bowling-forum.net
The bowlers choice for bowling chat.

Main
Date: 18 May 2005 18:47:29
From: twobirds
Subject: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
OK.. the recent talk about the "soup at Nationals" got me wondering. So,
today I had lunch with two of the five guys I know who went. I was given
some interesting information.

Here is a quote, "I opened up with a 279. I followed it with a 258. I
thought my 800 was in the bag but I felt I needed to make a move. Then I
shot a buck forty. It wasn't the shot that gave me that buck forty. It was
my own stubborness."

Here is another quote, "The shot was surprizingly wide open. It was easier
than last year by far. My series was 60 pins higher than last year."

So, after hearing that, I thought I'd like to talk to another guy I know who
went... and I also know he did poorly. Here is what he said, "The shot was
wide open. The humidity kept the oil on the lanes all day. It wasn't like
here or Vegas where the oil evaporates in a few hours. I sucked because I
sucked, not because the shot was particularily tough. It was easier than
last year, but the carrydown was a little worse. If I wanted to blame
something for my lack of concentration, it would be the air. It was hard to
breathe down there."

I asked for a comparison between what they saw there as to what we usually
have for a shot in my favourite house. They all three told me that if I was
a lefty, I would have hardly been able to tell the difference between
playing here right after the oil was laid down on a no-strip day than there
after several rounds. The lane man here has a firm beleif that he won't
take it easy on lefties and the pattern is about 16 inches longer on the
left than the right.

So, apparently, I happen to already be playing on a tougher shot than I
thought I was. I always hear people say the shot is tougher than in the
house across town... but I have always ignored that as some trash talking
due to a little bit of rivalry. - Hmm. Inexperience may be worth something
afterall.






 
Date: 25 Jun 2005 15:07:00
From: Mark
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot

>I guess what I question is, do the conditions affect the integrity of
>the sport?

Yes - but it's only the better players that care about this type of
issue. Bowling for recreation is an activity that is fun regardless of
condition. For folks that envision themselves as good players, but who
are not, are the ones that enjoy scoring big on a false condition.
That's fine as recreation but it hurts the sport - in my opinion.

Analogies to other sports are useful but they breakdown too. Golf is
our favorite comparator - can you imagine what a 10-handicap amateur
(which is darn good) would score on a course layout like we saw at the
US Open last week? Same thing happens when a 220 average bowler who
only sees a wall shot goes to ABC nationals or plays in a PBA event.
They get their egos crushed to smithereens. If these players saw harder
conditions regularly they'd be much better bowlers.

>I think the bowlers that are complaining about easy
>conditions & better equipment, are blaming the wrong thing for the
>decline in league bowling.

Different topic - I think the decline in league bowling is a societal
issue. Bowling has declined in popularity for a variety of valid
reasons. But on this topic, I don't actually care how many bowlers
there are. I (selfishly perhaps) want bowling to be more challenging
when I bowl. One might argue that only serious bowlers are left bowling
regularly so why not cater to them by putting out a harder condition?
The birthday parties and moonlighters don't care what the pattern is
but I do, and may of my peers do to.

>I see several "sports" where equipment has improved, golf, running, & baseball are three that come to mind, where there hasn't been a decline in the sport.

1) My dad is an avid runner, I ran competitively for many years as
well. As I see it running has declined in popularity since the 80s when
marathoning went nuts. That isn't to say there are not a lot of
runners left but it used to be there was a 5 or 10K every weekend
during spring - summer - fall in every small town USA. It isn't
like that anymore. The big races still do really well (Boston, New
York, Peachtree, Bay to Breakers, etc) but the number of fanatical
runners has declined.

2) Golf is different from bowling in that the equipment is highly
regulated and courses are rated as to difficulty by a very robust
handicap system. Most serious players also take the scoring rules
seriously in golf and everyone knows an easy course from a hard course
so it's easy to separate men from boys. In bowling all lanes look the
same - more or less. Bowling could do something similar with a
handicap system for hard vs easy patterns. It's been tried with the
sport system with a small amount of success.

3) Are there really more people playing baseball now than 25 years ago?
Maybe, I dunno but I see more soccer games in town than baseball games.
When I was kid we played pick up baseball every day until fall and the
it was pick up football. Today kids have palm pilots with their
recreation schedules and moms in Suburbans to make sure they get to the
events on time.

>There is a book out "Bowling Alone" in which the author is viewing a decline in many
>group activities that might more the reason for this decline

Yep, this is several years old if memory serves. It was debated in ASB
with vigor when it came out. An interesting piece on society and how
folks have changed the way they spend their free time and discretionary
income.

> The scratch league was a 950 average league, I was low man on
> my team, the church league had bowlers with averages from 120 to 180, in
> that league I was closer to the top average, both were competitive.

Good point and I understand where you are coming from. In context,
while any league can be competitive, we're looking for conditions
that challenge bowlers to develop better skills. The scratch league
guys should be interested in that, the church league guys probably
don't care. Both situations can be big fun. As I get older, I
actually enjoy the casual leagues more as there are less posers and
folks aren't distracted by how their bracket opponent is doing.

>Unfortunately I see both types of leagues declining. I doubt that the
>church type leagues have declined due to easier conditions,

I think all leagues decline due to a number of factors - cost,
unwillingness to commit to 36 weeks of anything each week (not just
bowling), folks seem to have less free time, etc.

I agree that conditions have a small overall effect on participation
- all the more reason to make them harder and not easier (have to get
back to the original thesis).

> Laser light bowling & parties
> must be making them a better profit.

Good profit with many fewer complaints from self-declared "serious
bowlers". Kids come in, they bowl, they eat they go away and come
back for the next friends party.

Just to balance the wannabe whiners in scratch leagues, when I bowl
these leagues I make it a point each week to complain to the center
manager (usually a friend) that the condition is too soft and they
should be ashamed. They usually agree.

> What exactly is the greater skill set? The ability to throw with great
> Constancy & accuracy, or the ability to open up a lane with more
> Revolutions & speed? IE Walter Ray or Robert Smith?

The best player is the one that can do more things well, has the
knowledge to know when to do them, the intestinal fortitude to work
through difficulties during a career and the mental toughness to win
regularly.

I don't have any of those which is why I have time to write to ASB :)

FWIW, I've bowled with Robert Smith in regionals and he is a
fantastic player who has worked hard to adapt to the big tour. Fun to
watch too, even more so before he learned to bowl with fewer revs and
more accuracy which lets him compete better on tour. that said, without
a doubt Walter Ray is a far better player than Robert Smith. WRWII does
many things better and has a far superior mental game. But you knew I'd
say that and the PBA tour stats easily back up my conclusion.

In my mind the best players are guys like WRWII, Mike Durbin, David
Ozio, Brian Voss, Marshall Holman, and Norm Duke. These guys have
awesome fundamentals and can do many different things with their games.
All of these guys are righties. On the left side you have to admire
guys like Mike Aulby, Parker Bohn III, and or course Earl Anthony. But
they are still lefties so we don;t admire tehm as much out of
principle.

In "younger" players, Patrick Allen is a recent phenom and we'll
see if he hangs around.
I think if Chris Barnes can get a mental game sorted out that he could
be the best ever. He can play dead straight or hook the lane and he has
the physical strength to throw with speed when needed. Rick Steelsmith
is a complete and classic player who unfortunately was plagued by
injury.

So what about the crankers or guys that have one really good shot? Also
fine players but not as complete as the guys above which is why they
have more bad weeks than good ones. Think about Dave Traber and Butch
Soper as straight players, Amleto had many good days with the roll out,
and consider Jason Couch, Jason Hurd, Maximum Bob, Mike DeVaney and a
few others as guys with serious revs. When the shot favors these
fellows you are dead. But when the shot doesn't favor them they are
usually toast.

>That's an interesting question, lets go to some other sport, baseball
>for example how exactly does Hank Arron stack up against Babe Ruth?

Both were great players.

Since it is Tour dey France time let's do Cycling - who's better
Eddy Merckx or Lance Armstrong?

My answer - both great but from different eras so comps are futile.

>Or maybe just not enough of us.

Ultimately, this is the exact problem and I have no solution except
that I don't expect it to get better anytime soon.

>That's a tough one but the regionals at least give someone who wants a
>challenge a venue to try in.

Yes but it's very expensive with the new PBA fee structure.

> In my area, Northern NJ at least the house that hosts the local regional puts out a PBA
>shot for those who are interested.

We should bowl sometime - I'm outside of Princeton. Last summer I
drove more than an hour each way to bowl a PBA shot league. It was fun,
but that's too much time in a car to bowl a hard shot. Actually,
it's not the time, it's that the wannabes that couldn't bowl on
the tough condition were such a pain in the butt that it wasn't fun
to be around them. We had kids with 220 averages walk out some nights
because they couldn't handle a specific pattern and were embarrassed
to shoot 135s in front of their girlfriends. The sad thing is they
never got it that they could learn to bowl better if they tried. It was
typically the older guys that wanted to improve that ground it out each
week working on their games.

> Overall I am concerned that the bowlers that post to this News Group,
> particularly those that are passionate about bowling as am I, need to
> accurately identify the reason for the decline in participation in the
>"sport" before attempting to apply corrections. But then that's true in
>many things & not easy.

You mean you want real data not just anecdote? That's no fun.

Mark



 
Date: 16 Jun 2005 05:43:08
From: Mark
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
Cost can ceratianly be an issue. Last I knew, the top of the line
machines could run upwards of $25,000. But there are very capable
machines for significantly less than that so I don't think the ability
to put out a specific shot is a real issue.

To devil's advocate the devil's advocate, the centers I've bowled at
that have had the easiest shots typically are also very well maintained
and have excellent equipment all around. So I don't think it's the
ability to put out a challenging condition but rather the perspective
that the majority of customers that bowl leagues that care about scores
want them to be high while there is a minority, albeit a vocal one,
that wants more of a challenge.

To wit, I'm bowling a summer league in a fairly old center. It's not
easy and it's not hard. I'm carrying 220+ after four weeks and shot
1012 for four this week and 920 last week. Despite the fact that this
house is clearly scoreable there is already whining that the shot is
hard, there isn't a good pattern, there is too much carrydown, etc.
None of that is true. What is true is that you can't just whip it up 10
board with unlimited tug and push so it's "hard" for the spray and pray
crowd but not for anyone with remotely decent bowling skills.
Fortuneately the center management has no intention of changing
anything so it's fun for me. And that's what matters most :-)

Mark



 
Date: 14 Jun 2005 21:00:00
From: Mark
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot

Nice post - here's a quick reply. Always enjoy a good debate.

>Mark, I guess I question the number of bowlers that post here
>complaining about easy conditions.

Question in what way? Sincerity or abilities? The guys I know here in
ASB are not elite bowlers (no offense fellas) so I think they just want
to see more integrity in the game because they are passionate about the
sport.

>Here are several definition of "sport" (snip)

Well someone got a shiny new Webster's Dictionary for Christmas!!!
;-)

We can argue definitions but the point being made is to separate the
recreation aspect of bowling from the competitive "sport" bowling.
To compete at a high level one should have command of all facets of the
game in order to be successful. For the record, I don't claim to have
such a skill set but I aspire to. I also have zero issue with folks
that bowl "only" for fun or recreation.

>When someone bowls in a league as long as the conditions are reasonably
>the same for all the participants of the league aren't the conditions fair?

Yes, but as Jeff points out, easy conditions favor some players more
than others. "Fair" is relative of course and it's a tough word
to use descriptively (even though we've been using it regularly in
this, and in similar threads regarding conditions). In context, I think
what folks posting on this topic want in a "fair" condition is one
that is neither easy nor impossible, but which rewards players having a
greater skill set with higher scores than players with lesser skill
sets. Of course any given pattern will favor a certain style over
another so you would like to rotate through a set of patterns that
provide different challenges (like the PBA does). But with our
understanding of lane surface, conditioners and modern oiling machines
it's trivial for a center to do this if they want to.

Wouldn't it be great to go to league and not know where to stand and
knowing htat the shot might change more than a board through the
evening? To have a condition where misses resulted in 6 and 7 counts
instead of a nine count that may have carried? Where a good score was
225 instead of an average?

>Isn't the competition bowler against bowler, not against some arbitrary
>set of conditions or past history.

That is a very good point. That said, there is an important historical
component to most games and it's nice to know how one stacks up
against historical figures as well as contemporaries. Plus we try to
compare results across distance (e.g. what's your average? high game?
set?) so there is more to it than the direct competition.

>If someone wants to know how good there are against other conditions, IE
>sports or PBA conditions than they can bowl against them.

Absolutely. But without a venue to prepare for the challenge it is
extremely difficult for the decent bowler to have success in a PBA
event. Sport shot leagues are not readily available which is sad, but
may bear on the point that perhaps folks don't really want a
challenge on a regular basis.

>If someone
>thinks that because they bowl well on house league conditions their
>competitive on harder conditions let them pay to find out.

Sure, but why not give folks a chance to be challenged on their home
condition so that when they step up to the next level of competition,
should they choose to, they will have a chance? Saying go bowl in the
PBA is no a realistic step from league. There is no middle ground where
folks can improve and become good bowlers. This is a problem for a
small number of people like me that aren't quite good enough to
bother with the PBA on a regular basis (cost + time + likelihood of
success makes it a poor return on time) but for whom league is rather
boring.

FWIW, I did the regional thing for a couple years and bowled a lot of
PCB events in So Cal. It was a great deal of fun and I became a better
player for it. Unfortunately I never learned how to bowl two good
blocks in a single weekend :)

>Many here think the decline in bowling has to do with the easier
>conditions, maybe it's because there is now so much more to do as far
>as entertainment.

Yep, there are a lot of pressures on the game and times have indeed
changed.



  
Date: 22 Jun 2005 21:02:11
From: Richard Schwager
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot


Mark wrote:
> Nice post - here's a quick reply. Always enjoy a good debate.
>
>
>>Mark, I guess I question the number of bowlers that post here
>>complaining about easy conditions.
>
>
> Question in what way? Sincerity or abilities? The guys I know here in
> ASB are not elite bowlers (no offense fellas) so I think they just want
> to see more integrity in the game because they are passionate about the
> sport.
>
I guess what I question is, do the conditions affect the integrity of
the sport? I think the bowlers that are complaining about easy
conditions & better equipment, are blaming the wrong thing for the
decline in league bowling. I see several “sports” where equipment has
improved, golf, running, & baseball are 3 that come to mind, where there
hasn’t been a decline in the sport. There is a book out “Bowling Alone”
in which the author is viewing a decline in many group activities that
might
more the reason for this decline
>
>>Here are several definition of "sport" (snip)
>
>
> Well someone got a shiny new Webster's Dictionary for Christmas!!!
> ;-)
>
> We can argue definitions but the point being made is to separate the
> recreation aspect of bowling from the competitive "sport" bowling.
> To compete at a high level one should have command of all facets of the
> game in order to be successful. For the record, I don't claim to have
> such a skill set but I aspire to. I also have zero issue with folks
> that bowl "only" for fun or recreation.

Here what I was trying to point out is that competition is a major part
of a sport. 30 years ago I bowled in a scratch league & in a church
league. The scratch league was a 950 average league , I was low man on
my team, the church league had bowlers with averages from 120 to 180, in
that league I was closer to the top average, both were competitive.
Unfortunately I see both types of leagues declining. I doubt that the
church type leagues have declined due to easier conditions, perhaps the
higher average leagues have, I don’t know. I do know that the bowling
establishments are advertising the recreational aspect of the game much
more than the competitive aspect. I gather that the cost benefit
calculations point them in that direction. Laser light bowling & parties
must be making them a better profit.
>
>
>>When someone bowls in a league as long as the conditions are reasonably
>>the same for all the participants of the league aren't the conditions
fair?
>
>
> Yes, but as Jeff points out, easy conditions favor some players more
> than others. "Fair" is relative of course and it's a tough word
> to use descriptively (even though we've been using it regularly in
> this, and in similar threads regarding conditions). In context, I think
> what folks posting on this topic want in a "fair" condition is one
> that is neither easy nor impossible, but which rewards players having a
> greater skill set with higher scores than players with lesser skill
> sets. Of course any given pattern will favor a certain style over
> another so you would like to rotate through a set of patterns that
> provide different challenges (like the PBA does). But with our
> understanding of lane surface, conditioners and modern oiling machines
> it's trivial for a center to do this if they want to.
>
> Wouldn't it be great to go to league and not know where to stand and
> knowing htat the shot might change more than a board through the
> evening? To have a condition where misses resulted in 6 and 7 counts
> instead of a nine count that may have carried? Where a good score was
> 225 instead of an average?
>
What exactly is the greater skill set? The ability to throw with great
Constancy & accuracy, or the ability to open up a lane with more
Revolutions & speed? IE Walter Ray or Robert Smith?

>
>>Isn't the competition bowler against bowler, not against some arbitrary
>>set of conditions or past history.
>
>
> That is a very good point. That said, there is an important historical
> component to most games and it's nice to know how one stacks up
> against historical figures as well as contemporaries. Plus we try to
> compare results across distance (e.g. what's your average? high game?
> set?) so there is more to it than the direct competition.

That’s an interesting question, lets go to some other sport, baseball
for example how exactly does Hank Arron stack up against Babe Ruth?
Measuring averages across different establishments has always been a
problem. The story of easy houses & tough house abound. But then it
always has. That’s what always has made scratch leagues so subject to
less than honest, or similar conditions.
>
>
>>If someone wants to know how good there are against other conditions, IE
>>sports or PBA conditions than they can bowl against them.
>
>
> Absolutely. But without a venue to prepare for the challenge it is
> extremely difficult for the decent bowler to have success in a PBA
> event. Sport shot leagues are not readily available which is sad, but
> may bear on the point that perhaps folks don't really want a
> challenge on a regular basis.

Or maybe just not enough of us.
>
>
>>If someone
>>thinks that because they bowl well on house league conditions their
>>competitive on harder conditions let them pay to find out.
>
>
> Sure, but why not give folks a chance to be challenged on their home
> condition so that when they step up to the next level of competition,
> should they choose to, they will have a chance? Saying go bowl in the
> PBA is no a realistic step from league. There is no middle ground where
> folks can improve and become good bowlers. This is a problem for a
> small number of people like me that aren't quite good enough to
> bother with the PBA on a regular basis (cost + time + likelihood of
> success makes it a poor return on time) but for whom league is rather
> boring.
>
> FWIW, I did the regional thing for a couple years and bowled a lot of
> PCB events in So Cal. It was a great deal of fun and I became a better
> player for it. Unfortunately I never learned how to bowl two good
> blocks in a single weekend :)

That’s a tough one but the regionals at least give someone who wants a
challenge a venue to try in. In my area, Northern NJ at least the house
that hosts the local regional puts out a PBA shot for those who are
interested.
>
>
>>Many here think the decline in bowling has to do with the easier
>>conditions, maybe it's because there is now so much more to do as far
>>as entertainment.
>
>
> Yep, there are a lot of pressures on the game and times have indeed
> changed.

