Talk:Ten-pin bowling

Firstly, the "Mark Names" section seems to me to be a bitch much. I have NEVER heard most of these terms said. The bowling terms and jargon can be shorterned as some of the terms are already mentioned earlier in the article (if this section is even needed at all.) I do not know, to me, so of the items in the article make it too long and they are not necessary. Bktrey (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. This article is far, far too long. I understand the need for an informative read, but at this length it's a bit of an information overdose with a lot of unnecessary information. It should probably be edited by one with some actual knowledge about the sport though, to ensure that only excess is cut and not something integral to the article. Saberswordsmen1 (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is no such term calling 4 strikes in a row a "hambone." The term was purposely invented by ESPN announcer Rob Stone, and has been rejected from popular use by most of professional bowling as well as most amateurs. It does not belong in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.32.149 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed that the term was originated by Rob Stone on a ESPN telecast in 2007. However, the term is taking off as a correct bowling term in wide use. Google now has over 12000 references to the term. As such it belongs in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitin (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bowlers in Michigan have been calling 4 strikes in a row a "sombrero" for quite some time, and should be considered as correct a bowling term as a "hambone".

Most people at the San Diego alleys know what a hambone. I also know the term and I've only watched bowling on television maybe a handful of times. Bktrey (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, I have never heard of the terms sombrero, wild turkey, golden turkey, or thanksgiving turkey in reference to bowling. I am not saying that do not exist, I just have not heard them in my seven years bowling and working at a bowling alley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bktrey (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have serious doubts that 360 (14 strikes) was ever considered to be the new perfect game. Anyway, the referred to convention was last April, and I think that we would have heard if there was a change. I'd like to delete the graf, unless I'm wrong, then it should be edited to reflect the new requirement. MDfoo 04:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have read through the USBC playing rules (http://www.bowl.com/Downloads/pdf/rules/06_PlayingRules.pdf) and there is no mention of this rule. MDfoo 03:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

300 is a perfect game, 900 a perfect series. Period. Bktrey (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there any citation to the line saying that there is a rare trump to the 300? It says that on rare occasions if a bowler can knock down the lead pin and knock down no others it's an instant 301 and is unbeatable. This sounds... dubious to say the least. Citation perhaps? I'm going to look around and see if I can find anything, but if not, I plan on removing the line as it is confusing and undermines the rest of the paragraph. EDIT: Removing the line until further proof is put forth. According to this: http://www.pba.com/resources/basics/bowling101.asp 300 is a perfect game... period. Saberswordsmen1 (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am just starting out playing ten pin and really enjoy it. Is there anyone out there who can advise on methods etc.

email: n.hooper@smit.com

A website that has some great instructional articles is www.bowl4fun.com. Check out http://www.bowl4fun.com/ron/roncarchive.htm for a list of instructional articles... --MMan710 18:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The most recent edit changed bowling from a 'sport' to a 'game' in the opening sentence. Where does everybody stand on this issue? I'm considering changing it back to 'sport.' MrCheshire

I think sport makes more sense. Bowling requires skill and both physical and mental effort. If bowling is just a game than golf is just a game. Tjj300

Those who do not think bowling is a sport should give it a real try. Not just one or two games, but ten or more in a day. If you compare one game of bowling to one inning in a game of baseball, the average pitcher is good for maybe 6 or 7 innings. His arm gets sore, he gets tired because his arm is sore. Compare this to a bowler who bowls ten or more games per day. After seven games, he is still ready to keep bowling and be very accurate. Bowling ball weighs 16 pounds, a baseball weighs maybe a little under a pound. Hmmm.... Michael

I've been wondering this for a while. I can't find the answer anywhere. I haven't asked anyone at a bowling alley. Does anyone know where or when the "hook" style started? Is it relatively recent?

