When did bowling become a battlefield between new and old?

[Aslan]

I got to thinking recently, and thought I'd pose this as a question.

I just started bowling again in August 2013. I had bowled a little as a kid. And I saw a transition when I was younger as traditional strokers playing up the 2nd arrow...slowly you saw the emergence of synthetic lanes and "crankers" and urethane balls, etc... But I never saw too much disagreement. Bowling was bowling. Everyone sorta did it the same way, with similar equipment...at least from what I witnessed. And it seemed like everyone taught it the same. Shoulders square, bent knee, "handshake with the ceiling", etc...

Fast forward...present day....now it seems like the game is very different. Or is it? Sometimes I play and it seems like it's the same ole game with strokers and tweeners and everyone playing the 2nd arrow...the balls are more reactive and colorful (some even smell)...but it seems like the same game.

But....then you go online...or you go to clinics...and you start hearing about how the game is evolving to 2-handed bowling. Suddenly thumbless bowlers are in your league rather than just playing "cosmic bowling" like they used to. There's arguements about "tri-grip" and whether it's anything worthwhile or the same ole same ole. Some instructors are still teaching the "old ways" while other instructors are trying to "re-invent" bowling by teaching modern approaches/swings/releases.

And with each of these new techniques...there appears to be a "battle" over whether old timer strokers still have a place in the game...other than to live out their existence and then fade away. Old skool single ball bags (the old 70s vinyl/leather ones) have given way to 9-ball roller bags. Adjusting your approach/speed/realease has given way to "arsenals" where you just change to a different ball instead. One minute you're being taught to stand straight and tall to post....the next minute you're being taught to drop your shoulder....and the whole time the 2-handed crowd is laughing and saying, "I don't know why you guys don't just switch to 2-handed."

So, this isn't meant to start a war over whats best or worst or whatever. It's more of a question for those that have been around it for some time....has it always been this way? Did the first "cranker" cause the same stir back then? Were there different grips or approaches or releases back then that were tauted as being THE best new thing? Will there ever be consensus?

And more technically speaking....has anything from back in the 60s and 70s...has anything they used to do been PROVEN to be ineffective?? We hear all the time about straight up vs spine tilt or inside to outside release versus up the side of the ball release. And many coaches that now have interesting new approaches or realeases...they seem to feel that their approach is THE best approach and the future of the sport. Does that not imply that the more traditional approaches should be thrown out??

[Aslan]

As a quick personal story/note:

I started out in August with a hinge type first motion, bending forward at the foul line (spine tilt) and dropping my right (right handed) shoulder...then posting to a straight up position...hand up the outside of the ball.

By September, coaching had me get rid of spine tilt, stand straight up...shoulders level.

By December, additional coaching had me abandon the hinge movement for a more traditional (push to the target outward) initial ball movement, get lower...still no spine tilt....still level shoulders.

And now as I enter February...new lessons/techniques seem to point back to a "hinge" initial ball movement, add spine tilt, and go back to dropping the right shoulder.

So it's been an interesting journey. And a frustrating journey. And I've sort of abandoned (or at least postponed) the idea that there IS a "perfect approach/swing/release". I think I'll absorb it all, like a sponge, and pick and choose the parts that seem to work best for me. Maybe combine them into a whole NEW style that will someday be touted as THE way to bowl. Probably not. But I just have to be careful that I give each of these styles/improvements enough time to truly "give them a chance". Sometimes new techniques take some time to feel good...and I have to fight the urge to abandon them immediately.

Last Friday I had a HORRIBLE night. And after a game and a half...on one of the lanes...I decided to move inside. Well...lets just say it didn't go well. And I wanted to move back outside and play that 3-board SOOOOO bad....but I didn't. I kept trying...trying to find that spot inside. I even made a ball change (which I have virtually never done in this league) to try and get it to come back to the pocket. Did I finally figure it out and my 3rd game was a 299???? Nope. But I sorta figured it out and the 3rd game was about 7 pins under my average. But I DIDN'T give up.

[sprocket]

I think most of the PBA stars of the past on a THS would probably average 230+. Using modern balls, of course. It's only at the highest level, on the toughest patterns that they would be at a disadvantage. Bo Burton just rolled 878 at age 71. He's about as old school as you can get.

Hey, yes I bowl thumbless but my focus is always on basic fundamental stuff. Get my body pointed down the target line. Stay on line. Release smoothly. Post the shot. Move when needed. Make my spares.

[mc_runner]

I think it's all part of the evolution of the game. I haven't been bowling long enough to say for sure, but when balls started becoming more reactive, lanes/oil started changing... I'm thinking there were probably similar grumblings amongst the old-school "purists". I think 2 handed, thumbless, etc is simply another evolution in the game, and it will continue to change. Who knows what the next one will be after 2-handed?

Also, as with the other changes in the past, the USBC/lanes/equipment will also continue to adapt. The better bowlers will adapt with it while others might struggle.

[Pauley]

To me it is very similar to golf. Different instructors teach different things and there are many different teaching philosophies that are believed, by those who teach them, to be the end all best way to do it no matter who the student is. The true answer in bowling and golf there is no perfect way to do it that fits everyone. Each individual bowler has their own personal perfect form, the key is finding an instructor that will teach the individual and not teach his way to the individual. Granted there are many basic fundamentals that can be applied to different people, but you can't be that great of a coach if all you do is teach one way to anyone who walks in the door.

I started out thumbless when I bowled as a kid, and until last fall when I would bowl a couple times a year I would bowl thumbless. I decided to get serious and felt for me personally I wanted to start using my thumb because I felt it would pay off and make me a more consistent bowler. I felt I lacked the wrist and forearm strength to stay consistent and fatigue free bowling thumbless. Does that mean that I think sprocket does not bowl correctly, or cheating, or flat out don't respect him? Absolutely not, he bowls the way that brings out his own personal best potential. If I recall he just bowled an 800+ series, and I don't care what you are doing that takes some flat out skill. Belmonte just won his second major against the best bowlers in the world, does the fact it was 2-handed mean it deserves an * next to his title... NO. He found a way to do it, and do it against the best of the best.

People fear change, IMHO

[swingset]

It's all just part of any human activity. Go back to 1940's bowling, when post WWII prosperity made it explode and it became the game of young people and blue-collar workers the world over, and the old timers when were probably wailing that the new automatic pinsetters sped the game up too much, and the new equipment was ruining the game.

It's all just hot air, really. Things change, games evolve.

They almost never stop to take note of someone nostalgic and bitter.

[RobLV1]

Aslan, you continue to amaze me. This is a great thread! How right you are about new styles and old styles, and what's right and what's wrong. All I can tell you is that so much of it depends on what you want out of the sport. Permit me to give you an example.

Today I bowled in my Travel League at a bowling center where I have rarely bowled. I took 5 balls, plus a plastic spare ball, and I used 4 of them. I shot 201-195-235. By the end of the last game, I was standing 37 (coincidentally where I stand to pick up the ten pin), crossing the arrows at about 18, going out to 12. I was throwing the ball as hard and straight up the back as I possible could.

Another bowler on my team redefines the word "traditionalist." He used one ball, a new Brunswick Mastermind that should have been way to much ball for the lane condition. I say should have been as he shot 730-something. During the last game he said to me that the lanes were really breaking down and that he had moved two boards. He was standing 23, hitting 10. I told him that I had moved 12 boards! He looked at me with a quizical expression on his face.

Now, the point is that he is happy being a league bowler who is able to average 210+ on a house condition. I'm not happy with that. I want to be able to bowl on any pattern that is thrown at me and be able to adjust. So, while he beat me by about 100 pins today (thankfully he's on my team), I was very pleased with the fact that my high game was the one where I had to play the deepest. Could I beat him by 100 pins on a tournament condition? We'll never know, because he'll never bowl on one. Again, it's all about what each of wants in terms of our own bowling goals.

[kakcpa]

New Style.....biggest hook you will ever see...Tom Daugherty

http://youtu.be/TZ9JbvClnZA

[Aslan]

Aslan, you continue to amaze me. This is a great thread! How right you are about new styles and old styles, and what's right and what's wrong.
I can never tell if you're being sarcastic. I figured you'd hate this thread. IDK.


Now, the point is that he is happy being a league bowler who is able to average 210+ on a house condition. I'm not happy with that. I want to be able to bowl on any pattern that is thrown at me and be able to adjust. So, while he beat me by about 100 pins today (thankfully he's on my team), I was very pleased with the fact that my high game was the one where I had to play the deepest. Could I beat him by 100 pins on a tournament condition? We'll never know, because he'll never bowl on one. Again, it's all about what each of wants in terms of our own bowling goals.

Rob…I never thought I'd say this….but you and I are starting to be very similar. Permit me, to give my example:

I learned to throw the ball on wood lanes. I can "chuck" it…around the 10-board…high speed…and it's inconsistent…but I can score pretty well. And since thats where I play my league…many people would say I should just DO that. I might be able to raise my league average to nearly 190. A lot of the other players throw that way and do quite well.

But see, I learned how to play differently, to lay it down, to roll it, to try and work on my release and cut down on my speed…because when I play outside my house…that "chucking it" style…doesn't work. And unlike 95% of my league…I don't plan on just playing in that one house 1-2 times a week for the rest of my life. I want to get better…and I personally believe that if you GET better…you should challenge yourself and enter tournaments or maybe play in scratch leagues. Nothing is more pathetic than a bowler averaging 227 and bowling 4 '300' games a season…but he never steps foot in a different center…never plays in a tournament…never challenges themselves.

Today in practice, I experimented with 3-step and 5-step approaches. I try to play inside whenever I can (even though I'm horrible at it). Why? To get better.

So…in this one instance…I actually completely understand where Rob M. is coming from. Now if I can just figure out Iceman…thats the next challenge.

[dpatrickv]

Personally, I dont think it is anybodies place to tell anyone else what is technically right or wrong in bowling. If somebody wants to bowl thumbless and is content with that then people should accept that, same with two handed. There is too many people out there whining and complaining about how this or that isn't right or that its cheating or whatever. If somebody wants to get better and have larger goals then cool, but they shouldn't be chastised or hung for bowling in a manner that others dislike.

