A bowling misconception that knowledge should outweigh talent ?

[Tony]

It might just be how I look at things but it seems like in bowling more than other sports there is a misconception that knowledge of the game should automatically make you better than the guy with less perceived knowledge.

I will admit, I'm a fair athlete and have some knowledge of the game, I've bowled with and against guys with far more talent and knowledge and also people with far less. Certainly more smarts about the game is to the players advantage, knowing detailed information about oil patterns, different releases, and ball specs and usage will give you an advantage over the equally talented player with less knowledge.

There is a limit to this, natural talent still has to be accounted for and some people just have it, I've seen and heard many times people comment about how the guy is using a old, not well liked ball, doesn't know anything about oil patterns, stands the wrong way, doesn't have the correct posture or follow through, but he gets up there and throws strike after strike , night after night, year after year.

So what makes you think you should be beating him just because you know oil patterns, the latest ball specifications, and have a really great towel that gets off all the oil, and he doesn't even wipe his ball off or have his shoes tied right.

In sports Talent wins every time, if I know more about ball trajectory than Michael Jordan does that make me able to sink 3 pointers like him? It appears that doesn't work and few people would argue that point, but in bowling it seems people think it's different, there are some differences of course MJ doesn't have 500 different balls he can use.


Yes, learn everything you can and it will help make you a better version of yourself, it just won't enable you to beat everyone with less knowledge, you still need talent.
If you have equal talent and more knowledge then that should give you the advantage but you have to have the talent.

I'm sure people will still think their superior knowledge should enable them to beat anyone and while it's great to have knowledge and confidence, it still doesn't outweigh talent.

What do you think ?

[RobLV1]

You have just done a very good job of defining the problem with the typical house shot. The guy who gets up there and throws strike after strike, week after week, year after year thinks he's good because he can do this on a forgiving house pattern. You're right in that you don't need many smarts or much knowledge to bowl on a THS. Go to a real pattern, however, and you better have a good understanding of bowling balls and ball motion or you are going to find out very quickly that you're really not very good at all.

[LOUVIT]

You have just done a very good job of defining the problem with the typical house shot. The guy who gets up there and throws strike after strike, week after week, year after year thinks he's good because he can do this on a forgiving house pattern. You're right in that you don't need many smarts or much knowledge to bowl on a THS. Go to a real pattern, however, and you better have a good understanding of bowling balls and ball motion or you are going to find out very quickly that you're really not very good at all.

Agree and disagree, it you throw a hard straight ball and get pin action the oil patterns do not matter. I have seen people that use house balls and throw straight to the pocket and are more consistent then I'll ever be. They do not have to adjust or switch and don't give a dam where the oil is

[fordman1]

THS isn't the question it is knowledge or athletic ability. Remember the old saying those who can do, those who can't teach. 98% of CERTIFIED bowlers bowl on THS.

[Tony]

You have just done a very good job of defining the problem with the typical house shot. The guy who gets up there and throws strike after strike, week after week, year after year thinks he's good because he can do this on a forgiving house pattern. You're right in that you don't need many smarts or much knowledge to bowl on a THS. Go to a real pattern, however, and you better have a good understanding of bowling balls and ball motion or you are going to find out very quickly that you're really not very good at all.

I understand that you're not thrilled with the THS pattern, certainly there are some issues with house shots, the difference in house shots and how it relates to average or skill, but there are other factors to consider here.

For one a guy who comes in day after day and plays well is his home center, should not really be dropped into the "you're not really good at all" bucket he is good on his home lanes, with the shot he's gotten used to.
Could he go to other centers, and play there often enough to learn the shot there and score well, probably a good chance he could.
Is the player who can travel among different centers , learn the shot and score well a good player, sounds like it.
Lets call that player A

Is player B who scores lower than player A on his home shot, but has played sport patterns and learned how to play them better than A a better player ?
Well yes and no, lets call the home THS HOME and everything else AWAY, of course player A is going to get better and better playing home than he does playing away, it's been proven in studies the home team / players have a higher performance level at home.

In this case it appears you are attributing 100% of the higher performance at home to playing on the THS, so asserting the player who performs at a lower level away isn't really a good player at all.
Lets look at a few baseball stats for players that by your definition are not really good at all because they perform at a lower level away
Home Away
Carl Yastrezmski .306 .264
Ted Williams .361 .328
Frank Robinson .307 .283
Roberto Clemente .329 .306
Babe Ruth .347 .338
There are dozens of these other "players that aren't good at all" like Honus Wagner. Mickey Mantle, Pete Rose, Al Kaline, Stan Musial,
because they performed at a much higher level at home on their THS, somehow I think some people would disagree with that assertion.
I'm not 100% sure but I think almost all of them are in the HOF.

So lets review, if you player against Roberto Clemente when he was playing away and you batted .307, does that make you a better player than he is...
go back to my answer above of yes and no .....
You can simply say this is bowling, and not baseball but you can't ignore the fact that home field is an advantage in nearly all sports, and with that said advantage, how do you determine exactly how much of player A's better performance is because of that, compared to because of the specific oil pattern on the lane.
I'll go out on a limb here and say, you simply can't, home field is partly intangible, so the only way to eliminate that variable is to make the house shots on all lanes exactly them same, probably with differences in lane surface, oiling equipment, oil, temp, humidity, airflow, ans such, that's simply not possible.
You could try and make a standard, but chances are there would be some deviation even if everyone tried to do it.

So when you come right down to it, isn't the perception of who's a great player, and who's "not good at all" really subjective, and totally based upon what you personally, have deemed your definition when trying to decide based upon their performance at home, vs away should be weighed?
Doesn't it remind you a little of a couple of kids playing ball and when the visiting kid loses, he yells I'll kick your but if we play at my house, and then he does, so who's the better player ?

