1950's Championship Bowling on Youtube

[Brenton_Davy]

A little something I found on youtube. Just goes to show they could score back then too with shellac lanes and hard rubber bowling balls. Notice the "machines".

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36F--r2ra_M"]YouTube - 1954 Championship Bowling - Kawolics vs. Salvino[/ame]

I am sure some people will find it boring cos they aren't going "coast to coast"

 

[Easy Tiger]

Some of the sparing looked pretty poor considering the increased accuracy they obviously needed on their strike balls. Not to mention the style one of those guys had looked pretty ordinary too.

Good camera work for its time.

That's bowling 53 years ago. I think from the looks of it, I prefer bowling today. If the game today was like what is portrayed there, it is unlikely it would be more successful than it is now and honestly would be viewed as "dorky" if nothing had changed.

JMHO

 

[Brenton_Davy]

Some of the sparing looked pretty poor considering the increased accuracy they obviously needed on their strike balls. Not to mention the style one of those guys had looked pretty ordinary too.

Bowling on TV can do that to you. If you can freeze frame Ed Kowalics at the moment of release, you will see his technique is near perfect. A side note, prizemoney for golf and bowling was pretty much equal in those days. both sports were looked upon as games of skill and accuracy and were treated equally in the media and by the sporting public.

 

[willey]

729 in the Dark old days, kinda puts paid to the idea that the scoring is too high today. I did once read that D ick Webber had a 230+ average in the 50's.

willey

 

[Tiger]

Awesome stuff!
Salvino looked in menacing form there, ripping racks and sent a good scout there in the last game.
Kawolics got the job done in the end pretty comfortably 729-673.
Those pin boys are lucky not to cop a ball to the leg a couple of times in that vid
The pin carry and lack of bounce in them reminds me a bit of the old Mornington and Burnie bowls.

 

[Brenton_Davy]

729 in the Dark old days, kinda puts paid to the idea that the scoring is too high today. I did once read that D ick Webber had a 230+ average in the 50's.

Willey,

Shellac was just as easy to score high on as a blocked oil pattern is today because it was so soft that it only took a few games for a track area to open up. How do you think the Buds shot that 3858 with rubber balls? They had a track area on the shellac and they knew how to lift a ball and make rubber hit! Salvino and Kowalics did nothing different. They knew how to make a rubber ball work on the conditions they had to work with. The difference back then was that there was a far greater differential between the elite players and the next level league player, far more than there is today.

Both the techniques are excellent if you freeze frame them at release point and the way they rip racks with the equipment they were using is unreal.

 

[willey]

I know what your saying, I've read about the tracking of the Shellac, this is where the scoring got tough in the 60's and 70's because of the tracking of the Lacquer, it became an area to avoid because it did'nt hold oil for very long, this is exactly why it was so hard to score in your dark ages.

I did have Peang Nepameceno average 249 on lacquer in my Centre in 1985 in a Tournament, so I knew how to make lacquer score.

So what I am trying to say, is if everything is done right you get high scores, this is how the Oiling Machines of today help, they do everything right. What I don't like is Tricks to lower scores, because all you have to do is oil the BACKENDS no further Tricks needed.

willey

 

[Brenton_Davy]

So what I am trying to say, is if everything is done right you get high scores, this is how the Oiling Machines of today help, they do everything right. What I don't like is Tricks to lower scores, because all you have to do is oil the BACKENDS no further Tricks needed.

So what you are saying is the PBA is doing it wrong?

Without challenging lane conditions this sport will never have any credibility. But we are getting off topic, the game has changed since 1954, but those guys COULD score at todays sort of pace with the equipment they had then because they knew how to make the ball carry without covering boards and there was a greater difference between the elite and the rest than there is today.

 

[mr.pwhite]

thats oldschool

 

[The Insider]

So what you are saying is the PBA is doing it wrong?
Without challenging lane conditions this sport will never have any credibility. But we are getting off topic, the game has changed since 1954, but those guys COULD score at todays sort of pace with the equipment they had then because they knew how to make the ball carry without covering boards and there was a greater difference between the elite and the rest than there is today.

The way these guys bowled would work on today's lanes too. They didn't have massive hook but still managed to have a high carry percentage.

Wow - that is consistency

 

[Tiger]

Shellac was just as easy to score high on as a blocked oil pattern is today because it was so soft that it only took a few games for a track area to open up. How do you think the Buds shot that 3858 with rubber balls? They had a track area on the shellac and they knew how to lift a ball and make rubber hit! Salvino and Kowalics did nothing different. They knew how to make a rubber ball work on the conditions they had to work with.

