AO scoring pace - is this the answer?

[ganopes]

I think we need to find a happy medium in there some where. But keeping the scores high just to keep numbers is not the answer. 70 odd entries for a major tournament is not great.

High scores maybe a short term solution... long term who knows?

So if a bowler wants to challenge themselves on tough conditions with the best bowlers in this country then they should go bowl the sports series instead of our National ranked tournaments?

 

[AdrianS]

High scores in majors have never bothered me, i think it makes up for a lot of the garbage people had to bowl on in the 'good old days' of crap lane surfaces and next to no oil. Let them have their cake and eat it too. Maybe the 199 averges and the like of the 70's and 80's should have been 215-220, all it would have taken was a bit more knowledge within the industry at the time. Was that knowledge there and if it was why wasnt it used?

 

[Tiger Bottomley]

For all those people who subscribe to the higher scores will draw more numbers theory I have one question, Where does it end? Let everyone average 200 and then what? If numbers drop again make it easier again?

I've never understood the theory that if I average 210 and finish 30th that it is better than averaging 190 and finishing 30th. 30th is 30th and you get the same cheque regardless of your score.

The sooner we realise that the average shot is inconsequential these days the better. We can no longer compare averages from year to year or decade to decade and would be foolish to try.

So it all boils back to what bowlers want and I can't say that I have seen numbers increasing dramatically this year due to the higher scores.

That said, if the patterns played on are the same as the house pattern laid every week then I am fine with it. I always believe that the locals should have the advantage in any event seeing they bowl in that centre every week. If however the conditions have been contrived for the tournament to make the scores better then I believe we are heading down the wrong path.

 

[jason_doust]

Consider the "statistics" presented with the thought that left handers make up an estimated 10-15% of the population, 1:8 in the real world.

I keep thinking of how to reply to this thread positively and Carl keeps saying just what I'm thinking. There is no easy answer. Jared has some very valid points also. I won't re-invent the wheel. I'll just say to folks to re-read their posts.

Jason

 

[jason_doust]

High scores in majors have never bothered me, i think it makes up for a lot of the garbage people had to bowl on in the 'good old days' of crap lane surfaces and next to no oil. Let them have their cake and eat it too. Maybe the 199 averges and the like of the 70's and 80's should have been 215-220, all it would have taken was a bit more knowledge within the industry at the time. Was that knowledge there and if it was why wasnt it used?

They were the surfaces available at the time. Yes, a lot of houses were bone dry, but go and drill a hard rubber ball (enjoy the smell...) and let me know if you can average 220 with it on the biggest ditch in town. Or take a 15 pin leg up and use your plastic spare ball. It's hard.

 

[AdrianS]

I'll have a practice with my Blue Dot tomorrow Jason and see how i go, might do me some good

 

[RobbieB]

Lets call a spade a spade here.
In this thread, we have bowlers who are not competitive at the highest level complaining that tournament conditions make them look and feel bad because they show up the inadequacy of their current skill set. Their solution? - lets not go and practise and improve our game, lets just block up the lanes in our major events so that we can maintain the illusion of being better than we really are. After all, the centre does it for us in league, so why not in tournaments?
You have got to be kidding me.

 

[split happens]

Compare this to golf.
When pga winners were shooting 25 under everyone jumped up and down saying its to easy, scores are to low, it should be tuffer.
Bowling is the same.
As Carl said, where will it end.
We all want to shoot big scores, but for what purpose. So when it does get tuff, be it in your local centre or another tournament, we bitch about lane conditions and decide to leave that centre in hope of finding an easier one to stoke our own egos.
House pattern? Why not. Give the locals more of a chance. If our "elite" bowlers turn up for the tournament they will compete just as well there as any where.
George was in my centre a few months back and I got the chance to have a bit of a chat with him about competiting at tournament level. George said to me work on your game, practice, practice, practice, it does make a difference.
I appreciate him taking the time to talk to me, a nobody, and giving me some advise. I would never expect him or anyone else at a tournament that they are their to win, to spend time with me for any reason. They are their to win, like everyone else.
I don't see anyone complaining that the 190 ave bowler isn't helping out the 170 ave junior thier bowling.
Just my 2 cents worth. Worth about 1.25 after tax.

 

[jason_doust]

I'll have a practice with my Blue Dot tomorrow Jason and see how i go, might do me some good

Hi Adrian,

I don't mean my comments as a derogatory statement. I'm saying that it is harder to bowl with a plastic ball as you won't string as many strikes together. You can certainly throw high games, but not as high or as consistently and the low games will probably be a bit lower.

