Bowling Philosophy-April 2013

This Is 50...

A Perfect "Ten"

Pete Weber's Drive to Greatness

By Thomas Scherrer

Imagine yourself with Doc Brown's DeLorean in 2013 with the ability to travel back in time to talk to one person at their point of professional rock bottom.  Most would point to President Nixon in 1973 after Watergate or President Clinton after Sexgate or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson after "Tooth Fairy" or Skip Bayless talking to Richard Sherman.  The point is: everyone has doubt and fear creep into their psyche.  It is the most inevitable disease a man or woman can have.  Nothing can stop its onset or determine its cause, nor can anyone diagnose its nature or determine its cure...once it is there, it stays there.  Sometimes, it looms larger over what made you great.  Other times, you would hardly know it exists.  It is like nothing ever happened to you.  You are free of fear and doubt, but instead overcome by confidence and assurance.  Every decision, every move is made with conviction and purpose.  All acts are definitive and assertive.  The results might not work, but the process has been trusted and with that comes a sense of pride and understanding that you did what you had to do and you believed in it.  There was no regression and no reverting.  There is clarity, purpose, and trust.
Back to the DeLorean...I'm a bowling fan as you all know by now, so why not use it to go back to 1995 and visit Pete Weber.  Why?  Let's look at these stats and you'll understand:

Events: 17
Cashes: 7
Match Play: 2
TV Finals: 0
Wins: 0
Earnings: $27,585

For all seasons in which Weber bowled at least 20 events, it was by far his worst in almost every category with the exception of money, which came in 1980-only his Rookie of the Year season.  It was the rarest of sights: how could a player of such talent-a rare blend of power and finesse, in game management, and overall swagger-suddenly lose it, just as he was entering his prime?  Had the game gotten away from him?  Was being the son of a larger-than-life father just too much?  Were the failed relationships hurting his ability to perform?  Was it the late nights of partying and perhaps drugs/alcohol taking its toll on an already undersized body?  Was it the exquisite mullet haircut perhaps presenting too much image over results?  Go back and read those last 6 sentences again and you'll ask yourself one question: why did I start writing about Andre Agassi all of a sudden???

No two athletes in the last 25 years shared so much promise, lost so much so fast, then recovered to become top stars, then superstars, then surefire legends of their game in such a short period of time, you wonder if it wasn't all part of an elaborate plan to remind those who had less natural talent than Agassi and Weber to never waste it.  After all, it looked as if for all the world that both Agassi and Weber were destined to never live up to what they might have been despite what they already had accomplished.  Agassi was arguably the cleanest the striker of a tennis ball and unquestionably the greatest returner in the game's history.  Weber arguably has the cleanest release in all of bowling and unquestionably has had the greatest ball roll in the game's history.  After all, how does one generate so much axis tilt without grabbing it?  Doug Kent tried and became a Hall of Famer, but always fought his timing in the process.  Jeff Carter tried it (along with Weber's golf glove) to the tune of just one title-ironically over Weber.  Many have tried to fire all 5 fingers open like that without grabbing it and they never can.  You can teach a lot of things in bowling: hand positions, grip pressure, lane play, spare shooting, and so on.  You know what you cannot teach?  Pete Weber.  He is as unique a prototype as you'll ever see in bowling.  We'll see a thousand more Jason Belmontes before we'll see another Weber duplicate.  It's a virtual improbability.

Which leads us to Sunday afternoon.  Fittingly, it was April Fool's Day.  A day in which people can say or do anything with enough validity to make it feel like its the truth before you are "catfished" by enough people.  And standing on top of the Barbasol Tournament of Champions after 48 games of bowling?  A man who is 50.  Yes, fifty.  In a generation where speed and revs dominate the sport, someone who once had the revs to be a power player was now relegated to a power stroker or even a power tweener.  This is a joke, right?  He didn't belong.  In fact, none of the old guard do anymore.  Yet, Norm Duke finished 12th; Walter Ray Williams Jr. finished 16th; Kent had a top 20 finish.  But Pete Weber led them all after 48 games.  He needed one more win Sunday afternoon to claim a historic win on so many levels.  But Sean Rash and Belmonte had other ideas.  You see, they tried to blow up the pattern so far to the left that they probably said in their own heads whoever wins our match will win the tournament.  There's no way Weber can get this deep anymore and loft it at this age.  And they were right.  Weber could not loft the left gutter...didn't need to.  Instead, Pete Weber decided to use his talent one more time to slay his 10th major championship.  One that now ties him with Earl Anthony and...oh, wait-that's it!  Weber became the only man to win all 3 PBA Triple Crown events twice in a career and set his own record of 9 Triple Crown wins as well.  He also became the oldest TOC winner in history and yes, did I mention this was his 10th major win?