Overall I am concerned that the bowlers that post to this News Group,
particularly those that are passionate about bowling as am I, need to
accurately identify the reason for the decline in participation in the
“sport” before attempting to apply corrections. But then that’s true in
many things & not easy.
>

--
Have a good day R Schwager




   
Date: 22 Jun 2005 22:57:47
From: Jeff Rife
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
Richard Schwager (abcrich@optonline.net) wrote in alt.sport.bowling:
> I see several =3Fsports=3F where equipment has
> improved, golf, running, & baseball are 3 that come to mind, where there
> hasn=3Ft been a decline in the sport.

If there were a golf club that allowed you to end up on the fairway with
a shot that normally would have been 30 yards into the rough, I suspect
there would be some major issues with the use of such a club. That's
something like what bowling balls can do.

As for lane conditioning changes, you could approximate them in golf by
setting each fairway in a trough with the rough on each side not very
rough and sloping towards the fairway. A *really* bad shot would go out
of bounds, but a not so bad shot would end up on the fairway, even
though it should have been in the rough.

If 80% of golf courses changed to use this sort of layout and amateur
handicaps all dropped to single digits, I think there'd be some complaints
about "the integrity of the game" there.

--
Jeff Rife


  
Date: 15 Jun 2005 11:44:47
From: Jeff Rife
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
Mark (twobowlers@aol.com) wrote in alt.sport.bowling:
> Of course any given pattern will favor a certain style over
> another so you would like to rotate through a set of patterns that
> provide different challenges (like the PBA does). But with our
> understanding of lane surface, conditioners and modern oiling machines
> it's trivial for a center to do this if they want to.

I agree with you, but here's the devil's advocate:

The reason USBC won't require oil pattern rule changes is some centers are
too damn cheap to buy a "functional" machine, much less a good one.

Last night was a great example...the difference between lane 5 and lane 11
was frightening, all because the machine in use vastly reduces the oil
applied as the reservoir empties. The oil reduction is predictable, in that
lanes 1 and 21 are heaviest, and lanes 20 and 40 are lightest, because they
refill at the middle of the house.

--
Jeff Rife


   
Date: 15 Jun 2005 13:17:24
From: twobirds
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
Jeff Rife wrote:
> Mark (twobowlers@aol.com) wrote in alt.sport.bowling:
> I agree with you, but here's the devil's advocate:
>
> The reason USBC won't require oil pattern rule changes is some
> centers are too damn cheap to buy a "functional" machine, much less a
> good one.

I'll be devils advocate for the center owner... I've priced Phoenix and AMF
machines recently. You call the owners "too damn cheap". You might price
machines before you say that. If I were a center owner, I would have to
think and re-think such an investment... Call up AMF and ask them what the
price tag is on the HVO Summit.




    
Date: 16 Jun 2005 09:55:16
From: Jeff Rife
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
twobirds (notareal@eaddy.com) wrote in alt.sport.bowling:
> > The reason USBC won't require oil pattern rule changes is some
> > centers are too damn cheap to buy a "functional" machine, much less a
> > good one.
>
> I'll be devils advocate for the center owner... I've priced Phoenix and AMF
> machines recently. You call the owners "too damn cheap". You might price
> machines before you say that.

I have, and know some mighty small centers that have brand new Kegel
machines. They have sport leagues, and put out custom shots when asked,
and still manage to make a profit. The only problem for me is they are
nearly 2 hours away at rush hour (which is when I would typically be going
bowling).

--
Jeff Rife


    
Date: 15 Jun 2005 18:58:11
From: Darby
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot

"twobirds" <notareal@eaddy.com > wrote in message
> Jeff Rife wrote:
>> Mark (twobowlers@aol.com) wrote in alt.sport.bowling:
>> I agree with you, but here's the devil's advocate:
>>
>> The reason USBC won't require oil pattern rule changes is some
>> centers are too damn cheap to buy a "functional" machine, much less a
>> good one.
>
> I'll be devils advocate for the center owner... I've priced Phoenix and
> AMF
> machines recently. You call the owners "too damn cheap". You might price
> machines before you say that. If I were a center owner, I would have to
> think and re-think such an investment... Call up AMF and ask them what the
> price tag is on the HVO Summit.
>

There are previously owned, refurbished machines for a more reasonable
price. Even then, it took our proprietor several years before he felt he
could afford that up-grade from our ancient lanes machine. :(
Dar




 
Date: 11 Jun 2005 11:52:51
From: Mark
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
twobirds wrote:

Ray Charles story snipped...

> I have to admit it was fun (snip)

It's like an adult male going to a little league field to play home run
derby, or dunking a basketball on an 8 foot high rim. Both are a hoot
for a brief period of time but have nothing to do with the way those
sports are meant to be played.

> How would I ever know if I was bowling well if everyone
> could just cover their eyes and roll it wide to find the pocket?

You'd probably know since you are obviously becoming tuned in to these
concepts. The sport needs more participants that want to bowl on fair
conditions. What happens to many folks that think they are good bowlers
is they eventually try out a tournament with a hard condition, get
their fannys kicked and then go home to their buddies and whine about
how difficult and unfair the condition was at the tournament. These
folks conveniently ignore the fact that the winners average 220+ on the
same "unfair" condition.

FWIW and IMNSHO, it's cool if folks want to go out once a week on a
walled shot to shoot numbers and drink beers. To me that's
entertainment but certainly not sport.

Mark



  
Date: 13 Jun 2005 23:40:01
From: Richard Schwager
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
Mark, I guess I question the number of bowlers that post here
complaining about easy conditions. Here are several definition of “sport“

“To engage in an activity for amusement or recreation”

Here are 2 more definitions;

1. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and
often engaged in competitively.


2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed
by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
An active pastime; recreation.

When someone bowls in a league as long as the conditions are reasonably
the same for all the participants of the league aren’t the conditions fair?

Isn’t the competition bowler against bowler, not against some arbitrary
set of conditions or past history.

If someone wants to know how good there are against other conditions, IE
sports or PBA conditions than they can bowl against them. If someone
thinks that because they bowl well on house league conditions their
competitive on harder conditions let them pay to find out.

