Found this post, thought some of you might like to read.
With the economy as it is we bowlers will have less money to spend on new balls.
I can see where that might make bowlers become better bowlers by having to make what they have work instead of the notion that a new ball for a certain condition has been the norm.
Old bowlers like to claim they were good because they only had one ball and had to make it work regardless of the condition. I think there is truth in that claim.
However, ball companies provided us with different balls for different conditions and arsenals came into existence. Now bowlers began to buy different balls for various conditions and did not have to alter their mechanics in order to compete.
Now with less money to purchase new balls I think this might be a good thing and will make bowlers become more versatile by having to continue to use what they have on hand.
After arsenals became the norm, there were cries that those with the most money to spend on new balls had an advantage. To a certain extend I think that was a fair assumption.
Maybe that assumption will be more prevalent now that many are being laid off and need to save their money for essentials rather than buy new balls and again those with the most money will have an advantage.
Maybe with fewer new balls skill will again become more of a factor than having the right ball to match the condition.
Those who clamor for skill being the deciding factor always toss out the idea that a tourney where only plastic balls can be used the best bowlers will have the advantage.
While the recession is terrible in a way it might actually help bowling regain some of the integrity that seems to have been lost. Just my thoughts.
--------------------
Bones
With the economy as it is we bowlers will have less money to spend on new balls.
I can see where that might make bowlers become better bowlers by having to make what they have work instead of the notion that a new ball for a certain condition has been the norm.
Old bowlers like to claim they were good because they only had one ball and had to make it work regardless of the condition. I think there is truth in that claim.
However, ball companies provided us with different balls for different conditions and arsenals came into existence. Now bowlers began to buy different balls for various conditions and did not have to alter their mechanics in order to compete.
Now with less money to purchase new balls I think this might be a good thing and will make bowlers become more versatile by having to continue to use what they have on hand.
After arsenals became the norm, there were cries that those with the most money to spend on new balls had an advantage. To a certain extend I think that was a fair assumption.
Maybe that assumption will be more prevalent now that many are being laid off and need to save their money for essentials rather than buy new balls and again those with the most money will have an advantage.
Maybe with fewer new balls skill will again become more of a factor than having the right ball to match the condition.
Those who clamor for skill being the deciding factor always toss out the idea that a tourney where only plastic balls can be used the best bowlers will have the advantage.
While the recession is terrible in a way it might actually help bowling regain some of the integrity that seems to have been lost. Just my thoughts.
--------------------
Bones