|
Post by LOU CAFATSO on Mar 8, 2006 19:26:53 GMT -5
REAL DEAL IS A MORAN AND A NOBODY GET IT NOBODY.YOU COULDNT EVEN CARRY MY BALLS.THEN OR NOW...
|
|
|
Post by AGAIN ITS ME on Mar 8, 2006 19:29:06 GMT -5
MATTER OF FACT YOU HAVE NO BALLS . NO NAME EITHER.AND CALLING ME FAT THATS ANOTHER JOKE . I WAS 185 POUNDS ON TOUR. NAME 1 BOWLER WHO BEAT ME IN AN ACTION MATCH............JUST ONE.
|
|
|
Post by Louis Capasso on Mar 8, 2006 20:11:43 GMT -5
Now for the truth ,bowling is a joke. the tour pays nothing. barely up from the late 70's early 80's. BARELY. I heard the next ball on the market has radar. cmon guys. straight shooters with 5 revs, their balls hit like holmans. and to the retards who knock me, have fun.you couldnt beat me then and probobly cant beat me now. but really who cares , i havent taken this game seriously in almost 28 years. Name 5 pba members who won there 1st tournement as a pro ?...mmmmmmm. I can name 1...you want to know great bowlers heres a list. Berardi, one of the best i have ever seen. Petraglia, my idol growing up, Roth, Anthony,Weber(both of them). WRW. Parker Bohn, these guys are great bowlers. and guess what, i new and hung with all of them except Parker and WRW.I was 18 getting to hang with berardi,godman,marshall holman,earl,roth, man that was great. best 3 years of my life. it was also the toughest bowling of all time. the transition from lacquer to astrolane and murilane that crap broke down each game and spread oll over the lane. if you couldnt hit a 1 or 2 board area you were dead. Most of the people who knock people on this site are wanna be bowlers....now thats funny. I use to love the game. but the people who write total crap that that this game lower and lower.... who's going to own the PBA next, mmmmmm , the pizza guy on the corner.top prize in 1981 was 40,000 its how much now......40,0000. the golf tour was 60,000 then and 1,000,000 now... my advice to the tour of today .guys be a quitter like me and get a job. in 10 years you will have something....and snake could hook the ball on oil if he had to.. now please all the losers please write back to me and knock me some more....but that advice i gave is good advice. In 10 years some pro's will say i should have taken his advice. I live in Jersey now and every house there are 230 240 average bowlers. If you dont shoot 300 you will never win the pot . In my day in brooklyn if someone had the first 8 or nine the whole house would stop and watch. today they double jump you. and dont even care because they average 8 or 9 strikes agame. you want to see real bowling go back to plastic equiptment.and stop putting up so many walls. you guys talk patterns, screw patterns. gutter to gutter 34 feet, then cross wipe them after a spraying from the oil can. 99 % of the 225 bowlers 175 at best......
|
|
|
Post by Harry the Horse on Mar 9, 2006 1:09:21 GMT -5
You tell 'em Lou! If these clowns had to bowl with rubber on wood, they would average 150. I pointed out on a previous post, that in the years 2000 to 2005, there were FIVE HUNDRED TIMES as many perfect games than there were in the sixties. Guess which era was more difficut?
|
|
|
Post by GrouchyGramps on Mar 9, 2006 20:34:03 GMT -5
Idiots...
Everyone knows the conditions are much easier, but that is not the bowlers' fault. I guess everyone sucks now, because the conditions are so easy. Why don't you two old farts stop whining like school girls about your ancient backs and bowl. I mean you two should average 250 under these conditions and take everyone's money. Ponderous!