Many here think the decline in bowling has to do with the easier
conditions, maybe it’s because there is now so much more to do ,as far
as entertainment.


Mark wrote:
> twobirds wrote:
>
> Ray Charles story snipped...
>
>
>>I have to admit it was fun (snip)
>
>
> It's like an adult male going to a little league field to play home run
> derby, or dunking a basketball on an 8 foot high rim. Both are a hoot
> for a brief period of time but have nothing to do with the way those
> sports are meant to be played.
>
>
>>How would I ever know if I was bowling well if everyone
>>could just cover their eyes and roll it wide to find the pocket?
>
>
> You'd probably know since you are obviously becoming tuned in to these
> concepts. The sport needs more participants that want to bowl on fair
> conditions. What happens to many folks that think they are good bowlers
> is they eventually try out a tournament with a hard condition, get
> their fannys kicked and then go home to their buddies and whine about
> how difficult and unfair the condition was at the tournament. These
> folks conveniently ignore the fact that the winners average 220+ on the
> same "unfair" condition.
>
> FWIW and IMNSHO, it's cool if folks want to go out once a week on a
> walled shot to shoot numbers and drink beers. To me that's
> entertainment but certainly not sport.
>
> Mark
>

--
Have a good day R Schwager


   
Date: 14 Jun 2005 01:55:52
From: Jeff Rife
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
Richard Schwager (abcrich@optonline.net) wrote in alt.sport.bowling:
> When someone bowls in a league as long as the conditions are reasonably
> the same for all the participants of the league aren=3Ft the conditions fair?

Although the conditions are the same, they tend to help bowlers of "medium"
skill the most. Less-skilled bowlers see no benefit, and some high-skill
bowlers see little to no extra benefit from a big wall.

--
Jeff Rife


  
Date: 11 Jun 2005 21:39:19
From: JohnO
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
> It's like an adult male going to a little league field to play home run
> derby, or dunking a basketball on an 8 foot high rim. Both are a hoot
> for a brief period of time but have nothing to do with the way those
> sports are meant to be played.

OK, I think I know the ages of your kids now....I've done both of these, and
you're 100% right. :-)




> FWIW and IMNSHO, it's cool if folks want to go out once a week on a
> walled shot to shoot numbers and drink beers. To me that's
> entertainment but certainly not sport.

That's the concept of the sport shot, right?

-John O




 
Date: 19 May 2005 01:16:18
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
Well, lets have this bowler's name so we can verify this. I have been
bowling Nationals since 2000, and this was the toughest by far. Was it
impossible? No. Was it a house shot? Not even close! I have bowled in
Las Vegas many times and will be bowling there this weekend. "None" of
those houses are tough except when a tournament is being run, such as
the High Rollers and the International Eliminator. Sam's Town is one of
my favorite lanes period, but I have also bowled at Texas Station,
Orleans, Suncoast, Santa Fe Station (used to have Dan Nadaeu drill my
equipment before he got divorced and moved to Colorado), and the now
defunct Showboat/Castaways. That isn't "all" of Vegas's lanes, but it is
a major chunk. The link below is for searching for scores at Nationals.

http://www.bowl.com/tournaments/abc/National/resultssearch.aspx

twobirds wrote:

>OK.. the recent talk about the "soup at Nationals" got me wondering. So,
>today I had lunch with two of the five guys I know who went. I was given
>some interesting information.
>
>Here is a quote, "I opened up with a 279. I followed it with a 258. I
>thought my 800 was in the bag but I felt I needed to make a move. Then I
>shot a buck forty. It wasn't the shot that gave me that buck forty. It was
>my own stubborness."
>
>Here is another quote, "The shot was surprizingly wide open. It was easier
>than last year by far. My series was 60 pins higher than last year."
>
>So, after hearing that, I thought I'd like to talk to another guy I know who
>went... and I also know he did poorly. Here is what he said, "The shot was
>wide open. The humidity kept the oil on the lanes all day. It wasn't like
>here or Vegas where the oil evaporates in a few hours. I sucked because I
>sucked, not because the shot was particularily tough. It was easier than
>last year, but the carrydown was a little worse. If I wanted to blame
>something for my lack of concentration, it would be the air. It was hard to
>breathe down there."
>
>I asked for a comparison between what they saw there as to what we usually
>have for a shot in my favourite house. They all three told me that if I was
>a lefty, I would have hardly been able to tell the difference between
>playing here right after the oil was laid down on a no-strip day than there
>after several rounds. The lane man here has a firm beleif that he won't
>take it easy on lefties and the pattern is about 16 inches longer on the
>left than the right.
>
>So, apparently, I happen to already be playing on a tougher shot than I
>thought I was. I always hear people say the shot is tougher than in the
>house across town... but I have always ignored that as some trash talking
>due to a little bit of rivalry. - Hmm. Inexperience may be worth something
>afterall.
>
>
>
>


  
Date: 18 May 2005 23:01:00
From: twobirds
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
Tony R Smith wrote:
> Well, lets have this bowler's name so we can verify this.

I have made it plain that I do not think it is wise to post personal
information on usenet. I think it would be not only unwise, but also quite
rude to post someone else's personal information on usenet. Anyone who
would do so is nothing but an asshole.

However, - you have an email, and I sent -you (read: personal email not
usenet for every nut job and his dog to read)- the information you requested
with permission from the bowler to do so.

There you have it. As I said in the email: Now you know who told me about
the shot at nationals. What good did it do you?




   
Date: 19 May 2005 12:11:59
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
The guy you e-mailed me about has eight 300 games, one of them on a
sport league. and three 299 games since 1997. In the past three seasons
he has carried as high as a 229 average. This guy represents the top 1%
of all bowlers. He shot 1859 all events... a 206.6 average... which is
exceptional. I misread your first post and thought you were from Vegas.
I assume that you are from the same place he is from currently (He lived
elsewhere in 1997). Now that I know your location (assumption), it is
quite possible that the conditions there are not your typical wall, but
take your buddies information with a grain of salt. I bowl with guys on
Team Internet that can make that shot seem easier than it is but, like
your buddy, they have 300s and 800s coming out their anal orifice and
represent the "best of the best". I looked up his scores for 2004
Nationals... 1668 all events... I beat him (that is much more that 60
pins worse). A few of our guys bowled second squad for Doubles and
Singles while the rest of us bowled third squad. The guys that bowled
second squad said that the shot held up for most of their squad,
however, on our squad, I was using a Storm Hot Rod Hybrid for the last
four games... it got really ugly. This years Nationals we are going to
all be bowling second squad... at least that is the plan.

twobirds wrote:

>Tony R Smith wrote:
>
>
>>Well, lets have this bowler's name so we can verify this.
>>
>>
>
>I have made it plain that I do not think it is wise to post personal
>information on usenet. I think it would be not only unwise, but also quite
>rude to post someone else's personal information on usenet. Anyone who
>would do so is nothing but an asshole.
>
>However, - you have an email, and I sent -you (read: personal email not
>usenet for every nut job and his dog to read)- the information you requested
>with permission from the bowler to do so.
>
>There you have it. As I said in the email: Now you know who told me about
>the shot at nationals. What good did it do you?
>
>
>
>


    
Date: 19 May 2005 12:30:19
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
I got your first e-mail and made this post before I got the second one
with his honor scores. Just for your information, the Nationals shot for
the past three years has meet the Sport Shot regulations. As I said
previously, the shot was playable from anywhere on the lanes (in the
past, 10 and out was out of bounds) but, typical of a Sport condition,
the shot was very tight. You absolutely "had" to hit your mark. A one
board miss, right or left, could result in very ugly leaves. My brother
had so many splits and washouts in his second game that he bowled a 107.
He averaged 201 this year.

Tony R Smith wrote:

> The guy you e-mailed me about has eight 300 games, one of them on a
> sport league. and three 299 games since 1997. In the past three
> seasons he has carried as high as a 229 average. This guy represents
> the top 1% of all bowlers. He shot 1859 all events... a 206.6
> average... which is exceptional. I misread your first post and thought
> you were from Vegas. I assume that you are from the same place he is
> from currently (He lived elsewhere in 1997). Now that I know your
> location (assumption), it is quite possible that the conditions there
> are not your typical wall, but take your buddies information with a
> grain of salt. I bowl with guys on Team Internet that can make that
> shot seem easier than it is but, like your buddy, they have 300s and
> 800s coming out their anal orifice and represent the "best of the
> best". I looked up his scores for 2004 Nationals... 1668 all events...
> I beat him (that is much more that 60 pins worse). A few of our guys
> bowled second squad for Doubles and Singles while the rest of us
> bowled third squad. The guys that bowled second squad said that the
> shot held up for most of their squad, however, on our squad, I was
> using a Storm Hot Rod Hybrid for the last four games... it got really
> ugly. This years Nationals we are going to all be bowling second
> squad... at least that is the plan.
>
> twobirds wrote:
>
>> Tony R Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Well, lets have this bowler's name so we can verify this.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have made it plain that I do not think it is wise to post personal
>> information on usenet. I think it would be not only unwise, but also
>> quite
>> rude to post someone else's personal information on usenet. Anyone who
>> would do so is nothing but an asshole.
>>
>> However, - you have an email, and I sent -you (read: personal email not
>> usenet for every nut job and his dog to read)- the information you
>> requested
>> with permission from the bowler to do so.
>>
>> There you have it. As I said in the email: Now you know who told
>> me about
>> the shot at nationals. What good did it do you?
>>
>>
>>
>>


     
Date: 19 May 2005 15:21:53
From: twobirds
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
Tony R Smith wrote:
> I got your first e-mail and made this post before I got the second one
> with his honor scores. Just for your information, the Nationals shot
> for the past three years has meet the Sport Shot regulations. As I
> said previously, the shot was playable from anywhere on the lanes (in
> the past, 10 and out was out of bounds) but, typical of a Sport
> condition, the shot was very tight. You absolutely "had" to hit your
> mark. A one board miss, right or left, could result in very ugly
> leaves. My brother had so many splits and washouts in his second game
> that he bowled a 107. He averaged 201 this year.
>

Again, you can set my comments off to my inexperience. I haven't been doing
this long. The three fellows I mentioned all have a list of honor scores
like that (and as mentioned in email, one fellow even had a televised 300
while bowling for a championship in the late 80s). These fellows are the
best my State has produced.

When I decided I wanted to be good at this game, I identified the ten best
bowlers in my area (and now that you have an idea of where I live: "My
area" means anywhere within 300 or 400 miles or so of me - Low Population
and a huge amount of acreage here). I already knew a couple of them. The
rest, I sought out and developed friendships with... with the exception of
one fellow, but that's a long OT story.

I asked each one of them a lot of questions inclusing who I should find to
coach me. The coach choice was pretty much unanimous... So, I developed a
friendship with that fellow and got him to coach me. Each of these guys has
some bit of input into my game. My goal is to take the best parts of their
games and learn them. So, every now and again, one or another of them will
"mechanic" on my release or approach or balance or etc. - I think that
should explain why I tend to take any of their words as "gospel". It should
also explain why I can claim a huge improvement in a short amount of time. -
Well, that and the fact that I bowl a dozen games a day six days a week.

I asked a few more questions today about this lane condition problem. Here
is the response I got:

In the early 90s, the ABC had a 1.5 unit of conditioner difference rule. If
they inspected a lane and found more than a 1.5 unit difference in any part
of the oiled portion of the lane, the bowler was penalized and didn't get
thier honor score. The problem with this was that normal linage could and
did easily create more than a 1.5 unit difference in the course of a single
league shift.

In the mid 90s, they recognized this and changed to a 3 unit difference rule
and they pretty much quit penalizing the bowler, and instead found ways to
penalize the center (I'm not clear on exactly how they penalized centers -
it sounds to me like it was more or less a verbal reprimand). This allowed
lane men to open up the shot without having an illegal shot on the lanes...
and even if their pattern was borderline, the bowlers wouldn't be penalized
(the cusomter was kept happy, in other words), but the center operator might
get bitched at a little. That is exacly when scores shot up nation wide and
honor scores quit being a rarity. - This is the topic here in this NG
lately.

So, my coach is the lane man at my favorite house. I asked him today about
the shot I'm playing on. He responded, "It isn't easy, but it could be a
lot harder." I pressed him for a little more informaiton and what he
described to me is that up until the mid 90s he had to put out a lot tougher
shot with nearly 30% more lane conditioner so that more oil would stay put
(we live in a semi-desert area where conditioner evaporates quickly) to stay
within the 1.5 unit rule whenever possible. However, he also said that 3
nights a week, the shot is a lot like it was "back then" due to their need
to protect the lanes from the abuse they get during "moonlight bowling" and
"vegas bowling" nights when the house fills up with teen agers and drinkers
who don't show the property the same respect that league bowlers do. Both
of my leagues are single shift nights ending just before "vegas bowling" and
"moonlight bowling", so apparently, my league time is spent on a fairly
"honest shot".

