world-bowling-group-to-explore-alternative-scoring system

Roysa - yes it's an old topic - and of course history is always worth reviewing for the sake of addressing where one has been - so one can move forward intelligently. For the sake of it - should [and I stress should because the work and money involved is extensive - perhaps even excessive] bowling elect to push again to be considered as a medal sport [and I have zero idea one way or the other] the timeline is this.

Decision on opening up the number of sports is next month - if 2024 is the target for bowling's efforts - host city bidding starts in early 2015 - just 2 months away - September 15 2017 is the date to announce of the winning bid for 2024. I know first hand the work involved leading up to the bidding announcement - to get a sport on the radar of every bidding city - and then once the winner is announced to extend that focus to that specific organising committee and the IOC as an entity. If bowling is to succeed - should it choose to throw it's hat in the ring again - then the work starts the minute the IOC meeting in December has voted for extended inclusions [if it does so - and my money says it will, going against executive committee recommendations would be an unusual experience for most IOC delegates].

Thus - time is on the wing.
 
Apologies, the system used is not a copy.

All my scoring systems place a premium on spare-shooting. (including 12Gauge Shootout)
The one used on the weekend does not shoot for their spare, unless both bowl the same first ball count.
With my scoring, any spare beats an open frame. This places pressure on making the spare shot to win your point
 
I'm going to reserve full judgement until I've seen the show with this scoring system. But after reading Jeff Richgel's article, I tend to agree with his closing sentiment, that whilst bowling may have many faults, the scoring system isn't one of them.
 
I'll try to explain why scoring is a problem, if you want to grow bowling
Nowdays, media plays a far greater roll in whether a sport prospers or goes unnoticed and declines. This is why many sports are adjusting rules and how their sport is played, to make it more attractive to spectators (not necessarily more attractive for existing players).
It's common practice for sports commentary to have a Journalist/Presenter matched with an ex-player/presenter.
Reasons are,
The Journalist also acts as a fan, so appears impressed by the vision being commented on which makes the exploits of participants seem more impressive. Helps for viewers to become "impressed" with proceedings.
The Ex-Player Acts as the "informer/insider" which helps viewers to feel more knowledgeable and part of the inner circle, be closer to the players, more involved. This helps viewers have an emotional response to proceedings. When a viewer has positive responses to the telecast , they are much more likely to become a fan or follower of the sport/individual player.
Evidence of this response is what attracts sponsors. They know that a positive emotional response will become associated with their products.

Now to the scoring.
Watch any bowling broadcast and you will find the commentary are usually filling in time, talking about other things like some past result. The current scoring makes it impossible to create excitement or interest to engage a casual viewer. Does not invoke the necessary emotional response which can turn a casual viewer into a fan.
(I'm a terrible commentator, I fully admit, but by comparison, look at how many more opportunities my scoring presents to engage casual viewers)

This very short and poor explanation of a huge subject "psychology of fan sport" is why bowling struggles to be considered a real sport and is largely unattractive to sponsors.
There is no better argument for changing the scoring than to make it possible to attract fans to the sport. This would ensure far greater media exposure and make the sport more viable.
I've not seen the vision from the weekend, but prior to taping, I tried to contact members of the commentary team because, unless they totally changed the style of their comments during this match the end result would be less than what might have been possible. That, plus not using the tension which can be built with spare shots, could totally change the emotional end result for viewers.

I've tried to convey the essence of this subject in this post, though it's impossible in less than thousands of words to explain.
 
Have you not watched any of the PBA telecasts in recent years Pete??? They have Randy Peterson as their informer/insider, as you put it, and often another person, who is either a Journo or TV presenter from another area in TV. Randy has also done many short clips, which they've showed in many of the PBA telecasts in recent years, that aim to educate the casual viewer on the nuances of the game. He's compared house shots to all of the different animal patterns, so the casual viewer, even the casual league bowler, can clearly see the difference in ball reaction from a THS to an animal pattern. They've also used the blue oil, which I think helps explain to casual viewers why the pro's are bowling in those particular areas of the lane.They also have plenty of drama, with interviews from the pro's & of course, the much publicised Rash/Belmo incidents & PDW losing his sh!t after winning his 5th US Open.

Every xgames video I've attempted to watch, I've never ended up watching the whole thing. I found it hard to keep track of who was in front, or how far into the match we were, and quite frankly, I found it boring to watch. I'm still going to watch these latest PBA telecasts, when they become available on Xtra frame, so I will reserve judgement on the WTBA system that they employed in the WTBA finals telecast, until I see it. But again, I don't think changing the scoring system is going to fix bowling. Just my opinion.
 
Amagill,
We disagree but I'm thankful you are prepared to be involved in the discussion. Thanks for caring about the sport
 
What's the difference between a dream and a nightmare ? Both appear to be fantisies. Yes?

What's the difference then, between the olympic dream and the olympic nightmare ?

Both still fantisies. Nothing solid to touch or feel, no matter which one we throw barrow loads of money at.

We don't have to be silly to be a bowler - but it sure helps.
 
"Loads of money" won't do it Jim - it will need a lot more than just "loads"....a staggering sum is required to do it properly...and Peter may well be right - diverting the time, energy and MONEY away from other more immediate needs for the sport could well be very [permanently?] harmful. His is a perceptive point of view.
 
