Bowling and Aging

[STEROID]

Here's is an interesting article...

This just confirms my observations from watching a number of PBA shows with average age of the top 5 usually in the 30's that bowlers can perform well into their 30's and 40's.

One question I have, though, is will the new revolution of 2-handed bowlers be able to produce this "longevity" within the sport?

Let's hope so, but only time will tell...

Dr. Chris

 

[jockey]

Interesting article Chris.

This seems to give credence to the whole over 45 competition here. Always wondered why they chose 45 and now this article sheds some light on the matter. I'm sure though this is not why it was chosen though.

By the way saw you mentioned in the article included in the MX recently.

 

[Feral]

While a decline in performance with age is expected, this bit of "research" could be labelled "Duh"!!

The sample is too small, and the periodicity of the performances is VERY VERY small such as to present a true picture of a 50 year performance span.

For example, were scoring conditions the same between the two groups? Were the age span numbers of each age group relatively the same (that is, significance maintained)? With such a small sample, the results are therefore meaningless, or at least statistically insignificant.

The results are the same as saying that people lose their hair as they get older. Another truism that doesn't need crap "research" like this article.

 

[Brenton_Davy]

Thats a tad harsh Reg. What I found interesting is that performances seemed to take a slight upward trend to around 45 then started to uniformly drop off

Of course its only a small sample, given that no-one started this research 50 years ago to give it the "periodicity" that would make it more relevant and there are a number of variables that have to be taken into account, I thought it a bit harsh to flame it in the manner that you did.

Given Chris's credentials in sports physchology and his coaching credentials, It might have been a little more tactful to express your views a little less bluntly.

Just my humble opinion.

PS: My best ever year in bowling came when I was 40 so maybe there is some credence in it for me at least.

 

[wchester]

The study was the work of Researchers Allison Elizabeth Devan and Hirofumi Tanaka, of the Department of Kinesiology and Health at the University of Texas, who analyzed scoring data of 147 elite bowlers. Scores and ages were collected from the 2002 PBA World Championships and the 2002 Senior World Championships. Only bowlers whose age could be determined were used in the analysis. Ages were found on the PBA web site or through an Internet search.

Dr Chris Mesagno mistakenly neglected to attribute the story to them, which has caused some Australian bowlers to believe the study was Chris' own work.

 

[Brenton_Davy]

The study was the work of Researchers Allison Elizabeth Devan and Hirofumi Tanaka, of the Department of Kinesiology and Health at the University of Texas, who analyzed scoring data of 147 elite bowlers. Scores and ages were collected from the 2002 PBA World Championships and the 2002 Senior World Championships. Only bowlers whose age could be determined were used in the analysis. Ages were found on the PBA web site or through an Internet search.
Dr Chris Mesagno mistakenly neglected to attribute the story to them, which has caused some Australian bowlers to believe the study was Chris' own work.

Did not and never intended to infer that this was Chris's work. I just thought that the way Chris got flamed by "Feral" for posting this research was a bit over the top. If that was what it appeared, then I apologise.

 

[emmtee83]

Dr Chris Mesagno mistakenly neglected to attribute the story to them, which has caused some Australian bowlers to believe the study was Chris' own work.

ummmm.....WOW!!

 

[Feral]

Hi Brenton. Mate, I wasn't "flaming" Chris at all: it was the "research". 147 bowlers, selected firstly from the "elite" category, and secondly just a sample from 2002, is not statistically valid for bowlers across the world, let alone the sample countries. Hence my comment that the "research" result is as valid as assuming that people lose their hair as they get older. There are plenty of bald twenty odd year olds and many old people with hair but there are less older people with hair. Commonsense. Don't need research to tell us that; surely

 

[jockey]

Wayne

I fail to see where Chris claimed it was his work. The names of the researchers are clearly printed on the article so why did he have to print that in his post.