Extremely flammable too, the old Shellac.
Didn't take much for them to go off like a bonfire.
I remember Alan Coleman telling me a story once, that he worked down the back at Moonah on the day of the 1967 Bushfires here in the South.
It was 39C outside and about 45C inside the bowl, the whole centre had filled up with smoke from the 125+kmh wind roaring outside while all the hills behind the bowl were engulfed in flames.
Apparently the staff and people inside the place that day just shut everything down, watching the lanes quite tensely, hoping nothing would spark the surface and set it off.
Apparently it got that hot and smoky in the place in the end that they just shut the doors and walked out and assembled in the front carpark, waiting for the inevitable.

That was one of the biggest reasons why Shellac was phased out in the end, because of its flammable nature.

 

[willey]

Tiger, you are mistaking Shellac for Lacquer. Lacquer is the flammable one, as one of it's components is Nitro Cellulose, which is a component in Gunpowder. Shellac is made up from the the bodies of a Beetle or insect I believe.

I believe that Lacquer was phased out because of the higher Insurance costs involved plus the high maintenance of keeping the lanes in top condition. Whereas the Urethane coatings lasted years longer and kept the lanes in better condition for longer periods.

willey.

 

[Tiger]

Tiger, you are mistaking Shellac for Lacquer. Lacquer is the flammable one, as one of it's components is Nitro Cellulose, which is a component in Gunpowder. Shellac is made up from the the bodies of a Beetle or insect I believe.

Now worries Frank I'll take your word for it being an old lane-man.
I just vaguely remember reading about all these old lane surfaces online years ago, might've been Phantom or one of those over on the PBA site talking about them all in the old days.
And also what Al told me about '67 as well.

I believe that Lacquer was phased out because of the higher Insurance costs involved plus the high maintenance of keeping the lanes in top condition. Whereas the Urethane coatings lasted years longer and kept the lanes in better condition for longer periods.

Yeah, that's what I thought I read shellac was phased out for, because of supposed insurance problems due to its supposed inflammable nature and the number of centres burning down back in the day.
You're spot on in regard to lacquer being hard to maintain, I lost count of how many times our lanes had to be repaired or resurfaced or have patch up jobs done on them in the last ten years they were in before they got ripped out.
It was when the reactives come out the surface started to have problems, then it just got worse and worse as the plethora of reactives became greater in number, one pair in the final years had a cricket pitch between 10-10
Looked pretty good to roll the arm over for a couple of right arm fast mediums, but for tenpin it was sh!t to play on.

 

[jason_doust]

So what I am trying to say, is if everything is done right you get high scores, this is how the Oiling Machines of today help, they do everything right. What I don't like is Tricks to lower scores, because all you have to do is oil the BACKENDS no further Tricks needed.

willey

Right on Willey! Long oil is bowling! Short oil (anything less than about 40 ft these days!) is just a competition to see who can lift the ball the least while using the strongest ball. It's like a deliberate move away from athleticism. Survival of the weakest. (Now that's dorky!) We could also oil outside 10 board more than 10 feet and take away the "bumper bowling" free hook in most centres.

What I liked was the old rubber balls going skid, roll, hook instead of skid, hook, roll. I also liked how the pin boys could leave their legs dangling, as the balls didn't come with "free impact" and throw the pins around all over the place like they do today.

 

[jason_doust]

729 in the Dark old days, kinda puts paid to the idea that the scoring is too high today. I did once read that D ick Webber had a 230+ average in the 50's.

willey

Yes, Dick Weber did have a 230 average. He was DICK WEBER! It's like saying that because Pete Weber averages 222 currently that a whole bunch of us should. Currently there's quite a few that do, but mostly on delusional oil patterns with super-duper bowling balls.

 

[willey]

You seemed to have missed my point Jason, 230 average bowled on lane conditions that were hand oiled, each lane as individual as could possibly be, against the most consistant oiling condition put down, with Synthetic lanes that have almost exact characteristics. Why would'nt the scores be higher and so they should, why are people complaining? We have greater knowledge with all parts of the Bowling system.

I remember reading an article written by Bill Taylor about 25 years ago, where he lamented the fact that a good hook bowler was not able to carry as well as one that was throwing a ball with a slight back-up, this was on lanes with greasy Backends. We know why now but the knowledge was not there than, even for a deep thinker like Bill Taylor.

