.

Now onto paragraph 2. My first question, and it is one I asked before, is why is this such an issue now? For the past 100 years, there have been 75% of the teams going to this tournament that did not cash. There is a good many of those that had little or no chance of doing so. Yet they continued year after year to support this tournament. The main difference is that normal league shots have gotten easier and now people average 10-20 pins higher then their actual skill level. But instead of accepting that fact, and trying to get better, they complain that the USBC Open shot is too hard, and they quit. As adults, we scold children when they do this....so why are we accommodating these adults when they act this way? No matter how you separate the teams.....the ones at the bottom end of any split will have the same chance of cashing or winning that they have now.....so will they quit then??? As mentioned you wind up with what happened to the Women's Championship, where they kept adding divisions and kept losing bowlers anyway. Why should we relive the past and do something that hasn't worked before? You do know the definition of insanity right??? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Bill Thomas wrote on 3/21/2012 12:57 PM:
Minnesota Don,

USBC does make a profit off of the Open. In fact, it is a "cash cow" that helps fund their operation. I suspect that at least one reason for the frequent returns to Reno is because their "profit" is better there. Even if USBC would somehow be able to move the Open to different places, it can't happen before 2016. By then it may be too late to salvage the trend of declining entries. Apparently the Tri-Properties casinos in Reno are providing USBC some sort of insurance against this decline. Your idea about multiple divisions for "Classified" bowlers would probably work better as a separate tournament.

Jorge300,

I am not advocating handicap nor do I envision using the THS walls that USBC instigated with the 3 unit rule. I simply want to see a separation between the highly skilled teams and the vast majority of teams who have no chance of winning an eagle and in the 75% who won't even cash. It is my, and others, contention that if you don't do something for the vast majority of participants the Open will suffer even more losses in entries to the detriment of USBC and their cash flow and the tournament itself.

Jorge300

Bill Thomas · « **Reply #92 on:** March 22, 2012, 04:15:06 PM »

Jorge300,

I would love to know how you can read my mind and find that I have issues with anything in my post. What I did was provide some facts in response to a poster who asked questions or said he didn't know certain info.. I have no issue at all with USBC using tournament funds to support their operations although I think they ought to be up front with the entrants that not all of their entry fee goes to the prize fund nor to the tournament expenses.

Bill Thomas · « **Reply #93 on:** March 22, 2012, 04:17:59 PM »

Jorge300,

As to your comments on the second paragraph, I believe, if you will read it carefully, I answered your questions.

Jorge300 · « **Reply #94 on:** March 22, 2012, 04:55:24 PM »

Bill,

Your post was written, to my anyway, like you had some issue with it. If I read that wrong, I apologize.

And I have reread your post, and no where do you answer my questions. You just state that you and others believe changes must be made in order to ensure we don't lose more entries. Again I ask why do we need to? Why are these teams quitting now, when for 100 years this tournament has offered the same thing, a shot tougher then the average league shot? If my son told me he wanted to quit something because it was too hard.....I would scold him and tell him that is no attitude to have. You can't just continue to quit things because it is too hard. You need to practice and work at it to get better. Yet when the same is said to bowlers......those saying it are called snobs or elitists. Would you advocate changes to Football or Baseball?? I mean those games are too hard for the average player to compete against the best in the sport.

I know I am the exception to the rule, because I know I am not as good as my THS average shows. I know that is inflated, and know my true talent as a bowler. But what I can't grasp is the childish mentality that is being catered to here. The shot is too hard, so we are going to quit and so we should change the shot, change the game to make those people happy. What happens to the 182 average bowler if you add a 180-200 division....he still doesn't cash 99% of the time. What happens to the 210 average bowler if you do this, where he used to cash some of the time, now he doesn't cash at all. Won't they just quit then??? Along with the 182 average bowler who still isn't cashing even with the new division. So now we lost 2 bowlers instead of 1 by adding in a new division. So by trying to help, we just lost twice as many bowlers. Maybe if instead of trying to make unnecessary changes to the tournament, people work on educating others on the history of the USBC Open, the prestige of the tournament, and the true nature of it, they will understand that they may not bowl well there, will try to get better and will continue to bowl like the majority of us do. It also might be interesting to share with them that the 1:4 cash ratio is one of the best you find in any tournament, most others are 1:6 or even 1:8 so in those cases 83% and 87% of the people/teams don't cash.

Jorge300

Andyman3333 · « **Reply #95 on:** March 22, 2012, 09:26:32 PM »

LOW TO CASH AS OF MARCH 15.