[Tony]

THS isn't the question it is knowledge or athletic ability. Remember the old saying those who can do, those who can't teach. 98% of CERTIFIED bowlers bowl on THS.

You are correct, I have bowled for years, on multiple leagues and have not bowled on any sport / PBA patterns, so I can't really say how I would bowl
on them, and really does it matter.
I can compare 2 guys on my team guy A bowls on THS has been bowling for 30 years, guy B bowls on THS plus all sorts of sport shots, USBC open 2017 he is currently in the top 20,

Guy A has a 205 avg / guy B has a 197 avg / bowling together on THS, who's better ? why ?

Guy B is a good bowler, doesn't really play other sports
Guy A was a HS star in baseball and basketball and was offered a MLB minor league contract, he's got great hand eye coordination and is good at every sport he's played, darts, pool, badminton, it doesn't matter.

Guy B has taken dozens of lessons from a Gold level coach
Guy A never took a lesson

Guy B has all the latest balls
Guy A has a 3 year old Brunwick gold Rhino I gave him, before that he was using a 12 year old total inferno

Guy B is super knowledgeable on oil patterns, ball, and the game in general, always thinking about what he should be doing.
Guy A is always trying to get another buddy of his to buy him a drink and is always talking to the cute waitress.

Athletics wins

[Timmyb]

I have never once in my life walked into a house and asked what pattern they had down. I grab my s**t and throw, and then move. It's never even crossed my mind to find out what the pattern was. I could have been on a sport shot and not known it. I don't care.

Maybe this just comes down to "shut up and bowl".

[RobLV1]

You are ALL deluding yourselves. Join a PBA Experience or Tough Shot league and see how many pins your average drops (20, 30, 40 or more). Going from one house shot to another house shot at another center is not the equivalent of bowling on a sport shot. House shots use oil ratios of 10:1 or higher. Sport shots are 2:1 and PBA shots are a max of 3:1. It's not just a matter of standing on 20, or 22, or 18 and hitting 10. It's a matter of understanding the pattern, the characteristics of the center, and your bowling balls to give yourselves the best chance of scoring. You don't get the advantage of free hook to your right to forgive errant shots. You can't compare different baseball fields to different kinds of oil patterns.

[fordman1]

It does not matter how smart you are it matters who wins. which would you rather be the guy who averages 230 on all the house shots or the guy who averages 200 on sport? Some people have jobs and families to think about.

[JasonNJ]

Agree and disagree, it you throw a hard straight ball and get pin action the oil patterns do not matter. I have seen people that use house balls and throw straight to the pocket and are more consistent then I'll ever be. They do not have to adjust or switch and don't give a dam where the oil is

A straight ball will never have the same consistent carry as a ball with a hook. Straight balls will see a lot more deflection.

[J Anderson]

You are ALL deluding yourselves. Join a PBA Experience or Tough Shot league and see how many pins your average drops (20, 30, 40 or more). Going from one house shot to another house shot at another center is not the equivalent of bowling on a sport shot. House shots use oil ratios of 10:1 or higher. Sport shots are 2:1 and PBA shots are a max of 3:1. It's not just a matter of standing on 20, or 22, or 18 and hitting 10. It's a matter of understanding the pattern, the characteristics of the center, and your bowling balls to give yourselves the best chance of scoring. You don't get the advantage of free hook to your right to forgive errant shots. You can't compare different baseball fields to different kinds of oil patterns.

Also, much of the home field advantage in team and professional sports is due to intangible factors like the crowd cheering for you instead of booing. Most of the time amateur bowlers have only their teammates rooting for them.

[RobLV1]

Agree and disagree, it you throw a hard straight ball and get pin action the oil patterns do not matter. I have seen people that use house balls and throw straight to the pocket and are more consistent then I'll ever be. They do not have to adjust or switch and don't give a dam where the oil is

I have a family friend who is not a bowler who has a tremendously over-inflated ego. We went bowling a few months ago and said the exact same thing that you just did. There is a reason that there is not one world-class bowler who throws a straight ball and it's not because they are inconsistent. It is purely a matter of angle and rev rate equaling the power to knock down pins.

[Timmyb]

Still going with "shut up and bowl".

[RobLV1]

Still going with "shut up and bowl".

If you had ever bowled on a sport pattern, believe me, you would have known it. USBC Nationals are filled with bowlers who "shut up and bowl"... 150!

[Tony]

You are ALL deluding yourselves. Join a PBA Experience or Tough Shot league and see how many pins your average drops (20, 30, 40 or more). Going from one house shot to another house shot at another center is not the equivalent of bowling on a sport shot. House shots use oil ratios of 10:1 or higher. Sport shots are 2:1 and PBA shots are a max of 3:1. It's not just a matter of standing on 20, or 22, or 18 and hitting 10. It's a matter of understanding the pattern, the characteristics of the center, and your bowling balls to give yourselves the best chance of scoring. You don't get the advantage of free hook to your right to forgive errant shots. You can't compare different baseball fields to different kinds of oil patterns.

Not deluding myself at all, just offering another item to consider, in my opinion the guy who can bowl different centers and bowl well is a good bowler, I never said it was the same as a PBA experience or sport shot of course it's not the same level, on the the other hand you seem to be saying you can't be a good bowler unless you can score well on sport shot or PBA experience.
Am I allowed by your standards to say the guy who averaged 250 in my league is a good player, or does he only become good if he plays well on sport shot or PBA experience, or can I only call him good if he finishes in the top 20 in the Masters.

So again lets compare this to another sport, if a guy goes out to to local courses and shoots an under par golf round week after week, would you say he's not good because he's not playing PGA tournament courses and the same logic he could play a PGA course that doesn't have the pins set or greens trimmed to PGA levels so instead of considering him a good golfer, he's another player taking advantage of the easy course.

