Bowling News
Higher Scores at WSOB
By Michael Cousins
So, as I’m sure most of you’ve seen, the scores at the WSOB were high — to say the least. And I’ve seen people all over the place give their opinion on whether or not it was “good” or “bad.”
I don’t really have a strong opinion either way, to be honest. In my opinion, the best in the world are going to figure out how to strike — and at a high level — on anything; the cream always rises to the top.
But I’ve seen people that seem to believe that the high scores are “ruining” bowling. They’re comparing it to sports like baseball using aluminum bats and the NBA making the basket wider.
Personally, I’m not quite so sure that, that is the case.
And, like I said, that doesn’t mean I’m pro-high scores, either. I just am more in the middle on this topic. I don’t think it has to be good or bad, right or wrong.
At the end of the day, it just is what it is. And it isn’t like a bunch of house hacks made cuts, either. The cream still rose to the top. Good bowlers found a way to bowl good.
The thing about making them softer is that it makes them softer for everyone. So if the so-called “hacks” are striking, what do you think the best in the world are going to do? Strike more.
I have always personally been a believer that you can only bowl on what is put out against those that are in the field. To me, it’s that simple.
I don’t believe the scoring pace is relevant. Same with golf. The truly great players are going to find a way to keep up with the pace of play. The top players have a proclivity for striking. On anything. Make them hard, they’ll figure it out. Make them soft, they’ll find a way to out-strike the competition.
Good is good, and at the end of the day scoring pace is just a number. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, I’m just saying the best will still be the best at the end of the day.
The reduced amounts of 2-2 loads played a big role with scores, but it didn’t change the fact that the best bowlers had to repeat shots and stay on top of the transitions.
What needs to be mentioned that when the PBA increased the amount of 2-2 loads in 2008 (around that time, at least) meant there was more oil being buffed in the end of the pattern. This led to extreme rev rate players having a slight advantage over those with softer hands. This created a pattern of some lower rev rate players, who had physically bowled well, to not have the same opportunity to create proper entry angles compared to their higher rev/lofting counterparts had. This pattern creates perceived inequity, and to keep entry numbers up, the PBA had to make the change.
Finally, changing the qualifying format to 5 games and a strip/reoil per day was a game changer. It reduced the likelihood that players had to get in and loft it. I think this is a huge reason why we saw a wider variety of styles near the top of the leaderboard.
I think that the event was overall successful; because in the big picture, if you missed once, you were dead money. If you were on top of your game for the whole week, you would get a check, and hopefully more.