[J Anderson]

Personally, I dont think it is anybodies place to tell anyone else what is technically right or wrong in bowling. If somebody wants to bowl thumbless and is content with that then people should accept that, same with two handed. There is too many people out there whining and complaining about how this or that isn't right or that its cheating or whatever. If somebody wants to get better and have larger goals then cool, but they should be chastised or hung for bowling in a manner that others dislike.

"If somebody wants to get better and have larger goals then cool, but they should be chastised or hung for bowling in a manner that others dislike."

Did you forget a not in there somewhere?

[tccstudent]

Are we gonna start having some bowling lynchings

[dpatrickv]

Why yes...Yes I did forget a "not" in there. Haha

[Aslan]

Personally, I dont think it is anybodies place to tell anyone else what is technically right or wrong in bowling. If somebody wants to bowl thumbless and is content with that then people should accept that, same with two handed. There is too many people out there whining and complaining about how this or that isn't right or that its cheating or whatever. If somebody wants to get better and have larger goals then cool, but they shouldn't be chastised or hung for bowling in a manner that others dislike.

I actually agree dpatrickv. I PERSONALLY don't like 2-handed bowling. I don't even really like thumbless bowling. And there's a lot of modern bowling concepts I'm not really a fan of. But I've never said it's illegal or cheating. It's just my opinion. I've actually experienced the other side of what you're talking about where I'll say something like, "I don't like Belmonte...he bowls 2-handed." And I'll get people coming out of the woodwork saying, "Whats your problem man!!? Who are YOU to say what the right way to bowl is!??" Again...it's my opinion. I'm not starting a movement or a lynching or a writing letters to the USBC. I just personally don't like it and root against it. It's just personal opinion.

Doesn't mean I'm not "impressed" by a guy like Belmonte. I've said this before...but to me what really makes Belmonte stand out is he throws a very inconsistent style (2-handed) but is able to find his mark/spot/line and hit it with absolute accuracy. And he's able to make minor changes throughout the match. I've watched other 2-handed bowlers and when they are "on"....they are unbeatable. But when they are "off"....they're abysmal. I watched a kid in a tournament recently. I threw a 530-540 series on the lane next to him. He ended up shooting something like a 595. But I beat him easily in Games 1 and 2. He was all over the place...switching balls like mad...leaving weird washout spares. But in game 3...he was 1 frame away from a 300. Once he found his "groove"...he was automatic. And so long as he didn't leave spares, his "weakness" (spare shooting) didn't come into play. And thats why Belmonte is so special. It doesn't take him 2 frames (much less 2 games) to make those adjustments. And when he (Belmonte) does leave a spare...he's >90% at picking it up.

[tccstudent]

Personally I love Belmonte and love watching what he can make the ball do. If I could do it I would. but I already have a good foundation bowling the way I do and dont need to go and completely change everything when all I need is a tweak here and there. I think he brings excitement to the sport by showing something different then what all the "Traditional" bowlers on tour are doing.

[swingset]

I say we go back to rubber and wood, like it's supposed to be.

http://designyoutrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Women-Bowling-ca.-1900-2-650x833.jpg

[tccstudent]

Why dont we just go back to stone

I was trying to put a fred flintsone bowling picture up but I cant figure it out

[Aslan]

That is a fugly woman.

[larry mc]

I have a crazy looking style and people will comment and sometimes laugh at it , until i whup their butts , I say the best style is the 1 that works for u ,

[Mudpuppy]

That is a fugly woman.

Yes indeed - we are truly blessed nowadays with much better looking women. Thank God. That is why there were more alcoholics back then.


I have a crazy looking style and people will comment and sometimes laugh at it , until i whup their butts , I say the best style is the 1 that works for u ,

Exactly - what works for you is what you should roll with.

[mc_runner]

I say we go back to rubber and wood, like it's supposed to be.



Don't forget what appears to be only 2 holes in each ball. Beautiful form there, the hand on the knee at release has fallen out of style!

[Hammer]

It all boils down to how good you want to be and how far you want to get into bowling. There is a lot of info out there on how to bowl the modern way. What you have to do is pick out what is best for you. Does the modern approach work for you or the old school way?
Which way works better for the modern balls with their high tech cores and surfaces? What you have to do is find a technique that works for you and that you are happy with. Maybe you don't want to play deep but more straight up the boards over the second arrow and you find a ball that works great for this. Maybe instead of an 8 bowling arsenal you want to get away with only 2 balls that work great for you on whatever pattern you always bowl on. Maybe you are happy with staying on a THS pattern instead of going on all of those other patterns. There is nothing wrong with this. Pick your own style that works for you and practice that. You can't cookie-cutter yourself into something you cannot be. We are all different and can be good with our own style or technique. We just have to practice that and become good at it. But what you must remember is that there are parts of technique that must be done right to be good at this game.

[RobLV1]

Hammer's right! Perhaps you want a car that gets 52 mpg and goes from 0 to 60 in 4.2 seconds. Perhaps you want to put your money in a bank account that will earn you 15% interest. Perhaps you want to eat everything you could ever want and not weight 480 pounds. Perhaps you want to smoke three packs of cigarettes a day and not die of lung cancer. All you have to do is take all of the money from your bank account that earns 15% interest, get into your car that gets 52 mpg and goes from 0 to 60 in 4.2 seconds, head down to the local MacDonalds and wolf down 15 quarter pounders with extra cheese, all while you puff away on your cigarettes that can't possible cause lung cancer. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.... Or you could play the obidient ostrich and bury your head in the sand while you practice improving your technique hitting the second arrow, watching your steroidal bowling ball burn up at 40 feet, leaving weak 10 pins all night long. Your choice. Go for it!

