Who do you think will win?

Doug Kent (Defending Champion)
Sean Rash (USBC Masters)
Michael Haugen Jr. (H&R Block Tournament of Champions)
Norm Duke (65th Denny's U.S. Open)
Parker Bohn III (Fan Vote)
Chris Barnes (Fan Vote)

I would say who I think will win but I keep jinxing my guys

Duke or Barnes. Duke got hot in end of the season. Barnes had terrific season and loves those big cash tourney.

i heard parker won

Not sure if people wanted to see that...

What pattern will they be on?

Cheetah. I think they all have a shot... can't pick one.

DUUUUUuUuUuuuke :P

my vote is for Stormin' Norman

I say player of the year takes it home ...

see think i was right!good for parker

Which ball was Bohn using on the left lane?

Looked like it could be an Absolute Inferno, I could be wrong though.

i believe it might be the absolute inferno?he had 2 balls,the other one was twisted fury.

on PBA website "in the bag" said Bohn was using Absolute Inferno and twisted Fury.
http://www.pba.com/players/inthebag.asp

Besides Parker Bohn, the viewing audience was also a winner as Rob Stone seems to have made an effort to clean up his commentating. Stone also mentioned that he is attempting to learn the game and today it showed.

I found the first to get six strikes format a good one and for me it generated as much edge of your seat excitement as a shootout in the Stanley Cup playoffs.

His sure looks a lot better than the preview images of the infernos - no doubt the pros get the cream of the crop when it comes to aestethically pleasing swirls/combinations.

When I first saw him pick up the Absolute Inferno, I just couldn't tell what it was for sure due to the colors. I've seen many AIs and don't remember one that looks like that with such a definition of color and separation.

Same with me ... I knew it was a Brunswick but have never seen one look like that. I was saying it must have been a custom made pattern as nice as it looked - never seen a AI look that nice.

I think they made an updated batch before they moved to Mexico. I think they did it as a pro-am ball and made the colors brighter, then the pros caught wind of it and requested a boat load of them since it is one of the best balls ever in Brunswick's lineup.

to go along with that...did anyone hear PBIII mention the hambone? I found that rather humorous considering the heated debate on this board about it...

SHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

lol

I'd like to think that this forum, and forums like us are responsible for Rob Stone taking the nonsense out of his commentary but maybe Randy Pedersen finally had enough and went to the producers of the show who wised Rob Stone up. But whatever or whoever pointed Rob Stone in the right direction elevated my enjoyment of the show tenfold. A four bagger is still a four bagger as it should be.

I don't know for a fact, but Randy gives it to Stone every time he comes out with one of his dumb catch phrases. I don't mind if Randy does it, he has been there and paid his dues, he can do what he likes he has earned the right and he is the color commentator and that is what he is there for.

Stone is there for play by play I don't mind if he asks questions or makes minor commentary, but when he tries to change nomenclature that has been around longer than most of us, that is where I don't like it, but it is what it is, as long as bowling is on TV what is not to like.

I have had the feeling that Randy as color commentator had to go along with Rob's number one while humoring Rob and wishing at times that he'd shut it down. It's my opinion that Rob and his catch phrases had become a distraction and was taking away from one of the shows that I have been watching since the PBA tour was first televised.

I did not see the whole show, but the reference I heard was in relation to an overzealous fan yelling out "Hambone!" during PBIII's approach that, eventually, produced the hambone; "Little early on the hambone there."

Congratulations to Parker Bohn III for winning the event. He was the most consistent, throughout. He had a great look all day and could have easily won it on six consecutive shots. What was so impressive to me was that with all that money/prestige on the line, and even after leaving a stone 10 and stone 7, he still delivered a perfect shot to win it. That is why those guys are professionals and we are not. That's where I've tried to elevate my game. When I know I'm labeling shots and leaving solid corners or true tap, I try to acknowledge for what it was...a good or great shot. And I try to duplicate it. Tough sometimes, but after a while I've stopped worrying and as long as I feel I made the best shot possible, I can live with it.