As for your Loooong Oil patterns, I know you like them because of the hand you have developed, this would not suit everybody. This is why I like the current trend of using long and short oil patterns in some of the major Asian Tournaments in the World. But there were people in the 60's and 70's that threw with big hooks, unfortunately the lane conditions did not suit that style, the same as the Shellac day's, if you threw out of the Goove you did'nt score. This means you would not have scored in those day's either. I know you won the SPC in 89 or 90, I remember the Centre at the time had no Backend, this helped you, but I remember Terry at the time asking how the New 3 unit rule was going to do for scoring, as I believe he felt it was going to be more of a problem than what he had just finished Bowling on, I told he he was probably bowling on more than 3 units now.

I do not believe in Blocked Patterns, I never put them in Centre's that I controlled the Oiling of. In 1987 I did the lanes for the SPC, No Wall but first days Squad and Silvano Prez shoots 242 average. Although the scoring subsided during the tournament, we worked out it was due to the Backends, as we dry buffed the Backends the day before but not during the Tournament, the next year, we dry buffed every day and the scoring was higher during the whole Tournament.

The Holy Grail of bowling is to have lanes that need No oil, the unfortunate thing is that they still would have to be cleaned, than the Debate will be on How we clean them and what Products are used, it will never end.

willey

 

[Feral]

You are a font of knowledge Frank and I enjoy reading your sensible reasoning. Pity they don't get you to do the preparations for Nationals. We might have a bit of consistency.

I also thoroughly enjoy Jason's coaching tips, in particular on release. Thanks Jason, I wish I had an ounce of your knowledge and skills.

Cheers

 

[jason_doust]

Hi Frank,

I did get your point, but did not communicate this. Sorry mate. I suspect ironically that it's the superballs that have kept scoring down to 1950's levels, owing to the fact that more and more oil is required to sustain life in these things, meaning more and more oil is moved around or lifted off the lanes. Brenton made the most salient point though about how the difference between the elite player and the good league player has been dramatically reduced because the good league player represents the most profitable market for ball designers. As for me liking long oil. Yep, I sure do. It means I can roll the ball while playing a smaller hook as opposed to either working out how to throw it harder while not lifting the ball or just plain fluffing it at the bottom end of my abilities to get it through the typically toasted heads we face within 4 games of the practice session. Contrary to popular belief, I don't like going coast to coast. It's just another tool in the bag for me.

Big scores have almost always been a function of angle and deflection. But that's a whole essay in itself. I wish we still didn't wash backends after squad one in tournaments. It would place a premium on making the ball roll. Presently, roll is a given, rather than something that is earned. As the coverstocks and flaring cores blow a bigger hole through the pattern, you get even more. If we didn't wash the back end all weekend, then the shot would steadily tighten instead of opening up and an OB would probably result. Hmm... maybe this is a dumb idea. George wins enough already...

Oh God, I am sooooo off topic!

And Feral, thanks. That's very kind of you.

Cheers,
Jason

p.s. Brenton, I really liked watching the old vid.

 

[Brenton_Davy]

Just thought it might give a little "perspective" on just how good those old guys were and how much they achieved, in terms of todays equipment and coinditions, with so little. I guess it is the purist in me that loves watching those old vids. No reloading until you found a ball that worked, just a myriad of hand position, loft, speed, line adjustments to make what you had work. There was a far lesser emphasis on your equipment "matching up" compared to today as well. Most times an average league bowlers equipment matched up as well as a pros to any given condition, leaving it purely up to the skill and accuracy of the bowler, not the size of their bowling bag and wallet.

Maybe I am past it and the game has passed me by somewhat, but I have a real problem with the scoring as it is now. I mean I averaged 222 in the last season of my doubles league, bowling only 3 games a week and not practising. The frightening stat about that was I only won 21 of 42 games on that number!, Granted it is a handicap league and I had a bit of a target on my back, but I think it makes a point.

 

[jason_doust]

Yeah good point about the gear Brenton. Dick Weber, Salvino and most of those guys carried one or two balls around the country for a year. I remember reading an article referring to DW drilling a "new ball for the season" then compare that to guys drilling new balls for each squad on tour, so they can have fresh surface. I remember another article where Bill Taylor was talking about opening up DW's thumbhole... with a chisel. OW!

Here's an interesting tidbit for all you trivia buffs though. Carmen Salvino held the PBA 16 game scoring record with a ~261 average (can't remember the exact number) for about 20 years. He used a White Dot. To give this some perspective, everyone's spare ball has more friction and core strength than that ball. Of course, the record fell (like every other record) about a year after the Excalibur was released. (Just after I quit in 1994.)

Re: league averages: I averaged 218 last season in league. I reckon I averaged about 204, but the scoresheet said differently.

Cheers,
Jason