[Aslan]

I'm 97% sure that was sarcasm. :roll eyes:

So Rob, are you disputing Hammer and claiming that it is NOT possible for a bowler to get to the "next level" if they choose NOT to embrace your modern bowling principles such as the inside to outside release, large ball arsenal, etc??

I'm just trying to peel back the sarcasm to see where you actually stand on this.

For example: Some might say that since nearly 100% of pro bowlers have graduated to modern or at least transitional approaches/releases…that it's a "no brainer". However, I'm not aware of more than 2 pros that bowl 2-handed nor ANY pro bowler that bowls thumbless. So if we simply use the logic, "do it because the pros do it and they know whats best." What would we say to a thumbless bowler?

(a bowler that bowls thumbless…not a bowler that lacks thumbs…although I guess it's 6 of one a half dozen of the other.

[GoodGravy]

Interesting Thread.

Here is my story: I bowl a Tuesday night doubles league with a guy who is about as old school as they get. He used to be a big shot back in the late 70's/early 80's (?) with the Bud King of the Hill Series. According to him, he actually won a TV tournament back in the day (what he says...). He is a good enough guy, so I have no reason not to believe him.

I asked him to bowl with me just to help him get out of the house on a weeknight, and he agreed. Needless to say, watching him bowl brings back memories of the old ABC Firestone Championships!! He refuses to go fingertip and only throws over the 5 board so he can 'walk' his ball into the pocket. Now the killer of it is that he is deadly accurate, so he can pull it off most nights.

I was finally able to talk him into discussing his game with one of our old timer pro shop ball drillers. They chatted for about an hour, and he had him drill out a new Cyclone with a fairly neutral drill out (and yes, no inserts and conventional grip). Anyhow, we bowled yesterday and he was all stoked talking about how he was going to show everybody how to actually bowl without using all the 'rigged' balls that are used now.

He actually did pretty good, which I was grateful for since I like to win, and bowled his high game for the season (207). The funny thing about it was that I had a pretty good game also, and with my 'rigged' fingertip with inserts and a balance hole Freakin' Frantic throwing from about the 35 board over the 15 board and break point around 5-7, I hit 240 (not my high game for the season by the way). I also bowled a little back in the day (not at his level though), but somehow I have been able to accept the 'new' game, and I would say done pretty well by it.

So the long and the short of it is that I think you can stay 'old school', but my experience has been you are going to really be selling yourself short if you don't figure out the newer styles. I'm not saying that everybody should run out to the next Belmo instruction class, but it might be worthwhile to just take a look at what is going on in the sport....

[J Anderson]

The rules are still the same and the playing 'field' looks the same but the game of bowling has changed drastically in the last 40 years. It used to be that it was very difficult to get the ball in the pocket at what is now known to be the optimal angle. Good amateur bowlers averaged in the 160s, the high average in my league back then was almost always <190. 220 was considered a great game and we rarely saw anyone shoot higher than 230. Making spares was imperative.

With the changes in balls and lane conditions, strikes are much easier to get. If you cannot put strikes together you will lose. Spares are still important but only because getting spares in between your doubles, triples, etc. gives you a higher score than leaving opens.

[RobLV1]

I'm 97% sure that was sarcasm. :roll eyes:

So Rob, are you disputing Hammer and claiming that it is NOT possible for a bowler to get to the "next level" if they choose NOT to embrace your modern bowling principles such as the inside to outside release, large ball arsenal, etc??

I'm just trying to peel back the sarcasm to see where you actually stand on this.

For example: Some might say that since nearly 100% of pro bowlers have graduated to modern or at least transitional approaches/releases…that it's a "no brainer". However, I'm not aware of more than 2 pros that bowl 2-handed nor ANY pro bowler that bowls thumbless. So if we simply use the logic, "do it because the pros do it and they know whats best." What would we say to a thumbless bowler?

(a bowler that bowls thumbless…not a bowler that lacks thumbs…although I guess it's 6 of one a half dozen of the other.

I prefer to think of it as verbal irony. They're not "my" modern bowling principles. The changes in the bowling environment including synthetic lanes (which were developed, by the way, simply as a way for bowling centers to save money on insuring flammable wooden lanes), reactive resin bowling balls, pins with the center of gravity raised to the point that they fall over if you look at them hard, and the fact that bowling's governing body has chosen to ignore its responsibility for protecting the integrity of the game, have dictated what we, as modern bowlers must do if we want to raise our averages to the maximum possible given our physical potential.

You're right in saying that there are only two professional bowlers at this point in time who use a two handed style, though Tom Smallwood has shown us that there are intermediate styles that incorporate some of the two handed principles. Given the total domination that Jason Belmonte is demonstrating, I truly believe that 15 years from now two handed bowling will be the norm at the top levels unless it is banned at some point by either the PBA or the USBC. As to what to say to a thumbless bowler, I would say that power is only part of the equation, and that to be successful they need to figure out a way to incorporate accuracy as well. That, by the way, is why two handed bowling is here to stay: it allows thumbless bowlers to be accurate.