I mean if he went from the standard local course, to a high end course , to a PGA level course, to a cut and tournament prepped course his score will likely increase as it gets more challenging, he will have to know what ball and club to use and make tough decisions on how to play the holes, but at what point does he become a "good" golfer in your evaluation? Isn't he good if he can play under par on a regular course or does he have to play under par on the tour to be considered "good".

You can take this to other sports and levels, so by your standards a player can only be good if he get's to a certain level that you've decided is good
if that's the case is a kid who dominates the court in high school basketball "good" remember he's just playing against some other kids, can he be good if he plays well in college, or does have have to get to the NBA to be considered good.

If THS is a low mark and it's no measure of skill to perform well on it, shouldn't a person that has all the knowledge of balls and oil patterns be able to easily score well on THS, would it not follow that bronze coaches be 220 bowlers, silver 230, and gold 240, on an the house shot ? I dare to say that if that were a requirement we would see a lot less coaches holding those credentials.

So back to the original question / comment about athletic talent. Should we assume that all the PBA players have in depth knowledge of all of these aspects of the game and that's what took them to that level or do they have varied levels of knowledge and lots of physical talent.....
Personally if I were a betting man, I would bet on the talent, it's usually the winner.
Remember the original question had nothing to do with a THS anyway.

[Tony]

Also, much of the home field advantage in team and professional sports is due to intangible factors like the crowd cheering for you instead of booing. Most of the time amateur bowlers have only their teammates rooting for them.

Yes, there are many factors that make up home field advantage that's why it's intangible, the crowd, the way the field is laid out, the way the base paths are groomed, the short wall or ivy covered wall, the temp in the visitors locker room.

It's amazing how preparations by the ground crew can make a difference in the game, but would you be better off being knowledgeable about all the different preparations or would you rather be talented, what would serve you better ? That was the question .

[1VegasBowler]

The USBC Open lit me up 3 ways to Sunday, and I can't blame anything other than myself for not making the proper adjustments.

Having a sour knee and shoulder made me make personal adjustments that I couldn't overcome.

When I bowled in the PBA Experience league last summer, my adjusted average came out to almost exactly what my average will be for the 16-17 season, which is going to be around 190.

[RobLV1]

In terms of the comparison to golf, Tiger Woods once commented that the local "club champion" scratch golfer (220 house bowler), couldn't break 80 on the courses that the pros play (sport shot).

As to coaches carrying high averages, we probably would IF the skill set involved in bowling was the same as it is in teaching, but it's not.

My own personal favorite "house bowler" story: One Sunday morning I was practicing with some friends at a large center that was hosting small tournament on a PBA pattern that morning. A 225 average bowler from the same high average league that we all bowl in came strutting up, chest puffed out, and announced that he was going to bowl the tournament. A little while later, he was back, visibly deflated. He had paid his entry fee, bowled the ten minutes of practice, and quickly withdrew from the tournament. In his own words, "I couldn't even get the ball to wiggle down there."

Put simply, a good bowler is a good bowler on any type of shot and one can only get to be that with knowledge of oil patterns, bowling balls, and ball motion. A good "house bowler" is just that. He just "shuts up and bowls." Apparently there is nothing wrong with that as the USBC allows it to happen by not setting any kind of standards for oil patterns in sanctioned leagues, but please don't confuse the house hacks with good bowlers... they are two different animals.

[Tony]

As to coaches carrying high averages, we probably would IF the skill set involved in bowling was the same as it is in teaching, but it's not.

Put simply, a good bowler is a good bowler on any type of shot and one can only get to be that with knowledge of oil patterns, bowling balls, and ball motion. A good "house bowler" is just that. He just "shuts up and bowls." Apparently there is nothing wrong with that as the USBC allows it to happen by not setting any kind of standards for oil patterns in sanctioned leagues, but please don't confuse the house hacks with good bowlers... they are two different animals.

I would like to think most people realize the conditions the professional faces are far tougher than the conditions casual players face, I've played many local golf courses and also played Blackwolf Run in Kohler WI and Ballybunion (old course) Kerry Ireland, there is no comparison, there are holes that will humble all but the best golfers.

That aside your two comments above are closest to addressing the original question, but to some extend are at odds with each other.
The coaches skill set comment leans toward saying talent is the primary factor in being a good player, and the good bowler is a good bowler on any shot leans toward the opinion that knowledge is the primary factor is being a good bowler......

Certainly it's a blend of the two that would be ideal, but the original post was eluding to what seems to be a misconception that extensive knowledge can overcome lack of talent.

In the coaching comment, skill set, would indicated to me that although the coach knows what to do and how to do it, physical talent is his limiting factor preventing him from being high scoring player.

The good bowler comment eludes to knowledge being required on order to be a good bowler.

Taken together is points to an answer that would say you must have natural talent to start with and then gain the knowledge to become better able to handle the conditions, there is no evidence to indicate that advanced knowledge alone can make a person into a good bowler.

[RobLV1]

I don't think that anyone ever said that knowledge alone can make a good bowler. It can't. Likewise, physical skill alone cannot make a good bowler unless you are Pete Weber and constantly have a ball rep at your back ready to help. That being said, physical skill alone can make a good house bowler because the condition is so forgiving that it makes understanding unnecessary.

As to the coaching comment, a coaches skill is a combination of knowledge, the ability to see, and the ability to communicate; in other words, to teach. Coaches, for the most part, are not very good bowlers for this very reason; we analyze which is detrimental to a top physical game. When you think about it, Mark Baker is the first great coach in a long, long time who was also a great bowler. He happens to have both skill sets. Most of us don't.

