What that says is that bowling has become too easy. That's because of today's equipment -- they make a much better bowling ball today than they made 20 or 25 years ago.
It's not just happening in bowling. During the past 20 years, the average driving distance on the PGA Tour increased by ten yards or so. And in tennis, both the men's and women's games are a lot different from the way they used to be.
The power surge in all three sports has come about because equipment manufacturers have come up with technological advances that have improved equipment to the point where the sports themselves have changed. In some cases, it's been a change for the better; in others, maybe not.
It's round; it's gotta roll!
Growing up in New England, I was a candlepin bowler of considerable enthusiasm, and some skill; in the 1979 Massachusetts state tournament, I came within a heartbreaking four pins of winning the tournament, in the 14-16 age group (in candlepins, you become an adult at 17, for some reason). In candlepin bowling, equipment differences don't play much of a role, because of the nature of the sport. With a ball that's not much bigger than a softball and weighs less than 2-1/2 pounds, almost everyone throws the ball hard and straight. So it doesn't make much difference what kind of ball you're throwing, or from which manufacturer -- everyone's playing pretty much the same game.
That isn't to say that average scores haven't increased over the years -- but that's largely the result of the fact that today's plastic pins are harder and more slippery than those of a few decades ago. My late uncle, Nick Kafalas, was one of the top candlepin bowlers of his day (50 years or so ago), with an average that peaked at 117. Today, bowlers of the same skill level average 130 or so -- that's about what Uncle Nick would be averaging, if he were bowling today.
Get a grip
In conventional tenpin bowling, it's a different story. Today's bowling ball is made of a urethane or "reactive resin" material with a much higher coefficient of friction than the hard rubber balls of years gone by. As a result, it's much easier to throw a ball that hooks as it approaches the pins -- and that makes it much easier to throw strikes.
After only a few seasons of practice (and not very intensive practice at that), I'm averaging close to 200. I've thrown ten strikes in a single game a few times. This doesn't make me an especially good bowler -- what it shows is that the game is too easy, with today's equipment. A urethane or reactive-resin ball adds about 25-30 pins to a bowler's average, compared to what he'd be averaging with an old-fashioned hard rubber ball. The top pros throw the ball so hard that with the ball of 20 years ago, it would skid all the way down the lane without hooking much at all -- today's ball, when delivered with the same velocity and spin, grabs the lane and hooks, because it has a much higher coefficient of friction than the old ball. That's why the pros are able to throw the ball so much harder than they used to.
I don't think this is entirely good. It's good for the recreational bowler, true -- bowling is more fun when your scores are higher. But today's equipment makes it much easier to achieve perfection. It's not that unusual for a rather ordinary bowler to, on occasion, throw a 300 game. The perfect game is no longer the exclusive domain of the touring pro. Although I've never thrown a 300, I've come close; and I'm not a good enough bowler to do that -- it's the ball that's doing it.
Wider is better
In golf, I think the technology is good. The ball and clubs they have nowadays make the game much more playable for amateurs -- and golf is such an inherently difficult sport that you can't ruin it by making it easier.
I got a set of oversize metal woods last year (actually, I made them myself, from components -- but that's not the important thing); and I can tell you, the difference between these clubs and old-fashioned woods is phenomenal. You can hit the ball just about anywhere on the clubface and get, if not a great shot, at least a pretty passable result. That's not to say that I don't hit the occasional ball into the woods, or that I don't stub a tee shot 30 yards on occasion -- but it makes it possible to reach a few greens in regulation in each round, which means a few birdie putts. And putting for birdie is what golf is all about.
Unlike bowling, though, the game of golf has ample defense against the onslaught of technology. Golf course superintendents can (and do) take any number of steps to toughen up tournament courses, when the pros' scores start to get too low. I happened to catch part of an interview with Jack Nicklaus on the Golf Channel the other day -- Nicklaus noted that almost every hole at Augusta National Golf Club underwent changes in the '60s, when he was setting records and threatening to dominate the sport. They lengthened several holes, added trees and bunkers here and there, and otherwise took steps to neutralize the advantage that Nicklaus's long-hitting game gave him. They've been making more changes, too, since you-know-who broke Nicklaus's tournament scoring record by a stroke last year.
The United States Golf Association (USGA) seems intent on reining
in the club manufacturers -- they've been making noises about banning some of
the clubs currently under development, citing the "spring-like effect" today's
thin metal club faces may have on the golf ball. I say there's no need
for it -- the new clubs are great for weekend golfers (who, after all, make
up the vast majority of the people who play golf); and as for the pros, the
course designers are perfectly capable of toughening up their courses to prevent
scores from getting too low.
Fire when ready!
In tennis, the effect of technology is a mixed bag. I find the men's game much less interesting than it used to be, while the women's game is better.
In the old days of men's tennis, there were baseliners and there were serve-and-volleyers. It was rare to be effective on grass, hard courts, and clay. Only a few players like Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors were versatile enough to win Grand Slam events on any surface.
And there was more subtlety to the sport. Elegant players like Guillermo Vilas had style and strategy. Nowadays, it's all power. The rackets they're using these days, because of their size, design, and materials, let players hit the ball so hard that the game has become a serving contest. Almost all the top players on the men's circuit are big servers. Guys like Connors and Vilas, whose strengths became more apparent after the ball had crossed the net a few times, are nowhere to be seen.
That's why I don't watch much men's tennis anymore. On the other hand, the women's game is more interesting than it used to be -- again, because of the new rackets. It used to be that women's tennis was just a detuned, underpowered, dull version of the men's game. Grinders like Chris Evert -- whose main strength was that she covered the court well and never missed a ball -- were the most successful. The occasional Billie Jean King or Martina Navratilova -- who played more like the guys -- were the exceptions that proved the rule.
Nowadays, it's the other way around -- most of the top pros are power players. Unlike the men's game, though, the power surge hasn't ruined women's tennis -- because the women still don't have enough power for the game to degenerate into a boom, boom serving contest. On the contrary, the game has a lot more variety than it used to, in terms of playing styles.
Sometimes better equipment means a better game, sometimes not.
Copyright © 1998 John J. Kafalas