| |
Main
Date: 15 May 2005 00:03:53
From: Spammy Sammy
Subject: scoring changes
|
Hi.
I've read various posts about rule changes, designed to my view to be aimed
at reducing scores. May I suggest an alternative approach.
Currently a 300 game is made by bowling 12 consecutive strikes. My
suggestion is to make each frame into it's own entity, thereby requiring 30
consecutive strikes to attain a 300 score.
Much in the same way that the 10th frame allows for two extra balls, I feel
this could be applied to each frame throughout the game. 3 consecutive
strikes would result in frame 1 being sored as 30. 6 consecutive strikes
would result in frame 2 being scoresd at 60. 9 consecutive strikes would
result in frame 3 being scored at 90 etc etc. Every other score would count
as it does now; spares = frame plus next ball.
This would completely nullify any "better equipment = better scores"
argument and instead concentrate on the bowlers ability over a whole game.
Does this make any sense?
|
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2005 01:19:24
From: Spammy Sammy
Subject: Re: scoring changes
|
"Spammy Sammy" <Someone@microsoft.com > wrote in message
news:1116081364.321584@teuthos...
> snip
That'll be a rip-roaring "no" then. Shame - I thought I had something there
;(
You've got to admit though it'd sort the men from the boys.
SS
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2005 09:22:29
From: BowlerCentral.com
Subject: Re: scoring changes
|
I agree with you Eldred about not having a wall shot, but then we have
to go back and remember the proprietor. Maybe you bowl in a house
where everyone wants the harder shot or something more challenging, but
in an open play format, if people are not scoring, they are not happy
and will not come back again.
We all have to remember that there are 3 distinct types of bowlers out
there and we really can't expect the center to be able to accomodate
all three at once.
The open play bowler/cosmic and birthday ect. bowler wants the music,
the lights the fun and the food.
The basic league bowler wants to come out and socialize with friends,
drink or eat and do something competitive. But this bowler does not
necessaryly want to be hampered by a challenge and is the one that
complains most often about the conditions.
The last bowler is the tournament and competitive league bowler or the
purist. Understands the game and realizes the way that equipment and
lane conditions can affect the outcome of the scores.
The latter group is the minority. That is the problem. The proprietor
needs the bulk of the top two groups to make the monthly lease and
expenses each month. So in business, who do you cater to?
We just need lane machines that are easy to use and program. Some
centers have such old equipment, to change a shot is a major
undertaking or so they would have us believe.
|
| | |
Date: 24 May 2005 11:44:13
From: Eldred Pickett
Subject: Re: scoring changes
|
On 16 May 2005 09:22:29 -0700, "BowlerCentral.com"
<marc@bowlercentral.com > wrote:
>I agree with you Eldred about not having a wall shot, but then we have
>to go back and remember the proprietor. Maybe you bowl in a house
>where everyone wants the harder shot or something more challenging, but
>in an open play format, if people are not scoring, they are not happy
>and will not come back again.
Why do they want to score? If they're out with friends, they only
need to beat their friends' scores. Hey, if they're all on the same
condition it's still a fair competition. Why do all the open bowlers
feel they need to shoot 200+ every game? Sounds like an education
issue to me...
And the "amateur"(sorry, couldn't think of a better term) league
bowlers who practice on walled conditions get an over-inflated view of
their game. When they can't repeat the performance in league play
they complain to the counter people. That doesn't do anyone any good,
either.
No, I don't know what the solution is, but a standard condition that
everyone competes on would go a long way towards improving the sport
and how people look at it.
Eldred
|
| | |
Date: 16 May 2005 19:50:13
From: JohnO
Subject: Re: scoring changes
|
>
> We just need lane machines that are easy to use and program. Some
> centers have such old equipment, to change a shot is a major
> undertaking or so they would have us believe.
They're often so old that all they have to do is remove the shims, and,
amazingly, flat oil comes out. :-) Anything newer is about as simple as
programming your browser to use a different home page.
The other side...the reaction of the bowlers...that's the hard part.
-John O
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2005 11:05:15
From: Eldred Pickett
Subject: Re: scoring changes
|
On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:03:53 +0930, "Spammy Sammy"
<Someone@microsoft.com > wrote:
>Hi.
>
>I've read various posts about rule changes, designed to my view to be aimed
>at reducing scores. May I suggest an alternative approach.