2618 in team = 524 a man = 174 average per player

1074 in doubles = 537 a man = 179 average per player

551 in singles = 183 average.

Are we blaming the conditions if we can't reach these numbers? Only one of which is over a 180 average and that's in singles. So a 180 average bowler needs to bowl average to cash. But we want to make the conditions easier so the 180 average bowler now has to bowl above and beyond their average to cash, which will only increase the gap between very good and not very good. A good 600 in this tournament will likely secure them their entry fees back. This may be tough, but who can't look at those numbers and at least marginally believe they are attainable. And who can't look at those numbers and think if they got hot at the right time, they might be in for a pretty nice check with a 650-660. Why would those numbers scare anyone away from this tournament? A nice check awaits someone who puts a good 3-game set together. Might even loosen the armswing up.

www.brunswickbowling.com
The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer and not of Brunswick Corporation.

PROFILE
340-370 revs
18 mph
Arsenal: (In the bag) Nexxus F(p+r), Nexus F(p+f), Nexus f(p), C-System Ulti-Max, C-System Versa Max, Massive Damage, Karma Pink/Purple. On the wall, Loaded Revolver, Lethal Revolver, Damage, Slingshot.

Oldschool · « **Reply #96 on:** March 22, 2012, 11:12:01 PM »

2011Reno NV 12,837 teams

2010Reno, NV 14,189

2009Las Vegas,NV 17,200

2008Albuquerque, NM 12,615

2007Reno, NV 16,235

2006Corpus Christi, TX 12,606

2005Baton Rouge, LA 13,222

2004Reno, NV 16,585

2003Knoxville, TN 12,203

2002Billings, MT 10,806

2001Reno, NV 16,104

2000Albuquerque, NM 10,688

1999Syracuse, NY 9,912

1998Reno, NV 15,925

1997Huntsville, AL 9,480

1996Salt Lake City, UT 9,764

1995Reno, NV 17,285

1994Mobile, AL 9,285

1993Tulsa, OK 8,518 1992Corpus Christi, TX 8,557

1991Toledo, OH 8,359

1990Reno, NV 9,199

1989Wichita, KS 7,717

1988Jacksonville, FL 7,562

1987Niagara Falls, NY 7,480

1986Las Vegas, NV 10,019

1985Tulsa, OK 7,700

1984Reno, NV 8,380

1983Niagara Falls, NY 7,132

1982Baltimore, MD 6,627

1981Memphis, TN 6,400

1980Louisville, KY 6,269

1979Tampa, FL 6,213

1978St. Louis, MO 6,684

1977Reno, NV 7,203

http://bowl.com/openchamp/openchampdetails.aspx?id=6442454155

Russell · « **Reply #97 on:** March 23, 2012, 12:24:04 AM »

I'm just curious how many bowlers were there in 1980 compared to now?

Hint: About 25% of what we have now. The dip the last couple of years could be attributed as much to location and the economy being in the toilet.

Just to clarify in the mid 80s we were getting 1/2 of the teams and we had at least 3x the sanctioned bowlers? What's the problem?

Oldschool wrote on 3/22/2012 9:12 PM: 2011Reno NV 12,837 teams
2010Reno, NV 14,189
2009Las Vegas,NV 17,200
2008Albuquerque, NM 12,615
2007Reno, NV 16,235
2006Corpus Christi, TX 12,606
2005Baton Rouge, LA 13,222
2004Reno, NV 16,585
2003Knoxville, TN 12,203
2002Billings, MT 10,806
2001Reno, NV 16,104
2000Albuquerque, NM 10,688
1999Syracuse, NY 9,912
1998Reno, NV 15,925
1997Huntsville, AL 9,480
1996Salt Lake City, UT 9,764
1995Reno, NV 17,285
1994Mobile, AL 9,285
1993Tulsa, OK 8,518 1992Corpus Christi, TX 8,557
1991Toledo, OH 8,359
1990Reno, NV 9,199
1989Wichita, KS 7,717
1988Jacksonville, FL 7,562
1987Niagara Falls, NY 7,480
1986Las Vegas, NV 10,019
1985Tulsa, OK 7,700
1984Reno, NV 8,380
1983Niagara Falls, NY 7,132
1982Baltimore, MD 6,627
1981Memphis, TN 6,400
1980Louisville, KY 6,269
1979Tampa, FL 6,213
1978St. Louis, MO 6,684
1977Reno, NV 7,203
http://bowl.com/openchamp/openchampdetails.aspx?id=6442454155

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"

Track_Fanatic · « **Reply #98 on:** March 23, 2012, 12:54:47 AM »

And if you look at where the most entries are, in Reno and Las Vegas, why do people complain about where its at? I'm confused at that issue too.

r534me · « **Reply #99 on:** March 23, 2012, 03:46:54 AM »

Perception becoming reality without supporting documentation?

Good research.

Russell wrote on 3/22/2012 10:24 PM:I'm just curious how many bowlers were there in 1980 compared to now?

Hint: About 25% of what we have now. The dip the last couple of years could be attributed as much to location and the economy being in the toilet.

Just to clarify in the mid 80s we were getting 1/2 of the teams and we had at least 3x the sanctioned bowlers? What's the problem?
Oldschool wrote on 3/22/2012 9:12 PM: 2011Reno NV 12,837 teams
2010Reno, NV 14,189
2009Las Vegas,NV 17,200
2008Albuquerque, NM 12,615
2007Reno, NV 16,235
2006Corpus Christi, TX 12,606
2005Baton Rouge, LA 13,222
2004Reno, NV 16,585
2003Knoxville, TN 12,203
2002Billings, MT 10,806
2001Reno, NV 16,104
2000Albuquerque, NM 10,688
1999Syracuse, NY 9,912
1998Reno, NV 15,925
1997Huntsville, AL 9,480
1996Salt Lake City, UT 9,764
1995Reno, NV 17,285
1994Mobile, AL 9,285
1993Tulsa, OK 8,518 1992Corpus Christi, TX 8,557
1991Toledo, OH 8,359
1990Reno, NV 9,199
1989Wichita, KS 7,717
1988Jacksonville, FL 7,562
1987Niagara Falls, NY 7,480
1986Las Vegas, NV 10,019
1985Tulsa, OK 7,700
1984Reno, NV 8,380
1983Niagara Falls, NY 7,132
1982Baltimore, MD 6,627
1981Memphis, TN 6,400
1980Louisville, KY 6,269
1979Tampa, FL 6,213
1978St. Louis, MO 6,684
1977Reno, NV 7,203
http://bowl.com/openchamp/openchampdetails.aspx?id=6442454155

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"

dmonroe814 · « **Reply #100 on:** March 23, 2012, 09:10:27 AM »

Scores, conditions, it is all relative because we all shoot on the same conditions. Straighter players are not affected as much as big hookers on sport conditions. I out averaged my wife by 30 pins on House conditions. We average within 10 pins of each other on sport conditions. Finding a way to stay in the pocket and making spares are the keys to making money at the nationals. My only pause for the nationals is the location. Not because of Reno, Vegas, BR or any other place. It is travel distance that give me pause. Due to job situations, I am forced to work and live near D.C. Going to Reno or Vegas costs me about $1000 before I step on the lanes. As long as I can afford it, I will continue to go. It is an expensive proposition, but I accept it. Adding $30 to the entry fee makes very little difference to me one way or another, when conidered with the other expenses. My goal each year is to bowl better than the last year. Last year was my highest with an 1814. First time over 200 for the tournament. I came after working very hard on the sport conditions. I go out the first week of April, but will not have the opportunity to practice on any sport conditions. My only saving grace is that I will use the team as practice, because we have the 7:00 am minor squad, so fresh oil again. The sport shot is the sport shot no matter where you go. It is all based on accuracy and shot repetition. That is what you need to practice on if you want to be successfull at the nationals. My Experience.

Old Man Still Learning
300x4 800x3 (High 814x2)
Hi Avg 218 Cur Ave 214
Tweener-Cranker (14Mph 350Revs)
Heavy: Storm VG Nano 4000AB Pol / C300 World Beater Pol
Medium: C300 Outburst Pol / C300 Game Pearl
Light: C300 Scout Reactive / Brunswich Avalanche Pearl

TWOHAND834 · « **Reply #101 on:** March 23, 2012, 10:30:30 AM »

Someone earlier mentioned something about why the need for more divisions. I dont think there is a need for more divisions as a plural but think that having one more division is a possibility. Why? Simply because scores today are not the same as they were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. Scores have risen ALOT. Your elite bowlers 20 years ago on league shots were 220. Now you have guys all over the place that are in the 240s; record being 260+. The sport as a whole has evolved but the Tournament hasnt. I think the Tournament is falling behind. The answer each year cant simply be "Lets flatten the pattern out to bring scores down". There will always be a difference of opinion no matter what happens. IMO.....the only way to bring more interest to the Tournament, is to add a 3rd division simply because your 190 THS bowler has no chance against the guys on a PBA level. Bear in mind that 190 average is on a THS. Know what that most likely equates to at the Tournament? Probably in the neighborhood of 170, on average though I am sure some will average over 200 for the tournament. The average base is much more wide spread now than it was years and years ago. You have enough guys now averaging 210+ that you could create an Elite Division.