That last one matters the most.  Now, history shows that Weber and the unmistakable legend Earl Anthony both have 10 majors.  Yes, I mentioned it again because it needed to be mentioned again.  It is very likely that Weber has possibly exceeded any expectations about his career in the past 12 months by winning his record 5th US Open and 2nd TOC to get to #10 while doing it when at his age, bowlers get ready to be called "rookies" on the senior tour.  He even said during the show that he will keep bowling 'til he passes, just like his father, Dick Weber, used to.  In winning #10, he has finally separated himself from Walter Ray and Duke as this generation's greatest big game performer.  He now stands 3 wins shy of joining Williams and Anthony as 40+ time champions, and can consider himself a viable Player of the Year candidate.  After all, #11 might be coming up at his favorite stomping grounds: Bowling's US Open.  Suddenly, we might have to rewrite what we think about PBA history and what Weber has done to place it in this proper perspective.  Chances are people won't rank him higher than Williams (has never beaten him for a title in their legendary careers) and slightly higher than Duke and Mike Aulby based off of majors alone.

But what if #11 comes?  Do we weigh the historical significance of majors over regular victories at long last and say Pete Weber is the greatest bowler of all time?  We honestly should have been doing this years ago but we got wrapped up in the dopey Walter Ray vs. Earl conversation when it was not really an argument as to who was greater.    Pete Weber has given everybody something else to look forward to: does he have one more major moment in him to get #11?  Hop in the DeLorean.

So...what would 2013 Me tell 1995 Pete Weber about 2013 Pete Weber?  I'd tell him that you might be at rock bottom right now, but don't give up the gift.  The struggles in 1995 are going to be worth it nearly two decades later, just you wait.  What would 1995 Pete Weber told me to do?  He'd probably tell me to crawl up my own ass and I'd laugh at it.  Truth be told, there is pretty much nothing I could tell '95 Weber that he already did not know about himself.  He just needed to hide the fear and doubt.  It will always be there.  It never dies.  And that is why Pete Weber has become one of the two greatest big game bowlers ever.  Fear and doubt won a few rounds, but Pete Weber won the fight...at long last.

For those with a love and knowledge for the Sport of Bowling...this IS Bowling Philosophy.  Namaste.

Bowling Philosophy-September 2012

Lane of Ignorance
By Thomas Scherrer

I. An Introduction
I have never fully prefaced my reason for writing as a whole.  It is, from where I stand, the most logical form of communication I know of.  Oftentimes, writers write from a form of private trauma or fear and some just have the innate ability to stay in their rooms and write for hours upon end.  For me?  It is a private struggle.  For as I have a great strength to write, and oddly enough about bowling, it compensates for a far greater weakness.  If you know me well enough, you know what my greatest flaw is: I do not speak to people eye-to-eye, nor do I speak to them face-to-face.  I usually look down at the floor or talk while looking around people or sometimes, at an angle.  Psychologically, I cannot truly determine why I came to this personal impasse.  If there are 20 people, it is not a problem.  One person?  I am abjectly terrified.  

But writing?  I fear nothing.  I fear no one.  Some might call that hiding behind a keyboard.  I call it a strange form of courage and when it comes to bowling, it is not being afraid to challenge our collective thinking of how we analyze the game.  Over the last 6 weeks, I have stumbled upon a challenge to once again blow apart the status quo of bowling that will hopefully, over time, solve some questions I have been pondering.

