The number of people that can actually say that the lanes are too easy is slim. IMO, the only ones that could back up that statement "the house shots are too easy", can average over 220 on any house shot. For those under 220 that say the lanes are too easy then why are you NOT averaging 220 or even over 200 in some cases? I mean, its so easy.

We have a number of bowlers in our association that average over 220 and a few that are over 230. But those people are less then 50 out of 9000. That's 1/2 a percent are averaging over 220. If you want to get generous, then call it 1%. If the game is so easy and the house shot so easy then why are less then 1% of bowlers averaging under 220. This is what I mean when I say the minority think the house shot is too easy. 1% of the bowlers out there, think the house shot is too easy. Or at least can back up that statement.

Erin

actually in all fairness isn't 200 par for the PBA? Is that not the requirement for a PBA membership?

I saw somewhere some guy posted a 261 for a season average, can't remember if it was Summer or Winter but that is unreal. I could understand if averages like this were routine but they are not. Most good house bowlers are in the 220-230 range like Erin said but even then it has taken that individual years to get there and make no mistake it takes work to stay there.

Everyone is making great points about other sports going high tech as time progresses. Titanium drivers don't make golf balls land 6 inches from the green, graphite rackets don't make tennis balls bounce just inside the baseline and $230 bowling balls don't string 12 in a row on their own. It still takes skill and if you accel to the point any one of these sports are THAT easy you can always turn pro and find out where you stand among the best.

Yeah...they want your money!!!!

Does anyone think that they are actually competative in the PBA world with a 200 one year house shot average? Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but that's a marketing scam to get your membership money. It takes a 200 average to be cannon fodder to all the 230+ bowlers that are competing on the regional PBA field. PBA needs money, this is just one way they go about getting it. At 200 you are a donator and all tournaments need donators. If you put the price on experience at that level then so be it. But you will not be competative until you are over 220.

Erin

Some of you have missed my point. For the pros to get the respect they deserve the guy that bowls once a week should not be getting scores like a pro. I know the Pros bowl on much harder conditions, but we used to turn on every Saturday to watch the pros and perhaps get a tip that we could go practice with to help our game. Now its so easy just to go out and buy and expensive ball to improve your game without practice. I quit bowling after the first year I bought my first reactive ball in 1994 and averaged over 225 with it. Sure it was fun at first seeing the added power and hook. But I can remember many a shot that I threw poorly and even had the ball slip off my hand and still watch the ball roar back into the pocket and rip the rack. All I had to do was stand left and throw it out toward the gutter. My average like many others who bought these balls went up 20 pins, without doing anything different in my game. Yes we have better technology in many sports. But you can give the best golf clubs to a bogey golfer and he will still be a bogey golfer unless he works to improve his swing.

BowlerJim,
I kind of have mixed feelings about your comment. As one who came from the '80's with a 210 average, on wood, with a black rubber ball, sat out 24 years, and now has returned, and is finally over 200 again, I think I can comment objectively on both eras.

First, I will say that given all factors, I think a 210 average was much harder to achieve then than it is today. But, it equates more to a 225 average of today. I will also say that the ability of the bowlers of that era was about the same as the ability of the bowlers of today. The difference I find is in the equipment, balls, lanes, etc. that have improved scoring. The mechanical repetitiveness of the bowler, the robotic armswing, the bodily control, the pace and balance was just as important then as now. The scoring standard has risen with this newer equipment. And, I don't think that is altogether bad.

As in any sport, it is difficult to compare records of then to today because of the equipment. Sure, the tennis player using graphite rackets still has to place the ball inside the lines, but at a ballspeed that was unreachable 25 years ago. And, a bowler will hit 300, but with ball reaction that also was unattainable 25 years ago. But, this is a part of any sport that has improved with time. I often marvel how baseball players fielded a ball in the '20's and 30's with those little baseball gloves, with NO webbing or pockets. Where the human element has pretty much stayed the same, IMO, the equipment has improved. But, that has raised the standard for all to hit. And, in all sports. How could a pole vaulter reach 16 feet without fiberglass poles?

I guess I feel the way you do as scores rise because bowling, unlike other sports, has a cap on the maximum that can be achieved. You cannot bowl higher than 300. And, today's averages are compressing the difference between them and that 300 max.

Does a 230 average bowler of today actually bowl beter than a 210 of 30 years ago? I say no. And, here is where I agree with you, because the equipment, I feel, has made the difference. But, this is the case in any sport.

The Standards have been raised.