Please forgive me if I occasionally show my frustration in these forums. I have dedicated many years of my life to becoming a student of the game to try and help bowlers improve their games. Please understand that professionally, I coach predominately 200+ average bowlers, some of whom bowl at the PBA Regional level. I think that you can probably see how frustrating it becomes when recreational bowlers ask for advice and then turn around and argue when I give it to them. Perhaps the problem is in defining the "next level." If you currently average 160 and your ultimate goal is to average 180, then bowl however you want: thumbless, blindfolded, or yes, even backwards. If, however, there is any possibility that you might, at some point, want to get really good, able to compete at the highest levels on the most challenging lane conditions, then you might as well start learning the modern fundamentals now because the longer you choose to ignore them, the harder it will be to learn them later.

[Hampe]

So Rob, are you disputing Hammer and claiming that it is NOT possible for a bowler to get to the "next level" if they choose NOT to embrace your modern bowling principles such as the inside to outside release, large ball arsenal, etc??Not sure it that's what Rob is saying, but if it isn't then I'LL say it. It does depend on what you mean by the "next level" though. If you are talking about making a living by bowling, well, now a days, yes you pretty much HAVE to incorporate many facets of the "modern" game if you want to have any chance at all. On today's lanes, the modern style will beat out the old school style simply because they have a (even if only slightly) better strike/carry percentage. This is the same reason why many more pros in the future will probably be bowling 2 handed.

If you're talking about just making the PBA, well, there are 4000 members, and scores of examples among them of guys kind of doing their own thing (with modern and old school styles). You'll probably never see those guys making TV finals, but they've still bowled tens of thousands of hours with their style and are good enough to make the PBA. But there IS a reason why 90% of the guys you always see on TV nowadays are the same ones that could be held up as shining examples of the modern game.

Now if your "next level" is to just average 200+, put up respectable scores at regional tournaments, and just be one of the better amateur bowlers in your area, then no, you don't HAVE to incorporate the "modern" style of bowling or have a huge arsenal of bowling balls. At that level, any style will work as long as you can consistently repeat the same shot over and over.

[EDIT] - I see Rob answered while I was still typing, but as I suspected, we have similar views when it comes to this discussion. :)

[sprocket]

Once again: Bo Burton = old school= 71 years old = 878.

We really can't just throw that "old school" term out there and then not define it. Does Bo Burton throw a full roller? No. How about a spinner? No. Does he only play his favorite line? Highly doubtful. Does he use a conventional grip? No; semi-fingertip I believe. Does he only use old equipment? Highly doubtful.

Does he play the inside of the ball? Not drastically if it all. Does he have high RPM or ball speed? No.

But he has a fundamentally sound textbook game that has stood the test of time. He was great 40 years ago and he's great today. With the SAME GAME.

Look, I bowl thumbless and I'm still going to argue all day long that if you define old school the way I do, then old school is going to work just fine except at MAYBE the very highest level which 99% of us will never achieve.

[RobLV1]

Once again: Bo Burton = old school= 71 years old = 878.

We really can't just throw that "old school" term out there and then not define it. Does Bo Burton throw a full roller? No. But most likely he did back in the 60's and 70's, but he changed. How about a spinner? No. Traditional good bowlers never threw spinners unless they came from Korea. Then and now only lousy bowlers throw spinners. Does he only play his favorite line? Of course not, he was not a house bowler then, and he's not a house bowler now. He's a professional, and professionals know how to adjust, though I'll be willing to bet that his adjustments are different now than they were back in the 70's. Highly doubtful. Does he use a conventional grip? No; semi-fingertip I believe. Does he only use old equipment? Back then they didn't have reactive equipment. If they had, he would have used it then, just as he uses it now. Highly doubtful.

Does he play the inside of the ball? Not drastically if it all. Does he have high RPM or ball speed? No.

But he has a fundamentally sound textbook game that has stood the test of time. He was great 40 years ago and he's great today. With the SAME GAME. You're right that he was great 40 years ago and he's great today, but obviously he had the fundamentals which he has adapted to the modern game to the degree that he has had to. My point is to the bowlers who don't have the fundamentals are are wasting their time learning all of the traditional fundamentals including those that are no longer relevant. If a bowler is coming over the top of the ball and needs to learn the fundamental technique of staying behind the ball, is it really any harder learning to stay behind the ball from the inside lower quadrant? I really don't think so. Many of the bowlers who rant and rave about not learning modern fundamentals in fact don't want to spend the time to learn any fundamentals at all.

Look, I bowl thumbless and I'm still going to argue all day long that if you define old school the way I do, then old school is going to work just fine except at MAYBE the very highest level which 99% of us will never achieve Make it 100% if you aren't willing to work at it.

[dpatrickv]

For example: Some might say that since nearly 100% of pro bowlers have graduated to modern or at least transitional approaches/releases…that it's a "no brainer". However, I'm not aware of more than 2 pros that bowl 2-handed nor ANY pro bowler that bowls thumbless. So if we simply use the logic, "do it because the pros do it and they know whats best." What would we say to a thumbless bowler?