II. The Nature of Bowling
It all started with a simple premise: why is bowling the only sport that cannot truly identify the best performer each week, namely on the PBA Tour?  Pardon me while I burst into a tangent (and not flames)...do we really find out who the best player in each PBA event is?  Are they (and we as fans, to a lesser extent) victims of an antiquated format that no longer gives the advantage to the top seeded player on television?  Consider this a challenge to how we evaluate bowling and perhaps, force some corporate geniuses in Arlington to consider hiring new and younger minds into establishing a search for new bowling information.  Taking our initial premise to an even more extreme extent: if bowling cannot truly identify the best performer each week on the PBA Tour, can we truly identify the greatest performer in PBA history?  You likely scoff at this premise already...we (and when I mean "we" I mean "you") can safely assume it is either Walter Ray Williams Jr. or Earl Anthony because they have the most titles in tour history, with 47 and 43 respectively.  While that may be true, why do we solely define greatness based off wins when a) the player with the highest average after qualifying isn't always the top seed and b) the top seed having to win the tournament twice?  Reflect on the latter for a second.  Yes, after initial qualifying and match play, the top seed after establishing that position throughout the whole week now must bowl one game and win that game in order to be officially declared the champion.  The reason the PBA did/does this?  Television.  TV has become the PBA's greatest marketing weapon while also becoming its most deadly form of manipulating the proceedings.  Bowling a PBA event goes from a game to game marathon into a televised version of bowling's 40 yard dash.  A sprint that might not totally capture what happened all week.  If a player led qualifying by 500 pins, then going into the ABC Saturday telecast shot 180 in the championship match, they were likely taking home second place money.  Forty-two games of consistent, if not dominant work flushed town the toilet.  Instead of championing the best bowler, we are left to criticize said player's lack of clutch bowling in a one game format (cut to Chris Barnes nodding wistfully...).  Here's the funny thing: we do know who the best player was each week, along with the best average.  We just need to do some research into having it all make sense.

III. PBA's Archived Standings
Ah, the beauty of the Archived Standings, where we can go onto pba.com and look at any tournament and find the relevant information into determining the best of the best.

Sorta.

From 1959-1963, the Archives of each season give you only the final placing of each player and does not have an average or their won-loss-tie record in match play.  Yes, I know qualifying formats were different back then, but still.  In fact, the only event they kept some stats on was the PBA National Championship.  It was not until 1964 until they kept track of how many pins a player accumulated during the week plus their match play record...except for the stepladder finalists!  What?!?  Look, I know the PBA was only a few years into its life-its toddler/kindergarten days, if you would but not keeping track of the final qualifying standings of the the final four or five kinda ruins the concept.  In 1968, we had our official moment to peek inside the Archives and see information.  Look at the North Phoenix Open statistics for a second and observe what we see: we know of a 40 game format, with the top 16 bowlers making match play and their W-L-T record.  Along with how many pins every player obtained, plus their match play bonus pins to determine the top bowlers (Note: W-L-T record does become important in this process and I'll explain shortly).  From 1972-2000, the PBA had reached the formats we most closely associate our childhoods with: 42 games for standard tournament, more games in majors, all complete with pinfall and match play records, along with the winner each week getting its due in the Championship Round section.  However, after 1998, they only start posting the Full Standings, meaning where everyone finished after it was all said and done without even pins or a match play record.  Again, I am fully aware the PBA was in financial danger at this time, but it seems as if this is an important bit of information missing into allowing us a look at how deep we can go.  Like coming up 200 feet short of the Titanic-you know it's somewhere in the bottom of the Atlantic, but you still need to see it to research it.  All Jack Dawson jokes aside, we now see that from 1968-1998, we can make a firm evaluation of each tournament and therefore each season, and perhaps, history.  The question: how?