>
>Currently a 300 game is made by bowling 12 consecutive strikes. My
>suggestion is to make each frame into it's own entity, thereby requiring 30
>consecutive strikes to attain a 300 score.
>
>Much in the same way that the 10th frame allows for two extra balls, I feel
>this could be applied to each frame throughout the game. 3 consecutive
>strikes would result in frame 1 being sored as 30. 6 consecutive strikes
>would result in frame 2 being scoresd at 60. 9 consecutive strikes would
>result in frame 3 being scored at 90 etc etc. Every other score would count
>as it does now; spares = frame plus next ball.
>
>This would completely nullify any "better equipment = better scores"
>argument and instead concentrate on the bowlers ability over a whole game.
>
>Does this make any sense?
>
Leagues *already* take too long to finish, and that drives some people
away. 30 strikes? Whew...
Eldred
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2005 22:12:36
From: PromptJock
Subject: Re: scoring changes
|
>Should be multiple sanction patterns, maybe include
>the sport patterns in >the mix and allow the lane
>conditions to vary from week to week instead
>of the same pattern every week.
I agree! as long as the patterns are "USBC compliant" (whatever that
may be?), throwing bowlers a "curve ball" (no pun) every week will
definitely test their mettle, etc. Of course, you'll have the majority
"bitch/whine/moan" crowd, who know nothing other than the "easy" house
shot, complain to Management, etc.
FWIW, my wife and boy are in a Thursday Night league where they're
using the PBA Senior patterns. I was there last week (the first night
- took vacation from my Night Shift) and watched many league bowlers I
know BARELY break 180 when they "routinely" bowl 200+ on the "regular
house pattern". One guy was heard to remark "tell me why I'm PAYING
for this?" (or something similar). :)
I'd LOVE to do this Spring League, but I have to work. FWIW, on the
first day (a week ago) I asked for a pair of "spare" lanes to be oiled
with the night's pattern. The center obliged. I threw a couple of
lines and, well, it was an EYE-OPENER! almost NO ROOM FOR TARGETING
ERROR (i.e. 1.5 boards or less) and SPEED CONTROL was essential! I
wish that pattern could be the General League Norm - it wasn't
"impossible", but it certainly wasn't easy!
|
| | |
Date: 16 May 2005 11:12:16
From: Eldred Pickett
Subject: Re: scoring changes
|
On 14 May 2005 22:12:36 -0700, "PromptJock"
<102151.3223@compuserve.com > wrote:
>FWIW, my wife and boy are in a Thursday Night league where they're
>using the PBA Senior patterns. I was there last week (the first night
>- took vacation from my Night Shift) and watched many league bowlers I
>know BARELY break 180 when they "routinely" bowl 200+ on the "regular
>house pattern". One guy was heard to remark "tell me why I'm PAYING
>for this?" (or something similar). :)
I paid to bowl in a TeamUSA qualifier a couple years in a row. The
first time, I averaged about 170, after having a 190-something
yearbook. The next time, I averaged 185 or so, having worked on my
game in the meantime. The following season, I finished with a
personal best high average of 207. I think bowling in that qualifier
did wonders for my game, and I wouldn't hesitate to sign up for a
tough condition again...
Eldred
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2005 12:02:04
From: Al Whiteman
Subject: Re: scoring changes
|
No
"Spammy Sammy" <Someone@microsoft.com > wrote in message
news:1116081364.321584@teuthos...
> Hi.
>
> I've read various posts about rule changes, designed to my view to be
> aimed
> at reducing scores. May I suggest an alternative approach.
>
> Currently a 300 game is made by bowling 12 consecutive strikes. My
> suggestion is to make each frame into it's own entity, thereby requiring
> 30
> consecutive strikes to attain a 300 score.
>
> Much in the same way that the 10th frame allows for two extra balls, I
> feel
> this could be applied to each frame throughout the game. 3 consecutive
> strikes would result in frame 1 being sored as 30. 6 consecutive strikes
> would result in frame 2 being scoresd at 60. 9 consecutive strikes would
> result in frame 3 being scored at 90 etc etc. Every other score would
> count
> as it does now; spares = frame plus next ball.
>
> This would completely nullify any "better equipment = better scores"
> argument and instead concentrate on the bowlers ability over a whole game.
>
> Does this make any sense?
>
>
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2005 14:44:57
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: scoring changes
|
Think about it... how long would it take to bowl three games if every
time you rolled a strike you had to roll two more "fill" balls, and one
extra ball for each spare? A 6 PM league wouldn't get over until almost
1 AM!
Spammy Sammy wrote:
>Hi.
