Bowling Philosophy-June 2011

PBA Tour-"Who's Really the Bitch?"
by Thomas Scherrer

     If one is an accident, then two is a trend.

     If you totally understand bowling, you know it is a true contest between yourself and the pins.  One a living organism which some have the capacity to throw a bowling ball over 20 miles an hour and make it rotate up to 500 times a minute, all with dizzying and alarming accuracy.  The other, an in-adamant object, roughly 3 and a half pounds, formed in wood and surrounded by plastic some 60 feet away from the foul line.  It is a challenge enough to try and strike with other mitigating factors such as oil depletion, oil carrydown, differences in bowling styles, and outward distractions.  Yes, noise...and lots of it.  From the pins crashing to the sound of the machines whirring, noise is everywhere.  So naturally, when BottleGate II went viral with Sean Rash "bitching" out Jason Belmonte for crinkling his water bottle-again-on national television, the reaction was instantaneous.  We don't really know if was pure coincidence or timely gamesmanship (should Rash really care?  Plus I bowled with him in college-he made some pretty obnoxious screams and yells while in competition, so noise should not be a factor in his concentration), strategy or bad timing, or whatever ebony and ivory comparisons you choose to make.  

     But that isn't what I am writing about when I mean "one's an accident-two's a trend".  No, this is in reference to the Professional Bowlers' Association, the PBA, the supposed caretakers for the sport of professional bowling not only making this a) a selling point to drive audience viewership and b) build up the Rash-Belmonte "bitch" comments to a seemingly OK form of professionalism.  Did I watch it?  Of course I did.  Makes me shallow and pathetic?  Of course it does.  You wanna know why?  Because I bought into it.  I was literally forced into buying into it.  And yes, I hate myself for even clicking on it.  I became a prisoner to the moment of watching something that is rather vulgar and depressing to watch.  So yes, if you ask me what the real problem was, the real issue was how the PBA featured this as generating mainstream attention.

     If you care even a little bit about bowling, this should disturb you that the actual talent of both Belmonte and Rash were both compromised by this whole incident.  And that the PBA, pba.com, and bowling in general let this happen is what is more damning.  If you were professional bowling, wouldn't you elect to showcase these players in a more glorious light than this?  If you ever expect to generate a more casual fan base and keep your loyal fans in place, shouldn't you choose to show their creative talents on the lane instead of what they say or do off the lanes of after they bowl?  It personifies a cry for help: a desperate plea for someone to listen to bowling, somebody please listen to us!!!  We can't do it the old-fashioned way, we need to know that you all still care...

     I still care, just not about this.  Turns out, bowling fans might as well have been the "bitch"...again.

 For all bowling fans with a love and knowledge for the game, this IS Bowling Philosophy.  Namaste.

Sports in General

"The Blend"
by Thomas Scherrer

Could Rafa Nadal be holding onto more than just trophies?

      
     I often find myself searching for the proper words to discuss Rafael Nadal.  He is part grunt, part graffiti artist, and part punk rock/thrash, but also part beauty, part Picasso, and part classical music.  Mozart meeting Pennywise, Rod Ross meeting a gangbanger with a finesse side, a boxer meeting a puncher.  
     Usually, we discuss these matchups when we refer to Nadal and his archrival, Roger Federer.  However, that argument is no longer the case.  Nadal is Federer.  Most importantly, Federer is not Nadal.  Cannot be Nadal.  Never will be Nadal.  After Nadal's record tying 6th French Open victory (and 4th against Federer on the red clay), the question which I slightly broached in February 2009 suddenly took on legs from the national media.  It went like this:

 " As for the vanquished, Federer sees Nadal, he sees a stumbling block to history. A stop sign to being the greatest player of all time because logic would dictate that in order for a legend to truly be considered amongst the discussion of greatest ever, shouldn't he/she have to beat their greatest rival? "

     It is a question that at the time seemed laughable but certainly worth addressing...at some point.  History is such a fickle mistress in that we forget that Federer seemed to be on the way down.  An epic Australian Open loss to Nadal, followed by tears and bitterness, then a stretch where Federer slammed rackets on the courts.  And Nadal seemed invincible.  Then Nadal's knee went south.  Robin Solderling stunned him at Roland Garros.  Federer swooped in.  At Wimby, no Nadal...Federer outlasts Andy Roddick...and the world waxes poetic as they bear witness to the greatest tennis player ever.  