|
|
|
Post by Old timer on Mar 9, 2006 22:36:50 GMT -5
The only place you hung with these greats capass was around their balls. You could not handle the tour and quit. Stop shitting everybody. if we really want to hear shit from you, we will shake your head. You were a loud mouth who sucked when you tried it on tour. fU-- those walled regionals you won. Peter Hakim won one freakin pba stop and thought he could hang. He sucked, that's why he never bowled full time. However he won one stop, you won shit. Hairy the hump re. your real action story above, Joel Myers was a hump like you and Richie HORNREICH had the biggest back swing, you senile idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Harry the Horse on Mar 9, 2006 22:56:44 GMT -5
Hey Old Timer -
I pointed out on a different thread that you never learned how to read, and now you once again proved it. If you only knew how to read you would see that I said that Joel Meyers' high backswing "didn't do him any good, because he was all over the lane." Your response is that "Joel Meyers sucked." I already said that. As far as anyone having a higher backswing, since his was vertical it is physically impossible for Horn or anyone else to have had a higher one.
|
|
|
Post by Harry the Horse on Mar 9, 2006 23:47:39 GMT -5
Hey Grouchy Gramps -
The only thing that sucks is your logic. To say "It's not the bowlers' fault that the conditions are easier these days" doesn't in any way alter the fact that the conditions ARE easier. Therefore, what Lou and I have been pointing out is that a 220 in the sixties is equivalent to a 250 today. And since I. and the guys I bowled against usually averaged around 240 to 250 and up in action, that would be equal to around 265 something or more these days, which no one is averaging. The simple conclusion is what we and others have been saying all along - bowling these days is vastly inferior to ours.
|
|
|
Post by the horn on Mar 10, 2006 9:14:45 GMT -5
1st of all lou had a much higher swing then i did.2nd my son's godfather is lou. and he was not a hump on the lanes he could and would bowl any one at anytime and he would win... when we went out for action in 1977 and 1978 he would bowl all the matches.
|
|
|
Post by Louis Capasso on Mar 10, 2006 12:12:25 GMT -5
OLD TIMER EVERYONE KNOWS YOU R FULL OF S--T.ARE YOU THE GUY WHO USE TO FOLLOW ME AROUND AND ASK TO CARRY MY BALLS..... OR TRY TO HANG AROUND ME BECause you were a nothing in action circles.. yep thats you..still borrowing money. sorry cant bail you out anymore. dont ever try to pit the horn against me we were friends and i have known him since i am 12. and his son is my godson. and yes i can average in the 225 230 range today i have done it already. 13 yrs ago i bowled in a league, 232 avg. 3 300's and i won a world match game title. say what you want but i quit the tour 28 years ago and bowling since then i have only bowled for about 4 or 5 years in between. and they remember me nobody remembers you , sorry, but you are a nothing ,nobody and a fag for not posting your name. at least i say what i feel with no restraint using my name. i dont hide like you. but you must hide because you are nothing and everyone would laugh at you if you posted your real name.
|
|
|
Post by SonofGrouchy on Mar 10, 2006 13:26:59 GMT -5
Harry, your logic is what is way off base. Now you are telling me that the elite bowlers during the horse and buggy age would average 265 on today's conditions? Obviously, you must be smoking some of the new age Mary Jane. LOL! Nobody is arguing that it is much easier to average higher in this day and age, but everybody is bowling under the same conditions. I was a 200 bowler in the 80's, and now I average around 230, and I do not think I am great because of it. I know I suck and I am the beneficiary of better equipment and walls.
That being said, you shouldn't make blanket statements about today's bowlers. It is just the guys that "sucked" in your age averaged 160-170 and today they average 200-230 (30 pin wall variance LOL!). It is all relative my man.
Peace....
|
|
|
Post by Harry the Horse on Mar 11, 2006 23:41:13 GMT -5
To take you at your own words - "the guys back then who sucked averaged 160 to 170, and now guys who suck average 200 to 230." So that's say roughly 40 or 50 pins more. Therefore, the "action bowlers" today who shoot 240 to 250 are - according to your own calculations - really maybe 200 to 210 shooters. When WE averaged 240 to 250, which all the top actions bowlers I bowled with and against averaged in action, we were genuine 240 to 250 bowlers. What I was basically saying is that for someone today to be a real 240 to 250 action bowler, given today's conditions, they would have to average 265 or so, which as you said, they're not likely to do.
