USBC sanctioned versus non-sanctioned leagues

[dnhoffman]

Your posts are way too long to read Aslan - cliff notes please.

If a league isn't sanctioned I will not bowl, period.

Wall of Text Lands a Critical Hit.

You Die.

[e-tank]

I keep forgetting about the Michigan contingent and the sub-standard reading comprehension.

But you appear to have grasped the concept just fine.

To me...a person that claims to have an average > 170 and 300 games and 700+ series yet has no USBC number and doesn't bowl in sanctioned leagues...is like:

1) That guy you golf with that claims he's a scratch golfer yet EVERY time you golf with him he shoots about 35 over and claims it's because THAT golf course doesn't maintain it's greens properly.

or
2) That kid in school that was really good at sports in gym class but never actually joined a team.

I played hockey with a kid in high school that was actually quite skilled. But our high school didn't have a team and he was too lazy to join an organized travel team. But I think it was more than just laziness. Like our previous discussions about THS vs. sport patterns and how afraid most "good" bowlers are of getting outside their comfort zone...I think he was "afraid"...that if he actually played against "real" players...he wouldn't be as good (comparitively speaking)...so he never bothered. He was probably good enough to "maybe" get a college scholarship had he applied himself...but he was content just being the best player at midnight every other friday for drop-in hockey. And thats sad (in my opinion).

lol seeing as i fit your criteria, my stats are obv fake(even though i have nothing to gain from faking) and i am too scared to bowl with "real bowlers"(even though my league has 4-5 230avg bowlers and a few more 200+ avg). I think the problem is that youre trying to make a blanket statement for something that cant be blanketed

[Aslan]

a

(for hoffman and those with limited attention spans)

[tr33frog]

1) That guy you golf with that claims he's a scratch golfer yet EVERY time you golf with him he shoots about 35 over and claims it's because THAT golf course doesn't maintain it's greens properly.

What if he golfs with you still hits scratch? I actually feel more pressure bowling with friends or coworkers for the first time, and still am almost always able to rip off a 200. I've held a 201 average in a sanctioned league as a sub in the late 90's, I don't feel I bowl any different in sanctioned vs unsanctioned. I'm still the clean up bowler with the pressure to win/close out a game, and still want the best out of every game I can.

If you want to stick to the golf analogies, do hole in ones only count during a PGA or school match?

[Aslan]

If you want to stick to the golf analogies, do hole in ones only count during a PGA or school match?

Well…now you're REALLY opening a can of worms. Where's d-hoff with some random train derailment picture? Because we've discussed this in the past…but see…back in the day…a 300 game was very similar to a hole in one in that it was rare. Nowadays…3-6 months of bowling regularly and you're almost expected to have at least one. I would say nowadays…300 games are between hole in ones and eagles in terms of frequency (using golf analogies). But not eagles on par 3s…(thats for girls) nor eagles on a par 5 where ya just happened to get lucky and cut the corner. I'm saying eagles on a decent length par 4.

Oh…and to answer that question…"yes with an *". Golf actually treats unwitnessed hole-in-ones the same way bowling treats non-sanctioned 300 games. They get "counted"…in terms of reporting them to the newspaper (if your alley does that)…the difference is that bowling won't count it in terms of USBC unless the league is sanctioned. Where as even an unwitnessed hole in one will be listed in golf's version…the "golf register" (or something like that).

Actually…thats a good comparison because in both cases…it tends to cause a little "apprehension" on the part of the player…where as a golfer would much rather hit a hole-in-one in a tournament or a league or "at least" in front of a witness. It's just like a bowler that bowls an unsanctioned 300 will almost always wish it had been in a sanctioned league. The grey areas are your "first" 300 and your "X" 300. Even though sanctioned would be preferred, I have to think if it's your first one…you're still pretty darn stoked. And if it's your 5th-29th…you probably don't care because it's not as big of a deal.

[tr33frog]

I think this entire conversation has made me want to bowl less in a sanctioned league than before we started, makes it sound like all wine and cheese. "Well, my 300 is more important and difficult than yours, because some orginization I pay said it is." ROFL.

[dnhoffman]

I think this entire conversation has made me want to bowl less in a sanctioned league than before we started, makes it sound like all wine and cheese. "Well, my 300 is more important and difficult than yours, because some orginization I pay said it is." ROFL.

"Neither the views of Aslan, nor the comments found within his walls of text, accurately represent the opinions of the majority of rational sane bowlers participating in USBC sanctioned leagues. Additionally, please understand that most bowlers participating in organized leagues, sanctioned or otherwise, are shaking their collective heads at this entire thread."

Sincerely,
Dnhoffman, President.
Partnership for an Aslan Free America.

[Aslan]

I think this entire conversation has made me want to bowl less in a sanctioned league than before we started, makes it sound like all wine and cheese. "Well, my 300 is more important and difficult than yours, because some orginization I pay said it is." ROFL.

Okay…thats fair. But where does it end? At what point does a 300 mean less?? If it was bowled with an illegal ball? Maybe a 17lb ball or a ball that is bigger than average? What about no-tap? See…everyone wants all the benefits of being able to brag about their great scores…yet they don't want to pay $20/year to make them "official"…and they act like it's a waste of $20. It's $20 per year for crying out loud!! It's NOT the money!! And sanctioned leagues are just as fun as non-sanctioned leagues…so that argument doesn't fly either. And that makes me wonder…makes me suspicious. If people are so, so, so adamantly against having their scores "sanctioned"…why?? For $20/year??? Come on.

[Aslan]

"Neither the views of Aslan, nor the comments found within his walls of text, accurately represent the opinions of the majority of rational sane bowlers participating in USBC sanctioned leagues. Additionally, please understand that most bowlers participating in organized leagues, sanctioned or otherwise, are shaking their collective heads at this entire thread."

Sincerely,
Dnhoffman, President.
Partnership for an Aslan Free America.

Given that you shake your head at everything I post…you kinda lose credibility. I mean, if you pick and choose which opinions you have a strong reaction to…then it's more reasonable. But just seeing "posted by Aslan" and immediately running in to post some derogatory remark just makes you a "flamer" (in the internet sense).

[dnhoffman]

Given that you shake your head at everything I post…you kinda lose credibility. I mean, if you pick and choose which opinions you have a strong reaction to…then it's more reasonable. But just seeing "posted by Aslan" and immediately running in to post some derogatory remark just makes you a "flamer" (in the internet sense).

Im sure it's all my fault.