WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ??????

[Funky Chicken]

The NQ masters is to be held at Kirwan on the weekend of the 8th and 9th of June, 2003

The Format is as follows

3 games qualifying (Standard)

Top 24 men (including city masters champions) then bowl 6 games with the bottom 8 dropping out leaving 16 men to contest the final.

The women however only have to qualify in the top 16 and automatically get to bowl the final.

My question is why is the mens format different to the womens ???

Now my problem with the mens format is that as the Townsville Masters Champion I have earned the right to bowl in the NQ Masters final, yet I now have to bowl against bowlers who bowled crap and finished 17th to 24th in qualifying and they may still get a spot in the final and I could miss out. Now what is the point of City Masters Champions if at the end of the day I have to still qualify to bowl in the finals.

The bottom line is if you aren't good enough to make the top 16 then bad luck buddy try again next year.

The fair way to do it is to have the 8 city masters champions as automatic entries into the final, then the top 16 QUALIFIERS then roll off and the top 8 then go through to make up the 16 finalists.

As usual just when you think the NQ Association can' t stuff up any more, they pull something new out of their bag of tricks. C'mon guys wake up to yourselves and do the right thing by all bowlers involved.

This format is highly discriminatory to the men, as all of the women have to do is make the top 16 and then turn up on the day. Could someone in NQ please explain to me why is this so, and please don't insult my intelligence by saying something like "That's just the way it is" or "If you don't like it don't bowl".

The only people that this format advantages are the people who were not good enough to make the top 16, so my question is why reward mediocrity at the expense of those people who WERE good enough to make the top 16 ?????

Steve HUNT

PS I am not expecting any of the decision makers in NQ to put a post on in relation to this, mainly because a lot of them appear to lack sufficient communication skills to deal with things openly they prefer to deal with things in secret and behind close doors.

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

 

[Gail Torrens]

Whats your opinion

Steve

I sympathise with your viewpoint - however I think the committee who structured the event were looking to encourage more participants to make the event larger and therefore create a greater pool of bowlers at the Masters and unfortunately did not consider your situation. All things can be fixed - I believe bowlers such as yourself should attend meetings - so next year make sure that you are one of this committee. You will be able to input valuable advice about formats and the bowlers views particularly about the situation you find yourself in at the present. This is how I became involved at Rachuig - I saw a problem and offered to try and be part of the solution. I have met you and to me you seem a sensible level headed person.

One of the toughest things to do is create a Ladies field as large as the Mens field - I am sure if the numbers of the Ladies qualifying and contesting the final were equivalent to the Mens field there would be no separate format. You must have a look at the prize money also - are the ladies playing for the same prize pool as the Mens? I have not had a look at the payouts for your Masters but normally the Ladies get a 'fantastic' deal of paying the same entry in tournaments and bowling for half or two thirds of the prize money.
= Must mean we have less overheads???? I apologise to all if these statements about the ladies qualifying price structure and final payouts are exactly the same as the Mens. Love to hear from you Steve and put me on the right track.

Look forward to seeing you at the Nationals

Cheers
Gail Torrens

 

[Gail Torrens]

Whats your opinion

Steve

I sympathise with your viewpoint - however I think the committee who structured the event were looking to encourage more participants to make the event larger and therefore create a greater pool of bowlers at the Masters and unfortunately did not consider your situation. All things can be fixed - I believe bowlers such as yourself should attend meetings - so next year make sure that you are one of this committee. You will be able to input valuable advice about formats and the bowlers views particularly about the situation you find yourself in at the present. This is how I became involved at Rachuig - I saw a problem and offered to try and be part of the solution. I have met you and to me you seem a sensible level headed person.

One of the toughest things to do is create a Ladies field as large as the Mens field - I am sure if the numbers of the Ladies qualifying and contesting the final were equivalent to the Mens field there would be no separate format. You must have a look at the prize money also - are the ladies playing for the same prize pool as the Mens? I have not had a look at the payouts for your Masters but normally the Ladies get a 'fantastic' deal of paying the same entry in tournaments and bowling for half or two thirds of the prize money.
= Must mean we have less overheads???? I apologise to all if these statements about the ladies qualifying price structure and final payouts are exactly the same as the Mens. Love to hear from you Steve and put me on the right track.

Look forward to seeing you at the Nationals

Cheers
Gail Torrens

 

[Funky Chicken]

Gail,

Thanks for the reply.

Some of the points you make about the womens fields are correct, and I think womens entry fees should be reduced if they are playing for reduced prize money. Reduced entry fees may encourage more women to compete, thus generating more prize money.

I guess my main beef with the whole thing is that when you win the City Masters they tell you that you have a paid entry into the NQ Masters. But then you are forced to try and qualify with the people who weren't good enough to win a City Masters.

As I have said previously I think the fairest way is to have all 8 City Masters Champions as automatic entries into the finals, then the top 16 qualifiers roll off with the top 8 bowlers going through to make up the 16 finalists. This at least gives those people who were good enough to win their City Masters some sort of reward.

I totally agree with what you say about attending meetings to have a say in the decision making process, I think that's where some committees fall down in that they don't talk enough to the bowlers to ascertain their thoughts and opinions. Maybe if there were a few more bowlers on commmittees they would get a different perspective beofre making decisions.

Thanks again for your input and I will see you at Nationals.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Wild Turkey]

Steve

I know for fact that the format was suggested by a "Bowler" and you will probably find they are in the rauchig team. This was then voted in by the association.

Personally i don't have any problems with the current format. Winning your local area Masters simply entitles you to a free spot in the NQ Masters. From there all area master champions and qualifiers should be given an even playing field. I belive this format provides just that.