It's when I tug it, baby it or over compensate in some way that I get upset because I didn't trust myself.

I agree with you show300, I'd rather throw a good shot and get tapped then throw a terrible one and strike, even though the score board can't tell the difference. Now I do get a little flabbergasted when it keeps happening no matter what I do, but all I do is try to make the spare and go on with the game.

I shrug my shoulders and raise my hands when ever I get lucky action along with taking flack from others saying how lucky I was, but I'll take em anyway they come ...

Even the best get some lucky breaks, it goes with the game as well as the bad breaks on great shots. There are some nights all the breaks seem to go to the other team, or even everyone else on my team and I get a little high and leave splits. Then other times its the other way around, but it rarely looks that way. I'd still rather execute the shot right and give myself the best possible chance of a strike then rely on luck on a bad shot. Now the rules say I have to take those lucky strikes, so I take them.

Watched it last night as my DVR picked it up over the weekend. This was truly an enjoyable event to see, and the commentary was better ten-fold. I honestly was impressed with Stone learning/knowing more about bowling, and of course Randy was a pleasure to listen to as always. Great job done by Parker...150k!

I hate to swoop in and leave a somewhat dissenting opinion here, but coming from someone who hasn't been around the sport forever and know that there are certain sacred or hallowed terms that can never be changed, it seems to me that Rob Stone is just trying to inject a little more excitement into the sport and possibly expand the viewing audience. Although hearing an overzealous "HAMBONE!!!!" or "GREEN EGGS AND HAMBONE!!!" over and over can get tiresome, it does try to build suspense to see if the bowlers will achieve four strikes in a row. Beginning with Bayer/El Paso, I DVR'd every event this season and I've watched them all at least 3 times for learning reasons.
Also, Randy Pedersen has all too often tried to force a catch phrase into the commentary: he over-uses the word Vortex, and tried to force the catch phrase "Don't Tase me Bro!!!" quite often.

Anyway, my point is that they can BOTH be annoying, but they are both just trying (sometimes way too hard) to inject excitement however they can, and for the most part they do a good job.

Randy's use of the terms "Vortex" and "Don't tase me, Bro" are not connected to bowling and do not infringe upon the bowling lexicon that includes such time honored terms as "four bagger". Randy probably talks like that when he is not behind the mike. As for excitement in the game, there is real excitement such as needing to strike out in the tenth frame to win by one pin. Then there is Rob Stone trying to manufacture excitement and making bowlers like myself cringe when he starts yelling "Hambone".

I was watching an older broadcast on Classic, and Marshall Holman said three-bagger instead of turkey. HOW DARE HE infringe upon the bowling lexicon that includes such time honored terms as "turkey".

On a slight tangent, I am getting tired of people lamenting how the game is not what it was 30 or 40 years ago. Guess what? The game 30 or 40 years ago is not what it was 30 or 40 years before that. Nothing is what it was 30 or 40 years ago. Nothing is even what it was 5 years ago. Things change. Get over it.

Bowling is nowhere close to the same game it used to be.

Back in the day you either knew how to bowl, or you didn't, there was no big hooking ball technology or coaching to help you get to a higher level.

Now a days you can go to any number of internet sites and find books and coaching is available almost anywhere, of course you have to know much more than you did back in the day, but a few years of studying will help you learn all you need to know to be successful.

Back in the day you had to be accurate, and everyone threw the same hard rubber ball and you didn't have lane conditions set up to steer errant shots to the pocket.

Now a days you have to move and change your line every few frames, back in the day you could stay in one spot all night throwing the same shot all you had to do is not miss your target, that sounds pretty easy to me. If you bowl on a sport pattern these days you have to be accurate and versatile and know what ball to throw.

Back in the day every pattern was a sport pattern, but there was a worn area called the Track that was a grove to the pocket, modern synthetic lanes don't wear that way, so it is not like the shot was very difficult back then, all you had to do was play the way everyone else played which was a full roller straight up the 10 board. The modern game can be played from multiple angles, there is no "One Line to the pocket", or one way to bowl.

