16# vs 15#

[Aslan]

In regards to two handed bowling I don't believe there is an issue with it anymore. The one pure advantage was the ability to manipulate balance holes in the bowling ball and this has been taken care of. Once you removed this, what advantage does a two-handed bowler have that a one-handed bowler not have (theoretically)?

Generally speaking, a one-handed bowler won't be able to generate the rpms UNLESS they take their thumb out of the ball. Having the thumb in the ball reduces the maximum revs you can acheive. Even thumbless/palm bowlers are at a disadvantage (compared to 2-handers) because it's very difficult to repeat those type of shots (no thumb in the ball, extremely high rpms).

The 2-handed advantage is it gives you greater control (using two hands versus one w/o thumb) but provides a tremendous increase in rpms, entry angle, and power over traditional one-handed releases.

It's not a new arguement, per se. When lane conditions started becoming more of a factor in the sport...there became somewhat lesser of an outcry over left-handed advantage. When the patterns weren't a big deal...and it was all about the skill of the bowler...and equipment was relatively equal...the left-handed advantage was minor. As those things changed over time...left-handers suddenly got more and more of an advantage....to the point that recently the USBC had to make some modifications to the USBC Open pattern to even the playing field. That may be something the USBC does in the future regarding 2-handers as well...perhaps putting a higher oil-volume at the 2-hander's breakpoint so their shot needs to be more precise and the conditions are less forgiving. How to do that while not also making the shot impossible for traditional bowlers...I don't know.

I DO think they (USBC) will eventually have to do something. More and more 2-handed bowlers are emerging at the youth and world level...and as they grow older and begin to be a greater part of the adult league scene...we're going to see a further exasperation of the problems the sport is already experiencing (too many honor scores, a multitude of 900 series, etc...) and we'll likely end up driving traditional bowlers out of the sport. If traditional bowlers have to bowl the best game of their lives to match the usual night of a 2-hander...there's just no point to it anymore.

[fordman1]

Dry up the lanes and you take away their advantage. Make accuracy more important.

[ALazySavage]

I understand the concept that typically a two handed release will produce more revs than a one handed release, but what I'm saying is that there isn't an unfair advantage created...there is nothing that a two-handed bowlers gets that a one-handed bowler doesn't have exposure to. Other than mechanics there is nothing stopping the one-handed bowler from getting those revs (see Robert Smith, he is rated at getting the highest rev rate...I know he is an exception, but in a sense so is the few 2 handed pros who have accuracy control like Belmonte). As with any style change there are trade-offs, this being very clear of power vs. accuracy.

I don't know how the USBC would address this situation especially now that the style is established, to remove it and declare it illegal is very dangerous. This is more of an evolution of the game and becomes a slippery slope if it is determined that it isn't legal.

[Brite1]

I understand the concept that typically a two handed release will produce more revs than a one handed release, but what I'm saying is that there isn't an unfair advantage created...there is nothing that a two-handed bowlers gets that a one-handed bowler doesn't have exposure to. Other than mechanics there is nothing stopping the one-handed bowler from getting those revs (see Robert Smith, he is rated at getting the highest rev rate...I know he is an exception, but in a sense so is the few 2 handed pros who have accuracy control like Belmonte). As with any style change there are trade-offs, this being very clear of power vs. accuracy.

I don't know how the USBC would address this situation especially now that the style is established, to remove it and declare it illegal is very dangerous. This is more of an evolution of the game and becomes a slippery slope if it is determined that it isn't legal.

Say it again for the people in the back lol

[Amyers]

I understand the concept that typically a two handed release will produce more revs than a one handed release, but what I'm saying is that there isn't an unfair advantage created...there is nothing that a two-handed bowlers gets that a one-handed bowler doesn't have exposure to. Other than mechanics there is nothing stopping the one-handed bowler from getting those revs (see Robert Smith, he is rated at getting the highest rev rate...I know he is an exception, but in a sense so is the few 2 handed pros who have accuracy control like Belmonte). As with any style change there are trade-offs, this being very clear of power vs. accuracy.

You are correct the difference is it will take a level of talent and years of practice for the one hander to be able to produce the same amount of revs that a two handed bowler does with little to no talent and 6 months or less of practice. In addition the modern game of THS bowling emphasizes power and rev rate not accuracy which creates the issue.

I don't know how the USBC would address this situation especially now that the style is established, to remove it and declare it illegal is very dangerous. This is more of an evolution of the game and becomes a slippery slope if it is determined that it isn't legal.

At this point you are correct the style should have been outlawed as soon as it developed even before Belmo started winning tournaments. At this point it would hurt the game to remove it and we will just have to live with it's effects.

[Aslan]

....I know he is an exception, but in a sense so is the few 2 handed pros who have accuracy control like Belmonte). As with any style change there are trade-offs, this being very clear of power vs. accuracy.

True. And I always, despite being a "2-handed bowling hater", point out that Belmonte is not the 3-time MVP...ONLY because of his 2-handed advantage. He's the 3-time MVP (or 3-time whatever he is) because he's able to be a 2-handed bowler with the incredible accuracy and consistency that very few 2-handed bowlers possess. I've seen a LOT of high rev (2-handed and 1-handed) bowlers that are absolutely MISERABLE spare shooters. That may win sidepots and brackets on league night...maybe even allow a bowler to have the high average in their league...but you have to have accuracy to make it at the next level...and Belmonte has tremendous combination of skills...and doesn't really get enough credit for that.

You are correct the difference is it will take a level of talent and years of practice for the one hander to be able to produce the same amount of revs that a two handed bowler does with little to no talent and 6 months or less of practice. In addition the modern game of THS bowling emphasizes power and rev rate not accuracy which creates the issue.