>
>I've read various posts about rule changes, designed to my view to be aimed
>at reducing scores. May I suggest an alternative approach.
>
>Currently a 300 game is made by bowling 12 consecutive strikes. My
>suggestion is to make each frame into it's own entity, thereby requiring 30
>consecutive strikes to attain a 300 score.
>
>Much in the same way that the 10th frame allows for two extra balls, I feel
>this could be applied to each frame throughout the game. 3 consecutive
>strikes would result in frame 1 being sored as 30. 6 consecutive strikes
>would result in frame 2 being scoresd at 60. 9 consecutive strikes would
>result in frame 3 being scored at 90 etc etc. Every other score would count
>as it does now; spares = frame plus next ball.
>
>This would completely nullify any "better equipment = better scores"
>argument and instead concentrate on the bowlers ability over a whole game.
>
>Does this make any sense?
>
>
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 14 May 2005 11:18:31
From: Jamie
Subject: Re: scoring changes
|
Well you would just need to bowl one game per league night and league would
be all yar long with each league bowling 2 nights per week. then in
Tournaments it would be a stamina event to see who stay awake long enough to
bowl all required frames to get there events in LOL
Jamie
"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com > wrote in message
news:J9ohe.234$h86.138@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Think about it... how long would it take to bowl three games if every time
> you rolled a strike you had to roll two more "fill" balls, and one extra
> ball for each spare? A 6 PM league wouldn't get over until almost 1 AM!
>
> Spammy Sammy wrote:
>
>>Hi.
>>
>>I've read various posts about rule changes, designed to my view to be
>>aimed
>>at reducing scores. May I suggest an alternative approach.
>>
>>Currently a 300 game is made by bowling 12 consecutive strikes. My
>>suggestion is to make each frame into it's own entity, thereby requiring
>>30
>>consecutive strikes to attain a 300 score.
>>
>>Much in the same way that the 10th frame allows for two extra balls, I
>>feel
>>this could be applied to each frame throughout the game. 3 consecutive
>>strikes would result in frame 1 being sored as 30. 6 consecutive strikes
>>would result in frame 2 being scoresd at 60. 9 consecutive strikes would
>>result in frame 3 being scored at 90 etc etc. Every other score would
>>count
>>as it does now; spares = frame plus next ball.
>>
>>This would completely nullify any "better equipment = better scores"
>>argument and instead concentrate on the bowlers ability over a whole game.
>>
>>Does this make any sense?
>>
>>
>>
|
| | | |
Date: 14 May 2005 16:05:23
From: Tony R Smith
Subject: Re: scoring changes
|
I think the format is just fine as it is. They need to bring back the
"honest" lane conditions and make you work for it.
Jamie wrote:
>Well you would just need to bowl one game per league night and league would
>be all yar long with each league bowling 2 nights per week. then in
>Tournaments it would be a stamina event to see who stay awake long enough to
>bowl all required frames to get there events in LOL
>
>Jamie
>"Tony R Smith" <tonyrsmith@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:J9ohe.234$h86.138@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
>
>>Think about it... how long would it take to bowl three games if every time
>>you rolled a strike you had to roll two more "fill" balls, and one extra
>>ball for each spare? A 6 PM league wouldn't get over until almost 1 AM!
>>
>>Spammy Sammy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi.
>>>
>>>I've read various posts about rule changes, designed to my view to be
>>>aimed
>>>at reducing scores. May I suggest an alternative approach.
>>>
>>>Currently a 300 game is made by bowling 12 consecutive strikes. My
>>>suggestion is to make each frame into it's own entity, thereby requiring
>>>30
>>>consecutive strikes to attain a 300 score.
>>>
>>>Much in the same way that the 10th frame allows for two extra balls, I
>>>feel
>>>this could be applied to each frame throughout the game. 3 consecutive
>>>strikes would result in frame 1 being sored as 30. 6 consecutive strikes
>>>would result in frame 2 being scoresd at 60. 9 consecutive strikes would
>>>result in frame 3 being scored at 90 etc etc. Every other score would
>>>count
>>>as it does now; spares = frame plus next ball.
>>>
>>>This would completely nullify any "better equipment = better scores"
>>>argument and instead concentrate on the bowlers ability over a whole game.
>>>
>>>Does this make any sense?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
|
|