IV. Z-score, Weighted Z-score, and Adjusted Z-score for Match Play
For the statistically inclined, Z-score (or actual score) is basically an application to determine particular score within a given data set or bunch.  It is important because each score can now tell us if it was about the mean, at the mean, or below the mean.  What it also does in bowling's case is that is separates each tournament and allows to evaluate each tournament as equally as possible, regardless of average.  In a sport where technology has allowed averages to skyrocket and, in some cases, dilute our consciousness as to who was better, this formula strips average away and allows to focus on the field average to determine how better or worse a bowler was above the mean for that week.  Noooowwww, we're onto something, right?  If we could find out how great a player was week in and week out, we can ascertain how great certain player were or were perceived to be for a season, or for a career.  With that being said, greatness is consistency to some extent, but winning does matter.  You do need to win.  Just ask Ryan Shafer.  Shafer by all sabermetrical evaluations is a Hall of Fame player.  One of the more exceedingly consistent, and at points dominant bowlers for a 4 or 5 year span, but he won only 4 titles.  That lack of winning does count for something, so how to we account for that.

Weighted Z-score can allow us to weigh each tournament depending on its significance.  For example, the first season I am currently working on (1998), each standard PBA event is 42 games of bowling, then the stepladder finals.  We can weigh the finals by giving the winner a +1 by means of winning the event, but we should not penalize the defeated by giving them a -1.  Take the '98 Peoria Open as an example.  Dave Traber went on to win the event with a Z-score of +2.90 which is a fantastic performance, considering anything that is +3 or -3 for a Z-score is in the 99th percentile of performances.  Traber went on to win the event, adding a point to his Z-score of +3.90.  Sounds outright dominant, right?  Yeah, but too dominant.  As of this time, Traber through 21 events made just 4 match play appearances.  If we were to simply add a point to his win and then add or subtract the Z-score for the other events, it would not compute fairly to those who made far more match play appearances during the season.  So Weighted Z-score will account for adding points per victory after we take the player's Z-score average.  Case in point, Traber's average Z-score for his season was .41, which means in his other 3 match play appearances, Traber was below the mean for it to shrink that much.  So, if we add a point to the back end of it for his win, Traber now has a +1.41 wZ-score.  
What about other events, such as majors, in particular, the ABC/USBC Masters?  I personally hold majors in a higher regard, namely they should be weighed greater.  With that being said, I elected a +2 for the winner of each major.  Even the Masters-again, winning matters and the Masters is a major.  We have to give it some credit, no?  With the Triple Crown majors (US Open, PBA Nat'l, and TOC) and the Touring Player Championship, we have the standard Z-scores to go along with it.  So, winning a major matters a lot more, which it always should be.  Then there is the case of the Showboat.  The Showboat event in Las Vegas had a 56 game qualifying format, which meant more games bowled and a higher prize fund, but not a major.  But it clearly mattered more than a standard PBA event, so how do we weigh it?  How does +1.50 sound?  Now we have given ourselves a weighing system to further separate the men from the boys to determine greatness.  
Then there is the peculiar case of another concept I'm testing known as Adjusted Z-score for Match Play.  What this does it it gives those that made enough match play appearances the opportunity to gain ground despite having lower average Z-scores.  Suppose Steve Hoskins defeated Steve Jaros in match play 220-200.  Since it is only 2 people in a given data set, the Z-score for Hoskins in that particular game was +1, while Jaros was -1.  A simpler way of looking at it would be the player's W-L-T record I alluded to earlier.  Suppose Hoskins went 14-10-0 in a week; we simply add 14 points for wins subtracted by 10 point for losses and we get a +4 for Hoskins.  Suppose Jaros went 11-12-1 in a week: add 11 points for wins subtracted by 12 points for a loss, plus 0 for the tie (Z-score being the actual mean for that game which is zero...and always zero) and Jaros comes in at -1.  Again, we'll add that after averaging Jaros' Z-score throughout the season.  Just like that, we have 3 ways of evaluating a player.  One by consistency in making match play, the other two begin to separate dominance by means of winning tournaments and games in match play. 

V. Endgame
With this information available, we can avoid biases based solely off averages and allow us to get a more accurate reflection of how good a player really was.  Yes, winning does matter, but given the format the PBA has constituted, we have devalued other players where they deserve their proper appreciation.  With that being said, I now have over 3 decades of information to process.  Also, we can now determine who had the most dominant performances in PBA history, including who had the greatest single season in tour history.  Is all of this a hypothesis?  Yes.  Might it fail?  Possibly.  Am I afraid of that?  Never.