I would say the hook has been a recent development from my limited yet hands on experience of the sport as the materials and precise internal engineering required to assist in creating a hook are pretty new however it is possible for you to create a hook from a straight ball so really it could be either --Trise 22:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it is also important to understand why hooking the ball gives an advantage? For a right-handed player, a perfect strike shot requires that the ball contact only four pins: the 1-3-5-9. However, because the 5 pin is directly behind the headpin (#1 pin), it is advantageous to contact the headpin with the ball traveling at an angle (right to left) relative to the lane, to counteract the effect of the deflection that will occur upon contact with the headpin. If the ball were delivered in a straight line, even if angled from the right-hand corner of the lane, it would still deflect to the right too much when it made contact with the headpin. The key is the 5 pin. The ball must make enough contact with the 5 pin in order to drive it into the 8 pin. If the ball is hooking, it achieves both angle and a self-powered drive from right to left through the pindeck. Hooking the ball helps it penetrate into the pins so that sufficient contact with the 5 pin is accomplished.

Even as late as the early 1960s, lanes were coated with a relatively soft lacquer finish. In those days, lane conditioning (oiling) methods were primative, usually applied with a bug sprayer on the head (first 15 feet) of the lane, if at all. Since even the hard rubber balls of the day would grip this finish so well, it was easily possible to over-hook the ball. Plus, the finish, being so soft, would wear out quickly in the area of the lane that most people played in, around the second arrow, about 10 boards from the right-hand channel. A track or "groove" would establish itself and the best method for consistency was to simply follow the track. This required that the ball be delivered with very little turn and finger lift.

As bowling proprietors began using the harder plastic and synthetic lane coatings, the hard rubber bowling balls were not up to the task of getting good grip. The scramble was on to find bowling balls that would grip this type of lane surface. The polyester balls began coming to the forefront. Also, the lane conditioner would cause the ball to slide much more on the harder lane surface, yet when the ball reached the relatively dry area at the back end of the lane, it would hook much harder. This improved scoring and nurtured creative lane conditioning techniques. Now, players were looking to increase the hooking action of the ball and the bowling ball technology wars were on. There was a short time when players would "soak" their plastic balls in solvents such as MEK (methyl-ethyl-ketone) to soften the outer shell to improve the hooking action on very wet lanes. A few touring pros blew up their motel rooms doing this. The American Bowling Congress (ABC) mandated a minimum hardness rule in about 1975 to prevent this sort of behavior. Bowling balls could not be softer than a score of 75 on the D-Scale durometer. This only increased the technology wars to a fever pitch, wars which continue today. Irish Pat 22:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Isn't some of this useful for the main page? Especially the first para. 86.135.83.69 18:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I didn't realise that a hook was a recent development. As a recreational bowler I've always had a hook to my bowling, back to the mid-1970's at least. I've always attributed it to bad form, same as I have a consistant slice to my golf game.  :) In both games I learned to adjust to make it work.Wolfhound668 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't call it recent... it has become used more extensivly by amateur bowlers due to equipment and easier lane conditions. This equipment has made it easier to throw big hooks due to the matieral it is made out of and the weight blocks. Quit a rift about how far the technology should go right now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bktrey (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I removed this claim:

It is common knowledge that the vast percentage of bowlers bowl a "strike" on their first frame.

and replaced it with:

Some bowlers bowl a "strike" on their first frame.

There is no source for this claim, and the claim is in fact highly likely to be false. In all likelihood, most bowlers bowl a gutter ball on their first frame. Nohat 03:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well whenever i bowl a strike on the first frame the rest of the game is usually rubbish. also that is a ridicioulas clame most off the bowlers at my ybc do bad on their first frame and then great in rest of game --78.149.139.15 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

IU am new to bowling and am really gedtting into it. Can anyone help me expand on the tournaments section that I have recently created. Thank you!

I believe that the Weber Cup is like the bowling version of Golf's Ryder Cup as it saysa in the article. But also, as you can see here whjen asked the question 'Which is the most prestigious of pro bowling's "major" tournaments?', the options are the World Tenpin Masters, U.S. Open, World Championship and Tournament of Championships with no Weber Cup listed? Is their anyone here who is a bowler than can help with this section? These events come onder the PBA Tour's "majors" - I do not think the Weber Cup has anything to do with the PBA?:

The Weber Cup has absolutely nothing to do with the PBA. The Tournament of Champions is exclusively a PBA event. The U.S. Open is also owned and operated by the PBA (it had previously been run by the BPAA), though amateurs are eligible to compete.