Lane conditions were not as difficult as they would like you to believe, and they are not as easy these days as they would like you to believe.

Have to agree with CoachJim. 30 years ago, a 195 bowler was a pretty accomplished bowler. Buzz Fazzio led the PBA for 2 consecutive years with a 196 average.

Today, ball Companies have made it easier. Lane conditions have made it easier. No where 30 years ago, did you have 5-8 board variance to hit the pocket. There was NO dry to bounce off of. Big hooks were non existent.

As the Coach said, shellac then laquer lane surfaces were it, and bowlers wore a Track in the lane, not the ball. The conditions bowled on every day were the same as the Pros bowled on. There were NO Sport leagues to make it tougher with oil patterns. There just were higher competitive leagues with better bowlers, Classic Leagues and travel leagues. If you want a comparison, shoot the Shark pattern every day at your center. The playing surface will be the same for everyone, and the scores will drop radically.

Virtually all the terminology we talk about today, has been created in the past 25 years. Some say there is a science in the game today. I seriously wonder. I don't see too many scientists bowling.

30 years ago the game was repetition and accuracy. Today, it's a premium priced ball, especially made for specific lane conditions. It's like the kids game of Concentration.... Match the right ball with the right lane.

I go back further than Marshall and even back then "turkey" and "three bagger" were in vogue and interchangeable.

I would like to think that I have changed with the times. Sometimes I think that I am ahead of some of the members of the leagues I have belonged to in the last 10 years.

There is nothing wrong with change as long as it is an improvement to the game. I'm not sure that all of the technological advances in the last 15 years are an improvement. When I read about 12 year old kids rolling perfect games I've got to think that the equipment available today might have had something to do with that perfect game. There was a time when a 300 game meant something. 30 or 40 years ago the world's record for the number of 300 games was 26. Now there are a bunch of local classic league bowlers who have 40 - 50 300 games to their credit. The game is constantly changing but I think we have passed the point where it is more about having the right equipment rather than the skill of the bowler.

John that is kind of what I was trying to point out is how the game has evolved and how different it is now compared to back then, but if you were to bowl on a sport pattern with enough oil to keep the ball from hooking so much, like back in the day, things wouldn't be much different score wise.

If you were to bowl with an old rubber ball on a modern sport shot on a synthetic lane, that would take phenomenal skills to shoot a 300 on that, with modern equipment it is the same thrill that it used to be and takes the same amount of skill and much more knowledge to do it too, but the knowledge is out there and easy to come by, not locked away in a vault.

If you were to have the same oil pattern on a wooden lane with a Track worn in it it gets a little easier, if you were to use a plastic ball it gets easier, a soft plastic ball even easier, a urethane ball easier still.

Next replace the old wooden lane with a synthetic lane with no Track worn in it, not quite so easy, a house oil pattern makes things a whole lot easier, a reactive urethane ball easier yet, even more oil in the middle of the lane makes it easier still, an oil absorbent reactive urethane ball with textured surface with an asymmetrical core makes it the easiest ever.

I still blame Mark Roth for a lot of the way things are now, if he didn't have so much success hooking the snot out of the ball, so many of us wouldn't have tried to copy him and taught so many others how do hook the ball too, then they wouldn't have had to change to thicker oil and improve the equipment to match. If we were all still tossing a full roller, we would probably all still be throwing plastic balls straight up the 10 board for our strike shot. I am just waiting for the kids to see Jason Belmonte bowl, they will make the game change even more, or make it disappear.

Coach,

I agree with you that Mark Roth popularized cranking the ball and started the rev race although a contemporary of Roth's, a stroker, beat out Roth for the most titles - 41 to 34 - you know who I am referring to. However, the one person that I feel had the most influence as to how bowling balls and lane conditions are today is Don McCune and his Soaker - softening up plastic balls by immersing them in methyl ethyl ketone creating greater ball surface-to-lane contact and therefore a more effective ball. From McCune it just snowballed - softer plastic so that finally the ABC had to impose a hardness rule - I can't remember whether it was 73 or 75. From there it went to urethane to reactive resin to reactive resin w/particles. With each advance in ball technology(and hookiness)the amount of oil used on the lanes increased correspondently.

