From: MAX@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark K. Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.sport.bowling
Subject: Re:
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:19:38 GMT
 <1993Jan7.204418.14825@worldbank.org> <93007.172244MAX@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1993Jan8.140901.23652@worldbank.org>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1993Jan8.140901.23652@worldbank.org>, aki
<aki@akidamme-233324.worldbank.org> says:
>
>Well two things...(1) you don't read too well, and (2) I was DEFENDING the
>fact that bowling is just what you said.

Sorry, Aki, let's make nice.  I did have a slight reading problem (see
below,) but my bigger problem is a writing problem.  I wrote that reply
and looked it over and decided that Aki will think I'm "flaming" *him*
if I leave it this way.  So, I touched it up to try to refer to the same
complainers you were referring to (I used your same "real" and "straight"
words to try to do this.)  I think you and I see eye-to-eye on a lot of
this subject.

>First off, I was NOT whining, if anything I was _trying_ to state that
>there IS too much whining about lane conditions.  If you _read_ my post
>you would have seen where I put "real" and "straight" in quotes.  I was only
>stating the fact that yes, lane conditions are set up for profit by the
>houses, NOT for skill.

Yes, I saw that.  We agree.

>                I also said that if the lanes were set up for skill, there
>would be alot less 200 games not only by the "average" bowler but by
>the pros as well.  All the better for me, the tougher the better.

Here's where I had the reading problem.  I understood you (no, actually not
*you* but instead I guess I mean the whiners) to be saying that when lanes
are set up for skill that it makes it harder for the lesser bowler while at
the same time somehow making it easier (actually knock over *more* pins) for
the better bowlers.

>                                                                   I don't
>complain about lane conditions in the houses that I bowl in unless I have
>a legit complaint (e.g. illegal oiling, baby powder on the approach, screaming
>inconsiderate bowlers in adjacent lanes etc).  Unfortunately, as I said,

I've always suspected as much.

>BTW, the first 300 I bowled was with a ten year old Manhattan Rubber, and
>it was also 14lbs and I was 16 years old. Sheesh, _anyone_ can bowl a 300,
>and yes, _anyone_ can bowl a 250 something.  And as just about every

See, we're making the same point again.  Anyone can bowl well with any
equipment if the proper consideration is made for conditions.

>Mark, _any_ sport, in concept is simple.  Golf, hit the ball into the hole
>with
>the least amount of strokes.  Tennis, hit the ball as hard as you can within
>the lines on the other side of the  net and hope the other guy misses.  Hell
>look at boxing, all you gotta do is stay conscious!

Again, I don't know that we're disagreeing.  I'm sure we'd both think the
participants were a bunch of crybabies if the golfers moaned because the grass
on one course was greener (no, really, the color not some cliche) than the
grass on another course; or if the tennis player objected to losing because
the other guy has a better racquet; or if the boxer thought it was unfair to
be beaten because the other guy could hit harder than he does.  Aki, you and
I know that this is just conditions.  Deal with 'em or find a different game!

>                                               I think it's unfair that you
>bash Ballard for guttering the ball, how do you think he got into the final
>round in the first place?  By guttering the ball all of the time?  He made
>a mistake, no one said Pro bowlers were perfect, they just make (on an
>average) _less_ mistakes.

I know how Del got to the final.  I know Del is an exceptional bowler.  I'm
sorry!  It was a lame example, I can't deny that.

>>I ask those "true 200" bowlers mentioned above struggling with their 185
>>game and a ProHook Extreme why didn't they use a plastic ball and throw it
>>straight down the lane and get their own 200 if they knew thats what the
>>conditions were?  I would think a "true 200" bowler would know when and how
>>to adjust.
>
>Why not?  I've seen "true 200" bowlers do just that.  Infact, I used my
>black knight when the lane conditions warrented it.  Maybe, just maybe,
>some of these self labled "true 200" bowlers AREN'T 200 bowlers.

Ah, here we are seeing eye-to-eye again.  The TRUE 200 BOWLERS (all caps, no
quotes, no artificial colors or flavors, FOR REAL) do adjust and do whatever
it takes to get their 200 game.  The "true 200" bowlers (in quotes, with soy
beans, msg, artificial flavors, and fillers added) just keep throwing the
same way and make the "adjustment" of also whining about their 185
achievement.

>OBTW, I've bowled more than one game hitting just one pin (e.g. ten pin or    n
>seven pin), and I could care less what my score was.   When I practice, I'm
>not working on my average, I'm working on my technique and/or strengthening
>my weaknesses, the average will come as a natural result.

Me too.  I wasn't talking about practice games and you know that.

>Whew! :-)

Smooch! ;-)
Newsgroups: alt.sport.bowling