That said, it probably will do you some good. It's never hurt my game. When I have swing problems, I practice with my Team Storm. It makes me swing the ball sweetly or miss, roll the ball well or leave corners.

Good luck with it.

Jason

 

[Tiger Bottomley]

Hey Paul, Just a quick comment on what you said. I agree and disagree with you.

I too wouldn't expect anyone to talk to me about bowling while they or I am bowling. I hear people whinging the elite bowlers dont talk to me. The reality is that while we are all bowling we all have comfort levels. I dont really talk and would feel uncomfortable if I did.

That said, if somebody came up and asked if they could have 5 minutes of my time once I was finished, I (and I believe anyone else) would be more than happy to chat.

 

[androooo]

Carl....

Fully agree.

 

[AdrianS]

Of course if they were really dead easy theres a few people who finished under who surely would have been up above 210. I guess a lot people just 'matched up' from the the word go and stayed that way for the entire weekend. That Blue Dot practice will have to wait till the end of the week too Jason, spent the afternoon making my Exception 5.0 into a 'good' ball today. I'll be looking forward to my next major wether the winner averages 209 or 249 too!!

 

[GeorgeF]

Just to add my main focus is fairness and parity. I want all styles and all bowlers participating to have an equal chance of winning the event. I want the compete against the best and allow the bowler who's performed the best to actually win.

We've seen in the past that the lane man has dictated who scores and who doesn't. I was making judgement that the AO pace whilst high was very fair once you compared the styles and techniques.

I'll bowl on whats given to me, I just wish we could find a happy medium. Frilingos out!

 

[griggsy]

I'm with George, I think the scoring pace SHOULD be fair to all styles of play but I am also with the other posters that agree that the scores need to come down a bit.

I believe that a winner of a major tournement should only be averaging round 220 as opposed to 250.To me looking at a winner averaging 250 is a fair bit daunting and quite off putting.

Making the tournement a bit tougher on scoring pace but fair is the better middle ground solution it seems.That being said if the scoring is going to be made that little bit tougher it should be explained to everyone as to what they should expect when they are promoting the tournement. I know that when i bowled in a sport series tournement in december 04 in caboolture, it was clearly explained that it isn't going to be a strike fest and people shouldn't expect it.

A little bit more education would go a long way, rather than letting people think that they are going to walk into a centre and think" if these guys can average 250 then so can I"

 

[jason_doust]

Well said Griggsy. George, the "fair for all" pattern is the as yet impossible dream we'd all like to see. A noble thing to strive for. But let's face it. You whipped us at Canberra and AO. It wasn't even close. Day 2 at Canberra saw the heads gone fast on the right and then Walshy had to finish on lanes 23+24, which were inexplicable. I never felt more empathy for a fellow competitor. I wasn't at AO (Easter is a bowling holiday for me), but everyone tells me you crushed it. At both events, you threw the ball very well from personal observation and reports from Melbourne, so well done. I reckon you'd have won anyway. But as Carl puts it, averaging 240-250 doesn't leave a lot of room for exciting competition.

Perhaps if these patterns were longer, then the strokers could still hold the line and the power players could keep it straighter to a break point further down the lane, allowing them to play the same spot. When there is sufficient length and volume of pattern, everyone can play with parity. Lower scores, but pretty fair. Likewise, an FIQ style short pattern (still 20 microlitres volume) which requires everyone to play the very edge allows everyone to play the same break point, placing a premium on correct roll and shot making.

What irks me is when we get 37 feet (shortish) and low volume with a breakpoint around 10 board. It means everyone with hand is playing their B game at best on rapidly shifting heads and the strokers get more free roll on top of what the pro shop and the squeaky clean backends supplied, courtesy of the (low volume) really thin pattern taper, making all your gear play like a particle ball. If we're going to lay short oil, then put the break point where it should be - outside to accommodate the additional motion caused by the extra friction. Otherwise run it long and play in. On both of these scenarios, all styles can attack from the similar parts of the lane.

I think Griggsy is on the money about having the patterns explained at the check-in and briefing. It need be nothing more than a statement of length, volume and expected best area of play.

I think I've finally found the words I was waiting for.

Cheers,
Jason

 

[cruzer]

Very well said Jason,

This would go close to being the post of the year so far,


Great comments from Griggsie and Jase.

Cheers

Paul K.

 

[akdefl]

I think Griggsy is on the money about having the patterns explained at the check-in and briefing. It need be nothing more than a statement of length, volume and expected best area of play.

I know that answer to this one.

How the hell should we know, we only got the pattern yesterday. You probably have more chance of hitting something with a blind fold and a dart. Either that or the scores will be through the roof, but good luck.
Is there anything wrong with conditions being put down, or transfering to the point where it stops certain equipment being used? Or makes you change your release? Or does everyone want a pattern that is the same throughout the entire squad? That doesn't change, that doesn't make you think about what you need to do, how or what to change about your style, speed, release etc.