Jim, I didn't miss your point; and I think you sort of proved mine. When you got your first reactive ball you say all you had to do is stand left and throw towards the gutter and you would shred the rack. Well, sir, what would have happened it you were on a PBA or sport shot? You cannot stand left/throw right with the latest greatest ball and score well unless that shot is there. So you got a 225 average without practice, everyone's average went up 20 pins etc due to, not having a reactive ball, but having a ball to take advantage of the already easy lane conditions.

You say that a new driver in the hands of a bogey golfer won't do anything until bogey golfer learns how to golf first, and bowling is no different. Balls do not throw themselves, the bowler does. And high tech balls don't keep anyone from learning how to improve their game. In fact, I think it can make trying new things more challenging/rewarding. I spent a couple hours last week practicing the 2 board & the 20 board, alternating games, with the same ball. The ball I used is an Ebonite crossfire which is entirely too strong to play the 2 board (where there is no oil) and too weak to play the 20. I had to take everything out of the release and add speed for the 2, and get very firm with the release and very soft with the speed for the 20 and be exact in terms of accuracy for both shots.

Anyway, I think you exaggerate the ability for poor bowlers to improve 20 pins without practice. Spares are just as important now as before, and spares don't make themselves. Nor do the strikes. And again, if you play on anything other than a walled up house shot, your arguement is null anyway. Don't be made at the ball makers, get mad at your laneman.

Lorok, there is a time warp in this discussion. Without knowing your ages, I believe both of you are looking at this dilema from different times. 25+ years ago, there was only oil or no oil. There were no different shots, or comparison between House shot and sport shot. In my 24 year absence, these processes and terms came about. In retrospect, to me it seems that this 'shot' concept came about since the advent of synthetic lanes and composite balls. And why? Because they made the playing surface more difficult. And, since I missed their introduction, this would tell me that synthetic lanes were easier to hit with composite balls, then the older wooden lanes with rubber.

There is a distinct difference in a house shot and sport shot. But, 25 years ago, at the 210+ level, there was only the sport shot, oil equivelent. And to hold 210+ on that was an accomplishment.

Maybe someone has the history of sport shot pattern development? I seriously doubt it existed before synthetic lanes were common.

If this is true, then Jim's comments hold, if you look through 25 year older eyes, forward.

Sorry Jim, I don't agree with your comments at all. If you were able to drop balls off of your hand and still strike, kudos to you. It does happen from time to time, but I don't care how much money you spend on equipment, nothing beats good old fashioned practice and putting time into learning the game. You could very easily been the beneficiary of great luck or an easy shot which allowed you to have the success you had. I'm sure that it wouldn't have been the case in every house you bowled in at that time, and if so, then I would be willing to invite you to Vegas with me to sit behind me at the Texas Hold 'Em table, because you are just a lucky so and so...LOL.

All jokes aside, I know guys who go out and buy all the new balls the day they get released and average 180, because they don't know how to throw them or just how to bowl in general. I also know guys who haven't bought a ball in 10 yrs who average 200+. It's about knowing how to bowl. Making adjustments, conforming to lane conditions, etc...these things elude these guys, because they think buying a certain ball will produce results. Despite my constant praise of Storm and the success I have had and continue to have with them, I know that it would be impossible if I didn't put in the time to make my physical and mental game better.

With that said, if you're able to average 200 you should be proud. That's averaging about 5-6 strikes per game and consistently picking up spares. That's the mark of a good bowler. It's very difficult to average 220+ (about 7-8 strikes per game and a good spare game) on any condition and kudos to those who can do that also. I'm currently averaging 208 across three different houses, but again, I work on my game as much as I can.

Why am I defending Jim? I think I partly agree with him. After restarting 2 ears ago, I have raised my average over 27 points. Some of that was physical ability coming back. But, the majority of the increase was the newer equipment that I bought.

You can ask my teammates. As I went from 175 to over 190 in a few months, I would comment that it was due to the new ball. Equipment today means so much in the game. Much more than it used to. Matching the ball, coverstock, weight to lanes and varying conditions is a part of the game that didn't exist before. And, once you learn it, bowling becomes so much easier than it would have 20+ years ago.

Given that you have the ability, and have trained yourself properly, your equipment makes a 10-15 pin difference in your average.

Years ago, there was very little difference between your own equipment and the house balls. Maybe a conventional grip to fingertip difference. But, today, I don't know anyone who would bowl with a house ball and average the same, even with the same grip.

As I said before, I don't think this is a bad thing. It is just a progression in the game.