|
|
|
Post by HarryPlease on Mar 12, 2006 19:16:22 GMT -5
Nobody is going to average 265. Regardless of how much easier the "house" conditions are today...you still gotta carry. You take your best action shooters from yesteryear, and they will not average 265 time and time again. Stop your silly talk! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Harry the Horse on Mar 12, 2006 19:42:03 GMT -5
Of course nobody is going to average 265, no matter what the conditions are. I never said anyone would. If you read my post directly above yours, you will see that I said, "to be a genuine 240 to 250 action bowler, the way WE were, they would have to average 265 with today's easier conditions," and then I added, "Which nobody is likely to do."
Anyway, the whole point is this: If action bowlers today average the same 240 to 250 in action that we did back then, and everyone seems to agree that conditions are easier today, then it stands to reason that we were better bowlers, since we averaged the same thing under much more difficult conditons.
|
|
|
Post by NO on Mar 12, 2006 20:06:23 GMT -5
Ah No...it stands to reason that you would like to believe that were better bowlers. You weren't...
While you seem like a smart man...however your statement is silly. They only way you could prove your wishful statement is to get a time capsule and send back today's elite bowlers to the day of the horse and buggy. Otherwise...don't compare bowlers across time.
|
|
|
Post by LOU C on Mar 13, 2006 8:50:50 GMT -5
NO YOU DONT NEED A TIME CAPSULE JUST DRILL A PLASTIC BALL AND OIL THE LANES IN THE PATTERNS OF YESTERYEAR. EXCEPT FOR THE FINISH AND TYPE OF OIL TODAY IT WOULD BE A CLOSE MATCH TO YESTERYEAR. BY THE WAY I BOWLED A MATCH MY 2ND WEEK BACK 2 YEARS AGO WITH HOUSE BALLS AND THE KID I BOWLED WALKED OFF THE LANES 1 AND OUT. HE SHOT 723 IN THE QUALIFING 165 WITH A HOUSE BALL. HE TRIED TO PLAY THE SAME TYPE OF SHOT. I ADJUSTED HE GOT LOST ON THE LANE I SHOT 250. MMMMMMMMM
|
|
|
Post by Harry the Horse on Mar 13, 2006 11:20:15 GMT -5
Great idea, Lou! Maybe someone can talk John Kourabas up at Paradise Lanes in Yonkers to hold a retro tournament, and prepare the lanes the way you suggested. Everybody pays an entry fee which includes a new plastic or rubber ball. Joe Cirillo, who all we Bronx guys knew from his pro shop on White Plains road, can drill the balls. He has his pro shop now right there at Paradise. It really would be interesting to see the results, and might answer a few questions, and resolve some of this dispute. Let's get a petition going.
By the way, speaking of Joe Cirillo, I heard that he recently shot an 837, and Joe has to be in his seventies.
|
|
|
Post by lou c on Mar 13, 2006 11:46:27 GMT -5
i bowled with joe c when i was 15 or so i subbed in the paramus majors he was and i guess still is a great bowler. but i would be interested and maybe even bowl in something like that. there are still some great bowlers from the old days. long island still has a few. i saw buzz goodmans name lately on this site he was a great bowler still bowling. and i am sure there are many others out there.
|
|
|
Post by Again on Mar 13, 2006 20:35:50 GMT -5
Again you old timers are selectively remembering events that neatly fit around your theories. I know a guy that saw the match Lou is referencing. The guy he bowled was a new age cranker and not a top action bowler. So he didn't bowl well in one game and Lou beat him with plastic. Too bad Lou could average 250 down at Carolier. It was one game my man. Local house bowlers of today tend to bowl with equipment that will give them the most room for error and they, because that is what house conditions allow. That is why they have sport shots and US Open conditions to remove this advantage. Even you superstars of yesteryear would struggle with today's bowlers on that condition. PS - my buddy tells me that you also bowled many 160's and sub 200 games on the wall and with today's equipment. Selective memory...you always remember the past to be something more than it really was...