     Did I miss something?  Apparently, I did.  Look, I know Roger Federer is one of the all-time greatest players to swing a racket.  He is Cary Grant with jazz music.  Ballet and tap dance.  Usually, tap dancing all over opponents with an unbridled match up grace, poise, accuracy, and humility.  All wonderful to watch.  Boring at times only because he made it look so damn simple.  Then you get a perfect rival in Nadal: exotic, effort-driven, emotional, spirited and all without the childish outbursts of a John McEnroe or ref baiting of a Jimmy Connors.  You can see Nadal giving a crap every single point.  Almost relentless with each UHHHH!  Suddenly, Nadal saw what he needed to work on to become better than Federer: not become Federer but to incorporate more into his game such as a better serve; quicker points to save wear and tear on the body and allow him to endure the hard courts and grass that power players seem to dominate on.  He has blended into an all-around player with little to no holes in his game.  A polished, refined, glorious blend of power and grace.  Fully aware of his skills and his body, Nadal is not only clearly the world's best tennis player, he might very well be the greatest male tennis player ever.  Not that I predicted that or anything but Nadal has proven he can go to new heights and the only question that remains now is also something I wrote back in 2009: how many will Nadal win?  We can no longer say this for Federer: he sees Nadal and wilts while Nadal sees Federer and he thrives.  Is that how we are supposed to remember the greatest player ever?  I thought so.  So how do we compare Nadal favorably?

     If I were to compare, musically, what I see from Nadal, I look to Metallica to draw parallels.  Both burst onto the scene with power-infused adrenaline and crush-crush-crush intensity with edges in their all-around ability (think Nadal's first 2 French Open wins and "Kill 'em All" along with "Ride the Lightning"-impressive performances but still with holes).  Their potential shined through with transcendent performances (Nadal's 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 Aussie Open and Metallica's "Master of Puppets"-works of art that made you believe they could go to higher levels), then suffered through setbacks (Nadal's knee/abdomen problem and the death of bassist Cliff Burton-where you questioned their ability to bounce back), only to come out on the other side to provide true masterpieces (Nadal's 2010 romp through Paris, London, and New York and Metallica's "...And Justice for All" album, which is their true masterpiece-I consider it the last great metal album and thrash album and punk album in music.  Only "Dookie" from Green Day and "Full Circle" from Pennywise touch it on punk levels).  Their commercial success and status as an all-time great were fully cementer afterward (Nadal's latest win and Metallica's "Black Album"-showcasing the all-around talent and ability to push them above everyone else), however we know how Metallica's run has slowed down in the last 15-20 years and like most tennis players, Nadal will eventually stop winning majors and being a dominant, unbridled force.  He'll have his share of"Load" and "St. Anger" days, but will still give you moments of his days of glory, much like when you hear a song like "Fuel" or "Judas Kiss" from Metallica.  Rafa Nadal will still give you moments but how many more?


     The truth is that time is still in the future, years from now where a new young lion will come from the junior ranks to challenge Nadal and stop him from truly being the greatest tennis player ever, but for now the question refers to what his ceiling could be.  We did say the same thing about Federer when he too, was 25 and looked to be on top of the world.  Now, the Fed Express has worn the years of losing to Nadal poorly.  He is 29 but he looks older, more haggard, more worn down by life and the expectations of beating Nadal one more time for a major to truly cement his status as the game's greatest.  There is no other sport like tennis: your peak is only for so long and when it comes and goes, it never comes back.  Thirty is to be considered a dinosaur in tennis, an aging relic of a past generation.  There are only so few that can survive beyond that timeframe.  For Nadal, his time is now.  Time to enjoy the wave because you never know when it will come crashing to the beach.  Vamos Rafa!