That is the lesson I learned about the shot today. The other thing I
learned about was something that goes like this: The ABC has always
controlled the game at an equipment level. This isn't just balls, but also
everything else right down to the pin setters. The ABC gave up their tight
control of the shot as mentioned above in the mid-90s. In so doing, they
left themselves in a bit of a bind. They hesitate to penalize a bowler now
(in any but the most severe circumstances) for getting an honor score on an
illegal shot. So, all they have left to use to control the game is
equipment - thus their current proposals to the changes in ball manufacture.
In other words, they can tell which way the wind blows, too. They know that
the average league bowler who spends the money to be a member... and bowl...
and purchase equipment... etc wants to be able to score. The higher the
scores, the more "fun" the majority of money spenders are having. The more
fun, the more money spent. If they can get the average bowler to spend
twice as much, they only need half as many bowlers to be there spending
money.




      
Date: 22 May 2005 23:14:41
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot


twobirds wrote:

>Tony R Smith wrote:
>
>
>>I got your first e-mail and made this post before I got the second one
>>with his honor scores. Just for your information, the Nationals shot
>>for the past three years has meet the Sport Shot regulations. As I
>>said previously, the shot was playable from anywhere on the lanes (in
>>the past, 10 and out was out of bounds) but, typical of a Sport
>>condition, the shot was very tight. You absolutely "had" to hit your
>>mark. A one board miss, right or left, could result in very ugly
>>leaves. My brother had so many splits and washouts in his second game
>>that he bowled a 107. He averaged 201 this year.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Again, you can set my comments off to my inexperience. I haven't been doing
>this long. The three fellows I mentioned all have a list of honor scores
>like that (and as mentioned in email, one fellow even had a televised 300
>while bowling for a championship in the late 80s). These fellows are the
>best my State has produced.
>
>When I decided I wanted to be good at this game, I identified the ten best
>bowlers in my area (and now that you have an idea of where I live: "My
>area" means anywhere within 300 or 400 miles or so of me - Low Population
>and a huge amount of acreage here). I already knew a couple of them. The
>rest, I sought out and developed friendships with... with the exception of
>one fellow, but that's a long OT story.
>
>I asked each one of them a lot of questions inclusing who I should find to
>coach me. The coach choice was pretty much unanimous... So, I developed a
>friendship with that fellow and got him to coach me. Each of these guys has
>some bit of input into my game. My goal is to take the best parts of their
>games and learn them. So, every now and again, one or another of them will
>"mechanic" on my release or approach or balance or etc. - I think that
>should explain why I tend to take any of their words as "gospel". It should
>also explain why I can claim a huge improvement in a short amount of time. -
>Well, that and the fact that I bowl a dozen games a day six days a week.
>
>I asked a few more questions today about this lane condition problem. Here
>is the response I got:
>
>In the early 90s, the ABC had a 1.5 unit of conditioner difference rule. If
>they inspected a lane and found more than a 1.5 unit difference in any part
>of the oiled portion of the lane, the bowler was penalized and didn't get
>thier honor score. The problem with this was that normal linage could and
>did easily create more than a 1.5 unit difference in the course of a single
>league shift.
>
>In the mid 90s, they recognized this and changed to a 3 unit difference rule
>
>
It's a 3 unit "minimum" rule. See page 53 Chapter VII, Section 4 of the
Rule Book

http://www.bowl.com/downloads/pdf/0405_complete_rulebook.pdf

This allows the bowling center to put 50 units from 15 to 15 board and
taper it off to 3 units flat from 5 out on each side... also known as a
Bell Curve oil pattern, A.K.A. "Wally World" shot. Oil was originally
intended to be "lane conditioner" i.e. a lubricant used for the purpose
of protecting the lanes from friction. They figured out rather quickly
that by sloping the quantity of oil placed on the lanes that they could
make the lanes VERY forgiving... Hence, the current state of bowling. If
I were running things the flat shot would be mandatory... conditioner
used for one purpose and one purpose only... protecting the lanes.

>and they pretty much quit penalizing the bowler, and instead found ways to
>penalize the center (I'm not clear on exactly how they penalized centers -
>it sounds to me like it was more or less a verbal reprimand). This allowed
>lane men to open up the shot without having an illegal shot on the lanes...
>and even if their pattern was borderline, the bowlers wouldn't be penalized
>(the cusomter was kept happy, in other words), but the center operator might
>get bitched at a little. That is exacly when scores shot up nation wide and
>honor scores quit being a rarity. - This is the topic here in this NG
>lately.
>
>So, my coach is the lane man at my favorite house. I asked him today about
>the shot I'm playing on. He responded, "It isn't easy, but it could be a
>lot harder." I pressed him for a little more informaiton and what he
>described to me is that up until the mid 90s he had to put out a lot tougher
>shot with nearly 30% more lane conditioner so that more oil would stay put
>(we live in a semi-desert area where conditioner evaporates quickly) to stay
>within the 1.5 unit rule whenever possible. However, he also said that 3
>nights a week, the shot is a lot like it was "back then" due to their need
>to protect the lanes from the abuse they get during "moonlight bowling" and
>"vegas bowling" nights when the house fills up with teen agers and drinkers
>who don't show the property the same respect that league bowlers do. Both
>of my leagues are single shift nights ending just before "vegas bowling" and
>"moonlight bowling", so apparently, my league time is spent on a fairly
>"honest shot".
>
>That is the lesson I learned about the shot today. The other thing I
>learned about was something that goes like this: The ABC has always
>controlled the game at an equipment level. This isn't just balls, but also
>everything else right down to the pin setters. The ABC gave up their tight
>control of the shot as mentioned above in the mid-90s. In so doing, they
>left themselves in a bit of a bind. They hesitate to penalize a bowler now
>(in any but the most severe circumstances) for getting an honor score on an
>illegal shot. So, all they have left to use to control the game is
>equipment - thus their current proposals to the changes in ball manufacture.
>In other words, they can tell which way the wind blows, too. They know that
>the average league bowler who spends the money to be a member... and bowl...
>and purchase equipment... etc wants to be able to score. The higher the
>scores, the more "fun" the majority of money spenders are having. The more
>fun, the more money spent. If they can get the average bowler to spend
>twice as much, they only need half as many bowlers to be there spending
>money.
>
>
>
>


       
Date: 22 May 2005 21:18:51
From: Jeff Rife
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
Tony R Smith (tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com) wrote in alt.sport.bowling:
> If
> I were running things the flat shot would be mandatory... conditioner
> used for one purpose and one purpose only... protecting the lanes.

