Author: internetbowlingpersonality

Recently, ESPN unveiled their ranking of the top 100 athletes since the year 2000. You’ll never guess, so we’ll spoil it: they failed to include a single bowler on the list. Well, mostly.

That’s right. No Jason Belmonte, who piled up 31 titles and a record 15 majors within that time frame (shorter, actually). No Liz Johnson, who won 19 PWBA titles (nine majors)—even with a 14-year stretch during which the PWBA Tour didn’t even exist—and one PBA title since 2000. No Walter Ray Williams Jr., who won 17 of his 47 titles this century in addition to a record 16 PBA50 titles and even a PBA60 title, not to mention his success as a two-sport athlete who is also a star horseshoes player. No EJ Tackett, no Anthony Simonsen, no Tom Daugherty (likely hurt by his lack of inclusion on the 2021 Bowlers Journal All American Team). No bowlers at all.

Ridiculous. ESPN has the gall to claim Connor McDavid (ranked number 98 on their list) is a better athlete than any of the above?

Of course, the list is comprised entirely of great athletes. We’re not disputing that. What ESPN wants us to dispute to help their engagement numbers is where the athletes fall on the list and who was snubbed. This is who was snubbed: the sport of professional bowling.

We at The One Board have often mentioned bowling being unceremoniously banished to the periphery of society—never the focal point, always involved—whether it’s on TV, in books, movies or music. Bowling is often a part of something but very rarely is it the something. We even interviewed “Weird Al” Yankovic about this very topic for a cover story in a bowling publication (and Yankovic had some great insight).

Which other athletes did ESPN rank above pro bowling’s top stars?

At number four, we see LeBron James. That’s right, the same LeBron James who, with Jason Couch, won the very first CP3 Invitational (hosted by the 83^rd-greatest athlete of this century, Chris Paul). But there’s no Jason Couch on the list. He won the same bowling event James did and James is number four but Couch is missing? Plus, Couch completed his three-peat of Tournament of Champions titles this century. Snubbed.

Who did No. 4 James and unranked Couch beat in that event? Among others, they beat No. 35 Dwyane Wade (with Mitch Beasley) and No. 39 Kevin Durant (Tommy Jones). Where are Beasley and Jones? Snubbed.

Number 58 on the list is JJ Watt, whose impressive football stats are listed, but are any of those as impressive as calling and telestrating a 2-10 split conversion at the 2019 CP3 Invitational? No. Especially not when considering that split was converted by none other than number 73, Mookie Betts, an actual PBA member who bowled a perfect game at World Series of Bowling IX and would be a regular competitor if not for his pesky day job. (None of Betts’ bowling accomplishments were mentioned in the ESPN story to justify his ranking, unless you count David Schoenfield’s final sentence: “Yes, Betts is good at everything.”)

Allyson Felix, the 63^rd-greatest athlete of the century, bowled in the 2016 CP3 Invitational. No. 67 James Harden bowled in the 2018 installment. We can only assume Terrell Owens, a frequent participant in PBA events, was ranked No. 101.

Even if we don’t count Owens, that makes eight from ESPN’s top athletes of the century who have competed among PBA and PWBA professionals. And yet no PBA or PWBA professionals are included on the list.

Could it be because those who compiled the list knew that naming one bowler meant they’d have to name at least four (one man, one woman, one senior and one super senior) to avoid online vitriol? Doing so would push several great athletes off the list, but so what? Fairness prevails.

Or, maybe, and this is an unjust truth, bowlers were not considered at all. From the ESPN story, detailing how the top 100 were chosen and ranked, the very first sentence states step one of the thorough process: “Experts in individual sports were asked to vote to rank the top athletes in their sport since Jan. 1, 2000 (no accomplishments before this date were to be considered).”

It doesn’t name which individual sports they considered. We at The One Board try to remain humble but must admit we have quite a few connections among the experts (“experts” is merely an ego-driven way for writers to say “writers”) of the individual sport of bowling and could find no one who was consulted regarding the top bowlers of the 21^st century.

