Post by: EagleHunter on June 28, 2009, 01:32:18 PM
This thread though, is not about those bowlers or their accomplishments. It is about the scoring pace/level at Nationals. Early on, after Ron Vokes scoring record, some on these boards stated that a problem existed with the scoring pace (I happened to agree with them). Others stated that this was an isolated incident.
Here we are almost at the end of the event...yet another record was broken. Can anyone still suggest that this is an isolated incident?
If, as Riggs has earlier suggested, USBC is attempting to make the condition more "friendly" to the average player, which apparently is resulting in the better than average player making the condition look like a house shot, does the USBC risk damaging the credibility of the event itself?
Records are made to be broken, but not on a regular basis. At what point can it be said that a problem exists?
Post by: riggs on June 29, 2009, 05:03:27 AM
I look at the leaderboard and don't have a problem with the ability of any of the players in the top positions.
Scores are just numbers and are all relative to the environment -- bowling is not the same game it was 20 years ago or 30 years ago or 50 years ago. There's hardly any other "sport" I can think of where records are less meaningful considering the changes in technology and standards bowling has seen.
The few unreal huge scores that have been shot would not have happened if 1) the oil volume was less (this year is the most ever), and 2) if minor events were on fresh.
Post by: Atochabsh on June 29, 2009, 05:17:41 AM
Erin
Post by: Dewey24 on June 29, 2009, 06:41:42 AM
My point is right now there are many ways in which a bowler can make them selves better. Some of the folks that bowl the tournament take advantage of the resources out there. Some of the bowlers do not. The bowlers who take advantage of the resources that are available, will continue to rule the leader board. These folks will also have the chance to set records that the rest of us will not be able to do. Put how ever hard a shot on the lanes you want someone will figure out a way to beat it. I was struggling to beat the shot in Vegas and the kid the next pair over was making it look like a house shot.
Edited on 6/29/2009 6:41 AM
Post by: mainzer on June 29, 2009, 07:20:14 AM
--------------------
''If their is a life after death,
then their is no death,
and if their is no death,
we do not live''
Progressive Metal Band
EVERGREY
MainzerPower
Post by: Krumpy300 on June 29, 2009, 07:31:10 AM
It was my first year out there. I have some ideas on what I may do for next year in Reno, but I highly doubt the shot will be the same.
You basically have to make very good shots and having a good reaction doesn't hurt either
--------------------
Repetition is everything..
Post by: Phoneman on June 29, 2009, 08:02:17 AM
Post by: Jorge300 on June 29, 2009, 10:03:46 AM
quote:
First off, I have no intention of high-jacking any other threads that are congratulating other bowlers on some tremendous scoring at Nationals. The bowlers that are leading any of the events have bowled spectacularly and deserve kudos and a tip of the cap.
This thread though, is not about those bowlers or their accomplishments. It is about the scoring pace/level at Nationals. Early on, after Ron Vokes scoring record, some on these boards stated that a problem existed with the scoring pace (I happened to agree with them). Others stated that this was an isolated incident.
Here we are almost at the end of the event...yet another record was broken. Can anyone still suggest that this is an isolated incident?
If, as Riggs has earlier suggested, USBC is attempting to make the condition more "friendly" to the average player, which apparently is resulting in the better than average player making the condition look like a house shot, does the USBC risk damaging the credibility of the event itself?
Records are made to be broken, but not on a regular basis. At what point can it be said that a problem exists?
When is there a problem? When this happens year after year. Until then this is BS. How about you take a step back and look at the people throwing the scores before you open your mouth again. Bo Goergen was just coming off tour trials, where he finished 9th, only a few pin out of making the exempt tour for next year. He just bowled 5-6 days under some of the most stressful conditions, on some tough shots. He was prepared to hit a very small area and took advantage of that. It's not like he took over the A/E lead too, he bowled decent in the other events. As far as Vokes goes, we've already discussed this, it was a career two days, again you try to make light of his achievement by calling the lanes "easy" and taking away from how great he threw the ball for 9 games. And now you do the same for the new Doubles leaders, before the ink is even dry writing down their scores. You seem like someone who is jealous that your name isn't up there with these great bowlers and the only way to make yourself feel better is to bring them down.
Just an FYI, people complained about the scoring in Billings, where some of the old records were set, saying the USBC (or ABC at the time) was damaging the tournament, yadda yadda yadda....and it took 7 years to break the records set there. Only if we see scores like this year after year is there a problem. Also remember, you have the second largest field ever, doesn't it stand to reason that more "honor" scores would be shot then some of the prior years, as there are just more bowlers???? Oh wait, that can't be it, it is it the fact that the lanes are too easy. This was a joke the first time you posted it, it was a joke the second time you posted it.....and it's still a joke here the umpteenth time you've posted it.
--------------------
Jorge300
Post by: laddog54 on June 29, 2009, 11:05:26 AM
--------------------
http://www.allbowling.com/journal/public.php?uid=4002&leagueid=2552
http://www.allbowling.com/journal/public.php?uid=4002&leagueid=2587
http://www.allbowling.com/journal/public.php?uid=4002&leagueid=2715
ROTO GRIP - King of Them All
Post by: EagleHunter on June 29, 2009, 02:04:20 PM
I have no problem with the bowlers leading their respective events. Every one of them is incredibly talented and bowled tremendously. They took advantage of what was out there, nothing more...but as we had discussed earlier, when is a score too high?
The U.S. Open is the premier event on the PBA schedule. Of all the Majors, it is the Open that any PBA professional wants to capture. Nationals is the same for the members of USBC (IMO).
Now as I said, the bowlers leading are very good (understatement). The PBA players are equally good, if not considerably better. But can you honestly tell me that PBA players would not have a gripe if the Open turned into a "typical" event, with the leader averaging 250+? Are you suggesting that PBA players wouldn't be bemoaning how the integrity of the event was compromised?
Despite the fact that the Open would not likely turn into such a strike-fest (would it?), can you see where I am coming from? USBC is doing this very thing by attempting to make things "better" for the average player(as you have suggested). As a result, the better than average bowlers are having a field day and posting record scores...that is, if they manage to catch the right "draw."
Again, great bowling is great bowling. 550, 650, 750, 850 could ALL be considered great bowling. For some reason, some on these boards and others (Jorge, for example), can't seem to understand that great bowling is not necessarily defined by a record score. Your 1997 AE score is now the 5th best all-time, but I would rank it as possibly the best overall bowling since you went 90-clean. No one else can claim to have done so...that is great bowling.
Here's the point...when Vokes went 850+ for 2300+, many here claimed it was an isolated incident and already gave him two eagles. Bo Goergen comes along, in another apparently isolated incident, and passes him by with 862. Then the doubles record, previously set in 2007 (2003, 2002, and 2000 before that...5 times in 9 years, is that a pattern Jorge?), falls in yet another isolated incident. Fool me once, fool me twice...a third time? I am no fool.
Lastly, to Jorge's point of more bowlers...your point depends entirely on the caliber of bowlers who decided to come out this year that did not previously. If an extra 3,000 average bowlers came out...then no it would not lead to more honor scores because their is little chance that those bowlers are talented enough to shoot one on the THS. If more of the better than average bowlers are coming out, then it is possible that more honor scores would result. However, I truly believe the majority of extra bowlers this year are in Vegas primarily for the vacation with the bowling being a side event.
Post by: Gazoo on June 29, 2009, 02:51:02 PM
--------------------
"I don't want to be remembered, I want to be forgotten"
Edited on 6/29/2009 6:31 PM
Post by: Jorge300 on June 29, 2009, 03:22:30 PM
Do you not believe in luck? Does luck check itself at the door when you enter the USBC Open? With added bowlers, you WILL have more honor scores, statistics prove this, regardless of the skill level, people get lucky. It happnes.
You passed right over the explanation for Mr. Goergen. Do you not think he was in a different mindset, perhaps "in the zone" after coming off a very impressive showing at the Tour Trials, or does that not matter to you. Think of all the practice that went into preparing for that event, then competing, then coming to the Open. But I guess to your way of thinking, that doesn't matter, it's all because the lanes are "too easy".
And you picked one event to prove your point. Doubles is influenced by the team that bowls in front of you. I would wager since 2000 there are more teams that have come to the realization that they need to work together to break down the shot so they can score better then prior to 2000. So odds are that you will have a better chance to get a pair with a playable area for Doubles, then prior to 2000. So it is no surprise that this is one score that has hadit's record broken more then the rest. If that was occuring with ALL the records, every year, then we have issue. Again as has been pointed out time and time again this seems like a big case of jealousy on your part, nothing more.
--------------------
Jorge300
Post by: EagleHunter on June 29, 2009, 04:04:41 PM
As for luck...are you suggesting that these "ISOLATED" record scores are the result of luck? Are you even suggesting that the bowlers shooting honor scores are lucky? A bowler may get a lucky break or two...but to get 12 strikes in a game at Nationals, where the bowlers still stop to watch thus enhancing the pressure...sorry, I don't see where any bowler lucks into that. If you believe that, good for you.
I only picked one event? Wow, a great argument when presented with facts you claimed didn't exist. As for teams working together...that practice took off after Team event went to all fresh oil, which wasn't until 2002 or 2003 if I'm not mistaken. I cannot recall for sure, I'm sure that Riggs or someone else could confirm. I do know that it wasn't on fresh during 2001.
On top of that, while many teams may attempt to "work" the lanes, there are but a talented few that actually KNOW what they are doing. It would be a rather large coincidence that the bowlers rolling such record scores happen to be following such teams. I would argue, at best, 10% of teams even attempt to "work" the lanes for their advantage.
As for your claim of jealosy...I have no ill will toward those bowlers shooting these scores. They are doing there best on what is out there. I also have no delusions about my own abilities. The last two events I attended, I was very poorly prepared and bowled poorly...as expected. Prior to those events I was much better prepared and bowled much better...as expected. I am proud that my overall tournament average is over 200, but I have no delusions that I am an elite bowler like Riggs or those leading now.
I feel that the winning scores are simply too high for our most prestigious event. You seem to think that such scores are not a problem. Would you ever consider them a problem?
Post by: riggs on June 29, 2009, 08:11:09 PM
EH, I would never compare the U.S. Open to the USBC Open Championships. Apples and oranges. And BTW, U.S. Open scores have been very high at times in history. Go back and check the records. It's better the way it is now but that's a totally different tournament.
I am mostly in agreement with a lot of your analysis. I just don't get caught up in scores cuz they are all relative.
Did they miss on the "easy" side this year. Maybe a little bit. Again I reiterate that the problem is not the pattern shape but the volume, which in combination with not having all minors on fresh has created the opportunity for a handful of enormous scores ... all by worthy players.
Good may come of this if USBC realizes that it needs to get ALL squads on fresh -- minors included.
Post by: riggs on June 29, 2009, 08:18:55 PM
If the trade-off (of more oil creating higher scores) is letting the average bowlers be happy standing on the big dot and throwing at the second triangle, as the saying goes, which keeps entries high, I have no problem with it. As long as the pattern starts out Sport solid players will win.
In a perfect world, I'd rather see winning scores of 3,200, 1,400, 775 and 2,100 but I'm not unhappy with the current situation ... although having 2 10,000 plus team all-events totals that won't win does kind of stink!
Post by: Krakken on June 29, 2009, 08:55:19 PM
quote:
Riggs,
I have no problem with the bowlers leading their respective events. Every one of them is incredibly talented and bowled tremendously. They took advantage of what was out there, nothing more...but as we had discussed earlier, when is a score too high?
The U.S. Open is the premier event on the PBA schedule. Of all the Majors, it is the Open that any PBA professional wants to capture. Nationals is the same for the members of USBC (IMO).
Now as I said, the bowlers leading are very good (understatement). The PBA players are equally good, if not considerably better. But can you honestly tell me that PBA players would not have a gripe if the Open turned into a "typical" event, with the leader averaging 250+? Are you suggesting that PBA players wouldn't be bemoaning how the integrity of the event was compromised?
Despite the fact that the Open would not likely turn into such a strike-fest (would it?), can you see where I am coming from? USBC is doing this very thing by attempting to make things "better" for the average player(as you have suggested). As a result, the better than average bowlers are having a field day and posting record scores...that is, if they manage to catch the right "draw."