Excuse me if I feel a bit of nostalgia for the "good old days" when I toted only one ball to the lanes.



`

So, what do you think would happen if someone like Michael Fagan, or Tommy Jones, or even Belmonte was bowling on those old lanes (we'll say late 60s) with that old equipment, and the style they have developed now? I would bet that they would beat the pants off everyone else.

Look at the senior tour. The shape of shot that those guys throw is still the same. Gene Stus is the only guy that I think I can remember really hooking it much. The rest all threw a regular old stroked up 10 shot. Roth plays the same line/amount of hook that he's always played.

Settings leagues aside for a minute, and looking at the pros, I think it is more the style of bowler that has changed, and if they are scoring higher now, it is more because of that than it is because of the equipment.

cgeorg, the equipment and lane conditions allowed the bowler to change style. That couldn't have been done on the older shellac lanes with rubber balls. I don't care how man revs a bowler had, outside of 10 was out of bounds, and all the way down. There were no dry outside boards. The pattern was flat.

Put yourself on a flat, lacquered surface for 60 feet, and tell me what your ball would do. Then use a solid rubber ball. That is why I equated older bowling to bowling on the Shark. It is the longest, flattest pattern in today's world.

Now, the National shot of 44 feet, with 70+ units of oil will come closer. Talk with bowlers who recently have come back from Albuquerque. They will all say it is much, much tougher. You can't give an opinion unless you have bowled on it. It is an experience every bowler should have.

I know many older bowlers who have recently come back from there. They are 210-220 average bowlers. They are really happy with a 560 for any set. And, that's with the newer equipment.

There is no doubt that equipment and lane surfaces changed the sport. And, as CoachJim said, made it easier.

Actually, CoachJim said that at the highest level, the game is the same.



Bold added for emphasis.

Is bowling easier for us, the house bowlers? Yes. But, I bet more than half of the exempt pros would average over 200 if the bowled on the US Open pattern for a season. And I bet that if you took them and stuck them on the conditions that were bowled on in 1966, when Wayne Zahn led the tour with a 208.63 average, a good many of them could/would top that.

I want the PBA to do this Get some old lacquer lanes and rubber balls, and, have a PBA shootout on it. Put this issue to rest. Heck, the USBC should do this, if it wants to prove that the sport still has integrity. Show the world that these guys are the best there has ever been.

Ron Clifton showed me an old video of a tv bowling show before the pba that had two of the better bowlers at the time (I can't remember who it was, I came in late and it had already been introduced and I don't think I even heard their names). In that match they were both playing straight up the second arrow using rubber balls, one guy was throwing a full roller and the other guy was throwing a semi or 3/4 roller, (not with TJ or modern revs on it however). The match seemed to go on and on and they had some miss room either a board or two from side to side, they were on their way to a 300 to 300 tie when the 3/4 roller guy's ball went a little bit too long and the ball came in behind the head pin and left a bucket.

They both missed again when the lane dried up a little, the full roller guy just threw the ball harder, the 3/4 roller guy had to move out of the Track and swing it back to the Track and it was just over for him, the ball would not stay in the Track and wouldn't bite the lane anywhere else.

It would be interesting to see how a modern bowler with old equipment would do on old school lanes, but it is hard to compete against 279 every game regardless of the equipment used. The modern guys shots would bite the lane too early and they would have to play inside the Track or outside the Track, the break point was so early that I don't know if they would be able to find a line to the pocket outside of the Track. Bill Taylor said Junie McMahon could rev the ball up as much as any of the guys these days, but had limited success because he couldn't play the Track, but he was far from being as versatile as modern pros are. I have never seen Junie bowl I have always been curious to see his style for comparison.

Ron shows this video for several reasons:

1. to show that a full roller type release has it's place and why it was so popular back in the day.

2. to show that the lanes were still pretty easy back then. How many of us would like to just bring one ball and play the same line all night?

3. to show how the lanes were oiled all the way down to the head pin, the ball wouldn't move if it was outside the Track, and if it didn't bite into the lane the 5 pin would be standing there waving at you even if you hit the pocket.

I will ask him where he got that footage from it might be on youtube if I knew who it was it would help.

I've seen Junie McMahon bowl on Fred Wolf's Championship Bowling series. If I remember correctly he didn't do too well. Junie did throw a lot of hook but he didn't have the market on being able to bend the ball. Bill Lillard was tops in that category. Lillard put his fingers into the holes up to the 2nd joint (conventional) but only inserted his thumb up to the first joint. Lillard was the Tommy Jones of his era in that he set the ball down left of center and could bring the ball back from the gutter to rip the pins on light hits. There was one show that featured Dick Weber when he was still a member of the Budweisers. Back then Dick threw a sweeping hook (index finger spread) unlike later in his career when he cut his hook down with his fingers jammed together.

As far as modern bowlers using rubber balls on shellac alleys, I am fairly sure that most of them would adapt to the equipment and lane conditions and average about the same as the old time greats. By the same token I am confident that if the old timers could find a fountain of youth, they could blend right in with the great bowlers of today.

With regards to videos of pre-PBA bowling shows, I may be wrong, but I think that they are available at the ABC Hall of Fame in St Louis. Right now the Hall of Fame is in a state of flux and the powers that be are trying to move the hall to a new location.

Here is a good example of what might happen, look at Carmen Salvino's style, it is very similar to the modern way of bowling, the other guy is tossing a spinner, which was the other popular way to bowl back then. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36F--r2ra_M

This might also explain why Carmen Salvino was successful through out the different technological changes through the years.

And to think, Carmen was considered to have a big bender for the times. Kowaliks reminds me so much of my father when he bowled.

You don't even see someone looking for a breakpoint in that film. All shots were straight up 10 +- a couple of boards either side.

I love watching those old films. In today's world, wouldn't the pinboy have to have been paid, since he appeared on TV a couple of times? I loved the shot where his leg was hanging down in the back.

By the way, I am bowling in a doubles tournament on Saturday with Al Jordan (79) who used to bowl in the Chicago Classic league with Salvino. Al still carries a 190+ average.

Coach,

Carmen Salvino was certainly one of the all-time greats and an innovator too. Carmen early in his career was one of the first bowlers to assume a cranker's hand position with his thumb at 2 o'clock. Later in his career he simplified his delivery by hanging the ball by his side and bumping it forward similar to Marshall Holman except Carmen was upright while Marshall was bent over. His short lived CS bowling ball company was among the first to experiment with --was it some variation of reactive resin?

With regards to Eddie Kawolics - I am not convinced that he threw a spinner although it appeared that way in the video you supplied because of the way his hand came around the ball. I saw Eddie in a later Championship Bowling show in the early 1960's. If I remember correctly, at the time, Eddie was using an AMFlite Magic Line, the AMF ball with the 3 white dots. The camera would show closeups of Eddie's ball entering the 1-3 pocket and making the 10-pin spare. The 3 dots made it easy to see the ball's rotation which appeared to have the ball rolling when it hit the pins.

I remember the way Salvino bowled, it was more like Wayne Webb than Holman though. I like his old style better, I think he would have been better off if he stayed with it.

Carmen developed balls for Brunswick right before I quit bowling back in the mid 80s, it was a soft polyester ball called the Mark X it was very brittle and didn't last long before it cracked or got out of round, mine would rumble all the way down the lane, it had light and dark swirls that would eventually become hills and valleys. I was not aware he had his own company, it must have been when I was away from the sport for six years.

I wish I could find that clip that Ron has, I will have him burn it for me on a disk this summer when I see him. I don't know if it will help jog your memory, but the guy that won was puffing away on a big cigar the whole time he was bowling.

The only bowler that bowled with a cigar in his mouth was Johnny King. He'd get a strike and then take a big puff on the cigar which would glow red. It was like the red light in hockey which would come on when a goal was scored.

Johnw1 is right, Johnny King had the cigar. Great tradition. Like Red Auerbach and the Cel