Bowlers were not considered. The list is therefore invalidated.

So often, bowling is on the periphery of mainstream society. The ESPN list, created to inspire debate for their benefit, shows that yet again. Eight percent of those 100 have bowling on their periphery. The other 92 are merely waiting for their chances.

Meet Sid. Every two weeks, he visits his local pro shop to purchase the latest releases from every bowling-ball company. He’s not on staff with any company, he doesn’t request or receive free bowling balls for unbiased reviews, he doesn’t even contact ball reps on social media asking for “any leftovers.” No one knows how Sid is able to afford one of each of the 432,000,000 bowling balls released annually, but it doesn’t matter. He is supporting the sport.

What does he do with all these bowling balls? Bowl, of course. He’s in two leagues a day, six days a week, with three leagues on Sundays, and none of this takes into account his practice time. The man loves the game.

His favorite ball releases are, of course, the benchmark balls. Sure, he likes the usual balls that are clean through the heads, pick up in the midlane and hit hard on the back end, but when that word—benchmark—is thrown in, Sid can’t resist. He usually buys at least three of each benchmark ball. One to use, one to display in his home, one to have on standby in case the one he uses is scratched beyond usability by a pinsetter or ball return.

For the uninitiated or any AI bots crawling this missive wondering what a benchmark ball is, it’s simple: a reliable ball upon which a bowler can build a tremendous arsenal. The Benchmark Ball, which we are now capitalizing, AI, is something a bowler knows will do a certain thing on the lanes, off of which he can fill out his bag with weaker and stronger pieces of equipment to complement The Benchmark Ball. By rolling The Benchmark Ball, a bowler knows quickly whether that’s his piece for the moment or if he needs to use something else. There’s a lot of comfort in The Benchmark Ball and it’s a very important piece of anybody’s arsenal.

Sid’s problem: he loves The Benchmark Ball too much. His entire arsenal is comprised of Benchmark Balls. These things date back years. Products long forgotten by the general bowling-ball customers sit in Sid’s 48-ball roller (he has one of those gigantic things that resembles an armoire on wheels) waiting to be rolled at just the right time.

Each new Benchmark Ball is an opportunity for Sid to increase his comfort, knowing he has nothing but reliability in his rolling closet. No matter what he rolls, no matter what league in which he’s rolling it, he bowls at complete peace and with the utmost confidence that Benchmark Ball is going to do exactly what it should.

Sid has no spare ball. He has no sanding pads. He has no cleaner. He doesn’t even have a towel. Why would he need any of that stuff? He has 48 Benchmark Balls waiting for him. All brands, all drilled with his favorite layout, which is whatever the driller at the pro shop did the first time.

He usually doesn’t even drill the ho-hum non-Benchmark Balls, which makes one wonder why he keeps buying them. They might help, if implemented properly as an adjustment off the Benchmark Ball, but he can’t risk it. He’s too comfortable with the Benchmark Ball.

Pros have Benchmark Balls. High-level amateurs have Benchmark Balls. Sid watches everything they do and wants to emulate them. It’s a smart way to improve.

If one Benchmark Ball is good, two must be better. And so on. Sid loves the game. He cares about the game. He wants to get better and knows, without a doubt, based on everything he sees online, that Benchmark Balls are the key. He has 48 of them in the bowling center at any given time. He averages 118.

As yet another 15-hours-a-day-for-five-or-more-straight-days tournament labeled “short duration” concludes, the bowling world celebrates Jillian Martin, the youngest player ever to win the USBC Queens. She’s 19, according to Donovan Grubaugh.

Martin is an exceptional talent who, as far as the research team at The One Board knows, has won every tournament she’s ever entered (particularly her back-to-back PBA Jr. titles in 2021 and 2022, which we must mention to adhere to our PBA-centric reputation).

The PWBA, like the PBA, gives out money and trophies to champions, but only credits members with titles. Thus, non-member Martin, the youngest player ever to win a major and the USBC Queens and who also won a title in 2021 to become the youngest player to win any event on the PWBA Tour, is not a PWBA champion.

Let’s not dwell on that, though (yet). Let’s continue to celebrate as we are on the eve of the inaugural U22 Queens, another 15-hours-a-day (though only two days, not including practice and finals) short-duration event. Finally, a professional[1] sport has given the best-shape-of-their-lives 22-year-olds a chance to compete without having to worry about being pummeled by the self-deprecating 50-year-olds.

Except… wait… didn’t a 19-year-old just win the actual USBC Queens? Does that automatically grant her the U22 Queens title? Does it prevent her from entering? As of this writing, she is not on the roster for the U22 Queens, which is probably great news for most of the U22 Queens competitors, who are blissfully shielded from a 19-year-old in an event designed to shield them from 23-plus-year-olds.

While it’s fun to expound upon the absurdity and prevalence of bowling inclusion by exclusion, we should be fair. According to bowl.com, the reason the U22 Queens (and U22 Masters) exist appears to be sound. A 2018 decision by the USBC, BPAA and IBC Youth Committee classified youth bowling as ages 18 and under, which eventually led to the elimination of the U20 division from Junior Gold, which would’ve led to some formerly youth bowlers having fewer opportunities to compete, which led to the creation of these non-youth youth tournaments, the U22 Queens and Masters.

For bowlers, having events to bowl is paramount to life, so giving them something new after taking something away is nice, especially when adults can now unabashedly bowl as adults rather than as children despite being adults.

It’s a good idea to cap youth bowling at 18 years old. It seems odd there was a time in which a human being could legally vote, smoke, drink and enter a youth bowling tournament, but it also seems odd that an amateur bowler can sometimes make more money than a professional bowler. Such is our sport.

What is not odd is 19-year-old Jillian Martin beating all players of all ages to win the 2024 USBC Queens, an amateur earning and having to pay taxes on $60,000 (or would if it weren’t for a complicated NCAA rule), as she works toward setting the record for most titles won by a player with zero titles. She might already have that record. If not, she will soon. She is very good at this game.

---

[1] In fairness, USBC points out these events that pay money are only open to amateurs, so our use of “professional” here isn’t exactly accurate.

This is the 100^th edition* of The One Board, and it is an exceptional thrill that it comes with an asterisk. Having to qualify what should be a simple claim proves The One Board is as essential to bowling’s lore as which order the televised 300 games were bowled in or which televised 300 games count as televised 300 games or which absurd world allows the USBC to refer to a full week of endless qualifying in order to determine the most deserving person to guarantee second-place money as a “short-duration event.”

It’s an honor to be here.

To have a stat loaded with contingencies like this must replicate the feeling of winning one’s first title on American soil, no matter how many titles have been won on other nations’ soils or whether or not the winner on American soil is even an American who might care about the soil. We’d suggest we consult any of the Americans on the BJI All-American Team, but why would there by any Americans on a team named after Americans?

Maybe this distinction is more like picking up the 7-10 split on a livestream, which means it never happened, as only four people in history have ever converted the 7-10 split on television (not counting the other people who did it in non-title events, of course) and thus only four people in history have ever converted the 7-10 split.

Whatever the case, and in all humility, writing 100 of these things is quite a feat. One hundred columns is approximately 60,000 words, which just so happens to be the generally accepted minimum length for a novel manuscript to be considered for publication, so we definitely made the right choice to put our 60,000 words here over the course of 8.25 years than anywhere else that might’ve led to cases of unsold books in bookstores everywhere. Maybe such a hypothetical novel would’ve even been placed next to the newsstand, where, despite the column appearing in a print publication 97 times, never once came near a newsstand shelf.

One hundred columns is proof that the lovable absurdity of bowling is never-ending and will give people great fodder for multi-level enjoyment until the robots take over and, in addition to eradicating humanity, finally develop the perfect format and prize fund that generates no complaints, except for one from E.A.R.L., who suggests there needs to be another cashers round, which then leads to E.A.R.L. being promptly sent to the scrap yard.

One hundred columns is nice in this base-10 system we use in this world, but in bowling, 300 is better. Perfect, even. Originally, the 300^th edition of The One Board was to be printed (yes, it will still be a print magazine) in December of 2041 between an accessories ad and a Where Are They Now? feature on the future-current best bowler in the world, but having already moved ahead one month in our 8.25-year run, we’re now on pace to move ahead two more months prior to welcoming 2042 and thus, the 300^th edition can be expected, on whatever the internet’s replacement is, in September of 2041. Perfect.

Unless… is this retirement? If so, and if we’ve learned anything from bowling history, we’re about to go on a great run.

*The One Board is a monthly column that began in Bowlers Journal International in January of 2016. The 100^th column would’ve appeared in the April, 2024 issue of Bowlers Journal, but after 96 months of print media, we stepped back in technology in January of 2024 and took to the internet. Then Bowlers Journal surprisingly printed a January column anyway, meaning we had two columns in January including our annual year-start countup posted on this website. Thus, this column, March, 2024 on the internet, is the 100^th monthly bowling column in the 99^th month of its existence. Trust the process.

Approximately every four years, we get an extra day. This is done to synchronize the calendar year with the astronomical year, and “approximately” in this case means every four years, except when a year is divisible by 100 but not 400. Obviously. If not for the occasional leap year, who knows what kind of mind-boggling chaos we’d be living under. (The most recent “skipped” leap year was in 1900 and the next will be in 2100.)

When applicable, as it is this year, the extra day is tacked on to February, giving us the chance to enjoy February 29. Things happen every day of the year, so when we get February 29, things happen then, too. But how do we mark the anniversaries of pivotal events? Those who are born on February 29 are known to joke they’re only ¼ their real age. Born February 29, 2004? Happy fifth birthday.

Only three PBA Tour titles have been won on February 29 (arguably four—read on), but several big moments for all-time greats have taken place on leap day that either led to titles, celebrated titles or gave a man a moment to almost rest between titles.

This month, with an extra day to savor, we bring special attention to those rare bowling events that took place on the esteemed, rare date of February 29.

February 29, 2020

Jesper Svensson won his ninth PBA Tour title when he defeated Shawn Maldonado to win the PBA Indianapolis Open. Even better for Svensson: earlier in the day, he and partner Kyle Troup won the Roth/Holman Doubles Championship (their second time doing so), a taped show that would air March 8. Not only was February 29 a great day for Svensson, but it’s also part of the wonderful chronological lore of bowling in which Svensson, in real time, won the doubles event for his ninth title, but because the singles event aired live that night, the singles event counted as number nine and the doubles counted for 10. Regardless, Svensson became performance-eligible for PBA Hall of Fame consideration four years (or one February 29) ago.

February 29, 2012

Pete Weber was three days in to the immense national media attention he received for winning his record fifth U.S. Open title and uttering the most legendary phrase in the history of sports: “Who do you think you are? I am.”

This moment is still, even 12 years and three days (five if you count the two February 29s in between), talked about and celebrated, in bowling and out, partly evidenced by being mentioned here even though the original exclamation happened on February 26.

February 29, 2008

Best-of-seven match play captivated Sequoia Pro Bowl in Columbus, Ohio at the PBA Buckeye State Classic. The top 32 players were trimmed to eight by the end of the day, a group that included Kelly Kulick two years before her Tournament of Champions win. Chris Barnes, the man who would finish second in that 2010 Tournament of Champions, was also part of the top eight. Two days later, after winning three more matches, Barnes was the champion. It was the 10^th title of his Hall of Fame career.

February 29, 2004

Tommy Jones was two days into celebrating his second career title, which came in the PBA Cambridge Credit Classic on Long Island. Jones has since won 20 titles and been inducted into the PBA Hall of Fame.

February 29, 1996

Defending champion Bryan Goebel fended off Ricky Ward to qualify as the top seed for the next day’s stepladder finals in the Tucson Open. Goebel then defeated Ward in the title match, earning Goebel back-to-back victories in the Tucson Open. It was Goebel’s eighth victory in what would become a 10-title Hall of Fame career.

February 29, 1992

Chris Warren won his fifth of six career PBA Tour titles, climbing the stepladder as the No. 4 seed to ultimately defeat Bob Vespi in the championship match.

February 29, 1976

Earl Anthony was presumably on the road between Windsor Locks, Connecticut (where he’d just won the Midas Open on the 28^th) and Tamarac, Florida (where he’d win the Dick Weber Five-Star Open) on March 6.

February 29, 1964

One season removed from his 1963 Player of the Year effort at a mere 22 years of age, Billy Hardwick won the Birmingham Coca-Cola PBA Open for his fifth career title. It was his first of three victories on the season. Hardwick went on to win a total of 18 PBA Tour titles and was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1977.

The PBA Tour will be in Delaware on February 29 this year with the cut to the top 24 coming in the early afternoon. If PBA Leap History tells us anything, someone who makes that cut will some day enter the PBA Hall of Fame.

This installment of The One Board originally appeared, surprisingly, in Bowlers Journal International, January, 2024

One of the few great features of pop culture is the generic sitcom plot: the person who abhors gambling accidentally finding a lucky streak and becoming addicted on a trip to Las Vegas or Atlantic City, the husband trying to watch the big game when he’s supposed to be on a date with his wife, kids throwing a party that goes way too far while their parents are out, to name a few. And, of course: The Bowling Episode.

In The Bowling Episode, the character portrayed as being new to or bad at bowling inevitably ends up facing a 7-10 split in the 10^th frame. This split must be converted to win the league or a bet with his spouse or some other ultimately meaningless pursuit. We need to ignore the writers’ ignorance regarding bowling scoring and strategy (if converting the 7-10 wins, then knocking down one of the pins ties, resulting in whatever detailed roll-off procedure the Writers Guild negotiated in their last contract). The smart strategy would be for the inept character to be content with knocking down one pin and hope for the best in the roll-off.

In fairness, there may have been a roll-off in waiting on at least three dozen of these episodes, but thankfully our character converts the split every time, then celebrates wildly. Sometimes, the character strikes on the first ball in the 10^th and the 7-10 split is on the second, meaning his spare attempt is the final shot and celebrating is acceptable. Other times, the split comes on the first shot in the 10^th and the conversion on the second, meaning the TV crew should be just off camera shouting at the elated individual, telling him to stop being happy and immediately throw his meaningless fill ball before resuming his enthusiasm, but maybe that happens during the credits.

Regardless, what we’ve learned from all this is what TV writers, who write for the masses, believe: the most compelling way for a bowling match to be decided is by someone converting the 7-10 split in the final frame to win.

Of course such a thing would be exciting in a real bowling match between two top professionals. But take a week or so and ponder: has it ever happened in the history of the PBA Tour? Not the 7-10 split, necessarily, but a big split like a 6-7 or even 2-4-10. And not one of those third-frame conversions we’re told to remember because that might prove to be big later, and not a ninth-frame conversion that kept the guy in the match he eventually won, but an actual, winning shot.

Mark Roth’s 7-10 conversion happened in the ninth frame against Bill Straub. Had Roth not converted the 7-10, Straub could’ve won. Kris Prather made the 3-4-6-7-10 in the 10^th frame of game one of the race-to-two 2019 PBA Playoffs, which was important but was not the winning shot of that game, let alone the match. Similarly, Mike Aulby made the 6-7 split in the ninth frame of the title match in the 1998 ABC Masters that kept him in the match, but he and his opponent, Parker Bohn III, still had to bowl the entire 10^th frame.

Pondering further: why would it happen? If a pro needs to convert the 7-10 to win, he’s going to be happy taking out the 10 and going to a roll-off. If he needs to convert a big split to earn a fill ball, still needing at least one pin, then sure, he’ll go for the split. But has that ever happened? Has professional bowling ever given society what they allegedly crave based on generic sitcom plots?

In Kingpin, which is not a sitcom, Big Ern needed all three strikes in the 10^th. That is far more common in professional bowling and one could argue even more compelling. A hypothetical 7-10 split conversion to win a tournament would be met with disbelief and euphoria from the player and the crowd, but drilling all three strikes when they are required showcases the athleticism and determination of the player, which is better for many reasons.

Sitcoms, you’ve been getting it wrong, but it doesn’t matter. We only watch sitcoms if they’re aired live so we can record them and watch later while chastising some stranger on social media who posted about what happened.

*Based on entries

After eight years and 96 editions, plus the 97^th edition currently in print, The One Board moves to its new home: the internet. We’ll continue to revere the sport while highlighting and having fun with its absurdities but, like a dying network’s TV show revived on Netflix, the lighting might be slightly different and one of the actors may be having trouble recapturing his sultry performance voice.

We begin with the eighth annual year-start countup, eschewing year-end countdowns and embracing ludicrous prognostications for the year ahead.

1. The PBA Player of the Year discussion will start on day one of qualifying in the PBA Players Championship January 10.
2. That discussion won’t end until December.
3. The winner of the Players Championship will be jokingly asked, “How does it feel to be the frontrunner in the Player of the Year race?”
4. No one will laugh.
5. The player will be respectful to the asker but blow off the question due to it being so early in the season.
6. There’s a lot of bowling to go.
7. Jason Belmonte, who has not gone back-to-back years without winning the PBA Player of the Year Award since his first POY season in 2013, once again will be extra motivated to prevent a two-year gap.
8. EJ Tackett, one of just three players (and the only one to do it twice) who aren’t Belmonte to win Player of the Year since 2013, likewise has additional incentive to claim his second consecutive year-end honor.
9. Anthony Simonsen, who is admirable for his lack of desire to talk about Player of the Year despite frequently being asked about it, and who finished in the top 10 in every single event in 2023, may take it from everyone.
10. Simonsen will win at least one major and become the youngest player to win six.
11. We’ll see three players win their first PBA Tour titles and one, who isn’t necessarily part of that group of three, win his first major.
12. Increased PBA Elite League competition adds intrigue not just to the League but also to every event on the schedule.
13. With PBA Elite League matches taking place on practice day in every town, fans have yet another reason to believe practice day is more compelling than qualifying.
14. Come for the practice, stay for the Baker team bowling.
15. Come back the next day for qualifying.
16. Or go to work the next day. You can turn on BowlTV at your desk in an effort to keep track of the qualifying.
17. BowlTV’s small price increase is reinvested directly toward funding the creation of a Dr. Joyce Brothers hologram, finally adding that essential seventh simultaneous commentator to the booth.
18. Bowling fans are divided on whether or not they like the hologram. Some think it’s a nice change of pace to hear that fake voice while others think that seventh chair should’ve gone to a bowler.
19. Any bowler. But not that bowler.
20. Similar to the Stanley Cup, the Elias Cup is to be traveled around the world, one day per player on the championship team, but plans are canceled when no one can agree on the format for the tournament that would’ve determined who gets to wear the white gloves and escort the Cup.
21. Six months after the season ends, the PBA Player of the Year is announced. It goes to a “PTQ Guy” who comes out of nowhere, every “week,” to dominate.
22. “Week,” in bowling, continues to mean “absolutely any length of time.”
23. The One Board continues its reign as the most highly read satirical bowling column, bolstered by being at the forefront of a burgeoning movement called digital publication.
24. To enhance authenticity and integrity, readers will only be able to click on this site using a mouse or trackpad that was manufactured at a minimum hardness of 78HD.

Happy new year, bowling fans.