The nice thing about a flat shot is it doesn't equire a large investment
from the center to implement (unlike the most "walled" of sport shots, which
has a 2:1 inside/outside ratio and the "zone" rules). Every machine can
throw down a flat shot.

--
Jeff Rife


        
Date: 11 Jun 2005 04:04:05
From: twobirds
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net > wrote in message
news:MPG.1cfaf982c6b91727989d58@news.nabs.net...
> Tony R Smith (tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com) wrote in alt.sport.bowling:
> > If
> > I were running things the flat shot would be mandatory... conditioner
> > used for one purpose and one purpose only... protecting the lanes.
>
> The nice thing about a flat shot is it doesn't equire a large investment
> from the center to implement (unlike the most "walled" of sport shots,
which
> has a 2:1 inside/outside ratio and the "zone" rules). Every machine can
> throw down a flat shot.


Just to re-visit this topic:

I joined a summer adult/child league with my kids. I went in to the center
in the afternoon to check the schedule so I knew when to show up. The lane
man (also my coach) walked up to me and said, "You could bowl blindfolded
tonight". I chuckled and asked what he meant. He said, "Seriously. Close
your eyes for the first couple of shots and let your release go wide". He
elaborated to tell me that he stripped the lanes that morning and programmed
the machine for the christmas tree.

Sure enough. Even my bad shots were good. That's my first experience with
that. I put some speed on my pearl ball (a lot more than I usually do) and
let my release go wide. Any other night, all of my shots like that would
have been out of bounds, but it came back every time. The wider I let the
ball go, the harder it snapped back.

I know a lot of guys who can "shred the rack". I'm not one of those. My
best success comes at around 13 to 15 mph and 13 to 15 revs. Playing on
that wall, I was able to literally hurl the ball down the lane and crank the
hell out of it. It would catch the dry early around 38 feet 8 board and out
and just snap. The more revs and the more speed, the better for that
condition (that was the only way I could figure out to get it far enough
down the lane without moving my shot into the center oil for a tight down
and in). - I have to admit it was fun (it was *really* fun to be able to
put that much speed and that many revs on the ball without worrying about my
accuracy), but I don't think I'd like to compete like that when no one has
to worry about hitting their mark or getting the right speed and revs to
find a good line. How would I ever know if I was bowling well if everyone
could just cover their eyes and roll it wide to find the pocket?

I guesse I'd like to play on that sort of a condition again with full teams
to see how the carry down affects the game, but I sure hope it wasn't a
management decision to change to that sort of a shot permanently. I'm going
to be asking that question for sure at my next lesson. I'm hoping he laid
that out because I've been asking about it... or maybe just to mix things up
a little.




      
Date: 19 May 2005 17:19:18
From: Chuck McGowan
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot

"twobirds" wrote:
> That is exacly when scores shot up nation wide and
> honor scores quit being a rarity. - This is the topic here in this NG
> lately.

"Lately"?!?!?! That has been the topic in this NG since it happened!!!!
;-)

Chuck




     
Date: 19 May 2005 07:26:53
From: ross smith
Subject: Re: perhaps I'm already playing on a tough shot
thanks for the pat on the back. lol
the reason for the 107 wasn't the lane condition, it was because earlier
in the day during practice i used up all my "DETONATOR PROS"
http://faldo.atmos.uiuc.edu/FBL/mc.html
while having them resurfaced (they didn't get done in time) i had to use
my USBC (proposed illegal) balls. you know the ones with the balance
holes without the logo and the cg kicked our past a inch from center.
thats what screwed me up not the oil conditions. just wanted to make
sure that we are clear on that. :)

Tony R Smith wrote:
> I got your first e-mail and made this post before I got the second one
> with his honor scores. Just for your information, the Nationals shot for
> the past three years has meet the Sport Shot regulations. As I said
> previously, the shot was playable from anywhere on the lanes (in the
> past, 10 and out was out of bounds) but, typical of a Sport condition,
> the shot was very tight. You absolutely "had" to hit your mark. A one
> board miss, right or left, could result in very ugly leaves. My brother
> had so many splits and washouts in his second game that he bowled a 107.
> He averaged 201 this year.
>
> Tony R Smith wrote:
>
>> The guy you e-mailed me about has eight 300 games, one of them on a
>> sport league. and three 299 games since 1997. In the past three
>> seasons he has carried as high as a 229 average. This guy represents
>> the top 1% of all bowlers. He shot 1859 all events... a 206.6
>> average... which is exceptional. I misread your first post and thought
>> you were from Vegas. I assume that you are from the same place he is
>> from currently (He lived elsewhere in 1997). Now that I know your
>> location (assumption), it is quite possible that the conditions there
>> are not your typical wall, but take your buddies information with a
>> grain of salt. I bowl with guys on Team Internet that can make that
>> shot seem easier than it is but, like your buddy, they have 300s and
>> 800s coming out their anal orifice and represent the "best of the
>> best". I looked up his scores for 2004 Nationals... 1668 all events...
>> I beat him (that is much more that 60 pins worse). A few of our guys
>> bowled second squad for Doubles and Singles while the rest of us
>> bowled third squad. The guys that bowled second squad said that the
>> shot held up for most of their squad, however, on our squad, I was
>> using a Storm Hot Rod Hybrid for the last four games... it got really
>> ugly. This years Nationals we are going to all be bowling second
>> squad... at least that is the plan.
>>
>> twobirds wrote:
>>
>>> Tony R Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well, lets have this bowler's name so we can verify this.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have made it plain that I do not think it is wise to post personal
>>> information on usenet. I think it would be not only unwise, but also
>>> quite
>>> rude to post someone else's personal information on usenet. Anyone who
>>> would do so is nothing but an asshole.
>>>
>>> However, - you have an email, and I sent -you (read: personal email not
>>> usenet for every nut job and his dog to read)- the information you
>>> requested
>>> with permission from the bowler to do so.
>>>
>>> There you have it. As I said in the email: Now you know who told
>>> me about
>>> the shot at nationals. What good did it do you?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>