I found the article pretty accurate based on the following:

I have all my league score from 1985 when I started bowling league through to this day. All 5000+ games. Now the way my average has altered over the years has matched the shape of the curve outlined on the report and as I am 42 and it still is currently rising it also matches Brentons observations. However I will definately be trying to buck the trend in three odd years to prevent the slide that is suggested by the curve. I will try to be one who lies in the sample above the curve or that odd one out in every sample.

 

[wchester]

OK..Now I'm thje one who is being misunderstood. I NEVER said or inferred that Dr. Chris Mesagno had claimed the study was his own. I simply stated that he probably should've attributed it to researchers the with an introduction of sorts.

I've been an elite bowler since 1969 and can honestly say that I began starting the downhill slide in my late 30s. I still managed to win a major title at age 48, but that was more the result of my many years of bowling at the top level than it was a tribute to my physical game.

While a bowler's mental game can resist the ravages of aging, the physical game is almost sure to suffer. Some bowlers can keep at the top of their game well into their 40s. Others, due to a myriad of reasons, reach the point of no return at a younger age. I've found very few elite bowlers who were as good at age 50 as they were at age 35.

One more variable to ponder...Do NOT be fooled by your bowling average. Today a 200 average equates to about what a 185 was back in the 1980s

 

[Stroker]

Thanks for sharing this information Dr. Chris. I also found it very interesting.

I for one would be more inclined to believe the findings of a 'Researched' paper than the overly inflated opinions of the minority.

Cheers,

Shane.

 

[jockey]

Very true Wayne.

A lot of bowlers today can't understand why they bowl like a house on fire in league and yet when they venture to a tournament they fall flat on their face.

If a building does not have a solid foundation the structure will fail. So too it equates to the modern reactive ball equipped bowler who has not had to work for the average they currently boast they hold.

I remember pre urethane days and how you had to work hard to bowl at a high level. Good old days that we all tend to forget about now. Those days might be gone with the introduction of reactive ball surfaces but the fundamentals remain the same. I guess in 20 years time the next generation of total bowling members will be posting to a similar thread with regards to the good old days of reactive ball technology who knows.

Unless you have a solid technique for adjusting lines to ensure you carry a strike you will not be able to reproduce your house shot performance level in a tournament.

When you add aging into the equation it just makes it even harder if you don't have the fundamentals to start with.

 

[Buzzer]

Not in every centre Wayne!!!

 

[STEROID]

Firstly, so there is no misunderstanding... I would like to thank Joe Slowanski for bringing this article to my attention and also thank Allison Elizabeth Devan and Hirofumi Tanaka at the University of Texas for doing this (and at least some) research on bowling and bowlers (in general). I didn't think I had to clarify that because the researchers names are in the article, but now I have.

Research related... All researchers understand that there will be some limitations in studies. For example, "senior and PBA professionals bowlers" is both a strength and a limitation. However, 147 participants is enough of a sample to complete relatively good research and to analyse it with robust statistics. So don't be fooled by the amount of people... especially considering they were elite bowlers... no researchers will ever get 500-1000 elite BOWLERS in a sample, unless it is over the course of many years (and if that ever happens, I'd be interested in the research)!

Also, much of what we know as research comes from common sense questions. With that said, common sense questions need to be validated by reaserch to be a reliable and valid (and thus a credible) source of information. The credibility of our sport is declining... perhaps sport science research and research on bowlers can improve the credibility of the sport?

I agree with wchester that the physical game declines due to age, however, bowlers can "play" for much longer than people in other sports. Unfortunately, I don't feel that these researchers have talked enough about the difference between bowling performance and age, related to other sports and age. For example, athletes in endurance and physically demanding sports retire at a much younger age than bowlers (if bowlers ever retire?). Perhaps this may be due to the injury rate of other sports compared to bowling, etc. Not sure really... another research topic perhaps?

Again, this brings me back to my original point... will the 2-handed bowlers stick around until they are 45 years of age? Again... biomechanical research could be useful in helping these athletes compete at a later age, but this type of research is not "common sense" research at all!!

One thing I do know is that if this revolutionary and exciting style is able to withstand the test of time... It will be nothing but positive for our sport!!

Dr. Chris