Actually there is a number of thumbless and 2 handed pba pros out there. A thumbless one actually won the 2012 scorpion open(Tom Daughtery)

[Aslan]

With the changes in balls and lane conditions, strikes are much easier to get. If you cannot put strikes together you will lose. Spares are still important but only because getting spares in between your doubles, triples, etc. gives you a higher score than leaving opens.

I agree with that. It's actually depressing to me when I go out there and bowl a clean game and don't break 200. Then I see a guy with two open frames and he bowls 220-240. I agree, I think as scores have risen due to the equipment and oil pattern changes, running strikes together is imperative...especially at the higher levels. But I would still contend that in most leagues and lower level tournaments, even regional levels...90% of the time spare shooting is the determining factor.


Given the total domination that Jason Belmonte is demonstrating, I truly believe that 15 years from now two handed bowling will be the norm at the top levels unless it is banned at some point by either the PBA or the USBC. As to what to say to a thumbless bowler, I would say that power is only part of the equation, and that to be successful they need to figure out a way to incorporate accuracy as well. That, by the way, is why two handed bowling is here to stay: it allows thumbless bowlers to be accurate.
I guess it's semantics on what is "dominant". Walter Ray is "dominant". Earl Anthony was "dominant". Dick Weber was "dominannt". Some would argue Pete Weber is "dominant"...or even Norm Duke. You seem to discount "titles". Jason Belmonte isn't in the top FIFTY...in titles.

Now, the reason I think...Jason Belmonte is the best bowler RIGHT NOW....is:

1) He accomplished in 5 years what it took Wes Malott to accomplish in 12 and what it took Gary Dickinson to accomplish in 11.
2) I think on any given day, he is capable of beating any player in the World...more so than any other bowler.

The reason I'm still skeptical is:
1) Most all-time greats have had to adapt their game over time to stay dominant. He has not.
2) There are serious biomechanical questions as to whether 2-handed bowling is physically sustainable over time.
3) His PBA average in the high 220s is NOT that much different than any other bowler in the modern era. His 240-250 average that he's enjoying early in 2014...is likely not going to stand throughout the entire season.


Please forgive me if I occasionally show my frustration in these forums. I have dedicated many years of my life to becoming a student of the game to try and help bowlers improve their games. Please understand that professionally, I coach predominately 200+ average bowlers, some of whom bowl at the PBA Regional level. I think that you can probably see how frustrating it becomes when recreational bowlers ask for advice and then turn around and argue when I give it to them. Perhaps the problem is in defining the "next level." If you currently average 160 and your ultimate goal is to average 180, then bowl however you want: thumbless, blindfolded, or yes, even backwards. If, however, there is any possibility that you might, at some point, want to get really good, able to compete at the highest levels on the most challenging lane conditions, then you might as well start learning the modern fundamentals now because the longer you choose to ignore them, the harder it will be to learn them later.

Rob...as I eluded to in another thread....I completely understand this. I personally have seen it with other high level bowlers as well. And maybe it's natural that the better you get at something the less tolerant you become. But realize sometimes the difference between winning over a bowler and a potential fan and a potential salesperson and a potential witness and a potential etc... is simply the way you state the response. Especially in bowling where people learned how to do it 40 years ago...and many will NEVER bowl outside their local center. You're right...alot is about audience...and in bowling forums that audience varies greatly.

How many times have I heard people state the NEED for arsenals and how crucial it is for varying lane conditions and when oil breaks down and how every pro would agree. Then you ask that bowler how many different centers they bowl at and they say, "Oh. I only bowl at my one center twice a week." Really? So that person needs 7-9 bowling balls? On the off chance that what...the oil machine gets set to "random"?? And like YOU have said in your articles...how silly is it to have an arsenal and make 3 ball changes a series yet not know WHY?? I've seen it.

To me...the most important thing we should add to a person's bio or signature...that would help this kind of thing...is a little spot where a person can enter their GOALS. So if Rob M. sees a post by a gal who has the goal of a 170 average he can respond differently than to a gal who has the goal of winning the USBC Open. Beucase I'm willing to bet....the advice will be much different depending on those goals. Sometimes similar. But a lot of times different.

My goal this season was to play in my first league...to bowl in ONE low level tournament...to try and bowl a clean game 525+ series EVERY game...and to finish the season with a 190+ average (started at 121). Well...lets just say I accomplished 2 of the 3...but that 190 average in 24 weeks was a bit aggressive...so I'm hoping for a 170+ with only 6 weeks left in the season and a 166 average presently. Those are MY goals. As I get better...those goals will change. I'll never be in the PBA. I'll never be on TV. The BEST I could hope for would be to bowl in a PBA event or USBC Open....YEARS down the road. Bowl in...not dominate. Participate. Maybe a 300 game and an 800 series someday...before I die.

[dpatrickv]

I guess it's semantics on what is "dominant". Walter Ray is "dominant". Earl Anthony was "dominant". Dick Weber was "dominannt". Some would argue Pete Weber is "dominant"...or even Norm Duke. You seem to discount "titles". Jason Belmonte isn't in the top FIFTY...in titles.