Again, great bowling is great bowling. 550, 650, 750, 850 could ALL be considered great bowling. For some reason, some on these boards and others (Jorge, for example), can't seem to understand that great bowling is not necessarily defined by a record score. Your 1997 AE score is now the 5th best all-time, but I would rank it as possibly the best overall bowling since you went 90-clean. No one else can claim to have done so...that is great bowling.
Your US OPEN argument doesn't work because at the US OPEN they bowl 18 games plus. Comparatively look at 2 years ago when norm duke averaged 230 for 3 games on the show. That is more than comparable to What Ron Vokes did. Did anyone complain that the US Open shot was too easy then? no.
The USBC is not a THS and is not the US open pattern, it is right where it should be, some where in the midle.
--------------------
ROTO GRIP, There is NO Substitute
Slow Feet, Soft hand = Lots of strikes
Post by: atltnpnr on June 29, 2009, 09:54:53 PM
(same prob as any other year).--------------------
Bowling is like life. Sometimes you are the ball. Other times you are the pins.
Post by: morpheus on June 29, 2009, 10:33:55 PM
Post by: the shadz on June 29, 2009, 10:49:49 PM
ALL SQUADS HAVE TO BE ON FRESH. I didn't have a chance before even throwing a shot.
Post by: EagleHunter on June 29, 2009, 10:57:16 PM
While I understand what you are trying to say, how can you suggest that Ron Vokes' accomplishment is similar to Norm Duke's?
The TV show at the U.S. Open is far different from the tournament itself. The bowlers that make the show often have an hour-plus to manipulate the pattern to make it much more scoreable than it probably was during the week (in regular qualifying). That said, how is averaging 230 even close to averaging 280+?
Even when the PBA stars can manipulate the pattern for a much longer time (at the U.S. Open TV show) than any Nationals participant, the best they could get to was 690 for 3? I could live with that score for Nationals...but that won't happen anytime soon.
I would suggest though that if Duke had averaged 286, a few bowlers might have had a problem.
Post by: Krakken on June 30, 2009, 07:40:59 AM
quote:
Krakken,
While I understand what you are trying to say, how can you suggest that Ron Vokes' accomplishment is similar to Norm Duke's?
The TV show at the U.S. Open is far different from the tournament itself. The bowlers that make the show often have an hour-plus to manipulate the pattern to make it much more scoreable than it probably was during the week (in regular qualifying). That said, how is averaging 230 even close to averaging 280+?
Even when the PBA stars can manipulate the pattern for a much longer time (at the U.S. Open TV show) than any Nationals participant, the best they could get to was 690 for 3? I could live with that score for Nationals...but that won't happen anytime soon.
I would suggest though that if Duke had averaged 286, a few bowlers might have had a problem.
No matter how long they have to manipulate the pattern, it is still the toughest shot in bowling. If more than Norm Duke averaged 230 on that I would agree and say they broke it down perfectly, but he was the only one. IF he missed just a pinch he was in trouble (i.e. The bucket that almost cost him the title), he missed it a bit right and see what happened?
Ron Vokes matched up great with the lanes, and came across a pair that was broken down perfectly for him in Singles and doubles.
Bo Goergen is one of the top bowlers in the country, and the doubles team are both members of team USA. They are some of the best bowlers out there.
If a bunch of 210 house hacks went out and set all the records, I would agree with you. Since all these records were shot by great bowlers, I dont' see the problem.
--------------------
ROTO GRIP, There is NO Substitute
Slow Feet, Soft hand = Lots of strikes
Post by: cee_dub2009 on June 30, 2009, 11:55:21 AM
Lets just have fun bowling!
I agree with more bowlers more higher scores.
Why are we even discussing this?
Post by: Jorge300 on June 30, 2009, 01:10:18 PM
quote:quote:
Krakken,
While I understand what you are trying to say, how can you suggest that Ron Vokes' accomplishment is similar to Norm Duke's?
The TV show at the U.S. Open is far different from the tournament itself. The bowlers that make the show often have an hour-plus to manipulate the pattern to make it much more scoreable than it probably was during the week (in regular qualifying). That said, how is averaging 230 even close to averaging 280+?
Even when the PBA stars can manipulate the pattern for a much longer time (at the U.S. Open TV show) than any Nationals participant, the best they could get to was 690 for 3? I could live with that score for Nationals...but that won't happen anytime soon.
I would suggest though that if Duke had averaged 286, a few bowlers might have had a problem.
No matter how long they have to manipulate the pattern, it is still the toughest shot in bowling. If more than Norm Duke averaged 230 on that I would agree and say they broke it down perfectly, but he was the only one. IF he missed just a pinch he was in trouble (i.e. The bucket that almost cost him the title), he missed it a bit right and see what happened?
Ron Vokes matched up great with the lanes, and came across a pair that was broken down perfectly for him in Singles and doubles.
Bo Goergen is one of the top bowlers in the country, and the doubles team are both members of team USA. They are some of the best bowlers out there.
If a bunch of 210 house hacks went out and set all the records, I would agree with you. Since all these records were shot by great bowlers, I dont' see the problem.
--------------------
ROTO GRIP, There is NO Substitute
Slow Feet, Soft hand = Lots of strikes
+1
--------------------
Jorge300
Post by: EagleHunter on June 30, 2009, 01:14:49 PM
I do not believe that higher and higher scores will lead to more entries.
Years ago a team walked into the Shammy Burt tournament in Toledo and tied the National Team record at the time. A proprietor told me it was great and that the tournament would probably see a huge increase in entries. I promptly said, "huh?" How many bowlers/teams will walk into ANY center and think that they have a chance at tying or beating the National record? Entries did not increase...in fact, I believe entries fell off considerably after the score was shot.
This same proprietor runs a nationally recognized tournament. A few years ago a bowler posted 1189 (with handicap) for 4. This proprietor again thought it was great and that the bowlers would flock to participate. Again I said, "huh?" Predictably, entries fell off after the score was shot...apparently despite the high scores, not many felt they could get to 1200 for 4. Imagine that.
Being from the Detroit area, I can say that our local tournament is a disaster. It has been hemorraging entries for years. Perhaps it is the economy, or the poor way the event is marketed (since most bowlers I have surveyed know little of the event)...I think it is something else - high scores. The event is conducted on a THS, consequently scores are very high. Again, even if scores are high does anyone really think "Joe Bowler" honestly feels he can compete when the "All-Stars" in the area are posting HUGE scores? Probably not.
My point is...I have NEVER seen proof that high scores bring in more bowlers, but I have seen the exact opposite. I still believe the increase in bowlers at Nationals is a direct result of the "destination type" locales that are hosting the events.
IMO regardless of your level of ability, if scores are lower you still feel like you have a chance. If a bowler thinks he has a chance, he will bowl. If the bowler feels he has NO CHANCE, why should he bowl? How many of you see 862 or 2300 and think...yeah, I can get to that?
Post by: Phoneman on June 30, 2009, 01:23:57 PM
Post by: riggs on June 30, 2009, 03:45:34 PM
What has been told to me is that there has been an effort to apply more volume to the lanes WITHIN SPORT PARAMETERS so that when the average bowler who is used to playing second arrow comes out and throws somewhere around there he does not miss the headpin left. Since it's still a Sport pattern the average bowler's score may not be much higher -- and on the fresh the lanes are not any easier this year, and clearly are HARDER than Billings or Corpus Christi -- but at least the average joe has somewhat of a chance compared to the past where there was much less volume.
The problem with all that volume is that when you have the right people in front of you for a team squad or a couple of minors squads you end up with dry from like 10-15 board and that high volume of oil inside for your minors.
I have had push at nationals before I have never had hold like I had this year. My matchup was a little off in drilling on my HY-ROAD or I could have had a lot more than 675-743. But with the proper matchup for reaction and carry you can have mega scores by talented bowlers.
I would wager that the overall scoring levels -- like 100th place, 500th place, the per game average of the entire field, etc. -- will not be dramatically out of line with past years.
And if you didn't have the inequity of minors not all being on fresh I guarantee you there would have been NO RECORDS SET. (Did you notice Edwards' and Padilla's and Goergen's team scores?)
You are letting three performances -- Vokes, Goergen and Edwards/Padilla -- lead into comparisons with house shots at other tournaments. Respectively, I believe you are sorely lacking in big picture perspective.
Put the exact same pattern out next year with 24 or 23 mls instead of 26 and there will be no mega scores ... and overall scoring will be about the same.
Better yet, make all minors on fresh and you will have no 860s and 1560s and 2300s.
Post by: itsnot fair on June 30, 2009, 10:39:56 PM
There is a lot of luck in drawing a good pair, having good bowlers in front of you and then executing like you know you can. Sure anyone that has talent has the possibility of putting up great numbers.
I could only imagine what that would feel like. However I will never know because I'm left handed. I never have or ever will have those feelings. I can hang with most in team event, cash well in brackets. Then I might as well pack up and go home.
The sport shot was developed because of the high scoring pace. I fully understand that. We need to add credibility to the game, so here is the sport shot. Great, except they forgot about us left handers. I know, blah, blah, blah.
I feel that they need to re-oil before every squad. That will curb your new records and help in keeping the playing field more even. Or lets really make it fair and adjust the pattern to how many lefties/righties are competing on the pair. If only.
Post by: EagleHunter on July 01, 2009, 10:02:01 AM
First, we are in complete agreement that ALL events should be conducted on fresh conditions. That change would more than likely reduce the likelihood of record scores being shot as frequently as they have been recently. However, as you have also reported, it will probably be a cold day you-know-where before such a change will happen...since it is apparently about $$$.
That said, I'm not sure how you can claim that what USBC has been doing has nothing to do with scoring. Obviously luck of the draw (in Dbls/Sgls) and what type of bowlers you are following has A WHOLE LOT to do with what type of score you MAY be able to shoot in Minors. However, if USBC had not been fooling around with the volume, scores would be lower as you suggest in your last post. How does this have nothing to do with scoring?
USBC's efforts to make things "better" for the average player have probably been minimally successful. In the process though, under the "right" conditions, the better than average (or elite) player has seen increasing scores, some even posting record scores. Again, here we can agree.
My last post was not about comparing Nationals to other THS tourneys. It was about the belief that bigger scores lead to an increase in entries. The decision to put out certain conditions is a business decision, thus it is the same for Nationals and other tournaments. IMO, based on what you have suggested regarding USBC's decision to put out increased volume, USBC is trying to increase certain scores in an effort to increase entries. Sometimes these decisions lead to unanticipated consequences. I'm sure that USBC didn't plan on having numerous records shattered, but it did.
So how will USBC respond? Believe me, I would be completely content if USBC implemented fresh conditions for all events and lowered volume...exactly as you have suggested. But again, what is the likelihood of that happening? Time will tell...
As for big picture perspective, I believe I have a pretty good grasp of reality. The big scores may be few, but tell me...what does the average bowler look at...the 10th, 50th, and 100th place scores? Or the winning record score? Reasonable people will look at various factors, but most average bowlers don't strike me as being that reasonable.
Post by: txbowler on July 01, 2009, 10:48:25 AM
Post by: riggs on July 01, 2009, 11:42:37 AM
I think an argument can be made that having all minors squads on FRESH HOUSE CONDITIONS would be more fair than the current situation -- no matter what Sport pattern is chosen. As much as I would hate the house shot, at least everyone would have an equal chance. The current situation gives some people effectively a house shot and others something almost unplayable. THAT IS TOTALLY UNFAIR.
However, unlikely to change. Sigh!
Again, other than 3 record scores, overall scoring is going to end up relatively the same from everything I've seen -- I did a blog on this when we bowled in April.
USBC didn't add oil to increase SCORES for the average Joe. They added oil so the average Joe could play in their comfortable normal area and not miss the headpin going away to the left on poor shots. That does NOT MEAN their scores will be higher. The average Joe isn't good enough to take advantage of what is out there this year any more than past year's.
Bottom line: You see the sky falling with 3 record scores. I think those scores are merely a symptom of the real problem -- minors not being on fresh. The pattern is fine -- the format is the problem. Fix the format and there is no 862, 2,321-857 or 1,566.
Post by: Jorge300 on July 01, 2009, 02:35:47 PM
quote:
As for big picture perspective, I believe I have a pretty good grasp of reality. The big scores may be few, but tell me...what does the average bowler look at...the 10th, 50th, and 100th place scores? Or the winning record score? Reasonable people will look at various factors, but most average bowlers don't strike me as being that reasonable.
EH, here is where your arguement falls flat. The "average" bowler is looking at the low to cash score, not the first place score. Why? Because the "average" bowler isn't going out there to realistically contend for first place. If you think so then you are sadly mistaken. Unless you consider "average" to be a 220+ house shot average bowler, then you are just mistaken, you are an elitist. The fact that the low to cash numbers will be in line with the prior years will be all the bowlers need to see, you won't see a huge exodus (that wouldn't have happened already with the venue change and the 2 years of Reno). In this case a few very very good bowlers, caught pairs that allowed them to use their skills and talents to the fullest extent possible. Nothing more, nothing less. Now if you went out there and shot an 862 or 2300 then I would say the lanes are too easy,
.--------------------
Jorge300
Post by: EagleHunter on July 01, 2009, 07:35:32 PM
To be honest, I think your argument falls flat on this one. I don't think the true average bowler going to Nationals is concerned with cashing at all...I think most are out there for the vacation alone. If they get a check when everything is done, then it's considered a bonus.
On the other hand, I think your "fringe" better than average bowlers, or perhaps the local THS greats, do look at low-to-cash (LTC), figuring they have a remote chance. But these are not your average bowlers.
LTC scores since 2001 seem to fall around a 185-190 average roughly, in the Regular Division. How many of the average bowlers have a chance to shoot those scores at Nationals? Not too many I would suspect, not even on their best day more than likely. I have seen too many 210+ house greats go out to Nationals and not break 500 for any set...for many years. Knowing the average 180-190 player typically has one type of game, typically going up 10 or so, doesn't give me too much confidence that they could get to LTC scores...they would have to be pretty close to average or over-average on a condition that is usually foreign to them.
Out of curiosity Jorge...who do consider to be the "average" bowler at Nationals?
Post by: EagleHunter on July 01, 2009, 07:50:28 PM
I agree with your post. To be clear, I have ZERO beef with the bowlers posting the record scores. They are each tremendously talented individuals with long records of success. I have the utmost respect for them as well.
quote:
Bottom line: You see the sky falling with 3 record scores. I think those scores are merely a symptom of the real problem -- minors not being on fresh. The pattern is fine -- the format is the problem. Fix the format and there is no 862, 2,321-857 or 1,566.
I agree with your above assessment as well. The format needs to be fixed. If it is not though, I do fear that what happened this year will continue. I wouldn't say the sky is falling, but based on how quickly USBC tends to respond to issues, not to mention the $$$ involved in implementing the fix that is needed, I am afraid that a trend will evolve. There already is a trend in Dbls...5 records set/broken in 9 years. I fear that such a trend will damage the event in the long-run.
My hope, and I mean this as sincerely as possible, is that USBC takes a long, hard look at this issue. That they look for input from accomplished individuals, such as you, and that the necessary changes are implemented. If it gets to the point where signatures are needed for a petition to send to USBC, include me and I will get you as many signatures as is needed from my area.
Thank you for your valuable insight and input. Keep up the great work!
Post by: riggs on July 01, 2009, 08:22:06 PM
I am with you in the concept of everything you say. As I said I just see it as merely a symptom of the problem, which is minors not being on fresh.
We will never turn back the clock on technology in any major way -- these balls and oils are here to stay and everyone should just accept that. (USBC could never afford the legal fight that I'm sure they would face if they tried meaningful rolling back of technology.) That horse left the barn in 1982 or 83 when the PBA Executive Board overruled the unanimous vote of the Tournament Committee to ban urethane balls.
As an aside, I've said before I like how technological complexity has made bowling (at the sport level) more of a thinking man's game than it was when I started. The choices/adjustments are many, many times more complex than they were when we carried two balls and moved our feet a couple boards in a night.
Back on point, I don't see USBC ever going for all fresh for minors, based on a long and very friendly chat I had with a USBC official a couple of years ago. It's like this: USBC sees every one of those lanes for every squad as an economic opportunity. When one is not filled they in essence "lose" money.