It's tough to say which tournament is most prestigious within the PBA. For years, the Firestone Tournament of Champions (1965-1993) was considered the most prestigious tournament. However, some would argue the World Championship (also an exclusive PBA event), or U.S. Open are the most prestigious of the events now. Given that the U.S. Open has the longest and most grueling format, many consider it to be the most prestigious now. Also, do not forget the USBC Masters tournament, which is also very prestigious in America.--MMan710 05:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

GraemeL, you removed this section because it was a "red farm" - I can agree with you on this 100%. However, I am 100% willing to work on bio's of these people in great detail, I am more than happy to do this. I have had a look at the list and removed some that we're not really seen as "World Leaders". I have added the amended list to the article and can asure you that I will give rather good bio's on the players to make this section far more relevent.

I hope this is ok and will start work now. Yours sincerely, Fjorn

Great. That's fine by me. New articles for the true major figures of the sport is good for Wikipedia. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have edited the scoring section of this article. Although it was well written is was made far too complicated - I hope I have simplified it with my text and original text combination as a combo. I am sure it could still be tweaked but it is far easier to understand I feel.

Re-edited Scoring section - PLEASE can we discuss this in discussion before deleting this edit. It would be appreciated, thank you User:Fjorn

Hello Babubhatt, you say that Kingpin is not the only other ten-pin bowling movie, u kno? - please can you enlighten me as to the others? Thanks. :-) ... unsigned comment by Fjorn

Re: bowling bovies, I assume you've see This list ... I'm not sure of others ... I'll check it out. BabuBhatt 06:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Babubhatt, in regard to that list, yes I have seen it, I created it. Although I must apologise as I have now amended it and the entries as it should be movies/sports documentaries as to my knowledge and every bowling forum I have been on only Lebowski and Kingpin of dedicated bowling movies. However, if you can find any others I would be extremily greatful. :-) Fjorn

Well, so far I found this which is also listed here: Dreamer VHS Babubhatt

Hi Babubhatt, Well, I must credit you and thak you sincerely. I had no idea about this movie! Thank you ever so much. If you can find any others at all it would be greatly appreciated. Again, many thanks. Also, I have found these bowling movie lists (or movies with a "tiny" bit of ten-pin bowling in them) but really,other than Dreamer that you kindly found, I didn't think the others were worth mentioning. The lists can be found here [1] and here [2]. Fjorn

"Spare Me" [3] is probably the best bowling movie ever, except maybe "The Big Lebowski"...but "Spare Me" had a lot more to do with bowling than "Lebowski" did! Off topic, but did you notice how the "10-pin" page talks about the sport being European and the "Bowling" page refers to 10-pin as an American game? unsigned

I have removed the entry for - *Mitchell Perry - (Bronx, New York, USA) - that was added in by 64.12.116.202 at 15:33 on 1 April 2006. I have done this because to my knowledge Mitchell Perry is not in the PBA, in not in the Hall of Fame and has never participated in the three major professional tournaments, the Weber Cup, World Tenpin Masters or the AMF World Cup. I am not saying hie isn't good as I do not know him but should he be in this list? If anyone can shed any light on this bowler to warrent his entry into this list then PLEASE help, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks User:Fjorn

Someone has changed the simplified rules back into bullet points. If we want this to be a featured article, they need to be prose. Should we change them back? --Danaman5 05:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

We should delete that whole section. It makes the article take a step backwards in featured article quality. Everything that's said in that section is already said in other sections, and it's in list form when it should be in prose. I don't think there's any debate. I'm going to delete it. Also, all Ten-pin bowling (capitalized) should be uncapitalized. Take a look at other sports; basketball, football, soccer, rugby, lacrosse, cricket etc are never capitalized. The same criteria applies to ten-pin bowling (uncapitalized). bob rulz 07:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I went a step further and completely cleaned up the article. It needed significant re-organization towards the bottom. I also brought the headings into line with the Manual of Style, uncapitalized "Ten-pin bowling" where it was capitalized, and made other minor spelling and grammar changes. bob rulz 07:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved

 – Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear about external links and wikispam.