[Timmyb]

If you had ever bowled on a sport pattern, believe me, you would have known it. USBC Nationals are filled with bowlers who "shut up and bowl"... 150!


Not getting the point......

[RobLV1]

I was referring to your earlier comment:

"I have never once in my life walked into a house and asked what pattern they had down. I grab my s**t and throw, and then move. It's never even crossed my mind to find out what the pattern was. I could have been on a sport shot and not known it. I don't care."

[Tony]

I don't think that anyone ever said that knowledge alone can make a good bowler. It can't. Likewise, physical skill alone cannot make a good bowler unless you are Pete Weber and constantly have a ball rep at your back ready to help. That being said, physical skill alone can make a good house bowler because the condition is so forgiving that it makes understanding unnecessary.

As to the coaching comment, a coaches skill is a combination of knowledge, the ability to see, and the ability to communicate; in other words, to teach. Coaches, for the most part, are not very good bowlers for this very reason; we analyze which is detrimental to a top physical game. When you think about it, Mark Baker is the first great coach in a long, long time who was also a great bowler. He happens to have both skill sets. Most of us don't.

Back in the original post my primary inquiry was, why does it seem in bowling more than other sports that players with more knowledge automatically think they should be better bowlers than others with less knowledge. It a perception I've seen around here and around the bowling center.

The question was / is why do they have this misconception, after all in most sports people know that knowledge will enhance and improve your game but it's but it's not a substitute for talent, without talent, knowledge is just knowing what and how to do it, but not necessarily being able to do it yourself.

I have hear all the time how bowler x with several balls and the knowledge to utilize them is pissed off / feels cheated that bowler Y with less knowledge beat hims with an old beat up ball from 10 yrs ago, it's talent, that guy has more than you do, it's pretty much that simple.

It really had nothing to do with the THS put on the lane, we can't and shouldn't blame everything on the lane condition, the bottom line is bowler y is better on the condition you're bowling on that day, house . sport, pba test pattern than player x .
When and if the bowl on different conditions the roles might be reversed because talent only takes you so far and the knowledge becomes more important.

I'm glad with all that wrangling around other issues, we finally got to hear your real thought on the original topic, maybe other people who read the posts will realize that even though they have worked hard to learn more than the other guy, there is no guarantee that you can out perform him, you can use the THS as a scapegoat if you choose but just be aware, you might be the only one buying into your story.

[bowl1820]

Just something to note, the original topic which basically was knowledge vs natural talent was heavily discussed awhile back. Micheal (Iceman) had his "The Gift!" threads and the responses in those discussions may prove to be of interest.

Raw Talent vs Coaching
http://www.bowlingboards.com/threads/16792-RAW-talent-vs-Coaching

If knowledge is power, why........
http://www.bowlingboards.com/threads/16962-If-knowledge-is-power-why

Is it the BALL, or the SKILL of the Bowler
http://www.bowlingboards.com/threads/16835-Is-it-the-BALL-or-the-SKILL-of-the-Bowler

[Tony]

Just something to note, the original topic which basically was knowledge vs natural talent was heavily discussed awhile back. Micheal (Iceman) had his "The Gift!" threads and the responses in those discussions may prove to be of interest.

Raw Talent vs Coaching
http://www.bowlingboards.com/threads/16792-RAW-talent-vs-Coaching

If knowledge is power, why........
http://www.bowlingboards.com/threads/16962-If-knowledge-is-power-why

Is it the BALL, or the SKILL of the Bowler
http://www.bowlingboards.com/threads/16835-Is-it-the-BALL-or-the-SKILL-of-the-Bowler

I'm sure they will be an interesting read, Thanks

[RobLV1]

"I'm glad with all that wrangling around other issues, we finally got to hear your real thought on the original topic, maybe other people who read the posts will realize that even though they have worked hard to learn more than the other guy, there is no guarantee that you can out perform him, you can use the THS as a scapegoat if you choose but just be aware, you might be the only one buying into your story."

Stick around here for a while and you will see that many, many serious bowlers "buy into my story," or you could hang around some PBA events and find that virtually every PBA pro out there also agrees that the forgiving THS has made a mockery of the sport. Most recently, you could take a look at my recent interview with Pete Weber in BTM and hear what he has to say on the subject. As for the need for knowledge, modern bowling demands it, unless as stated earlier you have a ball rep behind you to watch your ball reaction, or you bowl on a THS. Oh, there it is again. Your comments typify the house bowler who doesn't think he needs to understand anything about the game. Ignorance, in your case, truly is bliss!

[J Anderson]

I have never once in my life walked into a house and asked what pattern they had down. I grab my s**t and throw, and then move. It's never even crossed my mind to find out what the pattern was. I could have been on a sport shot and not known it. I don't care.

Maybe this just comes down to "shut up and bowl".

While I can't say that I've never looked at what the pattern was before bowling, since I have bowled a number of seasons in a sport league and it's put out for us every time the pattern is changed, I don't really spend much time studying it. Pattern graphs and the rule of 31 are only rough guides that give a hint about where you might find a good line to play. The topography of the lane has much more of an effect on how the lane plays than the oil. The other bowlers on a pair and especially what kind of balls they're using has a big effect on how the lane transitions, probably as much or more than the pattern and volume of the oil. One of the key skills of a "good" bowler is knowing how to read the lane. Far more important than looking at pattern graphs or knowing the rule of 31, which is almost always quoted wrong anyway.

[fortheloveofbowling]

Am i the only one amazed by rob's comments? Here is a man that touts his silver level credentials to the hilt as someone dedicated to the advancement of bowlers. And yet he insults 99 percent of the bowling population with his comments. What a ambassador for the sport we have here.

