Originally Posted by
Aslan
Body "breakdown" is a known deficiency of the style.
I took a USBC youth coaching class 2-3 years back and there were a few questions about "should we teach 2-handed?" or "what if a youngster wants to bowl 2-handed?" And the USBC answer is, "whatever gets a bowling ball in their hand." If they throw a back-up ball, thumbless, or 2-handed...as long as it gets them on the lanes...at that age...it's all good. And I have no problem with that whatsoever.
BUT...the coach that was conducting the class commented that the 2-handed approach, while it had some advantages and recent successes...the one major drawback was health-related. Nearly every major 2-handed player on the tour...has had significant back problems. It's a style that...even when done properly, creates the torque the last 2 posters talked about, and most people's backs just can't handle it for long periods of time.
I've been watching the PBA50 tour (decided to get XtraFrame again despite my anger with the PBA over the Motiv situation...but only to watch the PBA50 and PWBA...I am still boycotting the National Men's Tour). The PBA50...is all about longevity. There are a LOT of great bowlers...that never end up bowling the PBA50...because by 50, their bodies are ruined. And that's throwing ONE-handed....the "right" way (I don't mean 1-handed is the "right" way....I mean they are at the highest level and their approaches/releases are smooth). Walter Ray Williams isn't the most technically sound bowler in history...but he has more titles than any bowler in history. Pete Weber and Norm Duke and Parker Bohn are still forces to be reckoned with. But where is Mark Roth? Mark Roth...is arguably the best bowler in the history of the game. But Mark Roth had too many injuries early on. His thumb, his wrist, his elbow, his shoulder. Mark Roth was the father of the "cranker" approach...and could do things that most other bowlers on the tour couldn't. And that got him a TON of success....for a very short time.
2-handed bowling is the next generation of the "cranker style". It will enjoy a great deal of success...and players will see Belmo and the others and flock to that style to give them the advantage the style brings...but I doubt you'll see many 2-handers on the PBA50 tour. And when people say Belmo is the "greatest bowler ever"...I simply respond, "we'll see." Give Belmo 7-8 more years...see if he can amass the number of titles that Weber and WRW have amassed...or Earl Anthony. But, my bet is that Belmo's back gives out long before he can amass those titles...and certainly before he's eligible for the PBA50. And then...he'll be the next "Mark Roth"...a guy who was absolutely dominant when he was in his prime...but just didn't have the longevity to be "the greatest".
At my age (older than Chip and the 20-30 somethings that tout 2-handed bowling)...my goal is to someday play at the Regional PBA level...maybe even the PBA50 someday. Those are LOFTY goals...LONG TERM goals...probably borderline "dreams" than "goals"...but in order for me to have a chance at attaining those goals...at a minimum, I have to stay healthy. My knees, ankles, elbow, shoulder, wrist...I have to make sure that I put as little strain on those areas as I can...because once they start to "go"...that ends the dream real fast. So, becoming a 2-hander or even a thumbless cranker....is not in line with me trying to stay healthy enough to bowl until I'm 60...should I live so long.
Most of the older folks on this board...had they started bowling 2-handed 5 years ago...wouldn't be bowling today. And, the reason I don't see a need for the USBC to "ban" it...is...it'll sort of "ban" itself. While we might see a lot more 2-handers at the youth level...collegiate level...and International Level....2-handers on the National Tour will tend to have shorter careers..and I doubt we'll see many two-handers ever make it to the top of any career title lists nor at the PBA50 level. And thus, it'll "limit itself".
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks