Contemplating a number of timely tenpin topics.

WITH NO APOLOGIES FOR THE PUN, YOU COULD SAY that bowling is a sport that provides plenty of spare opportunities for reflection. It was in one of those contemplative periods that this column was written.

RECENTLY, I WAS THINKING…
…That there is too much said about two-handed bowlers and what impact this technique will have on future teaching curriculums. I believe expectations in this regard by the media are exaggerations at best and inadvertently detrimental to the sport, which is not to demean the accomplishments by those who successfully employ this method. On the contrary, I heartily congratulate these innovators and marvel at their success while, at the same time, acknowledging that the unorthodox has always existed in sports. I recall a bowler who electrified the bowling world in the early 1950s with a severely bent elbow, a flared backswing and a knee- and back-bend that almost had his chin resting on the knee of his sliding step. Maybe you’ve heard of him — Don Carter. I recall many bowlers trying to emulate this technique, but to my knowledge, nary a one succeeded.

When I was teaching in Malaysia back in 1986, I first witnessed Taiwan bowlers demonstrating the ”helicopter” technique — topping lighter balls into a spin with little or no precession — while their success generated considerable hoopla. Today, more than 20 years later, this technique is still
considered unorthodox and inadvisable by most knowledgeable coaches. So it will be with the two-handed delivery. To equate it as an alternative to long-established methodology would only provide a disservice to most students. However, to correct a misconception about the two-handed release, let me point out that it affords you the ability to acquire more turn (side-roll), but not more lift. Understand that, in the main, the amount a ball hooks is related to the initial disparity between the direction in which the ball is traveling (translational force) and the direction in which the ball is turning on its axis (rotational force). In this regard, the two-handed release allows you to turn the ball more than the conventional (one-handed) release which, in the end, results in more hook.

…That our sport began its downturn in the 1962-63 season, and has continued its decline uninterrupted for approximately 45 years to the present. Now, don’t make the mistake of equating a few “upward bumps” throughout this era as signs of a resurgence. I am talking about the sport, not the game’s recreational aspect which, fortunately, has served to keep the doors of most bowling centers open throughout this period. This tragic and unbelievable decline of the sport was brought about for several reasons, one of which was the change in lane finish. Simply put, lacquer ”held” oil, and when we replaced it with low-porosity synthetic finishes, the oil migrated strongly. Thus was “Pandora’s box” opened, affording the game’s integrity the opportunity to migrate even more strongly than oil. Though many of us implored the ABC and WIBC to look into this problem and take action, they continued to display their long-practiced tradition of apathy.

Recently, however, the successor of what is left of these erstwhile governing bodies, the USBC, finally announced extensive research and study of lane finish. I commend this action. In this regard, I also submit the following: The game’s integrity is closely tied to the coefficient level between ball surface and the entire surface of the lane. Further, until technology advances to a point where we can play the game without using oil, any reasonable lane-playing standard cannot be achieved as long as oil migrates freely. Too, because today’s lane finishes vary appreciably with regard to porosity, it is delusive and self-deceptive to expect any given oil pattern to play the same when used in one center as opposed to another. In this regard, it has been my experience since the lacquer era that the finish that best ”held” oil (least migration) was Honor Roll. Unfortunately, it was introduced and marketed as a “short oil” finish.

…That when discussing the bowling delivery, too little is said about “projection”; i.e., in what manner the ball is brought onto the lane. On lanes that hook strongly, one is often advised to hit up on the ball more, thus getting the ball out and well over the foul line. In contrast, on tight lanes (heavily oiled), one is advised to swing the ball downward into the lane, thereby taking more advantage of the leverage generated by the swing’s centrifugal force and setting the ball closer to the foul line. This, in turn, enables the hand to move through the ball more strongly. This stronger extension with the hand creates more side roll, which provides more potential for hook.

Another ruse for battling extremely tight lanes is to use “more lane” by moving back on the approach and setting the ball on — or even well behind — the foul line. (Understand that the ball cannot trigger the foul light.) And then there is the question of projecting the ball onto the lane, for the most part, by means of the swing’s pendulum, as opposed to a process of lesser pendulum and more thrust (applied force). Bowlers who employ thrust more than pendulum when releasing the ball normally have a problem generating sufficient ball speed. On the other hand, their ball control is amplified, as demonstrated by the likes of Don Carter, Earl Anthony and, one of my great favorites, Pete Couture.