7-8 Split? WTF

[Grizzly Adam]

The 2-3 & 8-9 would be side by side splits like the others, but like a lot of other leaves. They are not mentioned in most bowling references, because they are virtually impossible to leave.

Something to note while some might not regard "side by side" splits as actual splits, because they don't meet the definition of a split.

There are leaves that meet the definition of a split, but are not considered splits. These would be a lot of the washouts, such as the 1-2-10 for example.

While it meets the definition of a split, since the head pin is still there. It's just considered & marked as a washout (W) on the score sheet. (This is from when you kept score by hand and would note splits ,washout etc. on the sheet.)

I never heard of them being marked that way. Got an example sheet or something of them marking splits and washouts etc? Not that I am doubting, I am just interested in this old practice.

[fordman1]

Are you sure? I think you are pulling our leg. They used pencil's to keep score? How did you know when it was your turn? Did you have someone to get you off your electronic device? I did hear rumors that they once had old men who they called pin boys that reset the pins. Whoever said the fit split was and easy one must be a perfect Wii bowler. They are harder than babies.

[Grizzly Adam]

They are harder than babies.

I assume you mean a baby split but I immediately thought of an infant and what it's density would be...

[Tony]

Are you sure? I think you are pulling our leg. They used pencil's to keep score? How did you know when it was your turn? Did you have someone to get you off your electronic device? I did hear rumors that they once had old men who they called pin boys that reset the pins. Whoever said the fit split was and easy one must be a perfect Wii bowler. They are harder than babies.

A few years back before automatic scorers we decided one night since we were using X to signify 10 that maybe bowling was intended to be scored completely in roman numerals
so that's what we did ....I think my series was DXXXV ......

[bowl1820]

I never heard of them being marked that way. Got an example sheet or something of them marking splits and washouts etc? Not that I am doubting, I am just interested in this old practice.

I don't have a old score overlay that would show the washout mark (A Circle with a W in it or just a W) it's use fell out of practice a long time ago., that's a little before my time. The best I can do is from my old Don Johnson book which shows the other symbols (Plus theres "F" for a foul,"G" for a gutter ball, The W symbol is shown in one of my old bowling magazines, but it would take forever to find it.



Given if you (or the scorer marked the sheet fully) you could go back and see just about exactly what you did every frame, but it took a dedicated scorekeeper to do it though.

If you want a old bowling practice there was "Counting marks"

Back in the day when you kept score by hand, Counting marks was a way of estimating who was ahead, at anytime during a game. Without having to tally up the score, it was a simple system of adding up the number of strike and spares.

Here's basically how it was done.
A spare or strike is one mark; a double is two marks, a turkey is three.

There is also a "take off a mark." where you remove or not add a mark because a bowler scored five or less on a spare or double. (Where I bowled they didn't use the "take off the mark", Also if you watch around there are some old automatic scorers that would count marks and show it on the display)

There are some variations to this, but this is the basic way.

There is also "Handicap Marks". Typically it was 1 mark for every 10 pins in the difference of team handicap. Like for example, your team is getting spotted 34 pins you would get 3 handicap marks.

Also if there is a absent bowler, they would have marks also, here is "The Absent Bowler's Marks Table"

Average---Marks
184-Over---10
174-183-----9
164-173-----8
154-163-----7
144-153-----6
134-143-----5
124-133-----4
114-123-----3
104-113-----2
94-103------1
under 94----0

[fordman1]

Tony so you averaged clxxviii for the series?