Under what authority are links to BowlingFans.com being removed? The site has a long history and belongs with the other resources listed here, even more so considering its long history.

Too much advertising on the site. Please add content rather than links. This article already has far too many links. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Links to other sites with the same amount of advertising are provided. It doesn't seem that the rules are being applied fairly. Especially considering BowlingFans.com has excellent content and large following.

See WP:EL, WP:SPAM. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JohnB19. Peer reviewers: ToriCheer18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have converted the trivia section to prose instead of a list. According to Wikipedia convention, featured articles shouldn't have lists like this, so it needed to be changed. If anyone has ideas for better ways to represent the information, post them below. --Danaman5 18:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe the first part of the trivia section, up to the first citation, sounds extremely un-encyclopedic. When you say that "more people" do something, you really should have at least some number for it, right? I think that unless an approximate number for bowlers worldwide can be found, that statistic should be removed. MrCheshire 04:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

There shouldn't be a trivia section at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The bowling category below needs amending to include Premier Tenpin Bowling Club (PTBC) under it's ORGANIATION header. The USBC has the PBA which is listed and the BTBA has the PTBC but it isn't listed. Can thios be amendeded as I cannot see how to do it? - Fjorn

I'll do it, no problem. In the future, when you edit a page with the template on, scroll to the bottom of the editing page and you'll see which templates are being used. There you'll find Template:Bowling which you should be able to edit like a standard page. Budgiekiller 14:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Top man, got cha! - Fjorn

I have submitted this article for peer review to get some outside ideas on our progress and where we should go from here. I will also be requesting help on the talk pages of related articles in order to get a wide range of qualified opinions. Please heed the advice of our peers when making your editing choices. --Danaman5 04:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, where does the peer review information feature? I can't find anything. Is it all in the Talk page? Budgiekiller 22:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you are asking where the peer review is, click the link in the peer review box ("a request has been made") at the top of this talk page to get to the peer review page where the comments of others can be found. Also, see the bottom of this talk page for further discussion of the peer review comments. --Danaman5 03:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

With reference to the drugs controversy section, I agree with User:Budgiekiller in that it should be their, as it is significant being the first, but I also strongly agree that the names should be blanked out as they are now, especially as this topic has a reference to the original articles. Thank you Budgiekiller for that.

86.132.20.247, who is "one of the people mentioned in this section" states that he doesn't want this information printed (which is fair enough and the names have been blanked). However, this section was not added for any malicious reasons whatsoever (as is stated), it is a significant entry in that it is the first known. If you meant that it was malicious that the original article was written then I cannot comment, only that, amongst scores of others, Go Tenpin, TenpinScotland and Bowling Digital News all reported on it - please don't think it was added here to be malicious, it certainly wasn't - as I agree the names should be removed.

This was also commented on by Budgiekiller in the IP's talk page HERE. Plese see this section for further information. Fjorn 15:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

User:NormanEinstein posted the following comment on the peer review page for this article:

You're quick. Here's a few other things to think about. ;-) I'd kill the Trivia section and merge the salient info into the appropriate sections in the main body of the article. For instance, the part about the popularity of bowling could be listed in the most recent History section. The See also section is pretty huge with that list of famous bowlers. You might consider spinning that off into a "List of famous Ten-pin bowlers", then that list can get as big as needed. If there are one or two really important people that helped develop the game keep them listed here. I'd also remove bowling ball, bowling pin, and pinsetter from the See alsos because they should already be wikilinked in the body. (Bowling ball and bowling pin actually aren't wikilinked anywhere, so maybe link the first occurrence of them in the opening paragraph.) Personally, I'm not a fan of lists of quotes in articles and I think they should be integrated into the text or not used at all. Those quotes seem to be more for flavour than anything else, so maybe remove them (or move to the talk page for safe keeping if you decide to make a list of quotes article ;-) --NormanEinstein 21:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of these changes are significant and I wanted to hear what you guys thought before I made them unilaterally. Please post your comments below if you have them, or, if no objections are voiced, I will begin making the changes in three days time. I will begin making the non-major changes now, such as the wikilinking. --Danaman5 03:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agree,

• Trivia - merge all information rather than delete.