[fortheloveofbowling]

I don't think that anyone ever said that knowledge alone can make a good bowler. It can't. Likewise, physical skill alone cannot make a good bowler unless you are Pete Weber and constantly have a ball rep at your back ready to help. That being said, physical skill alone can make a good house bowler because the condition is so forgiving that it makes understanding unnecessary.

As to the coaching comment, a coaches skill is a combination of knowledge, the ability to see, and the ability to communicate; in other words, to teach. Coaches, for the most part, are not very good bowlers for this very reason; we analyze which is detrimental to a top physical game. When you think about it, Mark Baker is the first great coach in a long, long time who was also a great bowler. He happens to have both skill sets. Most of us don't.

Included in the Bowlers Journal top 100 coaches from 2016 which you seemed to be absent from: Mark Baker, Del Ballard jr, Diandra Asbaty, Carolyn Dorin-Ballard, jason Belmonte, Parker Bohn, Tom Carter, Ryan Ciminelli, Pat Costello, Elysia Current, Jeri edwards, Mike Dias, Mike Jasnau, Bob Learn jr, Kim Kearney, Mark Lewis, Matt Mcniel, Tim Mack, Amleto Monacelli, Michelle Mullen, Paeng Nepomuceno, Carol Norman, Shannon O'keefe, Vern Peterson, Steve Richter, Lucy Sandelin, Mike Shady, Aleta Sill, Bill Spigner, Brad Snell, Brett Spangler, Harry Sullins, Del Warren.

Are you kidding me????????????? These are all great great bowlers. Educate yourself and look up the names you don't know rob.

[fortheloveofbowling]

I don't think that anyone ever said that knowledge alone can make a good bowler. It can't. Likewise, physical skill alone cannot make a good bowler unless you are Pete Weber and constantly have a ball rep at your back ready to help. That being said, physical skill alone can make a good house bowler because the condition is so forgiving that it makes understanding unnecessary.

As to the coaching comment, a coaches skill is a combination of knowledge, the ability to see, and the ability to communicate; in other words, to teach. Coaches, for the most part, are not very good bowlers for this very reason; we analyze which is detrimental to a top physical game. When you think about it, Mark Baker is the first great coach in a long, long time who was also a great bowler. He happens to have both skill sets. Most of us don't.

Who else besides Pete Weber is made a good bowler because of their ball rep at their back? What a ridiculous comment.

[Timmyb]

Am i the only one amazed by rob's comments? Here is a man that touts his silver level credentials to the hilt as someone dedicated to the advancement of bowlers. And yet he insults 99.9 percent of the bowling population with his comments. What a ambassador for the sport we have here.


Anyone who's been on here for a while isn't. He assumes that when I said "not getting the point", I was talking about the "shut up and bowl". What I really meant was to remove the "and bowl" part. No one likes being talked down to, and that's what he does on here time and time again. This is just the first time I've been in his crosshairs. 1820, might be time to close this one......I'm not any better than Aslan is at keeping my thoughts to myself.

[fortheloveofbowling]

It is a good topic for discussion minus the insulting of the house bowler which is the overwhelming population of the sport.

[fortheloveofbowling]

To address the original question of the thread: On tougher shots to perform at a higher level consistently you have both a greater degree of talent and knowledge. On house shot conditions i don't think a increased level of knowledge is required. But we all know this to be true. But does that make a high average house bowler who struggles on sport shots a crappy bowler? NO!!!!!! You are competing all the time no matter what the conditions are and the scoreboard does not lie. If a guy beats me on a house shot he was better that day. If i beat the same guy on a sport shot the next day i was better that day. Period.

[RobLV1]

Okay, let me clear up a few things here.

1) I am not insulting house bowlers. I am referring to house bowlers who don't realize the difference between what they do and what elite bowlers do. These bowlers are insulting the greatest athletes in our sport. Honestly, deep down most house bowlers realize their limitations which is why they usually refuse to bowl in any event that is planned using anything other than a house shot. There are a few, however, who really believe that they are on a par with the elite bowlers. These are the bowlers who are demeaning our sport.

2) Pete Weber is not the only bowler who is still bowling the tour because he has ball reps. I've seen many, many others who do the exact same thing. The difference is that Pete actually says he wouldn't be out there if not for the ball reps.

3) I was listed in the BJ list of 100 top coaches in 2013. Let me tell you how this works. You are "nominated" for inclusion by yourself or one of your students. Your students provide some input, and you provide the rest in terms of why you should be included. It seems to me that the demise of the Professional side of the sport in terms of earning potential may have had something to do with great bowlers choosing to become certified and applying for inclusion as a form of advertising for a new-found base of income. Their inclusion is a sad statement on the state of our sport.

[fortheloveofbowling]

Just to address one of the statements you just made: Who among that list of names that were included in the top 100 should not be there? And how do you know they are not capable of the level of your coaching talent? I will be very interested to know who's inclusion is a sad statement on the state of our sport. Please do tell.

[Blacksox1]

Okay, let me clear up a few things here.

1) I am not insulting house bowlers. I am referring to house bowlers who don't realize the difference between what they do and what elite bowlers do. These bowlers are insulting the greatest athletes in our sport. Honestly, deep down most house bowlers realize their limitations which is why they usually refuse to bowl in any event that is planned using anything other than a house shot. There are a few, however, who really believe that they are on a par with the elite bowlers. These are the bowlers who are demeaning our sport.

2) Pete Weber is not the only bowler who is still bowling the tour because he has ball reps. I've seen many, many others who do the exact same thing. The difference is that Pete actually says he wouldn't be out there if not for the ball reps.

3) I was listed in the BJ list of 100 top coaches in 2013. Let me tell you how this works. You are "nominated" for inclusion by yourself or one of your students. Your students provide some input, and you provide the rest in terms of why you should be included. It seems to me that the demise of the Professional side of the sport in terms of earning potential may have had something to do with great bowlers choosing to become certified and applying for inclusion as a form of advertising for a new-found base of income. Their inclusion is a sad statement on the state of our sport.


