Which option is easier

[GeorgeF]

Is it easier for a 180 average bowler to shoot 200 or a 230 average bowler to shoot 250?

Interesting discussion on the PBA forums about this one got me thinking, I think it's easier for a 180 avg bowler but there are some valid points about the 230avg bowler striking or carrying one extra time for 250.

Whats your thoughts? In true totalbowling fashion, lets run a poll

 

[Chucky]

ii say the 180 avg bowler. cause they just have more mathematiccal options to get a 200. they as well only have to get lucky in 1 or 2 frames to shoot the 200.

yeah a 230 striking alot only needs that little extra carry but with the amount of strikes they get they really only have 2 or 3 at best chances to get a lucky strike to give them a 250.

well thats how i see it..

 

[dunryc]

I say it's easier for the 180 average bowler to shoot 200 but over the course of a 48 week league season, a guy who has averaged 230 for the year will have bowled more 250+ games than the 180 average bowler will have bowled 200+.

Thanks George!

Cheers
Jan

 

[Hammer]

In my opinion its easier for a 180 avg bowler to bowl 200, because you only need to bowl 2 strikes in a row to get it, as well as sparing of course. In order to bowl 250 you have to throw 6 - 7 in a row and is more difficult. Yes the 230 avg bowler bowls more of them, but 200 isn’t difficult, 250 is massive, for a 180 avg bowler

 

[Goldberg]

It should be easier for the 180 avg bowler, they need to throw a double and stay clean - something that a 180avg player is more than capable of doing..

For the 230avg bowler to throw 250 they need a bit of luck and some pretty good carry... It takes at least eight strikes to throw a 250 game.. As much as we keep hitting the pocket we cant control carry and thats what we need to throw 250+..

My money is on the 180 guy (or girl)..

 

[jason_doust]

I think we are approaching concensus on this one. You have to miss at some point, or at least not carry all 10. The 230 player is simply running out of frames to get the additional strikes in. To shoot the 250 is more than "one extra strike" 250 requires a big string or two healthy strings to come together. Usually 8+ strikes in the game. (Can be done with 7, striking from frames 3-9 and 9/ all around.)

But there are many more permutations of getting a 230 with 7 strikes, even 6. This is why the 230 guy has to go flat out when he plays the 180 guy!

 

[thehack]

Easier for the 180 average bolwer to bowl 200, gotta agree with all the reasons already given.

 

[switchblade81]

i always thought that it would be the same because all they need to do is bowl average but get carry on more frames then they need to bowl aerage, thinking that a 180 bowler can bowl 180 by getting 10 - 8 spares and an 8 all they would need is to put a couple of strikes in there game to bowl 200 and the same goes for the 230 bowler but they need to string them together.. but after reading this forum im leaning more towards the 180 bowler

 

[weggy]

No doubt, the 180 avg would have more room to make a 200. As for which one is easier, I don't really know the answer.

 

[Greig]

Well. with the vote running at 70/30 in favour of the 180 average player, and the consenus of comment agreeing with that, I'll put up an opposing view.
To average 230, you would have to shoot a lot of 250+ games.
To average just 180 I don't think you would have to shoot too many 200s.
The 230 guys is a great bowler, and more likely to carry that stubbons 10 pin to turn a SIX 9/ DOUBLE into the 9 in a row he needs for a 250.
The 180 guys may well get the occasional double or turkey, but then is just as likely to leave a split or miss that 10 pin, that 'shouldnt have been there anyway'.
My money's on the 230 guys.

 

[strop]

180 bowler making 200, especially with Reactive balls these days.......makes the game too easy for some!

Some that couldn't hook a ball can these days..........

cheers

tony

 

[STKFC1]

!80 or 230. I am glad I can go down to the Alley and roll a ball with me mates have a beer and a laugh, get a strike or too together and when the Guns come to town go down and watch them hit the 250's...............

 

[mr_change]

I voted 180, But after thinking about it I have changed my mind.

Most bowlers I who are 180 do not have the ability to place consistant shots in, while they bowlers with a 230 average must always hit pocket every time which makes it a matter of carry for the higher bowler.

So I beleive that if someone keeps on hitting pocket has more chance of getting a couple of extra carries in the game than a 180 bowler jagging a good set of 10 frames.

 

[Pie]

I would say the 230av. As the 230 ave bowler would tend to be a little less consistent, and quite often have to cover a 180-190 game with one or two 250+ games to maintain that average. However the 180 ave bowler tends to be more consistent, throwing most of their games between say 160-200.

 

[the true sportsman]

after looking at last years major tournaments, bowlers who average 230bowled more 250 games than the bowlers who average 180 bowled 200 games, in some cases 5 - 2. therefore it seems to be easier for a 230 average bowler to bowl 250, than a 180 average bowler to bowl 200. the reason that a 180 bowler has a 180 average, is that they are more likely to miss spares.

 

[dunryc]

Good arguments on both sides here.
I'll revise my opinion slightly and say, for 1 game, it is easier for the 180 average bowler to shoot a 200, but over a series of games, or a season of games, the 230 average bowler will shoot 250 more often.
Jan

 

[The Insider]

After thinking about this for a while, I actually think it is easier for a 230 average bowler to bowl 250. Here's why:

- There are many more combinations available to bowl a 200 game, but that also means that the 180 average bowler tends to miss the spares occasionally so then there is also more chance they will score 190ish instead of the 200.

- In order to bowl a 230 average, the bowler must be able to string strikes and never miss the spares. By stringing the strikes together, they have much more chance of bowling their 250 to maintain their average. You can't get a 230 average without consistently bowling a 250+ at least once a week really.

 

[Gatsby]

Statistically speaking, I think it should be about the same for both. I have checked out some ranges of averages from some of my data as follows.

180 ave (over 352 games) +20-23%, +30-12%, +40-6%, +50-3.7%
190 ave (over 274 games) +20-22%, +30-13%, +40-8%, +50-4.7%
210 ave (over 275 games) +20-21%, +30-12%, +40-6%, +50-4.7%
(Don't have any data for 230 average)

So, if you look at a huge range of data it is basically going to even out. I think most people have looked at it and said it is easier to bowl 200 than 250 but it is all relative to what level your game is at. Either way 20 over average is 20 over average.

 

[Hayden manskie]

I would have to agree with most of the votes. A 180 average bowler has more chance on bowling a 200 game because you wouldn't have to strike so much and simply getting 2strikes in a row is alot eaiser then getting 7or 8. Although it simply comes down to the day and the potential of the bolwer it's clear that a 200 game is easier then a 250.

Thanks george
I had a good think about this one.

Hayden