Thomas Scherrer is an Associate Member of the Bowling Writers' Association of America.

For those with a love and knowledge for the Sport of Bowling, this IS Bowling Philosophy.  Namaste.        

Bowling Philosophy-July 2012

"Does greatness have a shelf life?"
By Thomas Scherrer

Resume: 10 PBA titles...1960 PBA National Championship....1961 ABC Masters champion....4 BPAA All-Star titles (pre-cursor to the US Open)...5 World Invitational titles (including 4 in a row from 1959-62)...leadoff bowler for the famous Budweiser team...Team Match Games champions ('58 and '59)...6-time BWAA Bowler of the Year...8-time Bowling magazine All-American...10-time Bowlers Journal International All-American...2 time PBA Player of the Year...ABC and PBA Hall of Famer and first bowler inducted into the Madison Square Garden Hall of Fame...Named Bowler of the Century by BJI in 2000...1962 season: record top five finishes in a season (18) and consecutive (7)...ranked 11th among "50 Greatest Bowlers in PBA History" in 2009.

By now, most of you who know bowling know who this resume (and an abbreviated one at that) belongs to.  If you are in your 60's or 70's, you still consider this man to be the greatest bowler of all time and really, nobody would argue with you.  After all, only Dick Weber, Earl Anthony and Walter Ray Williams, Jr. could even come close to replicating his accomplishments, so at the very least, he is one of the 4 most decorated bowlers in history.  If you are a younger fan of bowling, this resume belongs to the recently departed Donald James Carter, a.k.a., Mr. Bowling.  Mr. Carter's recent passing in January brought a slew of glowing testimonials from legends and icons such as Ray Bluth, Bob Strampe, Bill Lillard, and others stating his status as arguably the greatest.  Even in Bowling Execution by John Jowdy, Mr. Carter is on his top 3 list and, if he had two bullets, he'd snipe the other two rivals and declare  Carter the winner.  And we haven't even factored in Carter's overall promotion to the sport of bowling with his endorsements from Ebonite (first athlete ever to sign a $1 million promotional deal and this was in 1964, what?!?); commercials for Miller Lite, Viceroy, and Wonder Bread; and merchandising gloves, shirts, slacks, books, and yes, "Music for Happy Bowlers"-a freakin record.  Could you imagine Mr. Carter and Johnny Cash passing each other in a recording studio with The Man in Black kissing Don Carter's ring???  Such was life for Mr. Carter throughout his career.  

Look...I know that there might be some opposition to what I am about to say but when Carter was winning the 1962 World Invitational, the bowling world was different.  Much different.  True, repeatable styles and an adherence to controlling ball speed, adapting to lane conditions, changing axis rotations, ect. were all important 50 years ago as they were today, but...would Don Carter be anywhere near the same player today as he was then?  It is a fair question to ask.  After all, bowling has been around over a century and pretty much everyone will rattle off who they think is in their top 10 bowlers of all time.  Most diehards will do the roll call for you: Anthony, both Webers, Roth, Walter Ray, Duke, Holman, Aulby, Bohn, and Carter.  Nobody would argue with you at all on those choices.  All were iconic figures, ambassadors, and consistent-to-dominant bowlers.  Anthony, Dick Weber, and Carter for their Golden Age credentials, their great promotion of the game, as well as their historic runs.  Walter Ray and Duke for their unerring ability to stay relevant years after their peers have fallen away.  Aulby and Pete Weber for their major championships.  Bohn for his modern-day ambassadorship and his success the past quarter of a century.  Holman and Roth for their groundbreaking bowling.  I've touched on this before but as time move along, Holman and Roth might lose some historical credit but they shouldn't.  Both turned a lateral, up-the-boards, down-and-in game and transformed it.  Created rev rate with speed, powerful strikes, crossing boards...basically what you see from everyone in today's game can truly be traced back to what Holman did and especially what Roth did. So yes, being great and groundbreaking is important but why does history ignore groundbreaking?  Because we cannot count groundbreaking!  We have no titles to look at or major championships to discuss.  But Roth and Holman should always (repeat: always) be in a bowler's top 10.  You can pick Holman apart a bit, but if you try to even to pick Roth apart, he will come to your house and stick his cane up your ass.