|
|
|
Post by Again on Mar 13, 2006 20:37:00 GMT -5
I meant couldn't average 250!
|
|
|
Post by Harry the Horse on Mar 14, 2006 10:11:16 GMT -5
There is no way we would "struggle" with anyone. In our day we faced lane conditions that you simply don't see any more, so we knew how to adjust to anything. You don't know the meaning of the term "tight lanes" unless you tried bowling at places like Skytop in the sixties. The lanes looked like an Alaskan oil spill right on the boards. Those lanes turned a powerhouse ball into practically a straight ball, because nothing would take, so you had to know how to find exactly the right combination of line and speed, or else you could have actually missed the head pin. So I don't think we would have any trouble bowling in today's conditions. But I would really like to see today's bowlers try bowling under some of the conditions we faced in the sixties.
|
|
|
Post by Toomuchwood on Mar 14, 2006 12:24:05 GMT -5
I think harry the horses ass and lou c should get a room together and stop sucking their own and each others dicks. Enough already this is 2006 it will never be the 60s again get over it. This is actionbowlers not ifthiswasfortyyearsago.com
|
|
|
Post by Harry the Horse on Mar 14, 2006 14:58:11 GMT -5
Hey, that's a funny line - "Harry the horse's ass." I like that one. I'm glad someone around here has a sense of humor. But I was called worse in my action days. Mostly by bowlers I had just destroyed. And by the way, whoever you are, I guarantee you that you wouldn't have wanted to bowl me back then.
P. S. You spelled "horse's" incorrectly - "horses" needs to have an apostrophe for possessive - "horse's"
|
|
|
Post by too funny on Mar 14, 2006 15:12:41 GMT -5
Harry, your a pisser. I never laughed so much in my life. Keep it coming.
|
|
|
Post by Toomuchwood on Mar 14, 2006 16:04:17 GMT -5
It's not incorrect spelling genius it's incorrect grammer. You talk about everbody but I guarantee you would not want to bowl any of them todays lanes. The lanes you claim are not that hard and that you could adjust to. Why don't you put up just to shut us all up you poser.
|
|
|
Post by Harry the Horse on Mar 14, 2006 18:14:29 GMT -5
It's not incorrect "grammer," it's incorrect punctuation.
P. S. You spelled "grammar" incorrectly. It's spelled "grammar."
|
|
|
Post by too funny on Mar 14, 2006 18:24:21 GMT -5
funnier and funnier
|
|
|
Post by Again on Mar 14, 2006 18:47:23 GMT -5
Harry is correct. It is Grammar.
|
|
|
Post by Harry the Horse on Mar 15, 2006 13:45:35 GMT -5
Okay, I guess there's not much point in going in circles on all this. I would have LOVED to see Joe Louis fight Cassius Clay, and I would kill to see Shaq play against Wilt Chamberlain. What a battle royal under the boards that would be. Alas, we'll never know. So, same thing here. I do know this much: we action bowlers of the past generally averaged roughly 240 to 250 in action. Now this was under what everybody agrees were much tougher conditions. So I think it is fair to say that we would average at least the same under today's easier conditions. Now - I presume that today's action bowlers average roughly the same 240 to 250. But that's on easier conditions. The question is: would today's bowlers average that on the conditions that we faced? I don't know, and what I have been saying is that I am genuinely curious to see if they could. It would be fascinating to watch them have to adjust to conditions they have never before faced, and I would honestly be vastly interested in seeing how they do, and how they go about trying to adjust. We can't send them back to the past, but as Lou Capasso said, we can possibly simulate those conditions to a reasonable degree. Maybe some of you out there can put out some feelers among today's action bowlers, to see if they might be interested in trying it. If we can generate enough interest, maybe we could arrange to have some house set up that kind of retro tournament I suggested.
|
|
|
Post by Finally on Mar 17, 2006 20:43:02 GMT -5
Alas...you have seen the light.
|
|