Just did this too. Looks like we're good to go for these suggestions. --Danaman5 03:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Famour bowlers - can you spin "that off into" a "List of famous Ten-pin bowlers" rather thsan delete, I do not know how.

Done. See List of famous ten-pin bowlers--Danaman5 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Quotes - please move into talk rather than delete. Fjorn 10:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. See below.--Danaman5 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

All else has been done.

• "Americans don't spend as much time as they used to together, either in Bowling Leagues or other common activities. This must change." - Bill Clinton ^[1]
• "Bowling's a blast. I mean it's the ultimate family entertainment. You can talk about having bowled together and that's about as apple pie as you can get." - Mark Cuban, former techie and owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks. ^[1]
• "...you don’t realize how important bowling is in America… Bowling is big in America. More Americans bowled last year than voted… And bowling is up, up by 10 percent over this last decade or so…" - Robert D. Putna, Clarence Dillon Professor & Directoc Center for

Harvard University ^{[2] [1]}

• "Big bellied, beer-drinking, smoking idiots. I mean, that's what the whole bowling world looked like." - Pete Weber. ^[1]
• "I let my lads off training on Friday and took them ten-pin bowling instead because they were a bit tense. It turned out to be pure genius! - QPR boss Ian Holloway reveals the secret to his side's first win in six at Stoke.

This article seems like it is written almost entirely with a British perspective. While there's nothing wrong with providing a British perspective, I think this leads to some inaccuracies. For example, in America, stores that sell bowling equipment are called "Pro Shops" not "Pro Bowl stores" - --MMan710 17:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

So some American contributions wouldn't harm the article! It's fine to say the article is pro-Brit, but if the US perspective changes the content, it may be worth stating e.g. "...in the UK, they are known as 'Pro Bowl stores'...", i.e. keep the (very good) Brit content and enhance it to take into account the US slant. Budgiekiller 17:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard of a Pro Shop being called a Pro Bowl Store and I've been bowling for 20 years in the UK. I think this could be removed. It is very strange that the UK-related information comes first in every section, when the bowling world is dominated by the USA (and perhaps the Scandinavian countries). I suggest re-ordering the information already in the article to represent the fact that bowling is relatively more popular in the USA as well as adding more information to balance the prodigious contribution from the UK Sevenpin (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

In addition, the generic term bowling is is confusing in Australia. In Australia there is a prevalence of "Bowls Clubs" for lawn bowling that bowling needs to be designated at 10-pin in come talk. (at least in Queensland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.233.181.193 (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with the comment regarding bowling in Australia. The comment may be valid for Queensland but in the rest of the country, anyone saying "I'm going bowling" means ten-pin bowling. A similar statement referring to lawn bowls would be "I'm going to play bowls", "I'm going to play lawn-bowls" or "I'm going to have a game of bowls". (58.175.149.197 (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC))Reply

" Because of the rise in popularity, many companies are now making bowling balls and apparel for professionals as well as for recreational bowlers."

This is a sentence from the beginning of the article. I find it problematic because I don't think it is accurate. Companies have been making bowling balls and apparel for professional bowlers for years. This is nothing new - at least in America. Does anyone know why this sentence was originally written as it currently stands?--MMan710 18:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved

 – Content merge performed

Has anyone ever addressed the issue that this article, along with the Bowling article have a lot of similar content? I actually did not even realize this separate article originally existed. As a result, I added content to the Bowling article that easily could be here as well (for example, the part about league bowling, and how it operates). I am not sure there's even a need for the two separate articles, as they could probably be organized into a larger article. While there are other forms of bowling aside from ten pin bowling, I think most people looking for information about bowling would tend to search "Bowling" rather than "Ten Pin Bowling." --MMan710 19:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved

 – Content merge performed

I have added content that was originally part of the bowling article—from the point I excised, everything down seemed to be about its ten-pin variant (“[t]he goal is to knock down all ten pins” [emphasis added], “high school bowling teams are on the rise,” numerous USBC references). There may be some redundancy, but I'll let that be y’all’s problem ;) I have included a section, as well, previously removed from Bowling as needing a citation—whether bowling is a sport. While I don’t wanna dis nobody’s athleticism, or the skill required to bowl well (I sure never score higher than 100), I think there is often a grey area as to the definition of sport when it doesn’t involve a ball and/or running (see NASCAR, etc.) While “everybody knows” is baseless (and I’m sure the people who edit this article tend to be biased in favour of believing it is a sport), a cursory Google search does seem to bear it out that I’m not the only one who has heard the argument against (it seems to be mentioned in the same breath as golf an awful lot.) In any case, I left it because it had some stuff that was very informative to me about oiling the lanes, etc. I’m just going to assume good faith that anyone who is a hardcore bowler has at least heard that criticism, and will leave the section in. Anybody wanting to iron out what I took out of Bowling and put in here should probably go through the history. Wiki Wikardo 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I really don't think it was necessary to remove this section. While it is said earlier that bowling is a sport, some people don't think it's a sport. While it may need some clean up to revert POV, this section gives a good argument to the fact that it is a sport. I think it was a well-written section, for the most part. I don't think it was necessary to delete it. Discussion? bob rulz 23:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bowling is a sport. I mean think about it is is competitaive, against other people and can make you real tired. --78.149.139.15 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The pins should be placed in an equlateral triangle, not an isosceles triangle. -Frankyboy5

There's nothing in the rules section of the article to indicate what happens if someone steps over the line. There's also nothing in the article about splits, neither the difficulty of getting a spare after a split, nor the style (circling the number) used in scoring a split (and why that style is used).—msh210℠ 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is the "X" marking for a strike on score cards derived from the Roman numeral for ten? Scott Gall 10:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to add the following terminology to the "Ten pin bowling" template (but I don't know how to modify it):

• open frame
• mark
• strike
• spare
• foul
• turkey
• hook
• oil
• carry
• carry-down, etc.

Either that or a "list of bowling jargon", as these and other terms are not appropriately explained in the current article.

• I put several in the article. Feel free to add more. Howenstein115 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Bowlingdigest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:USBC.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why is three strikes in a row called a turkey?

Back in the day, the first person to bowl three strikes in a row that night was rewarded with a turkey do to its difficulty. I remember reading that on the USBC website. T.Nguyen092 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw the note about the Technology section being too much like an essay. I wasn't the original author, but tried to make it more like an encyclopedic article. I could not completely take out all of the "many bowlers feel..." and similar comments. Much of what this section discusses (particularly the explosion of sanctioned honor scores) is a topic of HEAVY debate among regular league bowlers and higher echelons of players. According to some statistics I saw, the number of sanctioned 300 games went from a little over 5000 in the early 1980s (when ABC/WIBC membership was about 5 million) to over 40,000 in 2005 (with USBC membership down to less than 2 million). So I think in some form this section has a lot of merit and should stay in place. Howenstein115 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I have cleaned this up further and cited a USBC study that was generated by similar concerns. I believe this has removed most or all of what made this section originally read like an essay. Howenstein115 (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why are all the bowling terms in quotes, like "strike" or "spare?" RLBeanMan —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just to explain further why I included the Harry Potter reference: I feel it's notable because of the huge popularity of the books (It could be argued that Philosopher's Stone is the best-selling book to reference bowling, ever). 68.146.41.232 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

how is harry potter a reference to bowling? --78.149.152.51 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You will need to find more references for this figure of speech. There are no google references. Also please do not call me a vandal, assume good faith, thank you. MDfoo (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I am not sure exactly who the above post is addressed to, if anyone. However, based on the date of its entry, the author, and the fact I have recently added the correct term for nine strikes in a game to the article, I will assume the sub-heading of the text is just another omission by MDFoo.

To clarify: Nine strikes in a game is very different from nine strikes in a row. That is the very reason for the term - statistically the 9 strikes are broken up over the ten frames by a single non-strike (also called 'the ripper'). This is just the way it works out in probability during the normal statistical spread of a game (remember we are talking about high-rollers here who set the lead in the first or last few frames of the game). (also note: of course, this will vary only on the 10th + bonus frame of the curve - in which case it is generally called a buster, not a 'ripper' - remember in this case too you can technically have more than 9 strikes without reaching the perfect game). In all honesty, I cannot believe I am sitting here explaining a term as familiar with bowling as the bagger or as basic as any other.

Naturally, your use of "google" isn't dispositive of anything. Google isn't a scholarly meta-searcher nor does it comprehensively search through scholarly literature. My exposure to the term has come both through both literature and experience. I have bowled all over the united states and have generally not heard the term neglected or replaced when what it defines does in fact occur. I would suggest that the term itself may appear relatively underused to the average bowler because the event itself is perhaps rare for a large number of bowlers. Thus your absence of evidence on google, as it were, is not evidence of absence. You have been provided with a list of sources on your talk page where you may find the term. It is silly to think that it must be cited, against the consistency of the article, simply because you do not accept it.

Lastly, I apologize for any offense you may have taken. If you were acting in good faith, and are simply new to bowling, I will gladly explain any of its more technical concepts on my talk page, here. Cordially, Snookerhorn (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Approach" and "Pin Deck" stuff
--SkipperRipper (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

This page had numerous links pointing to www.bowl2k.com. All have been deleted as the page is no longer valid (it's one of those generic parked domain pages now). Multiple links to the same page don't look good - they should be replaced with a single link to a terminology site somewhere (topendsports.com maybe?). Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

When it comes to strikes, 2 in a row is called a double. 3 in a row is a turkey. Then you have your 4-bagger and 5-bagger. 6 in a row is a six-pack, probably derived from how pop or beer can be sold in quantities of six. Anything past 6 is considered the number of strikes in a row (e.g. 7 in a row). Also, it is considered bad superstition (source is on the blacklist, so cannot link it here.) to score while a string of strikes is in process, and some automated scorers such as those produced by AMF Bowling do not score until a string of strikes is either broken by knocking down less than 10 pins on one ball or the 10th frame is completed. This applies especially with 3 or more strikes.

Also of interest is that an image of a scoresheet is missing. A manual one should be included. Some people will color the entire box in for a strike, or the lower right half for a spare as an alternative method to the X and / marks. --Slxception (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's a much less helpful article under "Bowling" which might be merged/adapted into this one. EdX20 (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added my concern about the merger on the talk page at Talk:Bowling#Merge Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 05:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The pin diagrams in this section all appear to be identical, at least on my system -- all ten pins standing in their requisite positions.

If a "Dinner Bucket", a "Baby Split," and a "Christmas Tree" all consist of all ten pins standing why are different names used?

What is the purpose of assigning so many different names to a single pin arrangement?? And why aren't some different pin arrangements shown?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The "standing" pins in the diagrams are in white color, "down" pins are in black. (Maybe re-color the standing pins to say, red?) - SkipperRipper (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

4.1 Ball release 4.2 Delivery styles

Release completes delivery. My bad that I duplicated some of 4.1 in 4.2... - SkipperRipper (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The diameter of the ball is 8.5 inches (21.59 cm)[1] and the circumference of the ball must not be more than 27 inches (0.69 m)
Well, if it is a ball, then circumference is diameter × pi (π). In this case, 8.5 in × π = 26.7 inches (or 21.59 cm × π = 67.82 cm). 27 inches would result a 8.6 inch ball. Of course, the difference is only 1/10 of an inch (0.25 cm). Or does it mean the ball doesn't have to be truly spherical? 82.141.127.125 (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ten-pin bowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050501154335/http://www.bowlersjournal.com:80/the_messenger/display_article?id=46 to http://www.bowlersjournal.com/the_messenger/display_article?id=46

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Ten-pin bowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024075846/http://www.bowlingmuseum.com/history.asp to http://www.bowlingmuseum.com/history.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060415013813/http://www.tenpinbowling.org/view.php?page=the_game.history to http://www.tenpinbowling.org/view.php?page=the_game.history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602235159/http://www.tradgames.org.uk/games/Skittles.htm to http://www.tradgames.org.uk/games/Skittles.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_tov/ai_2419100164/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SAF/is_2_29/ai_n15763168
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bowl.com/rules/playingrules.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://bowlingadvisor.com/how-much-does-a-bowling-ball-weigh/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btba.org.uk/forms/rules.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wtba.ws/pdf/WTBA_rulebook.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1034575/new-scoring-system-introduced-for-world-bowling-tour-finals-to-try-to-help-sports-olympic-ambitions
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1034662/world-bowling-tour-final-winner-backs-new-scoring-system-if-it-helps-olympic-campaign
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldbowling.org/media/2014/10/new-scoring-system-for-competitive-bowling-to-be-unveiled-during-world-bowling-tour-finals-at-wsob-vi/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ukgame.gov.uk/generic_template.asp?id=12170
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_1998_July/ai_53179558

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ten-pin bowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20061208202031/http://ububu.com/Bowling.html to http://ububu.com/Bowling.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060712015124/http://www.amfbowlingworldcup.com/wc2005_fastfacts.asp to http://www.amfbowlingworldcup.com/wc2005_fastfacts.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614205728/http://www.tenpinbowling.org/view.php?page=the_game.styles to http://www.tenpinbowling.org/view.php?page=the_game.styles
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521155110/http://www.kingpin-bowling.com/understanding-bowling-styles/ to http://www.kingpin-bowling.com/understanding-bowling-styles/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041214184852/http://www.tenpinbowling.org/view.php?page=the_game.glossary to http://www.tenpinbowling.org/view.php?page=the_game.glossary
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130104145032/http://www.rrstar.com/sports/columnists/x1637128099 to http://www.rrstar.com/sports/columnists/x1637128099

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ten-pin bowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829013400/http://www.englandyac.com/ to http://www.englandyac.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ten-pin bowling is portrayed in many popular TV shows, such as The Simpsons (Pin Pals), Big Bang Theory (The Wesley Crushers), Married With Children (Gary's Angels), and many more. Are these worth mentioning in this article? Or is there somewhere where these are already documented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makotosan~enwiki (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

This article has a ton of interesting history but I'm not sure Pricenomics qualifies as being reliable. To make it easier to cite:

<ref name=Priceonomics20140321>{{cite web |last1=Crockett |first1=Zachary |title=The Rise and Fall of Professional Bowling |url=https://priceonomics.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-professional-bowling/ |publisher=Priceonomics |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180316115254/https://priceonomics.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-professional-bowling/ |archivedate=March 16, 2018 |date=March 21, 2014 |deadurl=no}}</ref>

Organizing and cleaning this article is a daunting task... well beyond my time availability. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have now used this reference to support newly added content. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

This article, like many bowling-related articles, has much unsourced, conjectural, anecdotal and marginally relevant content. I plan to clean up this article in upcoming months while adding concise and sourced material. For starters, I plan to delete historical material that doesn't pertain to ten-pin bowling in particular, that should be in the general Bowling article if anywhere. Let me know any objections you have; otherwise I'll start within a few days. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Since December 7, 2018, citations have more than doubled, while the length of the article's body (excluding See also, external links, footnotes) has been reduced by about 40% (mostly removing WP:NOTHOWTO violations, unsourced editorial commentary and anecdotes, duplicated content, and verbosity). Though the article body is shorter, the article's kilobyte length has remained roughly the same (about 100 KB, similar to other sports articles) due to wikitext for sourcing that includes archive links whenever possible. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply