Author Topic: Nationals as a testing ground? (Read 2792 times)

EagleHunter · « **on:** June 05, 2009, 02:35:20 PM »

First off, there has been some fantastic bowling this year. A few bowlers caught lightning in a bottle and used it to post record scores. These bowlers are living a dream...assuming someone else doesn't decide to live their own dream in the meantime. They are to be congratulated and recognized for their accomplishments.

That said, I have agreed with others on these boards about the need to change the scoring pace for Nationals. Many have disagreed, arguing that the scoring was some type of anomaly. Well let's see...highest AE score ever...highest Singles score ever...3rd place Team AE is in the top 8 ALL-TIME...yeah, that sounds like an anomaly.

At any rate, I want you to consider this...if this year's Championships were being held with TWISTER pins, would any of these scores be as high?

Okay, okay...stop your laughter. I'm sure that the general consensus is that there is little chance that TWISTERS would allow these scores. What about if USBC were to use heavier wood?

What I'm getting at here is...why doesn't USBC use Nationals as a large test case? No need to spend additional membership dollars trying to come with ways to test the effects of certain changes...just implement them at Nationals. People already know and expect a higher degree of difficulty. They should use the tournament to their advantage...and NOT just financially.

Thoughts?

backswing_aplenty · « **Reply #16 on:** June 06, 2009, 02:17:35 PM »

Eh...all good points. No argument about the strict and fair running of the tournament. I'd love for more stringent rules on lane patterns and application as well as averages for Classified division, but that's another topic.

quote:
True, there will always be the "hacks" who show up and shoot 400, lacking skill to do better, I just find it incredible that ANYONE has the talent to shoot 850 or better on a condition that is supposed to be "tough and demanding".

I think this is the point, 2 people bowled THAT well on a tough pattern. Amazing! Yet there will always be someone who wants to cut it down. (Not saying that you are cutting them down and I understand your argument of tougher patterns and regulation of that pattern with fresh oil, not that they didn't deserve it.)

But what happens when they do toughen up the pattern to a 2:1 ratio and fresh oil every squad and Twister pins and whatever else comes along and someone still pops off an 830 or 840? Where do we go from there? What excuses will people make for him or will we finally congratulate a fellow bowler and enjoy what our National tournament can be?

Scoring is all relative to the arena in which the bowling is done. If a 650 is tops than wow amazing bowling, if 860 is tops, wow amazing bowling. For the sheer size of Nationals I think they are doing a pretty good job in conducting a nation-wide tournament. How many other sports/games has this participation with the few hiccups this tournament has? All the while allowing virtually anyone to compete.

My biggest problem is not the scores but the attitude towards them. As I said above what happens when things get real strict and stringent and someone still shoots telephone numbers? What then?

*backswing
--------------------
Storm Staff 2009

Professional Approach Staff So Cal

Juggernaut · « **Reply #17 on:** June 06, 2009, 02:33:44 PM »

quote:
But what happens when they do toughen up the pattern to a 2:1 ratio and fresh oil every squad and Twister pins and whatever else comes along and someone still pops off an 830 or 840? Where do we go from there? What excuses will people make for him or will we finally congratulate a fellow bowler and enjoy what our National tournament can be?

Somebody shoots that on a 2:1 ratio sport pattern and I will stand in line to congratulate them.

If they are able to do it under tight, strict, stringent limits, more power to them. That is exactly what I am trying to say, let those who can shoot like that STAND OUT from the crowd.

--------------------
Good transactions list in my profile

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

notsohotshot · « **Reply #18 on:** June 06, 2009, 03:04:22 PM »

I personally surprised at the current particapation with the current setup. Why would any bowler with an avg.above the Classified Div to at least a 200 avg want to donate their money to all of the pro bowlers,male,female,and seniors plus all of the others that avg in the 220s to 230s and then have to bowl on inferior conditions. Allwe are doing is adding our money to pay for these peoples prize fund." I know this yr I bowled 3rd squad and the lanes were so dry for me that I was lofting the guttercap and crossing 30 at the arrows. Luckily the ball returns were moved back. I am not used to throwing that kind of shot. I tried to suitcase the ball down the outside and the ball still went hard to the left side and had almost no carry. How can my scores be compared to someone rolling on the 1st or 2nd squad.

I have yet to figure out why they don't split it up into more than 2 divisions. I used to bowl in Tx State tourney and you had several div. based on avg and it was more fair for everyone. The Nationals in its present format will eventually start losing partisapation as soon as the people in the middle figure nout that most of them are there just to contribute to the pros etc.

shipper50 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 06, 2009, 06:47:15 PM »

quote:
I personally surprised at the current particapation with the current setup. Why would any bowler with an avg.above the Classified Div to at least a 200 avg want to donate their money to all of the pro bowlers,male,female,and seniors plus all of the others that avg in the 220s to 230s and then have to bowl on inferior conditions. Allwe are doing is adding our money to pay for these peoples prize fund." I know this yr I bowled 3rd squad and the lanes were so dry for me that I was lofting the guttercap and crossing 30 at the arrows. Luckily the ball returns were moved back. I am not used to throwing that kind of shot. I tried to suitcase the ball down the outside and the ball still went hard to the left side and had almost no carry. How can my scores be compared to someone rolling on the 1st or 2nd squad.

I have yet to figure out why they don't split it up into more than 2 divisions. I used to bowl in Tx State tourney and you had several div. based on avg and it was more fair for everyone. The Nationals in its present format will eventually start losing partisapation as soon as the people in the middle figure nout that most of them are there just to contribute to the pros etc.

I am one of those old people called seniors who bowled this year on the late shift and was totally surprised at how much oil there was at 1:30 in the morning. I had to use my VG with the surface taken down to 1000 and even though I didn't shoot that well due to a leg problem, there was a shot to hit even that late.

Its all about having the right equipment and having some kind of game other than standing left and flinging it right and let it come back and strike like most bowlers of todays game.

Shipper

riggs · « **Reply #20 on:** June 07, 2009, 07:38:20 AM »

By lower volume I didn't mean shorter distance. I think you can go lighter AND longer actually and have a more demanding test that lets the "average" bowler still stay in their comfort zone around 10 board ... because that's part of what's driving the higher volumes of the past few years -- USBC doesn't want to see the average bowler walk in, throw it up 10 and see it miss the head-pin left.

Oiling every squad for minors is something USBC would do if equity was the primary goal ... but economics trumps equity. I had this discussion with a USBC official who told me they have studied the issue and it comes down to this -- every time a lane sits open on a squad it is effectively X amount of lost dollars and going to fresh oil for all minors squads likely means cutting a minors squad, which means you'd need to have team squads short of full. (They are not going to run any 2 or 3 a.m. squads.)

EagleHunter · « **Reply #21 on:** June 08, 2009, 08:59:22 AM »

quote:
By lower volume I didn't mean shorter distance. I think you can go lighter AND longer actually and have a more demanding test that lets the "average" bowler still stay in their comfort zone around 10 board ... because that's part of what's driving the higher volumes of the past few years -- USBC doesn't want to see the average bowler walk in, throw it up 10 and see it miss the head-pin left.

Riggs,
Just curious...are YOU suggesting that USBC was doing this or has USBC admitted to doing this?

I'm also curious...if the goal was to "improve" the look or scores of the average player, has any improvement been noted among the average player? It appears obvious that the above-average player has seen improvement.

riggs · « **Reply #22 on:** June 08, 2009, 09:37:30 AM »

I have a lot of conversations that aren't meant for public attribution and it has been communicated to me by more than one person in the know that one of the things USBC was interested in in recent years is giving the average 2nd arrow player a chance to play there and not have the ball go runaway brooklyn or worse ... which is what happened quite often in past years with lower volumes of oil and the shot being inside essentially from the start.

So long as the right 10 boards aren't dry like a typical league shot you have not taken much away from the essence of the tournament, IMHO -- average 195-210 league player is not going to shoot 2,000 on a Sport compliant pattern no matter how much volume there is.

And yes I have anecdotally heard lots of reports the past couple of years of people getting their first 600 or first 1,800, etc.

Edited on 6/8/2009 9:38 AM

EagleHunter · « **Reply #23 on:** June 08, 2009, 11:43:29 AM »

Riggs,
Thanks for the info...that is pretty much what I thought. Do you think that this change has resulted in more entries as well? Or does that increase have to do more with the location?

JessN16 · « **Reply #24 on:** June 09, 2009, 04:41:21 AM »

quote:
I have a lot of conversations that aren't meant for public attribution and it has been communicated to me by more than one person in the know that one of the things USBC was interested in in recent years is giving the average 2nd arrow player a chance to play there and not have the ball go runaway brooklyn or worse ... which is what happened quite often in past years with lower volumes of oil and the shot being inside essentially from the start.

So long as the right 10 boards aren't dry like a typical league shot you have not taken much away from the essence of the tournament, IMHO -- average 195-210 league player is not going to shoot 2,000 on a Sport compliant pattern no matter how much volume there is.

And yes I have anecdotally heard lots of reports the past couple of years of people getting their first 600 or first 1,800, etc.

Edited on 6/8/2009 9:38 AM

I got a chance last year to bowl on the "old" shot, fresh oil, using the latest equipment, on a fairly low-friction AnviLane surface.

I have never -- and I mean NEVER -- had to start that far left on fresh in my life.

If they were to revert to that at Nationals, they would have no choice but to re-oil between all shifts. We didn't even get out of the first game before guys were de-shelling, lofting the cap, etc. And I'm not exactly a cranker.

Jess

JessN16 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 09, 2009, 04:45:56 AM »

quote:
[Dons flame retardant clothing]

O.K., here goes. Until EVERYONE is competing within the same parameters, bowling will never be a "fair" game.

While the individualistic aspects of the sport can never be reduced, the other aspect of the game should be. Playing surfaces should be limited to much stricter parameters. Oil volumes should be much more strictly regulated, AND BALL PHYSICS SHOULD BE GREATY REDUCED TO VERY STRICT PARAMETERS. Then, all these should be strictly enforced.

Nationals would be a GREAT place for this to happen. Let people compete at home on their shots with their equipment and have a great time. Let the proprietors run their businesses and make their money. But, let the U.S.B.C. NATIONALS be run with very strict, limited, and demanding conditions that are the EXACT SAME for each and every participant.

If you did that -- and I'm specifically referring to putting people into a standard ball situation where the ball in question is urethane or plastic -- I would expect participation to drop, conservatively, by 75 percent.

In my little house way back east in Alabama, we managed to send about 15 full teams to Nationals this year. Of those 75 guys who went, probably 60 were out there on vacation and, oh by the way, they just happened to be bowling. That was the mindset. Jibes with the fact that those 60 or so had no chance in the tournament and just wanted the experience.

I'd say fewer than 20 of those 75 guys have something plastic or urethane in their possession, and the ones that do use it to shoot 10 pins only. If you were to tell them they would be restricted to that ball at Nationals -- or be forced to buy something, if they didn't already have it -- I suspect the reaction would be spectacularly nuclear.

Jess

dursty · « **Reply #26 on:** June 12, 2009, 07:52:21 AM »

"2 of the elderly people on our pairs were throwing plastic."

I think they were in the team event in front of us too.. All I know when we started doubles, they were about 7 to 8 boards tighter than in team event... 0 backends... needless to say a throwbot wasn't going to shoot more than 650 on our pair.. 857.. yeah right.

Author Topic: Nationals as a testing ground? (Read 2792 times)

EagleHunter

Nationals as a testing ground?

backswing_aplenty

Re: Nationals as a testing ground?

Juggernaut

Re: Nationals as a testing ground?

notsohotshot

Re: Nationals as a testing ground?

shipper50

Re: Nationals as a testing ground?

riggs

Re: Nationals as a testing ground?

EagleHunter

Re: Nationals as a testing ground?

riggs

Re: Nationals as a testing ground?

EagleHunter

Re: Nationals as a testing ground?

JessN16

Re: Nationals as a testing ground?

JessN16

Re: Nationals as a testing ground?

dursty

Re: Nationals as a testing ground?