Why don't we remember bowlers like Ned Day and Don Johnson?  Because for Day, nobody is still alive to remember how dominant he was.  Given Day was able to hook the ball and control speed on lacquer lanes, I can make a reasonable argument that Day, much like Pete Weber, would have made the necessary adjustments in his career and still be an all time great.  Johnson, like Duke got everything imaginable out of his body and used it to be one of the best ever.  He has the most iconic single game in PBA history-the '67 TOC 299.  He also owns a US Open title win at Madison Square Garden.  He won an Open in the same building Mark Messier won a Stanley Cup-that counts for something, no?  And we also forget he was a great coach in his post-career life.  Yet, history seems to place Johnson in the second tier of great bowlers with Brian Voss, Mika Koviuniemi, Jason Couch, Chris Barnes, Welu, and Hank Marino.  And it is patently foolish...almost as foolish as starting a sentence with "And", which I've done twice in the last few moments.

So...if you know me for anything, I enjoy a great argument.  I'd place Day and Johnson in my top 10.  There is no way we are replacing Roth, Anthony, or Dick Weber.  No chance I'm getting rid of Walter Ray, Duke, or Aulby.  Do I get rid of Pete Weber?  Um...NOOOOO!!!  Holman???  Surely Marshall Holman, whose career fell apart after the disgusting 1987 POY season and has been virtually irrelevant the last 20 years.  You're right!

No, you're wrong.  Bohn and Carter live outside the penthouse or at least a floor below it.  Bohn has won exactly one major (a fortunate win at best against Couch), much like Holman has seen a free falling of his career since his 2001-02 POY season-which was not debatable at all: it is one of the 5 greatest seasons in PBA history.  I like when guys win majors and Bohn's lack of major titles, coupled with a "been there...done that" type career of Aulby, who won a lot more majors (in fact, all of them), and Bohn is off the jet.  

So is Carter.  Why?  Have you seen how Mr. Carter threw the bowling ball?  Allow me to take an excerpt from Bowling Execution to hammer my point home along with a few other tidbits:

"Carter used a crouched position and shuffled to the foul line with his nose seemingly to the ground.  He kept his elbow bent through the swing and practically pushed the ball down the lane."

In today's modern game, Carter would statistically get blown away by today's power players with their free armswings and powerful releases.  Would he be accurate?  Surely.  In fact, his style would make him a great US Open player in any era so I'm giving him credit for that too.  Plus, all the recent testimonials about Carter was that he was a relentless practice bowler as well, perhaps as a byproduct of his unorthodox style.  So was Tim Criss, a 5 time PBA winner and 1999 PBA National Champion.  So if we were to switch Criss and Carter and place then in different eras, would Criss have won like Carter?  Not likely, but certainly more than he would have in today's game.  So, why do we just assume Carter would as well in a vastly different game?  I don't and you shouldn't as well.  I'd have bloggers and bowling purists skewering me if I said Tim Criss was a top 10 all time player in any era.  Still not convinced?  Let's try this final example on for size: would Don Carter in 2012 even have bowled?  As a teenager, Carter lettered in football, baseball, and basketball in St. Louis in high school, even pitching professionally after his tour with the U. S. Navy.  For his 13th birthday, his mother gave him 13 cents (yes, thirteen) to bowl one game of bowling.  Carter loved that one game so much that he enrolled in an after school bowling club, then was a pinsetter at his local bowling alley where he could...get this...practice for free.  Imagine a 13-year-old Don Carter in 2012 having to pay up to six dollars for one game, plus rent shoes.  Chances are, his mother would have shut her wallet to bowling.  Factor in that Carter did pitch professionally before bowling and it is likely that Don Carter would have never even considered bowling as a viable option, both professionally and financially.  Instead, he might have been a meddling triple-A pitcher in Des Moines or Scranton with the hopes of having a cup of coffee in the bigs (as well as a $500,000/year minimum salary).  And that, my friends, is a shame to think about. 