As someone mentioned about the Tournament being a cash cow. Well, for alot of guys in the regular division it has become that. A guy like myself that averages 230+ on a THS and averaging 205-210 at the Tournament; I am going out there and making decent money because I know I can average 20 pins below my THS and still be in good shape. I have never shot anything higher than 1960ish AE and yet have made as much as $4,000. Lets do some math:

230 x 9 = 2070 (THS average)

210 x 9 = 1890 (roughly my USBC Tournament average)

190 x 9 = 1710 (lower end to qualify for Regular Division based on THS average)

There is a pretty significant gap there. For 9 games on a THS, there is a 360 pin gap. So the guy averaging 190 on a THS can shoot his average and hardly make a dime while feeling like he accomplished something by averaging that on a tougher condition whereas the 230 guy can shoot almost as much as 200 UNDER his THS average on the same pattern and make a couple thousand if the timing is right? Bear in mind this is hypothetical. Not all 190 bowlers are going to average 190 out there and not all 230 bowlers are going to average 210+ That is why I think there is a need for another division. We could have a 179 and below as Classified, 180-210 as Regular, and 211 and above as Elite. I believe by doing that, you increase the mentality of bowlers being able to walk away making some money because they are bowling against others of their own skill levels. This is one reason why league bowling is declining. You have those averaging 190 that know they cant compete with the 230s out there so they want more handicap. Then the 230s are mad because they worked hard for that 230 and dont think they should have to spot that many sticks to a person capable of popping out a 250 anytime. Scratch leagues are dying out. Then the next issue is the economy; getting it back on track so more people can afford to make it out there to participate. My fear for the Tournament is that it will become like leagues; slowly dying out.

Peace doesnt always have to be silent.

Pinbuster · « **Reply #102 on:** March 23, 2012, 10:34:33 AM »

I still think the Classified division is most of the growth.

Before 1999 all you could do was enter as a Booster team if your average was low enough and you had to bowl in the open doubles and singles.

So most of the team totals for years prior to 1999 were for open division teams.

I believe there are 4000+ booster teams now.

Bill Thomas · « **Reply #103 on:** March 23, 2012, 02:55:23 PM »

When talking about the USBC Open, I think the only relevant averages are those from the USBC Open tournament. Therefore, I believe any division or divisions should be based only on USBC Open averages. To do anything else is like mixing apples and oranges and expecting lemonade.

ccrider · « **Reply #104 on:** March 23, 2012, 04:23:22 PM »

Anyone going to this tournament and expecting an easy or THS shot can not read. They need to stay at home or go and bowl one of the hundreds of THS tournaments available around the U.S. on any given weekend.

Otherwise, there is plenty to be gained by the bowler that is willing and able to work on his game and make the sacrafice necessary to win at the open. Nobody said it has to be easy, and even if it was, those that prepared the most and bowled the best would, and should, still be on top.

Nothing needs to be changed about the divisions or the shot. The better bowlers end up on top, the mediocre in the middle, and those of us who can't bowl end up right where we are suppose to be, the bottom. Now, do I want a special class so that I can be at the top of the nonbowlers? Wow, what an accomplishment.

Those that can do. Those that can't complain. Pimpin ain't easy, but it's mandatory.

Most things we like, we don't need. Most things we need, we don't like. Don't confuse your likes with your needs.

Russell · « **Reply #105 on:** March 23, 2012, 04:26:47 PM »

You do realize the pattern is s 2.2:1 ratio....a flat pattern would be much tougher. This pattern is a little tougher than a tour pattern and about 5x easier than the US Open.

If you're wishing a 50ft flat pattern you know absolutely nothing about lane conditions. Flipping it to the 7 board and watching it bounce back is not bowling.

tog831 wrote on 3/23/2012 2:11 PM:
I don't know if i am hi-jacking this thread,but my question is, who wants to bowl on a reverse block pattern.

You never see a reverse block during the regular season,why is the usbc using this dumb ass pattern.I would rather see a flat 50 foot shot .

Even if i could practice on a reverse block i would not bowl on it.I have been to many of these places,the last two Reno and Las Vegas are my last ones i am ever going too bowl unless the pattern is changed.Just my two cents.

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"