Ronnie Russell tries his hand at golf. Makes a great comparison/suggestion

[scottymoney]

Ronnie is trying to qualify to get on the Golf tour, albeit the minor leagues. But I found his comparison and suggestion for Bowling to be enlightening. The sport of bowling needs something and this makes sense.

Taken from a 11frame.com article written about Russell attempting the golf tour.

After his final round, Russell posted this on Facebook:
"Well good thing I saved my worst playing for q school, but all is good. I took some strong points from it and I know which areas I need to work on. if anyone needs me I will be in fairway bunkers practicing for the next 3 months.
All joking aside seriously was a good time and I can't wait for the US Open Qualifier may 9th in Indy, but first gonna get ready for the team challenge in Portland, Maine."

Russell on Thursday posted this:
"I can assure you me being +4 hdcp being 4 better than scratch is not a reflection of how I am playing. First and for most the difference in golf for we will say a 10 hdcp. we will compare this to 180 avg, is that a 15 hdcp cannot shoot 65 on any golf course no matter how easy or hard it may be. The course rating at the Nicklaus I'm playing is 78. This means as a hdcp perspective that is par. I couldn't shoot over par coming into this but tournament golf is just hard. These guys are really good and have been preparing for months. Bowling for most of the really good players don't need 7 hours a day for 3 months to prepare and this game does for sure. The grass, the course condition (which is really not great) has a ton to factor in. When we compare league bowling I seriously think that each bowling center should be givin a rating based on the avg in the center and numbers for their league shot. This will be the only way we can compare and make league hdcp right.
it's a ton easier for me to shoot 72 on a course rating of 76 for a +4 hdcp on a hard course.
71 course rating is a ton harder to shoot 68.
Understanding all of this makes me think registered houses under the usbc and bpaa should have defined shots so hdcp and avg can be more accurate over a broad range of bowling at different places."

[fordman1]

Different types of bowlers bowl better on different types of houses. One can avg. 200 in house A and 185 in house B. Another can avg. 185 in A and 200 in B. Ratings sound good but just aren't feasible. Some like down and in, some like to loop the ball. Which way do you rate them.

[Mike White]

Different types of bowlers bowl better on different types of houses. One can avg. 200 in house A and 185 in house B. Another can avg. 185 in A and 200 in B. Ratings sound good but just aren't feasible. Some like down and in, some like to loop the ball. Which way do you rate them.

Also if you live is some small town with no "real" bowlers, and you happen to have the highest average at 160, you would be considered an above average bowler.

You play "well" on what appears to be a very tough condition.

When you compete against someone who averages 200 in a house were there are 240's, the 200 isn't an above average bowler, therefore the 160 guy would have to give the 200 guy handicap.

[billf]

He isn't looking to rate the bowlers but rather the house such as conditions of lanes and oil pattern. I still don't think it's feasible but at least some people are thinking of ways to try and improve the sport.

[Mike White]

He isn't looking to rate the bowlers but rather the house such as conditions of lanes and oil pattern. I still don't think it's feasible but at least some people are thinking of ways to try and improve the sport.

The only data you have about the house is bowlers scores.

And since when did handicap improve the sport?

In horse racing it improved the chances that the average Joe would be willing to make wagers.

But they are penalizing the better horse for being better in the interest of gambling.

[scottymoney]

It is not feasible but the idea is to rate bowling centers to make the averages make more sense is what I take from it.

At my house I know it is a tougher shot than most, if I go elsewhere I know I can average higher and other places lower. In golf it is actual a rating they give golf courses. If anything I think it would give bowlers a reasonable expectation of different houses. Although I don't think it would ever happen.

[bowl1820]

It is not feasible but the idea is to rate bowling centers to make the averages make more sense is what I take from it.

At my house I know it is a tougher shot than most, if I go elsewhere I know I can average higher and other places lower. In golf it is actual a rating they give golf courses. If anything I think it would bowlers a reasonable expectation of different houses. Although I don't think it would ever happen.

The idea of using a slope rating for bowling lanes has been around for years, but it has never gone anywhere.

A lot felt that the ratings would wind up being based mostly on the Inspector/Raters opinion and would be too subjective and not consistent around the country.

With the advent of Kegel's LaneMap technology part of that could be addressed, But to implement this idea would require money and let's face it bowler's won't pay for it.

[vdubtx]

The idea of using a slope rating for bowling lanes has been around for years, but it has never gone anywhere.

A lot felt that the ratings would wind up being based mostly on the Inspector/Raters opinion and would be too subjective and not consistent around the country.

With the advent of Kegel's LaneMap technology part of that could be addressed, But to implement this idea would require money and let's face it bowler's won't pay for it.

The last comment is so true. Bowlers b!tch and moan about the sanctioning fee as it is(which could open up a whole other can of worms), no way they will want to pay anything more than that.

[Mike White]

The last comment is so true. Bowlers b!tch and moan about the sanctioning fee as it is(which could open up a whole other can of worms), no way they will want to pay anything more than that.

Most of USBC's (national) income comes from people "stuck" bowling on a THS, while most of the money spent by USBC (national) goes towards bowling not done on a THS.

I believe it borders on taxation without representation.

Maybe it's time to dump lane oil into the Boston Harbor.

[fordman1]

What else can you expect them to do with the money? My league has 184 "CERTIFIED" bowlers. at $20 each they paid $3680 half $1840 went to Texas. We have had four 300's and three 800's this season. Only one bowlers was eligible for a ring that cost about $45? Averages are kept electronically. No one there punching in names and numbers. They have a bunch of minimum wage office workers doing all the paper work. There is an old boys and girls club for the testing and higher up work. Click workers get paid good and have good benefits.
What does the typical league bowler get? My league funds are insured. Oops only to 10K less than 10% of the actual fund. They told me to pay off at the banquet with checks.

[fordman1]

As to the rating of centers it would only work if they all used the same pattern and all oiled at the same time of day and same time before leagues. They all had the same heating and cooling equipment. In other words forget it.