jimcross
Active Member
OMG.. We get 2 X 300s and ONE half hearted Congrats.
Every time on any thread, where I, in full acknowledgement of the facts: yes facts, that there is no going back, ( without a player revolution ) every time I say anything that infers that the lane, ball and conditioning machine makers have effectively ruined the game, I get this massive reaction from those who have only seen it basically as it has been since, say, the 80s, and onwards.
In the 60s the people who came out at or near the top, did so because they were more consistent, were more accurate, and who developed, and repeated, a good approach and ball release. They physically did it.
Today, that all helps, but the ones more adept at reading lane patterns, can fit the best ball to the condition, know when to change, both the ball and line, and so on, will get the prize. Why not take up chess, instead?
To prove that the conditions set can have more effect than the physical game apparently, scoring can be made in a range from impossible to score to impossible to miss. Seriously, this is good?
Have a look at the attachments on the thread “ Milestone in Australian Bowling”, then imagine, if you can what a reaction two consecutive 300 games would have generated then, in 1963, when it was ALL SKILL. And today we get one half-reaction?
And we’ve made it better? We don’t need to curb this continuous manipulation, and try to turn it back into a legitimate sport?
Every time on any thread, where I, in full acknowledgement of the facts: yes facts, that there is no going back, ( without a player revolution ) every time I say anything that infers that the lane, ball and conditioning machine makers have effectively ruined the game, I get this massive reaction from those who have only seen it basically as it has been since, say, the 80s, and onwards.
In the 60s the people who came out at or near the top, did so because they were more consistent, were more accurate, and who developed, and repeated, a good approach and ball release. They physically did it.
Today, that all helps, but the ones more adept at reading lane patterns, can fit the best ball to the condition, know when to change, both the ball and line, and so on, will get the prize. Why not take up chess, instead?
To prove that the conditions set can have more effect than the physical game apparently, scoring can be made in a range from impossible to score to impossible to miss. Seriously, this is good?
Have a look at the attachments on the thread “ Milestone in Australian Bowling”, then imagine, if you can what a reaction two consecutive 300 games would have generated then, in 1963, when it was ALL SKILL. And today we get one half-reaction?
And we’ve made it better? We don’t need to curb this continuous manipulation, and try to turn it back into a legitimate sport?