Anyone watch the wbt finals today on espn where they trialled an alternate "best frame" scoring system( frameplay) Gotta say wasn't impressed , IMO found it boring. I got the feeling though whilst being diplomatic the pros weren't that fond of the new scoring format either. Thoughts anyone ?
 
Hey Luke,

I'm just watching it now... I made my way through the first match (barely). I fast forwarded to the 9th frame of the women's final just to see who won and right now I'm struggling to find the motivation to watch the start of the men's. Only reason I am is Belmo is on the lanes.

Couple of observations...

Firstly the way the format plays for the pros will be completely different than if this was applied elsewhere. After every ball the in centre commentator is keeping the crowd updated on what is happening. I'm not sure that same "game status" would be obvious in a local centre for comp or social play without someone holding their hand through it.

Secondly its rare that at least 1 out of 2 pros didn't strike, it took sparing completely out of the match. I personally didn't enjoy that.

Lastly I thought Sandra Anderson bowled better in game 1 and lost. The commentators agreed with that. If this format was to take over as the dominant format would that be ideal?

My opinion only.
 
Anyone watch the wbt finals today on espn where they trialled an alternate "best frame" scoring system( frameplay) Gotta say wasn't impressed , IMO found it boring. I got the feeling though whilst being diplomatic the pros weren't that fond of the new scoring format either. Thoughts anyone ?
On Nov 5th 2014 I posted
"I've not seen the vision from the weekend, but prior to taping, I tried to contact members of the commentary team because, unless they totally changed the style of their comments during this match the end result would be less than what might have been possible. That, plus not using the tension which can be built with spare shots, could totally change the emotional end result for viewers."

Your reaction is what I was afraid of with the system they used. Probably made my job of getting people to try XGB doubly difficult.
Best I see it before making more comments
 
Hey Luke,

I'm just watching it now... I made my way through the first match (barely). I fast forwarded to the 9th frame of the women's final just to see who won and right now I'm struggling to find the motivation to watch the start of the men's. Only reason I am is Belmo is on the lanes.

Couple of observations...

Firstly the way the format plays for the pros will be completely different than if this was applied elsewhere. After every ball the in centre commentator is keeping the crowd updated on what is happening. I'm not sure that same "game status" would be obvious in a local centre for comp or social play without someone holding their hand through it.

Secondly its rare that at least 1 out of 2 pros didn't strike, it took sparing completely out of the match. I personally didn't enjoy that.

Lastly I thought Sandra Anderson bowled better in game 1 and lost. The commentators agreed with that. If this format was to take over as the dominant format would that be ideal?

My opinion only.
 
Couple of things,
A 12 frame points game does not offer the same opportunity to build tension and drama compared to the build up available in (points in games) and (games in sets) in a match, which can be far more engaging and entertaining.
The commentators did little differently to their normal to engage the viewer. I'm sure they could exploit the fact that you always know , "who is winning and by exactly how much". That makes a huge difference with casual viewers who dont normally follow Bowling. Bowling now has an opportunity with points matches, to convert these casual viewers into fans of the sport. That has never been possible with traditional scoring.
I dont agree how the scoring almost eliminates spares from the game, thats not how my system goes.
I dont like that you can lose a match with a frame count exactly the same as your opponent, (their tied frame) again thats not how my system goes.
 
If the WTBA are going to pursue an alternative scoring system I like the format of
- Strike 2 points
- Spare 1 point
- Open frame 0 points
Obviously the winner has the highest points accrued at games end and doesn't eliminate sparing out of the game and makes every frame accountable. So for example a 300 game gets maximum 24 points. ( 12 strikes). If it's tied up then a roll off occurs. Anyway it's an idea a lot easier to follow & understand.
 
If the WTBA are going to pursue an alternative scoring system I like the format of
- Strike 2 points
- Spare 1 point
- Open frame 0 points
Obviously the winner has the highest points accrued at games end and doesn't eliminate sparing out of the game and makes every frame accountable. So for example a 300 game gets maximum 24 points. ( 12 strikes). If it's tied up then a roll off occurs. Anyway it's an idea a lot easier to follow & understand.
According to the sports psych books I have read, the most successful sports scoring, breaks the game into smaller parts, where mini wins can be followed and engaged by both player and spectator. eg six tackles in NRL, 1/4s in AFL, 4th Down rule in Gridiron, Par in Golf or Game/Set/Match in Tennis. In each instance, players and spectators can much more easily feel the emotion of winning or losing.
I feel, part of the reason the recent bowling telecast failed to inspire was because of this lack of mini results to capture the viewers interest.
World Tennis is a very popular prime time sport where fans watch matches that continue for hours with players and spectators engaged in the competition for the entire match, yet if you turn the sound off and cover the scoring, it becomes very boring very quickly. I'm convinced tennis as a spectator sport, is considerably enhanced by the way it is scored and far less by the way it is played.
This is the reason I went for a tennis type scoring, because of all the ways you can score sport, tennis enhances the action better than any other method.
Bowling is almost universally liked, but we are failing to inspire the masses, by changing to a scoring system which has proven ability to engage players and spectators, we would greatly enhance the chances of growing the sport.
 
Well I thought once that on this web site one had to pay for promoting a business venture, sell/market a product...or table a commodity. God know I had to - but apparently it's not the case now.
 
Sorry you have a problem with this Steve/Amagill.
FWIW I'm trying to change Bowling for the better, profit was never the driver
 
Back
Top Bottom