Bowling Philosophy-April 2010

Chris Barnes-The 40-Year-Old "Version"

by Thomas Scherrer

One of these days, people will truly see themselves laughing at what they say or feel in regard to Chris Barnes when his career accomplishments and active participation as a professional bowler comes to its nadir. However, much like most great players in the sport's history, they are often spoken about in polarizing terms. Two camps litter the bowling world when it relates to Barnes: one is the camp that highly supports Barnes for his tremendous physical gifts. The other camp wants to dump all over Barnes for being unable to live up to those lofty standards by not winning enough. There is always that dangerous double-edged sword with most talents who are labeled "can't miss" or "top prospect" in any sport for a few simple reasons:

1) They are supposed to win...
2) They are supposed to dominate...
3) They are supposed to run over the competition and...
4) They are to never let us down when it matters the most.

Those criteria almost make winning a given and anything less a shock to people...how could a guy with all that talent lose??? When a person of Barnes' bowling caliber doesn't win, it makes fans or defenders of him suffer several emotions. They range to disappointment to justification to sudden hatred. It was never more evident when in the PBA Tour's final national event in Baltimore, Md., Barnes chided opponent Brad Angelo after a Brooklyn strike courtesy of ESPN's Inside Angle segments during live telecasts. Angelo would take this "shot" and deliver a flurry of "real strikes" to end the match and defeat Barnes, and with that, the fans of the PBA took over. Some calling Barnes classless, a prisoner of the moment (a suggested swipe at Barnes winning his second Roll 2 Riches event with a Brooklyn strike), and some words that rhyme with "glassbowl". Well for viewers who try to defend Chris Barnes, he did in fact act like a "glassbowl", in fact a major "glassbowl".

All snide remarks aside, this has sadly become the norm for PBA Universe: Barnes will never, ever be the bowler we thought he'd be. Regardless of how the next stage of Barnes' life goes, fans have already invested too much in a player who is not, in their minds, the game's heir apparent. Sounds strange to say, but we have been waiting for the successor to Walter Ray's throne for a long, long, looooonnnng time and we might still be waiting. While some of that distinction belongs to how great Walter Ray has been in his late 40's, some of this has to be directed at Barnes. However, we must not forget that Barnes is now 40 years old: still physically a tremendous talent, a wonderful in-game strategist, durable beyond belief, and always learning a few new tricks to add to his already stuffed toolbox. Barnes still has another possible 10-15 good years in him to pad stats that many thought he would have already acquired, and we don't seem to knock Norm Duke or Mike Scroggins for having a late career resurgence: in fact, we have applauded them (Scroggins for his unwavering ability to outwork his fellow players, despite being limited; Duke for his focus-driven persona in major championship events).

With that being mentioned, a few questions pop up as to Barnes legacy currently as he now enters his 40's:

Question #1: Is Chris Barnes a Hall of Fame bowler?
Stupid to ask, stupider to even respond...he is a Hall of Fame bowler. But...

Question #2: Is Chris Barnes a first ballot Hall of Famer?
This is not quite as rock solid as you or I think it should be. Let's observe some facts about this generation of bowling: the PBA is an exempt tour now, with only 64 bowlers making the main draw of the tournament. Your odds of winning events are slightly greater than they once were. They just are. Factor in Barnes' television history, which has been spotty at best, horrific at worst, and Barnes should be roughly in the 20 title range at this stage of his career, or similar to where Duke was when he turned 40. He is currently in the mix with players such as Steve Hoskins, Dave Husted, Patrick Allen, and Randy Pedersen to name a few (10-15 title range). Personally, I would be a harder grader for who should be a Hall of Fame bowler (that is, if I had a vote). In my personal opinion, there are 5 requirements to being a first ballot Hall of Famer bowler:

1) Win at least 15 titles and not 10 titles (that gets a player such as Jason Couch in, but it will make more sense soon).
2) Win at least 3 major championships. A little harder to win in professional bowling, however now with exempt fields, more demanding lane conditions, and longer formats, the better players should easily contend for more majors now than ever before (this makes Doug Kent a Hall of Famer).
3) Be a Player of the Year (this makes Kent a shoo-in along with validating David Ozio and Dave Ferarro HOF careers).
4) Have at least two transcendent seasons as a player (win two majors in a year, or 4+ titles in a season, or set a record for earnings, average, television appearances, ect.).
5) Revolutionize the game in some way that changes how we look at bowling (Roth's power game, Pete Weber's backswing/power stroke, Ozio's risk/reward gutter play, Husted's dominance playing the deep inside angle a generation before it was commonplace, or Jason Belmonte's two handed delivery).

It is feasible to be a Hall of Famer with one of these requirements, a given (in time) with two, but with 3, you should be a no doubter Hall of Famer. With 4 or all 5 of those requirements, you go into legendary/iconic status. We have to give some wiggle room to Weber because he has never won Player of the Year (a topic for later day in time) or Brian Voss (not enough majors) or Parker Bohn III (ditto) to reach all 5 requirements, but let's get back to Barnes' Hall of Fame status for just a moment and for whether or not he meets the Scherrer Hall of Fame Meter.