If you can't cut after 8 you don't deserve to be there and any titles previously won are meaningless.

If there are other bowlers who are unhappy with this format, ensure they also raise it with their appropriate association representatives. The motion to alter the format can be taken to the next NQ Board meeting and voted on. Unfortunately, this site is not the place you will get any results.

We will all see the fruits of this format on Friday night and maybe the opinions of both bowlers & spectators will be altered.

See you then

Frank

 

[Funky Chicken]

Frank,

The bowler you are referring to is Sam, and while I greatly respect him as both a person and a bowler I still think that he and the association got this wrong.

If you go back a few years ago when you needed to throw 600+ to make the NQ Masters board, you were either good enough to make the top 16 (including city masters champions) or you weren't.

These days the quality of qualifying is substantially lower, so to reward those bowlers who weren't good enough to win their city masters or finish in the top 16 we extend the qualifying to 24 to try and give these poor souls another chance. So that they may get lucky over 6 games and knock someone out who rightly deserves their spot.

With this sort of mentality why don't you just get rid of City Masters altogether and just have the top 24 men bowl 6 games with top 16 going through.

It is hard enough these days to entice people to take part in City Championships and Masters, but now by taking away the one carrot that may attract people (free entry to the masters FINAL) then I predict that the majority of city championships and masters will be like the dinosaurs and cease to exist.

I realise that this forum is not the place to get this changed, but it IS a place that I am able to express my point of view and get the opinions of my fellow bowlers (of which you are one, and I respect your opinion).

I can almost guarantee that come Friday night there will be at least one or two people who are currently in the top 16 who will miss out on a finals spot because one of the reserves (ie those who finished 17 - 24 ) had a good 6 games. It may even be you, I wonder what your opinion will be then ???

Steve :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

 

[brown beach boy]

STEVE

LOL HEHEHEEH...!!!!!!!!!! Well i never thought i would see the day when one of North Queenslands best bowlers is worried about making a top 16 cut in an local North Queensland event, Steve you make me laugh. Steve what ever happened to the spirit of the sport and for the good of the game. If you are so worried about getting knocked out by someone that only qualified with a 503 series then i think you should rethink your bowling carreer, and since when did you care about what everyone else thinks, lololol :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: anyway you wanted someone from the board to say something on this post and i am im not scared of what bowlers think of the North Queensland board because i am one of them, and so is your father and wh
at i can remember he was sitting right beside me and he never had a problem with this format if he did he should have spoken up then and not go running to you. In saying that i have to watch wat i say as I am still a member of the Rachuiq team and your father is the coach so i dont want to be dropped from the side before i get to the event. lolololol :shock: :shock: :shock: . As for reasons frank and gail pretty much hit the nail on the head it was to get more bowlers involved and to make it a little more exciting and wat would be better then to see someone with a 150 average beat us all to take out the open masters ( I TELL YOU NOW ITS NOT THE FIRST TIME REMEMBER PAUL BRIGGS IN CAIRNS A FEW YEARS AGO WHEN THE CUT FOR THE BOARD WAS 620 AND HE BEAT ME IN THE FINALS ON A LEAGUE AVERAGE OF 160 YOU DIDN'T SEE ME COMPLAINING TILL NOW) SO HEY LETS FORGET ABOUT ALL THIS, GO TO KIRWAN WHERE I THINK THE CONDITION WILL BE OUR BIGGEST ENEMY AND LETS HAVE A BEEER AND ENJOY OURSELVES. ( BY THE WAY STEVE IM LAUGHING WHILE I AM TYPING THIS I THINK ITS HUMEROUS)

 

[Funky Chicken]

Sam,

I was hoping you would reply.

Mate, I honestly worry about making the cut in every tournament I bowl in (Seriously, I get really nervous and stress out).

I am flattered that you think I am that good, but NQ has some excellent male bowlers - you, Ang, Trent, Tyson, Bluey, Joey (when he bowls), Shaun Dunn, Frank just to name a few. So leading into a tournament I always suffer a bit of self doubt, I think I need some coaching from George (Hey George!!!)


My Dad actually hasn't said anything about this to me, so I don't actually know what he thinks. However if he didn't say anything in the meeting, then there is every chance that he agrees with you and the Board (You don't think he got the Rachuig job purely on his coaching ability ??? )

As if he would drop you to the bench, I reckon the only person who could get dropped by the old man might be............ (you know who it is and it isn't a bowler)

Trust me when I say that if you thought Kirwan was bad for roll offs then they were three times worse for Championships last Saturday. I used all of my skill (hahaha) and experience and managed a 550, 530 and 540 series (Inspiring bowling). The back ends were like my revolutions - non existent. So it will be a challenge, and a few beers will be welcome relief.

***A very good source has informed me that the condition I bowled on was oil to 38ft and then buffed to the end of the pin decks, hence no back end. Then come Sunday a miracle happened and the back end returned (luckily certain Kirwan Staff chose Sunday to bowl their Championships :x :x :x )


Sam, you know me well enough to know that I don't take too much seriously, and I actually think you make some very valid points that I had not considered (as did Frank and Gail), which is why I will go and spend my energy trying to get the ball to turn more than 5 boards.

Trust me I haven't stopped laughing since I read your post.

Since I'm at work I better go and do some, so I'll see you on the weekend

 

[Wild Turkey]

Oi steve you should have bowled champs this weekend just passed i threw a 594 604 601 560 conditions were fantastic or a solution to your problem would be to change hands hahahahaha LEFT IS GOOD go the lefties haha ( this will probably jinx me now, oh well)

Frank