Factor all this in and Carter's position at #11 on the PBA "50 Greatest" list as being fair and as legitimate as it could ever be when you factor in everything.  So, when we ask if greatness has a shelf life, we have to look at so many factors that go beyond the scope of actual performance and accomplishments.  Was Don Carter better than say, Dave Traber or Michael Haugen in terms of the mechanics of bowling?  No way at all.  You'd rather take Traber or Haugen-better releases, mechanics, and overall form.  Was Carter more groundbreaking than both?  Absolutely.  And that is the beauty of the sport-any sport, in particular.  The debate as to who is better is always a subjective argument.  Groundbreaking versus better?  Same argument applies...and the answer is that they both matter.

For those with a love and knowledge for the Sport of Bowling...this IS Bowling Philosophy.  Namaste.  

Bowling Philosophy-February 2012

One for the Thumb

 PDW=GOAT?
by Thomas Scherrer

Going into the the 69th United States Open Championship, I asked a few people that I trust with giving honest and candid opinions on bowling as to who they thought were on the list of the 10 greatest bowlers ever.  Once I write the paperback version of the 20 Greatest Bowlers in a few years when I need a quick influx of cash to help my bowling habit going, I will seriously look at this generation of bowlers with more scrutiny than I would have the previous generation for two reasons: 1) being I born in 1984, I cannot fairly evaluate the Roth/Anthony/Holman Era on titles money alone.  I would need more a little more background info on the players and their full impact on the game.  For instance, there is no question that the best player pre-1984 in PBA History was Earl Anthony.  How can any one argue with 43 titles, 10 Majors, 6 Player of the Year awards, and countless stories of how fans went wild for Anthony during qualifying when he threw a double.  Not match play, not shooting a 300, not a TV finals match, but like the 2nd game of the first block of qualifying.  
But is Earl Anthony the most important player pre-1984???  Not even close.  That belongs to Mark Roth.  All one needs to do is evaluate bowling's modern game and see that it is a game of power mixed with speed control, axis rotation, and insane angles I can only dream of and look back to when a young man from Staten Island decided to cock his wrist outward, take 6 rapid steps, wait, and uncork the ball at pins that had never seen anything close to what Roth was trying to accomplish.  He wasn't trying to strike...he was trying to massacre the pins.  Nowadays, everyone does that.  It is the ones who stroke the ball with finesse, touch, and accuracy are looked at like they are lost in the Delorean.  I will now promptly go wander into downtown Worcester traffic.  Holman was unique in that his career should matter more but he is more known for his antics, temper, and the rather depressing way he vanished from being a competitive bowler in the blink of an eye.  Plus, you'd never teach his style of game to anyone today where Holman slid after he released the ball.  It would almost be impossible in today's game.

As for the post-1984 bowlers, all of them for the most part could bowl in any era and be professional bowlers...it is the great players from this era that matter.  Walter Ray matters, Norm Duke matters, Mike Aulby matters, Parker Bohn III matters, Brian Voss matters, Chris Barnes matters (OK, he should matter more), Jason Couch certainly matters, and Pete Weber matters.  It is likely Duke and Williams would still be legends if you stuck them in the 1960's through the 1990's, Aulby's game was more tailored to the 80's and 90's and his record reflects that, Couch and Barnes would have further enhanced the 1970's power game revolution and would matter maybe even more than they do today, and Bohn and Voss would have been great players no matter what era they bowled, but in this generation, they would have been criticized for only winning one major each.  They are lucky for their legacies that they came along earlier (and yes, neither Bohn or Voss would be in my top 10 despite everything I just said).  Which leaves us with Pete Weber...

We have never seen anything like Peter D. Weber in our lifetimes: a 5 foot, 7 inch bowler who acts like he is 6'5".  He bowls with a noticeable passion that is reflected in most every shot he throws.  While we see players like Williams, Voss, and Couch react on the lanes but Weber reacts as if every shot is life or death.  No player polarizes fans more than Weber-he's almost like a battery, running off both positive and negative energy to create electricity-or makes them come out of their seats faster.  He has always lived in his father, Dick's shadow, and the more he escapes that shadow symbolically, he physically resembles his father in looks.  The more he tortures himself on the lanes, the more control he gains over the moment.  Nope, we've seen some pretty unique people who are blessed with The Gift, but no player has truly possessed The Curse of bowling like Pete Weber.  He owns it, he shapes it for all of us to see.  We all know Barnes is tortured inside for his numerous failures in the big moment, but with Weber, we see it.  He took bowling fans on a 90-minute roller coaster this past Sunday in winning his record setting 5th Open championship, but the internal hell he was waging with himself-the struggle we never see or witness-must have been more gut-wrenching.  