Criteria 1: 15+ titles, Barnes has 12. You'll imagine he'll get to the 15 title mark in the next few years, but this is Chris Barnes: you probably pegged him for 18-20 titles at this point in his career. As for now, not HOF worthy for me.
Criteria 2: 3+ majors, Barnes has 2. Again, you can guesstimate that Barnes will win several more majors soon. Then again, he did lose the 2008 T of C to Michael Haugen Jr. when he has a 50+ pin lead on him, he did lose the 2010 T of C to Kelly Kulick-no disrespect to Kulick but if you are Barnes facing a non-winner in the championship match of a major, you should win if we are to take you seriously as being an all-time great. He also let Walter Ray walk all over him in the 2010 Masters title match (don't worry Barnes supporters, he let Walter Ray do the same thing to him 6 years ago too). And for those who look at the last two instances and say that for Barnes to beat 265 and 290 in title matches is hard to beat, you're right, but no excuses. Barnes wouldn't want any, nor take any. In any event, currently he falls short on #2.
Criteria 3: Player of the Year, check (2007-08). Barnes won it off the points leaders award, and not by a vote. If you were to vote on the '07-08 POY, Barnes would have 3rd easily. Duke would have won (two majors/Triple Crown/Grand Slam historic season), followed by Walter Ray (two wins at 48 years old, 9 telecasts, best WRW post-2003 season), then Barnes (two wins, no majors, one gigantic collapse to Haugen, 9 telecasts), and only slightly over Haugen for 4th (two wins, one major, one historic rally to beat Barnes). Yeah, I know I'm picking on Chris Barnes but it is kinda easy to do so when there are other factors helping you argument. So he passes for #3 but if this were 1998 and not 2008, Barnes is not the POY.
Criteria 4: Transcendent season...? Barnes has carved out solid season after solid season but nothing of historical value, with the exception of the 2000 season, where he made 12 shows and 2008-09 where he put on the best 6 week run in bowling history during the first ever Extreme Swing. In 2000 however, Barnes won exactly as many title as I did in 2000: zero. Can't transcend when you don't win, period...thanks for asking. '08-'09 was a tremendous season for Barnes, showcasing his overall talents. He appeared to transcend bowling for two months and had the 8 pin fell during the US Open to beat Scroggins and then defeat Duke, he has arguably his defining season in his back pocket. However, we can concede this to him. He was THAT good despite all the zany formats and lane conditions and format changes that he deserves this one. A format designed to show how good Barnes was proved just that.
The best example of transcendent, dominant "I own the PBA Tour" seasons came most recently by Tommy Jones, who submitted back-to-back 4 title seasons. Jones got on television and left a trail of carcasses behind him and was the 2005-06 POY in a landslide. If Patrick Allen's equally transcendent 2004-05 season doesn't exist, Jones has back-to-back POY awards and is more of a lock Hall of Famer than Barnes is. He might still be as he just added his 3rd Japan Cup title a few days ago. The ceiling on Jones to be an all-time great is much, much, MUCH higher than Barnes' is. Don't believe it? Jones has already proved he can go to new heights...twice.
Criteria 5: Revolutionize the game. Barnes has taken our game to newer heights and for the better (and you thought I was going to bury Chris Barnes the entire time??? Give me some credit, please). His ability to be versatile on all conditions, keep up with this technological revolution of bowling balls, oil patterns, oiling machines, and lane surfaces, as well as having a great work ethic and a fitness regime that has further advanced his game (as well as others trying to keep up) makes this criteria a no doubter. The days of bowlers slinging two balls across their shoulders, bowling 3 separate 5 game qualifying blocks, then hopping to the bar, eating less than healthy food, and girl chasing are over. It is replaced by more dedicated, sophisticated bowlers who know how to take care of their bodies, adapt quicker to lane conditions, and are overall far more talented than their predecessors can be attributed mostly to the younger crop of players in the mid to late 1990's (Barnes, Healey, Smith, Haugen, and others) forcing the older generation to keep up and follow suit or follow their fellow competitors to an early retirement. Huge Advantage: Barnes.

Under the given requirements, Barnes certainly nails one of them, and borders on two others and he still has plenty of time left in his career to check off most everything off this list to become an iconic figure in the sport of bowling. However, we are still to wonder in question as to the legacy of Chris Barnes in bowling's history. As fans, no matter what we might feel or say about him, you want Chris Barnes to be one of the greatest players to ever bowl. You want this because you can someday tell your children or grandchildren that take an interest in bowling that you saw arguably, the game's most proficient tactician and in-game strategist. Also, a big time, clutch performer who sealed the deal in major events and became a player that truly progressed our sport to newer and higher levels. For now, Chris Barnes is just like most of us: human.