I just want to know how things have changed from the 80's early 90's when the top bowlers would always have to factor in the fact that the lanes went through a massive transition from the fresh oil and backends to the carry down and the heads droping out. Do bowlers now not want to face this sort of challenge?

As a point though, if you want to put down a pattern that is fair for all, from what i can gather it is:
-Allows the left handers a bit of a shot early on, because the quantity isn't there so the lanes don't open up as quick for them.
-Allows the strokers and power players to do what they need.
-Allows the bowlers that live in fantasy land the chance to bowl and average about 40 above what they really are. This will enable to show scores for what they actually think that they are and make comments about lane conditions that they truely have no idea about.

And even after all this the quality bowlers will still street the field.

I am curious about one thing. Do the fringe bowlers get more from going in a tournament and say the leading qualifing average was 215. They average 190. Or going in a tournament and the leading qualifying average was 250 and they average 215? Which would you prefer?
To me, i would rather the first, based on the fact that it shows that it was tougher to carry and sparing and tight bowling was at a premium. Whereas senario 2 showed it was a carry fest and you could neither spare, string togther strikes, or were consistant on release. Or is it still all about how high your scores were, even if the relationship to the top qualifier was greater?

Would like to know

 

[jason_doust]

I know that answer to this one.
How the hell should we know, we only got the pattern yesterday. You probably have more chance of hitting something with a blind fold and a dart.
Fair call. The people who provide the pattern should also be able to provide some clues.
I just want to know how things have changed from the 80's early 90's when the top bowlers would always have to factor in the fact that the lanes went through a massive transition from the fresh oil and backends to the carry down and the heads droping out. Do bowlers now not want to face this sort of challenge?
In the 80's and 90's we used urethane balls. You might have moved 5 boards in a squad with your feet and less with your target. They just didn't chew the hell out of the pattern like they do today.
As a point though, if you want to put down a pattern that is fair for all, from what i can gather it is:
-Allows the left handers a bit of a shot early on, because the quantity isn't there so the lanes don't open up as quick for them.
Nor does their side get anything near as chopped up. When was the last time you saw a lefty forced into the RHS heads?
-Allows the strokers and power players to do what they need.
-Allows the bowlers that live in fantasy land the chance to bowl and average about 40 above what they really are. This will enable to show scores for what they actually think that they are and make comments about lane conditions that they truely have no idea about.
And even after all this the quality bowlers will still street the field.
I am curious about one thing. Do the fringe bowlers get more from going in a tournament and say the leading qualifing average was 215. They average 190. Or going in a tournament and the leading qualifying average was 250 and they average 215? Which would you prefer?
To me, i would rather the first, based on the fact that it shows that it was tougher to carry and sparing and tight bowling was at a premium. Whereas senario 2 showed it was a carry fest and you could neither spare, string togther strikes, or were consistant on release. Or is it still all about how high your scores were, even if the relationship to the top qualifier was greater?
Would like to know

Hope this helps.

 

[griggsy]

I think Griggsy is on the money about having the patterns explained at the check-in and briefing. It need be nothing more than a statement of length, volume and expected best area of play.

Jason

That is a great idea too Jason and a good start but there will still be some people who will still give the tournement a miss as they don't know what they're in for until they reach the point of no return.
What I was trying to say before ( my fault I should of explained myself better rather than being so vague) was that the centres when they are promoting the tournements should be constantly informing people of what to expect and maybe even hold a session or two on a weekend allowing people to bowl on previous years major patterns.
At least with informing people on what to expect weeks or months in advance constantly, they will have more of an idea what to expect rather than getting the ego shock most people get( myself was included in to that when I started bowling big tournements)

 

[Easy Tiger]

centres when they are promoting the tournements should be constantly informing people of what to expect and maybe even hold a session or two on a weekend allowing people to bowl on previous years major patterns.

This is half the issue. You don't get to bowl on these patterns until you enter these "majors".. and you are thrown in the deep end so to speak. Nobody minds being thrown in the deep end.. until the price tag goes past about $100 for 10 games.

I've bowled on occasion at local centres on some of the major patterns which I have asked to get put down, but it's just too hard trying to tee it up all the time. Also, many centres don't like mucking around with different programmes on their machines - I know that Aspley don't like to, and Kedron didn't like to muck around much either, but Kedron don't have a Kegel.

It is not worthwhile for most centres to put down a specific pattern for one or two people. Especially when they have a lane maintenence schedule which they stick to rigourously.