And you seem to discount "time". Belmonte has been on the tour for SIX years. Walter Ray has been on tour for THIRTY FOUR. WRW has averaged 1.3 titles a year. Belmonte has averaged 1.3 titles a year(8 titles in 6 years). Earl Anthony was active for 36 years, with 41 titles.

It's almost borderline irritating on some of your comparisons. You cannot even begin to compare most of the bowlers on the top 50 list and and a guy who has been around 6 years. If you do you have to make the comparison fair, and not just say "HE HASNT EVEN CRACKED THE TOP 50!"(And to be honest, in terms of titles, he is in the top 50 as there are plenty who are tied together.)

Also, to say that Dick Weber was dominant and then hesitate to include PDW is just asinine.

[dpatrickv]

One last thing....in the first 6 years:
WRW had 3 titles.
Norm Duke had 1 title
PBIII had 5 titles
PDW had 4

[Aslan]

It's almost borderline irritating on some of your comparisons. You cannot even begin to compare most of the bowlers on the top 50 list and and a guy who has been around 6 years. If you do you have to make the comparison fair, and not just say "HE HASNT EVEN CRACKED THE TOP 50!"(And to be honest, in terms of titles, he is in the top 50 as there are plenty who are tied together.)

Is it fair to compare him to Wes Malott or Chris Barnes or Parker Bohn or Sean Rash?? So by your logic, whoever has the "hot hand" is hands down the best bowler ever? Bowling is measured in TITLES. The reason for that is guys like Anthony and Williams have amassed those titles on various conditions and formats over many years...proving their dominance. Belmonte has "proven" that he's a young bowler with a hot hand and possibly a bright future. Thats IT. Thats IT. He won 7 titles in 5 years. Thats great. The only GUARANTEE is....if he stops at 8....nobody will give a flying **** who he was or what he did. He will be an afterthought. Lets table this discussion until he's hit 20 titles and then revisit it. Anything less than that....to crown him King BEFORE then...is just fans talking trash to support their FAV.

Also, you have to realize there are differences now in terms to what the PBA is. Back in the old days, it was a sport open to lots of bowlers. If you were making the finals it was because you beat out a LOT of people to get there. Frome 2004 to 2011 (or 2010?) the tour was an "exempt" tour which meant the same roughly 30-40 bowlers competed each week meaning they were more likely to win because the field was so small. Fortunately they got rid of that in 2010 or 2011.

And it's not just "titles". Iceman praised Belmonte and his "Player of the Year" status...which he has won once. WRW won it 7 times!! Mika has won it twice! Parker Bohn has won it twice! And you act like they never won it with Belmo in the league...both Mika and WRW won it while Belmo was in the league!!

Like I said, I think Belmo has the hot hand. I think the PBA has a vested interest in these strugling times to make sure they "squeeze him in" any possible TV match. I think 2-handed bowling has helped grow the sport at the youth level. I can go on and on with my praise of Belmo. But if you want me to with a straight face nominate him for the PBA Hall of Fame because he was player of the year last year and won the first tournament of 2014....you're beyond nuts!! There are a LOT of bowlers that spent the better part of the last 3 decades to establish themselves as truly GREAT....and I don't just "bump" them because the new guy with the accent has a hot hand.

[dpatrickv]

My point is you are completely discounting Belmo's accomplishments when you shouldn't be. He has been on tour since 2008 and has won more than ANY other bowler in that time span(Look it up). Belmo has been more dominant in his first 5 years than the vast majority of PBA hall of famers have been in any 5 year span.


And it's not just "titles". Iceman praised Belmonte and his "Player of the Year" status...which he has won once. WRW won it 7 times!! Mika has won it twice! Parker Bohn has won it twice! And you act like they never won it with Belmo in the league...both Mika and WRW won it while Belmo was in the league!!

You have seriously got to stop comparing Belmo to people who have been on tour for 20 years. Mika won it twice? Spectacular, hes been on tour for what...15 years? PBIII has won it twice? Great, he's also been on tour 29 years. My point is you are comparing a guy who has been on tour for just over 5 years to guys who have been on tour for 2/3/4/5 times that long and trying to compare things like titles and POY awards. It's asinine man. Nobody is saying Belmo is the best bowler to have ever lived(Hell, he's far from my favorite all time bowler) but he is a force to be reckoned with and is immensely talented. Your severe dislike of his bowling style blinds you to his accomplishments. You don't need to like the guy or his style but to be blindly ignorant of how good and dominant he currently is is just ridiculous.

[Aslan]

I don't know if your picking and choosing what you are reading or what. You must be related to Bowl1820 because he does the same thing when I compliment him 19 times and criticize him once...he completely ignores the compliments and whines that I'm saying negative things about him.

I have REPEATEDLY said that I think he's the best player on the tour RIGHT NOW. I think he's the best player RIGHT NOW. I also have went on record saying it is HIS SKILL level...not his style...that allows him to be SO successful as a 2-handed bowler.

So...since you apparently have selective viewing clicked "on"....I will just end it there...he's my personal hero...my personal lover...I invented an ice cream flavor in his honor...I just switched to 2-handed and immediately added 314 pins to my average....and I'm wearing a pair of his underwear I stole from a laundrymat <-------- BEFORE he washed them...YES!!

So there...greatest now, greatest ever...and maybe now we can move on from talking about him constantly.

[Hampe]

I think he's the best player RIGHT NOW. I also have went on record saying it is HIS SKILL level...not his style...that allows him to be SO successful as a 2-handed bowler.And that's where you are wrong. You refuse to acknowledge that the 2 handed game gives players an inherent advantage. Just like how the modern one-handed approach has an inherent advantage over the old school style. It's all about strike percentage and pin carry, and with more speed and revs generated by the 2 handed release Belmo has an advantage over all the one handed players on tour. I don't know how you have missed this, since they mention it every single telecast where he is involved.....

Now, he obviously also has great skill (ALL PBA players do). That's what differentiates him from Joe Blow-2 Hander at your local alley who started bowling 2 handed 3 years ago after he saw Belmo do it. Jason's been bowling 2 handed his whole life. Just wait until the next generation of kids that have been learning the 2 handed game their whole life turn pro.....they're most likely going to take over the sport.

[RobLV1]

My referral to Belmo's dominance has nothing to do with longevity; he hasn't been on tour long enough to judge that yet. I was referencing the fact that right now he has more power (speed/rev rate) than any other bowler and that, as Chris Barnes stated during the Clash last weekend, makes his pocket bigger than anyone else's. How will history view him? Who knows. But right now, he is the dominant force on the PBA (make that the World) Tour. As far as thumbless bowlers on Tour, yes, Tom Daugherty won a PBA Title. He also bowled the lowest game ever bowled on TV by a professional bowler (100). Not putting ones thumb in the ball adds power, but costs in terms of accuracy. There may occasionally be a bowler who doesn't put his thumb in the ball who wins a title, but it's just to hard to control for any consistency. Two handed bowling, however, is here to stay unless, as I stated earlier, some organization decides to ban it.

[MICHAEL]

And that's where you are wrong. You refuse to acknowledge that the 2 handed game gives players an inherent advantage. Just like how the modern one-handed approach has an inherent advantage over the old school style. It's all about strike percentage and pin carry, and with more speed and revs generated by the 2 handed release Belmo has an advantage over all the one handed players on tour. I don't know how you have missed this, since they mention it every single telecast where he is involved.....

Now, he obviously also has great skill (ALL PBA players do). That's what differentiates him from Joe Blow-2 Hander at your local alley who started bowling 2 handed 3 years ago after he saw Belmo do it. Jason's been bowling 2 handed his whole life. Just wait until the next generation of kids that have been learning the 2 handed game their whole life turn pro.....they're most likely going to take over the sport.

YOU ARE RIGH ON Hampe! Its here to stay, too many viewers enjoy the style, and high scores, not to mention the old school vs the UP AND COMING style!

I bet they raised hell back when the first finger tip balls came out vs the standard non finger tip drilling!

Its the evolution of the Sport, and Rob I bet you money its here to STAY!

Its not cheating! If it is the style that gives advantage, LEARN IT, or like so many other things in life, ,,,,,, be left behind! ( NOW am talking high school, college, and professional level)

[sprocket]

If the two handers became dominant on the tour, suddenly one handed would be the "new" thing. While all the two handers are burning up the oil the one handed strokers, Like a WRW or Duke will play where the two handers are not playing and dominate that tournament.

One style of bowling can NEVER dominate the pro tour because it would defy the laws of physics. As soon as the majority is doing the same thing, the minority that is doing something different has the edge. Belmo has the edge now because he is doing something different and can break down a pattern in a way that makes the shot more more difficult to play for his opponents than himself. But that would be completely untrue if there were a whole bunch of two handers on tour.

[circlecity]

If the two handers became dominant on the tour, suddenly one handed would be the "new" thing. While all the two handers are burning up the oil the one handed strokers, Like a WRW or Duke will play where the two handers are not playing and dominate that tournament.

One style of bowling can NEVER dominate the pro tour because it would defy the laws of physics. As soon as the majority is doing the same thing, the minority that is doing something different has the edge. Belmo has the edge now because he is doing something different and can break down a pattern in a way that makes the shot more more difficult to play for his opponents than himself. But that would be completely untrue if there were a whole bunch of two handers on tour.

Yeah I can't imagine a pair with 2-3 two handers on there.

[Aslan]

You refuse to acknowledge that the 2 handed game gives players an inherent advantage. Just like how the modern one-handed approach has an inherent advantage over the old school style.

Yes. I do refuse to acknowledge that. I'm not even going to acknowledge what I don't acknowledge...or what I do acknowledge. Of matter of fact, I'm only 38% sure I am spelling acknowledge correctly.

I've seen greatness. Anthony, WRW, Bohn, Duke, Weber. The day I had "Belmo"'s water bottle crushing a** to that list is the day he wins 30 titles. Until then, I'll just silently hope that he suffers a back injury and learns to bowl properly.

And yes, I threw the "properly" in as a joke....so someone but some Be Gay on Iceman's red a** before he starts Rantzilla 2014.

All this praise for "modern" bowling and "2-handed thumbless amazement". It's a goddam miracle that anyone before 2004 could even hit the headpin.

I was going to fix all the stupid auto-correct mistakes...thanks alot Apple...but I saw that it corrected "Ben Gay" to "Be Gay"...so I'm just leaving the thing as is out of pure amusement. ;)

- disgusted-