Say it again for the people in the back lol

At this point you are correct the style should have been outlawed as soon as it developed even before Belmo started winning tournaments. At this point it would hurt the game to remove it and we will just have to live with it's effects.

Agreed.

The unfortunate consequence of the USBC acting so, so slowly...about lots of things (technology, patterns, styles, etc...) is that you create a situation that becomes difficult to get rid of.

- If a center is allowed to have non-sanctioned leagues...then those leagues get popular and sanctioned league play declines...it's hard for the USBC to outlaw non-sanctioned leagues at sanctioned centers.
- If ball manufacturers are allowed to make stronger and stronger equipment...even in exceedence of USBC specs...it becomes very difficult to reign the technology in. Look at the Motiv case...even though Motiv clearly violated the specs...I'd say 30%-90% of bowlers thought the USBC was wrong to intervene.
- If centers area allowed to use any oil they choose...any pattern they choose...it's hard for the USBC to mandate a pattern and type of oil after the fact.
- And, if bowlers are allowed to bowl without putting their thumb in the ball...it's hard to have the USBC step in decades later and say, "Well...it wasn't a problem when it was 1-handed cranker/palm bowlers...but now it's a problem with 2-handers.
- When the USBC/PBA allowed the use of wrist devices...it's hard now to go back and say, "Umm...now you can't use them."

One can argue that each of those issues has contributed to the decline of bowling as a sport. Some can argue that those things have made the game more 'fun'. Do we want an activity/game that is fun for a broad segment of the population? OR...do we want a sport that is seriously considered as an Olympic 'sport'? It would be great if we could have BOTH...but I don't think we can. High scoring, powerful cores, easy patterns, 'hooking the entire lane', and bionic arms....in a non-sanctioned league that costs $7/night...thats FUN! Turn out the lights...put up the bumpers...grab a bucket of beers...FUN time! But thats NOT a 'sport'....thats a game/activity.

OR...do you mandate pancake cores in balls, outlaw wrist braces/supports, mandate USBC patterns, require that sanctioned centers sanction all their leagues, and outlaw any bowling form where the thumb isn't in the ball (and the use of 2 hands)?

Like everything in life...every action has both a positive and negative reaction. More fun and less 'sport'...means more casual bowlers...more birthday parties....more concession sales, etc... But...you lose serious bowlers...you lose interest in the 'sport'...you lose older, traditional bowlers...you lose your 'league' bowlers...and the USBC becomes further obselete. Should the USBC move towards more restrictions...you lose casual bowlers, you lose 2-handers, you lose those that use wrist devices, bowling ball manufacturers will fight the changes, etc... and you risk the further decline of the sport.

Ying and Yang

[Aslan]

Possible Solutions:
(because I like to offer some level of constructive commentary....not jsut "hating")

- Mandate USBC patterns
- Restrict "robo braces"...but not ALL braces. Perhaps wrist supports (like the Dick Weber Wristmaster Pro) with only a couple pieces of ridged plastic/metal.
- Lower the maximum differential from 0.060 to 0.053 on future new releases
- Mandate all leagues are sanctioned; but provide financial incentives to bowling centers...especially for youth leagues, senior leagues, and leagues designed to introduce new bowlers to the sport.

I agree with fordman...I think you can deal with 2-handed/thumbless bowling (as well as bowling ball technology) by simply mandating patterns that make those styles less advantageous...and that will accomplish the same result (fairness) without unnecessarily ticking off alot of the new interest in the sport/game.

[fordman1]

- Mandate all leagues are sanctioned; I bet you meant Cetrified.
How does the USBC get revenue then?

but provide financial incentives to bowling centers...especially for youth leagues, senior leagues, and leagues designed to introduce new bowlers to the sport.
Profit should be profit enough.

[Aslan]

- Mandate all leagues are sanctioned; I bet you meant Cetrified.
How does the USBC get revenue then?

Many centers offer some non-sanctioned leagues. These leagues are usually beginner/youth focused...many times can be leagues that have very short seasons...and in many cases don't necessarily follow USBC rules (such as no-tap leagues).

In some cases, these make sense. For example...handicap leagues...where some of the bowlers need to use a ramp...or very young leagues where the youth bowlers need to use bumpers. But, unfortunately, many centers have started to offer leagues that are "non-sanctioned" simply to make them shorter and cheaper. I bowled in one way, way, way back...and it was called "El Cheapo League". It cost $13/night...shorter season...and the only real difference between that league and sanctioned leagues...was it was cheaper and the bowlers didn't need their USBC membership/card.

Profit should be profit enough.

Well, from the center's perspective, non-sanctioned, no-tap, short season leagues can be very profitable. Many Bowlmor centers don't even bother sanctioning their lanes nor even having leagues...and the ones in certain high-end locations make a very nice profit.

And, the USBC has to be diplomatic in their approach. Drawing a hard line in the sand with the BPAA could lead to the BPAA simply agreeing to no longer certify. The USBC doesn't own their own their own centers (except for maybe the training center)...so that would end the USBC pretty darn quick. Just like ball manufacturers...the USBC taking too aggressive an approach could lead the ball manufacturers to just non-certify their equipment....meaning bowlers would quickly run out of sanctioned equipment to use in sanctioned leagues.

The 3 groups, and to a lesser extent the PBA, have to work together as much as possible...or the whole thing could collapse...and the USBC could be the main casualty.

[fordman1]

So real league bowling is doomed. It was fun while it lasted. Break out the bochie balls.