Author Topic: some final thoughts on Vegas (Read 11542 times)

avabob · « **on:** July 04, 2017, 05:26:25 PM »

I went to my 28th national tourney last week. I watched posts on these boards and listened to horror stories for 3 months prior to bowling.

On the pattern. While I think it was ridiculous not to release the patterns, and told officials as much, I think we will find they were not much different in length than prior years. Team was not near as short as people said. I would guess about 38 feet. D&S was about 42 feet. I made the mistake of believing team I could play outside 5 and stayed their too long as it teased me. D&S was one of the nicest patterns I have seen.

I talked to a couple of other top players and they agreed that the pattern was not much different than many prior years. Why the big secrecy puzzles me. For those who like golf comparisons, it was like not telling the players how long the par 3s are so as not to give anyone an "unfair advantage"

northface28 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 04, 2017, 05:40:44 PM »

It gives people a false sense of security that the "good bowlers" don't know the pattern. Guess what? The leaderboard still looks the same!!! The usual suspects at the top.

Impending Doom · « **Reply #2 on:** July 04, 2017, 05:45:58 PM »

Good bowlers throw a ball and can read reaction. Regardless of length, ratio, etc. I don't know what the surface is in Vegas, but It has to be brand new, and that might have tricked people into thinking that they're tighter when the surface is just more pristine than they're used to.

avabob · « **Reply #3 on:** July 04, 2017, 06:09:54 PM »

Here is the thing. I don't mean to sound boastful, but his is a fact. A house shooter with little or no experience on flatter patterns is going to have no chance against me whether either or both of us knows the pattern or not.

Here is what I would do too help slow down this sinking ship. I would put out a house shot for the classified division. A forty foot pattern with some ob for the general division , and a challenging, but not US Open, pattern for the regular division. In the regular division I would put it a shorter team pattern in the 37 foot range and in D&S, something in the 45 foot range. I would publish these patterns ahead.

House shooters wouldnt travel 2000 miles to get totally embarrassed. Tournament level regular division bowlers would be challenged to handle different lengths, but nothing they haven't seen before

SVstar34 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 04, 2017, 06:31:12 PM »

Quote from: avabob on July 04, 2017, 06:09:54 PM

Here is the thing. I don't mean to sound boastful, but his is a fact. A house shooter with little or no experience on flatter patterns is going to have no chance against me whether either or both of us knows the pattern or not.

Here is what I would do too help slow down this sinking ship. I would put out a house shot for the classified division. A forty foot pattern with some ob for the general division , and a challenging, but not US Open, pattern for the regular division. In the regular division I would put it a shorter team pattern in the 37 foot range and in D&S, something in the 45 foot range. I would publish these patterns ahead.

House shooters wouldnt travel 2000 miles to get totally embarrassed. Tournament level regular division bowlers would be challenged to handle different lengths, but nothing they haven't seen before

I agree and I think your suggestion is something that could work

avabob · « **Reply #5 on:** July 05, 2017, 12:03:47 AM »

In fairnes . I saw elements of mybidea proposed in the latest BJ

Rightycomplex · « **Reply #6 on:** July 05, 2017, 08:00:40 AM »

Quote from: SVstar34 on July 04, 2017, 06:31:12 PM

Quote from: avabob on July 04, 2017, 06:09:54 PM
Here is the thing. I don't mean to sound boastful, but his is a fact. A house shooter with little or no experience on flatter patterns is going to have no chance against me whether either or both of us knows the pattern or not.

Here is what I would do too help slow down this sinking ship. I would put out a house shot for the classified division. A forty foot pattern with some ob for the general division , and a challenging, but not US Open, pattern for the regular division. In the regular division I would put it a shorter team pattern in the 37 foot range and in D&S, something in the 45 foot range. I would publish these patterns ahead.

House shooters wouldnt travel 2000 miles to get totally embarrassed. Tournament level regular division bowlers would be challenged to handle different lengths, but nothing they haven't seen before

I agree and I think your suggestion is something that could work

I agree with this as well. Im pretty sure someone is going to mention how to we regulate the sandbaggers but if you are gambling then youre putting your money up knowing the risks involved.

spmcgivern · « **Reply #7 on:** July 05, 2017, 09:22:06 AM »

Downside to having different patterns for each division is you would lose the ability for teams to stay together for D&S. You might even have to have different times for different members.

But in theory, I like the idea. Just not sure how viable it is.

avabob · « **Reply #8 on:** July 05, 2017, 09:48:02 AM »

Certainly dome logistical problems, and in all honesty I doubt my idea would have much of a positive impact on the decline in tournament participation.

rdw · « **Reply #9 on:** July 05, 2017, 11:47:48 AM »

Speaking for the house hacks out there, I've bowled over 10 open tournaments. For the most part, the pattern(s) look pretty similar year to year.