In one week, Weber set several milestones with his 53 game marathon performance.  Aside from being the only man alive to win 5 Open championships, he became the oldest US Open champion ever, at 49 years of age.  He also won his 9th Major title, moving him one behind Anthony for most majors in a career and in the process, he went past Anthony.  Lost in the shuffle of all of this was that Pete Weber has won more Triple Crown events (9) than Anthony (8) or Walter Ray (5) or Duke (6) or anyone...ever.  Counts for something, no?  He now is already locked into the top 32 for the Tournament of Champions, where he has recently bowled very well...who's to say he cannot win another one and win Major #10 and totally throw the 20 Greatest Bowlers paperback into a total frenzy?

You see, the dirty little secret of Pete Weber's career that isn't really a dirty little secret is that we are always going to feel that Pete Weber never reached his full potential as a bowler.  Sadly, Weber left something on the table.  It is almost like Weber had the potential to get a PhD from Harvard but instead settled for a PhD from Stanford.  Still pretty damn impressive but not as good as it could have been.  When Walter Ray, Duke, and Bohn were beginning to peak in the early to mid-90's, Weber took a few steps back, struggled to acclimate to a changing game, admittedly drank too much, and contemplated quitting the game and going back to school to work on a trade.  His wife, Traci, wouldn't let him, told him to get his head out of his ass and be Pete Weber.  While he slowly returned to being Pete Weber, the PBA thought otherwise and suspended him in 2000 when he got confrontational with a fan for the remainder of the season, even when he had won 2 of the first 5 events that year and allowed Norm Duke to heist a Player of the Year award (in fairness, Duke's 2000 season is pretty good: coming within a pin of winning two majors and firmly establishing himself as one the game's greats).  

Everyone reflects on the 2001 Great Lakes Classic where he shot 299 against Steve Wilson, then crushed Bohn in the title match, and tore the roof off Spectrum Lanes in Michigan with every strike and emotion as his finest performance on TV.  Others look at the 2004 bowlersparadise.com title over Ryan Shafer as his seminal moment-his first win since the passing of his father.  Some will look at this recent win over Shafer and young studs Jason Belmonte and Mike Fagan as his greatest win.  I look back to the 1999 PBA National Championship as his greatest performance.  Shooting 290 against Hall of Famer David Ozio and erupting with each strike and the crowd responding.  Ozio has zero chance.  He even flashed an nWo "4 Life" symbol and a DDP Diamond Cutter for good sports entertainment measure (this was before he did the DX "crotch chop" and the PDW/RVD mimic in 2001) during his victory celebration.  The point is that when Weber put it all together, there wasn't a thing alive that could stop him. Not a suspension, not guys 20 years younger than him, not mourning his father's death, hell, not even a great big game bowler like Ozio.

So, where does Weber rank as far the all-time greatest bowlers go?  He is certainly a top 10 bowler, no question.  But do you penalize him for leaving something on the table or do you give it back to him for his tremendous television performances, along with his Major championships and this sustained mid to late 40's run he has had?  Is he the greatest ever?  I suppose it all depends on what your overall take of bowling should be.  If you like consistent and dominant runs, you choose Walter Ray.  If you like Major titles and overall adulation from fans, you choose Anthony.  If you like the underdog to Goliath story coupled with similar fan adulation plus performance, you choose Duke or Don Johnson.  If you like importance to the game as a whole that goes beyond wins, you choose Roth, Aulby, or Dick Weber.  If you cared about on-lane performance and seeing being entertained on a level you thought you could never be, you choose only one person: P...D...W.



For those with a knowledge and love for the Sport of Bowling...this IS Bowling Philosophy.  Namaste.