Holding original quote

[MICHAEL]

Is knowledge more important then talent? I would say Talent CAN be more important then knowledge! I know Aslan has had Godzilla Amounts of lessons, by hundreds of coaches! Iceman Just ONE lesson. If I were to bowl Aslan with all his knowledge, against my raw, god gifted, Pure talent, and GOOD LOOKS, (It would be no contest, I would destroy him, again like I did last time)

Look around,,,, I am not saying coaching and knowledge are not important,,,,, Not at all,,,,,, but you can lead a donkey to water, but you can't make them drink it! I have seen Aslan bowl, and my GOD, what beautiful form he has, what a head full of knowledge! So why is he not bowling 700's,,, why have I had dozens and dozens of them! The answer is: ( Iceman is an Alien!) Its time I come out of the closet,,, yes there is a reason why my bowling Now is OUT OF THIS WORLD! Jason was NEVER The Alien,,, it was me, ICEMAN all along!

Raw, Alien out of this world talent, will always beat human knowledge, in regards to bowling, especially on Galactic Bowling Lanes! Was the Babe in baseball well coached or was it his raw talent? Have you seen film of him.. LOL Lot to be said in my opinon of taltent winning out over knowledge in regards to many sports!

For all the coaches... I do read a lot, Playboy and Penthouse, but I think its the talent not the magazines that gave me that 834, with back to back 300's!

[MICHAEL]

http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg546/imagine686868/2c0e6024-81c6-4a18-8227-09c57de36786_zpsxbrcwpmn.jpg (http://s1243.photobucket.com/user/imagine686868/media/2c0e6024-81c6-4a18-8227-09c57de36786_zpsxbrcwpmn.jpg.html)

[Timmyb]

1) I am not insulting house bowlers. I am referring to house bowlers who don't realize the difference between what they do and what elite bowlers do. These bowlers are insulting the greatest athletes in our sport. Honestly, deep down most house bowlers realize their limitations which is why they usually refuse to bowl in any event that is planned using anything other than a house shot. There are a few, however, who really believe that they are on a par with the elite bowlers. These are the bowlers who are demeaning our sport.




I never said that I could do what pros do. These people throw game after game, day in and day out. I bowling three games a week. But I will lump myself in with Michael to say that I'm gifted when it comes to this sport. I was out of league when the whole Sport Shot thing started around here, so I didn't have much of an opportunity to even try it. They had a Friday sport shot league here that I started practicing on the day after almost all summer before I came back two years ago, and I averaged (to the best of my memory) about 190 for those 8-10 weeks.

You're an elitist. You don't like when people tell you that they're just as good as you when you've got as many years experience as you do, and I get that. But, the fact that I don't realize my limitations is most likely why I bowl well. If I had you standing behind me as a coach, based on what I hear on here, I'm sure I'd think I wasn't up to bowling well at all.

[RobLV1]

Just to address one of the statements you just made: Who among that list of names that were included in the top 100 should not be there? And how do you know they are not capable of the level of your coaching talent? I will be very interested to know who's inclusion is a sad statement on the state of our sport. Please do tell.

I am not saying that these great bowlers should not be listed. I'm certainly not comparing their coaching talent to my own. I'm sure some of them are great coaches. My point is that it is sad that many of the top athletes in our sport have to focus on coaching to make a living because they can no longer earn a decent living by competing at a professional living. There is no full-time Tour, and the events that are left, even the majors pay so little that the number of bowlers who can earn enough even to survive by competing is pathetically small.

For some reason, my statements are often taken in a personal way, with many of you believing that I think that I am better than you are. I don't. As a bowling writer, it is my JOB to comment on the state of bowling at all levels. I am not an "elitist," whatever that is. I simply believe that bowling at the highest levels (Professional) is in serious trouble and is in danger of becoming extinct. Do I blame the existence of the THS for that? Yes, at least partially. But I do not blame the house bowler who is not aware of the differences in the game at the professional level for thinking that he can compete with the professionals because of the inflated average that he is able to maintain. I blame the USBC, the organization that has been entrusted with the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the sport, for dropping the ball in terms of setting standards for lane conditions and for allowing bowling balls that have taken much of the athleticism out of the game and replaced it with the knowledge required to compete at the top levels of the game. What kind of audience would televised golf have if every weekend warrior could go out and shoot 65 at his home course?

[fordman1]

Most good house bowlers if given the time and opportunity could be good sport shot or PBA shot bowlers. When you are a Pete Weber who has never done anything but bowl since he was a baby. Never worked 12 hours in a steel mill or factory where it can be in the high 90's and so noisy you can't talk to the person next to you. You breath in smoke and oil (not the fun smoke) either. Then you get up and go to the alley and bowl your 3 games and shoot 650. You get off work and you can't even make a fist because you have been picking up fenders all day long up to 4,000 in a day and putting them into a machine.

No knock on elite bowlers but being a great athlete is something you are born with not something you learn.

[Amyers]

Ok a few things that I've noticed from some of the posts in this thread:

1. A lot of people here are taking offense at Robb's post because they are lumping themselves in with the group Rob is talking about. Very few if any of the posters on these boards fall into that group. I know who the type of bowler Rob is referring to they average 220-230 on a THS in their house wont bowl tournaments in other houses or when their house isn't putting the home shot. They buy a ball because it's the newest release form their favorite manufacturer and they stand where they stand because that's where they like to play and any shot that requires them to do something else is defective.

2. We as in this group are not your "average bowler" if we were we wouldn't waste our time trying to learn about the bowling balls we use, watching videos to learn new techniques, or generally trying to improve our games.

