jimcross
Active Member
Come on Jim you would only have to bowl 100 to average 200, not fair lol
Obviously you haven't seen me bowl lately. Still would'nt get me up there with 'Highest league average in Australia.'
Come on Jim you would only have to bowl 100 to average 200, not fair lol
Ha ha ... This is a bowling thread right? Rich and famous ... Hmmm ...I am not aware of any rich and famous, care to elaborate
I am not aware of any rich and famous, care to elaborate
Hang on Pete.
You aren't somehow suggesting that the better bowlers should rotate "winning" with those who don't win?
There is a reason those same names appear at the cashy end of the list. They are better bowlers. Simples.
Hang on Pete.
You aren't somehow suggesting that the better bowlers should rotate "winning" with those who don't win?
There is a reason those same names appear at the cashy end of the list. They are better bowlers. Simples.
I think he's suggesting that some , additional, emphasis on 'additional', incentives for the 'also rans' may improve the
tournament scene?
Not at all, the best bowlers should always end up at the pointy end.
The sports which have a large amount of emotional reward involved in competing have less dependence on financial reward to attract competitors. For those sports, the pool of willing competitors is relatively deep. Bowling, in its current/historic form, does not provide the same level of emotional reward as others so relies on the number of dollars on offer as the measure of status for an event.
Unfortunately it is reliant on the lesser competitors to provide the rewards in bowling tournaments, due to the inability of bowling to attract spectators and therefore sponsors.
So there is the problem, no way to attract money from outside the sport and the only thing that represents prestige within the sport, is the size of the money. The only fix historically is for the lesser competitors to become the cash/prestige providers.
Not at all, the best bowlers should always end up at the pointy end.
The sports which have a large amount of emotional reward involved in competing have less dependence on financial reward to attract competitors. For those sports, the pool of willing competitors is relatively deep. Bowling, in its current/historic form, does not provide the same level of emotional reward as others so relies on the number of dollars on offer as the measure of status for an event.
Unfortunately it is reliant on the lesser competitors to provide the rewards in bowling tournaments, due to the inability of bowling to attract spectators and therefore sponsors.
So there is the problem, no way to attract money from outside the sport and the only thing that represents prestige within the sport, is the size of the money. The only fix historically is for the lesser competitors to become the cash/prestige providers.
Crossfire I think
Hard to oppose that in anyway. It's all very true. When was, if ever, this not the case In Australia in relation to bowling??
Thanks for your good wishes.A bit off topic but I wish you all the best with that Peter, its a significant $ investment you have made in an effort to improve the sport. I will be watching with keen interest and if you are having Tournies in Sydney Id more than likely have a go.