|
Post by PBAHoFer on Oct 26, 2006 15:51:21 GMT -5
Please direct all questions to Citizen's Sport's Editor, Robert Avery, this is just what I saw in Wednesday's paper:
"As a new feature for Strikes & Spares, the Citizen will run a weekly ranking of our City's bowlers. They will be ranked by a points system. The points system will go as follows: 800 Series- 50 points, 300 Game- 40 points, 299 Game- 25 points, Women's 700 Series- 25 points."
Listed are this week's rankings:
1. Danny McNair 90 2. Virgil Hudson 50 3. Michael Dunn 40 3. Jack Dahlinger 40 3. Rex Owens 40 3. Derek Johnson 40 7. Eddie Brod 25 7. Eddie Cope 25 7. Eddie Garcia 25 7. Donna Zurovec 25
I know it's sour grapes to complain about any coverage, but there are many flaws in this scoring system, not even to mention the manner in which scores are gathered or submitted.
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Oct 26, 2006 15:57:08 GMT -5
Please direct all questions to Citizen's Sport's Editor, Robert Avery, this is just what I saw in Wednesday's paper: "As a new feature for Strikes & Spares, the Citizen will run a weekly ranking of our City's bowlers. They will be ranked by a points system. The points system will go as follows: 800 Series- 50 points, 300 Game- 40 points, 299 Game- 25 points, Women's 700 Series- 25 points." Listed are this week's rankings: 1. Danny McNair 90 2. Virgil Hudson 50 3. Michael Dunn 40 3. Jack Dahlinger 40 3. Rex Owens 40 3. Derek Johnson 40 7. Eddie Brod 25 7. Eddie Cope 25 7. Eddie Garcia 25 7. Donna Zurovec 25 I know it's sour grapes to complain about any coverage, but there are many flaws in this scoring system, not even to mention the manner in which scores are gathered or submitted. To continue this thought, this is totally the brainchild of the Pasadena Citizen. The Greater Pasadena USBC and neither house is involved in accumulating scores or assigning points.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Oct 26, 2006 15:57:54 GMT -5
Please direct all questions to Citizen's Sport's Editor, Robert Avery, this is just what I saw in Wednesday's paper: "As a new feature for Strikes & Spares, the Citizen will run a weekly ranking of our City's bowlers. They will be ranked by a points system. The points system will go as follows: 800 Series- 50 points, 300 Game- 40 points, 299 Game- 25 points, Women's 700 Series- 25 points." Listed are this week's rankings: 1. Danny McNair 90 2. Virgil Hudson 50 3. Michael Dunn 40 3. Jack Dahlinger 40 3. Rex Owens 40 3. Derek Johnson 40 7. Eddie Brod 25 7. Eddie Cope 25 7. Eddie Garcia 25 7. Donna Zurovec 25 I know it's sour grapes to complain about any coverage, but there are many flaws in this scoring system, not even to mention the manner in which scores are gathered or submitted. That is a horrible ranking system and it's basically useless keeping it on a weekly bases, instead of a season running total. Rankings are meant year around and points should be accumilated during the fall season. Maybe they would listen to you PBA since you are the President of Pasadena's association. Points should be given for games 250 and up and men's series 700 and up. Of coarse, 298, 299, 300 and 800 series should be the most and be kept on a running total per each bowlers best league they have made the most points in....to keep it equal for all since some bowl more leagues than others in Pasadena...JMO...
|
|
|
Post by thedoctor on Oct 26, 2006 16:02:28 GMT -5
Please direct all questions to Citizen's Sport's Editor, Robert Avery, this is just what I saw in Wednesday's paper: "As a new feature for Strikes & Spares, the Citizen will run a weekly ranking of our City's bowlers. They will be ranked by a points system. The points system will go as follows: 800 Series- 50 points, 300 Game- 40 points, 299 Game- 25 points, Women's 700 Series- 25 points." Listed are this week's rankings: 1. Danny McNair 90 2. Virgil Hudson 50 3. Michael Dunn 40 3. Jack Dahlinger 40 3. Rex Owens 40 3. Derek Johnson 40 7. Eddie Brod 25 7. Eddie Cope 25 7. Eddie Garcia 25 7. Donna Zurovec 25 I know it's sour grapes to complain about any coverage, but there are many flaws in this scoring system, not even to mention the manner in which scores are gathered or submitted. That is a horrible ranking system and it's basically useless keeping it on a weekly bases, instead of a season running total. Rankings are meant year around and points should be accumilated during the fall season. Maybe they would listen to you PBA since you are the President of Pasadena's association. Points should be given for games 250 and up and men's series 700 and up. Of coarse, 298, 299, 300 and 800 series should be the most and be kept on a running total per each bowlers best league they have made the most points in....to keep it equal for all since some bowl more leagues than others in Pasadena...JMO... Maybe the association should do something like what Perfect said in house and crown a champion for the year. Just something for fun. Its an idea anyway.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Oct 26, 2006 16:09:57 GMT -5
That is a horrible ranking system and it's basically useless keeping it on a weekly bases, instead of a season running total. Rankings are meant year around and points should be accumilated during the fall season. Maybe they would listen to you PBA since you are the President of Pasadena's association. Points should be given for games 250 and up and men's series 700 and up. Of coarse, 298, 299, 300 and 800 series should be the most and be kept on a running total per each bowlers best league they have made the most points in....to keep it equal for all since some bowl more leagues than others in Pasadena...JMO... Maybe the association should do something like what Perfect said in house and crown a champion for the year. Just something for fun. Its an idea anyway. Houston Assoc. had something like this back in the mid to late 80's. The first years was the 86-87 season. They called it the "All City Team" Which consisted of the top 5 point gathers across the City. I made it #1 the first year they had it, I don't know how much longer they did it after that year. But to qualify, you had to bowl at least 2 leagues, one in different Houston Houses. for me, it was Mimosa and Meadow Creek... A bowler could bowl more, but only the league with the most points would be used if you bowled two league in the same house, then add the point total from the league in the other house...or even if the league was in a third house, only the top two leagues would be used for the point total as long as they were not from the same house... I don't remember totally what the point system was but if you shot a 804 series, it was 804 points, 750's to 799's had a certain set point value and 700 to 749 had a lower set value. Game points started at 250, I think from 250 to 275 was a set amount, 276 to 289 was a set amount. I think 290 to 300 the points equalled the score of the game....But I could be wrong on this. Bo Brown was very much involved in this, maybe he would remember better than I do....
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Oct 26, 2006 16:24:23 GMT -5
Please direct all questions to Citizen's Sport's Editor, Robert Avery, this is just what I saw in Wednesday's paper: "As a new feature for Strikes & Spares, the Citizen will run a weekly ranking of our City's bowlers. They will be ranked by a points system. The points system will go as follows: 800 Series- 50 points, 300 Game- 40 points, 299 Game- 25 points, Women's 700 Series- 25 points." Listed are this week's rankings: 1. Danny McNair 90 2. Virgil Hudson 50 3. Michael Dunn 40 3. Jack Dahlinger 40 3. Rex Owens 40 3. Derek Johnson 40 7. Eddie Brod 25 7. Eddie Cope 25 7. Eddie Garcia 25 7. Donna Zurovec 25 I know it's sour grapes to complain about any coverage, but there are many flaws in this scoring system, not even to mention the manner in which scores are gathered or submitted. That is a horrible ranking system and it's basically useless keeping it on a weekly bases, instead of a season running total. Rankings are meant year around and points should be accumilated during the fall season. Maybe they would listen to you PBA since you are the President of Pasadena's association. Points should be given for games 250 and up and men's series 700 and up. Of coarse, 298, 299, 300 and 800 series should be the most and be kept on a running total per each bowlers best league they have made the most points in....to keep it equal for all since some bowl more leagues than others in Pasadena...JMO... I think they are going to have a running total, at least that makes sense to me anyway... you are right a weekly total means absolutley nothing.
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Oct 26, 2006 16:38:53 GMT -5
Maybe the association should do something like what Perfect said in house and crown a champion for the year. Just something for fun. Its an idea anyway. Houston Assoc. had something like this back in the mid to late 80's. The first years was the 86-87 season. They called it the "All City Team" Which consisted of the top 5 point gathers across the City. I made it #1 the first year they had it, I don't know how much longer they did it after that year. But to qualify, you had to bowl at least 2 leagues, one in different Houston Houses. for me, it was Mimosa and Meadow Creek... A bowler could bowl more, but only the league with the most points would be used if you bowled two league in the same house, then add the point total from the league in the other house...or even if the league was in a third house, only the top two leagues would be used for the point total as long as they were not from the same house... I don't remember totally what the point system was but if you shot a 804 series, it was 804 points, 750's to 799's had a certain set point value and 700 to 749 had a lower set value. Game points started at 250, I think from 250 to 275 was a set amount, 276 to 289 was a set amount. I think 290 to 300 the points equalled the score of the game....But I could be wrong on this. Bo Brown was very much involved in this, maybe he would remember better than I do.... I was only bowling in 1 league in Houston at that time... we started bowling regularly @ Hurricane Lanes that year and I dropped my Mimosa Leagues...
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Oct 26, 2006 16:49:51 GMT -5
Houston Assoc. had something like this back in the mid to late 80's. The first years was the 86-87 season. They called it the "All City Team" Which consisted of the top 5 point gathers across the City. I made it #1 the first year they had it, I don't know how much longer they did it after that year. But to qualify, you had to bowl at least 2 leagues, one in different Houston Houses. for me, it was Mimosa and Meadow Creek... A bowler could bowl more, but only the league with the most points would be used if you bowled two league in the same house, then add the point total from the league in the other house...or even if the league was in a third house, only the top two leagues would be used for the point total as long as they were not from the same house... I don't remember totally what the point system was but if you shot a 804 series, it was 804 points, 750's to 799's had a certain set point value and 700 to 749 had a lower set value. Game points started at 250, I think from 250 to 275 was a set amount, 276 to 289 was a set amount. I think 290 to 300 the points equalled the score of the game....But I could be wrong on this. Bo Brown was very much involved in this, maybe he would remember better than I do.... I was only bowling in 1 league in Houston at that time... we started bowling regularly @ Hurricane Lanes that year and I dropped my Mimosa Leagues... You were a player and a contender back then.... You very well could have made the team if you stayed at Mimosa one more year....JMO...
|
|
|
Post by Orkocean on Oct 26, 2006 17:16:03 GMT -5
So they're just starting out of nowhere? Not gonna pull scores rom beginning of the season? Think 750+ for men should be something.. No 298? or any 290+ for the matter.. If they want to do this they should really get involved and start checking secretaries for any 7-10 split pickups and what not.. Hell, what about 300's in a tournament? I guess that don't count for me.
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Oct 26, 2006 18:09:17 GMT -5
That's what I mean... there are plenty of reasons why this is a stupid ides, but, any media coverage is a good thing.
I guess.
If you think stupid, 1/2 assed stuff is a good thing...
|
|
|
Post by Orkocean on Oct 26, 2006 23:44:25 GMT -5
I think it would be a very cool thing and all, and I could just see perfect creaming himself over trying to be #1 on it. But for it to really be fair it needs to get into some details and really bring up things for points, split pick ups, over average, triplecats.. So many things that should factor into it.. City/state/national tournament performances.. Don't even see why you need "50/40/25" point setup.. Hell, 800 5 points, 300 3 points, 290-299 2 points.. All other score awards such as 750+ 250+, split pickups get 1 point. If done during a tournament +1 point for it. Forget it being a purely who gets the most honor score awards which is pretty much what it boils down to.
|
|
|
Post by WineUdotKing on Oct 27, 2006 13:48:51 GMT -5
Why don't we get a committee together and put together a system for them and present it to them. I think that a "bowler" might have a better way to score the top 10 vs a "non-bowler". Just an idea.
I would like to nominate MrPerfect as the president of this committee and then he can pick his committee members...lol
All in favor, say ok, all those against, say no way in h e l l.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Oct 30, 2006 8:34:26 GMT -5
Why don't we get a committee together and put together a system for them and present it to them. I think that a "bowler" might have a better way to score the top 10 vs a "non-bowler". Just an idea. I would like to nominate MrPerfect as the president of this committee and then he can pick his committee members...lol All in favor, say ok, all those against, say no way in h e l l. I'm not on the Assoc. Board and there for will not be in charge of anything to do with this. I think it would be great if our Assoc. did something like this but to add my two cents worth in, if the Pasadena Assoc. was to do something like this I think that only bowlers that bowl at least one league at Diamond and Armadilla should be considered for a "Bowler of the Year" or an "All City Team" award if the Assoc. was wanting to recognize more than one bowler. That way the Assoc. is promoting both houses and rewarding those that support our Assoc. and can display achievements in both houses, not just one. Use the league in each house that the bowler has scored the most points in only to determine point totals incase some bowlers bowl more than one league in either house. If an "All City Team" criteria is used, there could be a "A" team, "B" team and "C" team, one for each average level A team, 200 and up, B team, 175 to 199 and C team 174 and under for the men. Womens average levels, I'm not real sure where they should be but for a starting point, 180 and up to be A Team, B team 179 to 160, C team 159 and under. Point system for the women and lower average men Div. to include points for lower scores than what the mens "A" div. would have to do of coarse....JMO....
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Dec 20, 2006 11:54:07 GMT -5
OK... I'll take mr. p's bait concerning Top Bowlers in Pasadena History.
Let's name a Top 10 of ALL TIME. Bring your own set of prejudices to your list... just make the one criteria that your list consists of bowlers that are identified as Pasadena Bowlers and DO NOT PUT YOURSELF ON THE LIST. This is clearly unscientific and only states opinion and not fact. You may state a short reason or explanation behind each selection if you wish
They are NOT in order:
1. Jim Long- leagues based their handicap on him for years. 2. James Long- ABC record tying 800's in a season. 3. Jeff Clark- you all know... he's told us... and it's mostly true. 4. Eddie Brod- action, action, action... scores, scores, scores 5. Rudy Ruiz- the most natural talent ever? Maybe. 6. Rusty Davis- does he really bowl a 300 every week or does it only seem like he does? 7. Roger Banks, John Ubias, Jimmy Paulk- High Hopes Team... no matter what league what year, they are in the hunt. 8. Mano Graham, Jeff Wood- they score and they win stuff. For years now. 9. Kris Boudny- HoF stats don't lie. 10. Jimmy Fields- if he doesn't start bowling in Pasadena more, I take him off the list really soon.... Jeremy Evans-- redefining bowling power.. THE bowler in Pasadena that people stop to watch.
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Dec 20, 2006 11:55:33 GMT -5
I couldn't only name 10 and I know without a doubt I omitted names of bowlers that qualify... Please don't take offense if I didn't name you...
|
|