3. The professionals in this sport are infinitely better than your house hack at your local alley. I share a coach with a local WPBA player and I sometimes get to work with the coach at the same time as her or watch her in their lessons she bowls at a level I will seriously never entertain. I've also bowled against her and even won a few does that mean I have any shot of bowling at her level? Heck no their is a huge difference between winning a match and routinely bowling better than someone week in and week out on different patterns and houses and making the cut.

4. THS is dumbing the sport down. Sorry but it's the truth. I spend too much time bowling in travel leagues and challenge shot leagues and watch guys quit because they don't understand the basics of moving your feet and their equipment. I think it goes to show what this thread originally envisioned on that league on THS conditions around 80+% of those guys average higher than I do and even I would consider them more talented bowlers than I but also on that league this season I won 63% of my points. Why? I understand how my equipment works and I'm able to adjust better than a reasonable amount of my competition.

5. If you are a good knowledgeable bowler bowling against another talent and luck will determine the winner. Talent is a huge advantage but without proper knowledge the talent maybe misused we all know people on our leagues who throw a beautiful balls with good technique but are hindered by making poor ball decisions and adjustment choices I bowl with one as a teammate. Sad thing about it is if he thinks about it to much it simply destroys his game. He's still younger mid 20's but I don't know if he will ever fully realize the talent he has due to his inability to make use of the knowledge that's available.

[MICHAEL]

I AGREE with your comments 100 percent bud!! Maybe 101 percent. I have bowled the sports pattern experience ONCE here in Kansas City! I blame the USBC TOO! I know some bowlers in my area, one being a Pat Henderson, who is in the bowling hall of fame! HE DOES NOT, and will not bowl sports patterns! He carries around a 225 average now at 60 years old, but does have a far share of 800's, and 300's bowing nothing but house oil. Finding Sports oil in the Kansas city area, is impossible! I guess its because most don't want to put out the effort to learn how to bowl them, or their ego's are just to fragile to handle the thought of taking on what the BIG BOYS do on TV! LOL,,, LOL, how many times, I wounder, do bowlers with their 225 averages say: " Damn, honey,,, I have a higher average then those guys!" LOL. Yes I found out what a challage, and FUN time it can be bowling the Sports patterns with Jason 3 years ago in Liberty Missouri!

Bowling Centers should be required to have a variety of leagues that are Sports patterns that they CHANGE EACH week, along with the house shot. It would be good for the SPORT, and good for the bowler. Coaching then,,,,, COACHING THEN would take on an even more critical meaning!

A good name for those Sports leagues might be:

1. So you think your hot **** league

2. Real men/women bowl sports

3. write in your league name..... LOL!

[bowl1820]

I am not saying that these great bowlers should not be listed. I'm certainly not comparing their coaching talent to my own. I'm sure some of them are great coaches.



My point is that it is sad that many of the top athletes in our sport have to focus on coaching to make a living because they can no longer earn a decent living by competing at a professional living. There is no full-time Tour, and the events that are left, even the majors pay so little that the number of bowlers who can earn enough even to survive by competing is pathetically small.

Even in bowling's heyday there were few pro bowlers actually making their entire living from bowling. Most all had some other job putting bread on the table.

While some may want to supplement their income from bowling by coaching, Another possibility is the top athletes may just want to pass on their knowledge and experience.

Or they have been bowling for along time and realize they can't compete forever and so shift their focus to coaching.

or Like the actor who is tired of acting and wants to direct.


For some reason, my statements are often taken in a personal way, with many of you believing that I think that I am better than you are. I don't. As a bowling writer, it is my JOB to comment on the state of bowling at all levels. I am not an "elitist," whatever that is.

Yes, I've seen that happen in many of your posts and people commenting on it. To be honest reading this thread I thought myself "Boy Rob is coming off sounding elitist"(and come on Rob, you use the word elite in your posts and you don't know what elitist/elitism is?)

I'm not sure how to say this, But it's not what you write, but how you write it.

That's why writers have editors & proofreaders etc. Someone who will say "Hey in this paragraph here you just alienated or appear to be alienating the majority of the readers, was that your intent?" and if you say "No" then they hand it back for rewrite and maybe with some suggestions on how to rephrase it to better get the point across. Being that you write for BTM I sure that at some point a editor has looked at your articles and questioned or suggested rewriting some part of it to better get your point across.

A rewrite example would be your post where you said "Okay, let me clear up a few things here.... 1) " That was more how you should said it earlier.

That's the thing about most users writing on forums, blogs is we don't have editors. So it's important to sit back and read what we've written and consider how others will view or interpret it.

Example: "it is sad that many of the top athletes in our sport have to focus on coaching" there are those that would read that and think "It's sad to become a coach? Wow coaching must be a lowly position according to that."



I simply believe that bowling at the highest levels (Professional) is in serious trouble and is in danger of becoming extinct. Do I blame the existence of the THS for that? Yes, at least partially. But I do not blame the house bowler who is not aware of the differences in the game at the professional level for thinking that he can compete with the professionals because of the inflated average that he is able to maintain. I blame the USBC, the organization that has been entrusted with the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the sport, for dropping the ball in terms of setting standards for lane conditions and for allowing bowling balls that have taken much of the athleticism out of the game and replaced it with the knowledge required to compete at the top levels of the game. What kind of audience would televised golf have if every weekend warrior could go out and shoot 65 at his home course?

As for this, it's discussion for another thread.

[fordman1]

Michael if you owned a bowling center and was trying your best to make a living would you want someone telling you that you had to put out a bunch of different oil patterns for you league bowlers? Go ahead and Pi$$ off the people who are keeping your head above water. Offer you PBA or sport shot league on a Sunday morning at 9 A.M. or in the summer. Any other time you will loose money.
As long as I have ever been bowling I have never heard any 225-230 bowler say I average as high as the pro's I should go on tour. BS, maybe some novice watching might say so but no real bowler would be that dumb.
What people don't like is someone talking down to them.....