But this year, I found the doubles and singles shot to be not only different, but also the toughest I've ever seen.

Part of that I'm sure is our skill level. On a house shot, we can bowl 3 games a week, chuck it in the dry, average 200 plus with an honor score every now and then.

But on a flatter pattern, the way we throw the ball, either the high revs who spray or the low revs who can't stay behind the ball, the open patterns play incredibly tough.

I used to think I was pretty accurate, but the reality is, in a single game I can hit a 7 board area. Obviously I don't get that type of miss area on a flatter shot. Most of my group echo the same sentiment. Of course scoring is relative. We will finish where we normally do, but this year thanks to the new division, we get money back.

Wasn't this the point of the new division? To entice the donators to keep bowling?

On the other hand, you guys are correct, a lot more fun to shoot 230 on house than to shoot 170 on flat. An idea was brought up, maybe use the bowlers journal, since it's already there, have the three divisions there with the appropriate patterns. Who bowls the bowlers journal anyway? It's on the d/s pattern and is it scratch? Then I'm assuming only the elite bowlers bowl it.

But with the different divisions and patterns, gives the house hacks a reason to bowl more and have some fun on a more forgiving pattern. Instead, people are tired of traveling to the same venues year after year and bowl 9 games of 180 or less.

Just our thoughts.

Thanks

avabob · « **Reply #10 on:** July 05, 2017, 01:06:16 PM »

That is odd, because I found D&S to be as nice as I have seen them for several years. We started just outside of 10 and migrated inside 15 over 6 games. Shot a little 600 in doubles and 693 in singles. 4 of our guys were over 670 in singles. This compared to a miserable 514 in team where I stayed out around 5 doard too long

Pinbuster · « **Reply #11 on:** July 05, 2017, 01:10:06 PM »

I think 3 divisions is too many. The regular division is now smaller than the standard.

I'm not sure how the prize money will play out but I think a lot of regular division guys will be disappointed at the payout and how high some of the low to cash scores are.

I would suggest raising the classified to say 190 and just have the two divisions.

I'm not sure different lane conditions would really work as some classified guys might be on a regular team, standard doubles and classified singles. Their all events scores would be a mess compared to someone bowling on only a house shot.

I think they need to give a little more crown to pattern, not a house shot, and so what when the best teams shoot 3700.

rdw · « **Reply #12 on:** July 05, 2017, 01:50:51 PM »

Avabob,

I think several times you have mentioned that long sports are very easy to score if managed correctly . But with six people who aren't accurate playing multiple lines, it became a nightmare.

Again another reason the house hacks have no chance against the elite bowlers and now have their own division. Just assuming you give me fair handicap, we should be competitive on a house shot. But as you said , on a flat pattern, you would clean my clock. I don't need that year after year.

I agree the classified should be adjusted to 190, mostly with all the usbc average adjustments, a lot of the classified got bumped to standard and I think it would help bring classified teams to the original 20 percent projection. You could move standard to say 191 to 215 or whatever the number needs to be to get to 20, 40 , 40. I know the regular bowlers complaining about a smaller prize fund and the loss of easy money. But that's reality.

Anyone have any feedback on how the new division impacted the brackets for the elite bowlers? I heard reports of some squads having no regular brackets cause of low turnout. In our squads we had decent regular brackets a small amount of standard and almost no classified brackets.

I wonder how much overall bracket participation decreased? I'm sure a concern since it is a nice revenue stream for the usbc.

Luke Morningwood · « **Reply #13 on:** July 05, 2017, 03:25:08 PM »

Quote from: spmcgivern on July 05, 2017, 09:22:06 AM

Downside to having different patterns for each division is you would lose the ability for teams to stay together for D&S. You might even have to have different times for different members.

But in theory, I like the idea. Just not sure how viable it is.

As far as I am concerned, this is a non-starter. 3 different patterns in the same machines at USBC Open for 3 different classifications? The conspiracy theorists would go bonkers. And they would be wrong, but it was bad enough this year that Murphy had to post on facebook that the machines are locked with only the 2 patterns.
Besides, the human element would mean that it would be POSSIBLE for a mistake to happen.
Get rid of the "Eagle for each division" fiasco, that's all I want.

avabob · « **Reply #14 on:** July 05, 2017, 04:07:50 PM »

Like I said, I don't think different patterns would probably make much difference. The pool of partipants comes from USBC membership which as shrunk drastically over the years

Author Topic: some final thoughts on Vegas (Read 11542 times)

avabob

some final thoughts on Vegas

northface28

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas

Impending Doom

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas

avabob

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas

SVstar34

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas

avabob

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas

Rightycomplex

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas

spmcgivern

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas

avabob

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas

rdw

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas

avabob

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas

Pinbuster

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas

rdw

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas

Luke Morningwood

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas

avabob

Re: some final thoughts on Vegas