To go to all fresh for minors they would have to extend the day even further, which they don't deem feasible, since bowling already goes for all but about 4 hours a day and they must have some down time for breakdowns, maintenance, etc.
Or they limit the number of teams so they can cut out one minors squad each day. Then they are faced with "losing" money due to those empty lanes. Yes you could do that and extend the tournament by a certain amount of time, but that costs money in salaries and expenses.
They could raise entry fees to cover that perhaps, but how many of the bowlwers would understand and agree to the trade-off of more money for true equity in all events? The top echelon for sure, but how many others?
I understand USBC's position but it still disappoints me because what it says is $$$$ trumps equity in deciding some of our national champions.
To take it to an extreme, I would concede that every one of my four eagles is "tainted" in a way since all of them came from events where bowlers in front of me helped determine how I did -- 1986 team, 1997 all-events, 2005 doubles, 2005 team all-events. It is one reason winning team would be so satisfying: every team starts with as close to the same environment as is humanly possible and it is up to you to make of it what you can. You CANNOT say that about doubles, singles, all-events or team all-events.
Post by: Pinbuster on July 02, 2009, 07:18:21 AM
I don’t think it has been done but you could even have a case where a doubles group could set up the lanes for companion team mates to follow in singles.
If you want to think about major shifts in scoring you need to go back to Wichita in 1989 with the use of AMF HPL, urethane, and lane conditions.
The bigger issue in bowling is not these record scores at the national tournament but the explosion of honor scores and averages at the local level in league play.
As stated earlier, if high scores got more bowlers then we would be in the best of times but since the scoring explosion sanctioned bowling has dropped off a cliff.
Post by: riggs on July 02, 2009, 08:26:10 AM
Post by: Phoneman on July 02, 2009, 08:49:49 AM
Post by: wabullets on July 02, 2009, 02:48:29 PM
Would it be a more if they reversed the schedules......
7AM -- Doubles/Singles
920AM -- Team Event
Re-Oil
130PM -- Doubles\Singles
350PM -- Team Event
Re-Oil
730PM -- Doubles/Singles
945PM -- Double/Singles
Midnigght -- Doubles/Singles
Post by: riggs on July 02, 2009, 04:02:01 PM
And wabullets, what would that solve -- with that schedule you'd now have some minors squads AND team squads not on fresh so you'd now go from fairness in team and inequity in minors to inequity in all events. A step in the wrong direction!
Post by: wabullets on July 02, 2009, 04:26:05 PM
Post by: riggs on July 02, 2009, 08:21:43 PM
Edited on 7/2/2009 8:21 PM
Post by: richartm on July 11, 2009, 09:14:48 AM
quote:
Pinbuster, if all minors were on fresh you would have situations of teammates managing pairs for other teammates from doubles to singles, but I would argue that this is a GOOD thing. It is the same as teams working together to manage a pair in team event. It is NOT RANDOM as minors is now -- it is simply teamwork, which is something we should be REWARDED for and take pride in!!!
Riggs, I was with you until this post. All fresh means fresh, fresh, fresh - not fresh, fresh, managed. Especially since you can't control how your doubles teams are laid out (at least I can't
).
Post by: riggs on July 13, 2009, 09:27:39 AM
And you can control your doubles in that with 10 guys on two teams you would have 8 of your guys flipping with each other and you can designate who of your 8 bowls on which pairs. (And 2 split off.)
Post by: richartm on July 13, 2009, 08:36:02 PM
quote:
Richartm, it is not feasible to oil for both doubles AND singles -- although I'd go for it if it was possible!!! -- so singles is not going to be fresh.
And you can control your doubles in that with 10 guys on two teams you would have 8 of your guys flipping with each other and you can designate who of your 8 bowls on which pairs. (And 2 split off.)
Thanks Riggs - I agree it's not feasible, just saying your plan is fairer, but not the ultimate level playing field either...
Regarding doubles "control", this year our first duo was on a pair with strangers instead of the last duo. And the switch for singles didn't happen as we expected either. Do we need to make our intentions clear when we submit our entries, or it that just the luck of the draw? Thanks.
Post by: riggs on July 14, 2009, 07:43:36 AM