[Tony]

ROB:
Calling others ignorant says a lot more about the person saying it.

Perhaps you should consider the definition of the word, and then look back to the original post, where the subject was does knowledge outweigh talent in bowling.
Instead of addressing the question you made accusations and tried to twist the conversation to your normal soapbox " All regular league bowlers suck"

Recall the original query : Does knowledge outweigh talent in bowling
Then read your first response.
Then look up that definition of ignorant.
Then consider not only the conclusion you might draw from that, consider the conclusion of the average league bowler.

While you feel my comment "typify the house bowler who doesn't think he needs to understand anything about the game" and is ignorant.

I feel your comments are unbecoming of someone who's supposed to be a professional coach.

I would be glad to pose my question to any PBA pro and would be interested to hear their response, in fact I'll ask a couple of people I personally know,
one is a PGA tour participant, and the other a Gold coach, I can say with 100% certainty they won't jump off on a tangent about THS and they won't call me names if I pose
reasonable responses questioning them about their opinion.
They are fine people and have earned my respect by being objective, informative, and showing they have knowledge of not only the game but also of how to debate without resorting to name calling.

[Tony]

Somewhere in all this we should have come up with a real answer.

I would venture to say like many sports, raw talent can make you successful at the amateur level, but it will take talent plus knowledge to be a success at the Professional level, if you possess only knowledge and no talent, then all you can do, is coach.

[RobLV1]

Perhaps you should consider the definition of the word, and then look back to the original post, where the subject was does knowledge outweigh talent in bowling.
Instead of addressing the question you made accusations and tried to twist the conversation to your normal soapbox " All regular league bowlers suck"

Recall the original query : Does knowledge outweigh talent in bowling
Then read your first response.


Definition of ignorant: lacking knowledge or information

My first response: "You have just done a very good job of defining the problem with the typical house shot. The guy who gets up there and throws strike after strike, week after week, year after year thinks he's good because he can do this on a forgiving house pattern. You're right in that you don't need many smarts or much knowledge to bowl on a THS. Go to a real pattern, however, and you better have a good understanding of bowling balls and ball motion or you are going to find out very quickly that you're really not very good at all."

First of all, if you look at the definition of ignorant, it is not name-calling. "Stupid" is name-calling. Ignorant simply means that someone is lacking knowledge or information which is exactly what I said in my first response. For some reason you are choosing to take my words as a personal attack on you. They are not. I am simply responding to that original question of "Does knowledge outweigh talent in bowling." It is not a simple question for the very reasons that so many of these posts point out. Like it or not, you do not need a whole lot of knowledge to bowl on a THS. That's a fact. It is also a fact that you do need a lot of knowledge to bowl on competitive sport patterns. And, by the way, I have never said, nor do I believe that "All regular league bowlers suck." As Bowl1820 so eloquently pointed out, there is no editor here to proofread to make sure that no-one is going to get their feelings hurt.

[RobLV1]

Somewhere in all this we should have come up with a real answer.

I would venture to say like many sports, raw talent can make you successful at the amateur level, but it will take talent plus knowledge to be a success at the Professional level, if you possess only knowledge and no talent, then all you can do, is coach.

Again, there is a totally different skill set involved in coaching than there is in bowling. Good coaches possess the skills needed to teach others to bowl; they may or may not be good bowlers. Good bowlers possess the skills needed to bowl; they may or may not be good coaches.

[Tony]

Definition of ignorant: lacking knowledge or information

My first response: "You have just done a very good job of defining the problem with the typical house shot. The guy who gets up there and throws strike after strike, week after week, year after year thinks he's good because he can do this on a forgiving house pattern. You're right in that you don't need many smarts or much knowledge to bowl on a THS. Go to a real pattern, however, and you better have a good understanding of bowling balls and ball motion or you are going to find out very quickly that you're really not very good at all."

First of all, if you look at the definition of ignorant, it is not name-calling. "Stupid" is name-calling. Ignorant simply means that someone is lacking knowledge or information which is exactly what I said in my first response. For some reason you are choosing to take my words as a personal attack on you. They are not. I am simply responding to that original question of "Does knowledge outweigh talent in bowling." It is not a simple question for the very reasons that so many of these posts point out. Like it or not, you do not need a whole lot of knowledge to bowl on a THS. That's a fact. It is also a fact that you do need a lot of knowledge to bowl on competitive sport patterns. And, by the way, I have never said, nor do I believe that "All regular league bowlers suck." As Bowl1820 so eloquently pointed out, there is no editor here to proofread to make sure that no-one is going to get their feelings hurt.

You may want to consider the impression the reader gets when writing responses or articles. The impression you feel all regular league bowlers are no talent hacks is one I'm sure many readers have felt.
Someone who writes for a living should also understand that calling someone ignorant is generally intended and nearly always taken as an insult.
If you need an editor to remind you of that you might be showing your own ignorance. No disrespect intended.

[bowl1820]

Well this thread is getting de-railed and I don't think it's going to go in a good direction so I'm going to end it.

One last comment though.

Looking up ignorant:

ig·no·rant
/ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective

*lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"

*lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
"they were ignorant of astronomy"

*informal
discourteous or rude.
"this ignorant, pin-brained receptionist"


Suggestion to everyone:

If you go into a bowling alley and use the word ignorant to describe how someone is bowling, Make sure you know where the exit is.

I guarantee most are not going to think you only meant they were lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular. Unless it is someone who knows you and understands how you speak & mean it.

This is like Dr. Brennan on "Bone"s, She speaks in a highly academic way and a lot of the time insults people without meaning too.