Well, that's why you have a series or why tournaments usually have multiple rounds of qualifying. Usually the winner isn't determined by just one game.
Why 10 frames?
There is probably a good reason for it but honestly I think 10 frames is too short. I would like a game to be 20 frames. Make it a bit more interesting.
Well, that's why you have a series or why tournaments usually have multiple rounds of qualifying. Usually the winner isn't determined by just one game.
In Bag: (: .) Motiv Trident Odyssey; (: .) Hammer Scorpion Sting; (: .) Brunswick Endeavor; (: .) Radical Outer Limits Pearl; (: .) Ebonite Maxim
USBC#: 8259-59071; USBC Sanctioned Average = 185; Lifetime Average = 171;
Ball Speed: 14.4mph; Rev. Rate: 240rpm || High Game (sanc.) = 300 (268); High Series (sanc.) = 725 (720); Clean Games: 181
Smokey this is not 'Nam', this is bowling. There are rules. Proud two-time winner of a bowlingboards.com weekly ball give-away!
10 frames is plenty of time to see who can make good shots and who can't. It's an even number, and it makes it easier to score.
2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 are also even numbers.Originally Posted by John Anderson
Why is 10 frames easier to score?
I'm thinking for television purposes. A single match in most other sports takes hours. I'm not advocating hours of bowling to determine a winner but doubling the number of frames would make it a bigger challenge and really focus on shot making.
Lower numbers. 10 frames results in a nice 300 score. If you used 2 frames that's too few. Same for four and six. 8 could be enough, but that would result in a score of 270, which is just an abnormal looking thing to be a perfect score. Going beyond the 300 as perfect and 10 frames results in much higher numbers that is more difficult to add up without computer scoring. Remember that bowling has been around long before synthetic lanes and automatic scoring existed.
Most likely stems from the days when lanes weren't even, the balls weren't consistent, and somebody had to find, retrieve, and reset the pins manually after every shot. Ten frames took A. Lot. longer in those days.
DV8 Red/Orange Misfit, Storm IQ Tour Fusion, Pyramid Blood Moon
I strongly agree, especially with modern equipment. Back in the old days when we had pin boys in the back manually resetting the pins, 10 frames could take an hour. Now two players can finish 10 frames before you even finish your drink. There's a statistical reason, too. Having only 10 frames exaggerates the impact of one bad frame. If, say, you miss picking up a bad split, it can cost you the whole match. How many times have you seen somebody miss a spare on the 6th or 7th frame and just think "ok, that's it, he's sunk, no way he can win..." There's just not enough play left in 10 frames to make up for it.
And it works both ways: having a "hot streak" of 5 or 6 strikes can put you completely out of reach.
Having 20-30 frames would let you bowl a game that's more representative of your true ability. Playing 10 frames is like a football game just lasting 5 minutes, or a round of golf being just 1 or 2 holes.
It would be really interesting to know how the top touring pros felt about going to 20-30 frame games.
Last edited by Osmigo; 08-17-2015 at 02:44 PM.
Yes I'm fully aware bowling has been around long before synthetic, and automatic scoring.
As a youth bowler, (before synthetic lanes, and automatic scoring) I was paid to keep score in the night leagues.
I also did the league sheets for the juniors as trade for league fees.
When manually keeping score there is no additional difficulties for each frame, keeping score for a 20 frame game is no more difficult than 2 games of 10 frames.
BTW, if the game was 8 frames long, the perfect score would be 240, not 270.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks