Bowling Forums, Bowling Discussion and Bowling Talk
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
mrbowling300

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 11,668
Reply with quote  #1 
https://www.stlmag.com/The-Only-Rival-Pete-Weber-Wont-Trash/
Dare

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,356
Reply with quote  #2 
Wonder how many titles he'd have one if he stayed straight?


__________________
Pink Black Widow   Pyramid Curse

Web Tour
themrfreeze

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,841
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare
Wonder how many titles he'd have one if he stayed straight?



One less than WRWJr.  [rofl]

mrbowling300

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 11,668
Reply with quote  #4 
I would say his window of opportunity like 1988 to 1992.  When resin came out, he struggled big time.  In that 4 year span, he probably left 10-12 titles on the table due to his addictions.  Maybe even a few more in the mid 80s due to missed time because of suspensions, etc.
Dare

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,356
Reply with quote  #5 
I think Amleto  struggled with resin too. I saw him in 2002 and
he put as much on it as anyone


__________________
Pink Black Widow   Pyramid Curse

Web Tour
mrbowling300

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 11,668
Reply with quote  #6 
Resin killed Marshall Holman's career as well as Del Ballard Jr.  They both were never the same after.
Dare

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,356
Reply with quote  #7 
I wonder if urethane hurt any of the bowlers? Seems like Roth wasn't
as good with it


__________________
Pink Black Widow   Pyramid Curse

Web Tour
Bob_DeDowney

Registered:
Posts: 59
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare
I wonder if urethane hurt any of the bowlers? Seems like Roth wasn't
as good with it



Some said it knocked out Stefanich, Don Johnson,

Davis and many of leaders through to 60's and 70's
avabob

Registered:
Posts: 478
Reply with quote  #9 
It wasn t the urethane balls that hurt Stefanich, Johnson, Neff and many more. It was the hard urethane finishes and the trend to short oil patterns on the late 70s. Resin hurt Ballard, Moneclli, and others who slow hooked the lane with lots of side roll. Weber too. It helped straighter players who could throw hard like WRW. Eventually a new type of power player emerged who could combine speed and revs with less axis rotation.

Interesting question on Roth. He didnt have the so called urethane release that many developed in the 80s. However it may be as much a case of urethane helping a bunch of new breed power players as it was hurting Roth. Definitely a lot of one hit wonders winning during that period.
Beeswaxhead

Registered:
Posts: 62
Reply with quote  #10 
Wow people really? Lets give Ballard, Monacelli, PDW and some other pros the credit you’re not giving them. These guys had to adapt to throwing these steroid resin balls and they did finally, continuing on to winning titles again. Resin hurt the sport of bowling overall but, these great great pros names you mentioned, overcame it and I saw it with my own eyes. I’ve even talked in person with these pros you mentioned here. A TRUE ATHLETE OR COMPETITOR WILL LEARN TO ADAPT AS WELL AS ADJUST TO THE MOST CHALLENGING OBSTACLES! Furthermore none of were out there competing at the level these guys were competing at, nor were we ever as great of bowlers as they are so we don’t have any right making derogatory comments about them at all. These are pros that performed well in the 70s and 80s, before these steroid reactives came out. I was a PBA member for 10 years and for those of you that never bowled in the PBA, “GUESS WHAT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, ITS NOT AS EASY AS YOU THINK IT IS”. I bowled as a guest in the 1999 the ABC Masters averaging 195 for qualifying. That was my first time and I got compliments from pros there, who told me there are guys who come to that event for the first time and don’t even average 170 but brag about their precious 225 average in league. My point is let’s give credit to where and who it’s due to!!
__________________
Patrick J Yarns
avabob

Registered:
Posts: 478
Reply with quote  #11 
Ballard, Weber, Webb Monacelli are great bowlers. The fact that resin hurt them does not diminish them. However, Stefanich, Neff, Hudson, Johnson, were just as great in yhe 70s, short oil urethane hurt them just as badly. A very good argument can be made that the 80s produced more one hit wonder hacks than any era in history, except for the lefty domination in the mid late 60s.

There have been major changes in the playing environment about every 10 years ftom 1970 through 1992. Each of these changes hurt some very good players. If you want to say resin was horrible, then so were urethane balls, the switch from lacquer to harder urethane finishes and the introduction of soft polyester balls. Each of these changes raised the scoring environment and hurt some very good players from the orevious environment
Beeswaxhead

Registered:
Posts: 62
Reply with quote  #12 
Avabob I understand where you’re coming from but, the truth of the matter is that urethane didn’t heat up causing the friction and erratic hook that resin does when it goes down the lane. All that happened was the combining of rubber and polyester together to create urethane. That’s natural. This scientist that approached Nu-line Excalibur with the ridiculous idea of mixing resin the same chemical found in Comet cleanser, into urethane balls was crazy in the head. The ball companies were thinking with their wallets instead of brains. This wasn’t natural mixing substances into the balls. I know about Don McCune and the soaking but, that was even banned. My point is the truth, resin was really hurt our sport. There’s opinions and there’s the truth. About 80% of what comes from my mouth is the truth. The bottom line, we were doing just fine with urethane, plastic and rubber. The balls didn’t need to hook anymore than they already did. Sports were meant to be challenging. It was a proven point, because there were league average statistics that showed people only being able to average 175-185 back in the late 80 but, when resins came out consistently in 1992-93, all of a sudden they’re averaging 200-215. I’m not making this up, I’m stating the truth!
__________________
Patrick J Yarns
Beeswaxhead

Registered:
Posts: 62
Reply with quote  #13 
Some of the pros who won titles in the 80s, continued on winning in the 90s as well after steroid resin came out. THATS BECAUSE THEY OVERCAME AND ADAPTED TO THIS GARBAGE! For a disrespectful youngster or wall-baby nowadays to make a stupid comment about the sport being harder now than back then is stupid and ludicrous. The truth is bowling was 15 times harder back in the 60s/70s and 10times harder in the 80s than it is nowadays. The house shot used to be a tough shot. Nowadays the average house shot along with these steroid balls, IS A PATHETIC JOKE! Randy Petersen needs to stop kissing up to and worshiping some of these youngsters as well also. Bring back Bo Burton, Mike Durbin or have someone like Chris Barnes/Duke, who’s going to not make stupid comments or bloopers like Pedersen does.
__________________
Patrick J Yarns
avabob

Registered:
Posts: 478
Reply with quote  #14 
I dont believe polyurethane was s combination of rubber and polyester. It wasn't the urethane balls so much that caused me problems in the 80s. It was the short oil walls with constantly stripped back ends that paved the way for cup wristed crankers, giving them so much of a carry advantage that spare shooting was optional for a lot of guys out in that period.

I dont disagree what resin balls are doing to the patterns. I also totally agree that scuffed shells should be outlawed. I just dont agree that modern power players like Tackett or Belmo are in any eay inferior to players who dominated in previous environments
themrfreeze

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,841
Reply with quote  #15 
Technological change usually takes place to make things easier for people.  Power tools were invented to make doing skilled trades easier.  Dishwashers were invented to make housework easier.  Automatic transmissions were invented to make driving a car easier.  Reactive resin was invented to make striking easier.

No matter the industry, not everybody takes kindly to change.  I'm sure some bowlers with lignum vitae bowling balls hated when rubber balls were invented, then some rubber ball owners hated it when polyester came out, etc. 

You can grouse all you want about how reactive resin balls ruined the game but it's not going to change the fact that they're here to stay and in some ways you're not going to be competitive if you don't, to some extent, master their use.  Some will, some won't be able to due to a lack of ability, and the rest will just quit bowling in protest.

Mind you, I'm not saying that I LIKE reactive resin bowling balls.  Those who have been on this forum for a while know I love me my vintage urethane.  [rofl]

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.