This installment of The One Board originally appeared in Bowlers Journal International, February, 2023
As this issue hits mailboxes, newsstands and airplane seatback pockets worldwide, the U.S. Open—a short-duration event that qualifies competitors for discounted long-term hotel rates—is either about to begin or has begun, as have the discussions about fairness and how difficult or easy the lane conditions are in relation to how they should be, depending on any number of differing opinions.
Traditionally, the U.S. Open is known as one of the most difficult tournaments to win. The oil pattern(s) are extremely tough. The number of games throughout qualifying and match play are absurdly high (plus, with the challenging lane conditions, players strike less, requiring more shots over more games, and we haven’t even considered practice yet), leading to mutilated hands, burning legs and fatigued brains. If those reasons aren’t enough, add the fact the recent top seeds finish second more often than not (the No. 1 seed has finished second in eight out of the last 10 U.S. Opens) and it truly makes this thing almost impossible to win.
Almost impossible, yes, but it’s also true that someone wins every year (excluding years in which there is no U.S. Open). Someone overcomes all of that and more and adds a green jacket to his or her closet.
But what is the proper level of difficulty? Fans and players tend to enjoy the oft-cited “brutal grind” of the U.S. Open and believe players should have to struggle, make spares and endure hardships not only to win but to cash. The attitude is anyone who cashes earns it and anyone who misses deserves the beating.
Unless it’s too difficult. We can’t have the players struggling too much or some harmless viewer at home who happens upon the bowling show will think he can beat the top pros. But we certainly can’t make it too easy. Then it becomes a carry contest and the last thing we’d ever want is for a bowling tournament to be determined by who knocks over the most pins.
Somehow, we need to find just the right mix that allows the “correct” average at the cut line and the cash line as well as five or six people who truly stand out from the field and one guy who completely outclasses everyone on the way to a second-place finish.
What is the correct average? At its simplest, the correct average is the one that proves the tournament is fair to whoever is judging what’s fair. As for an actual correct number, it varies. We’ve been discussing the U.S. Open, but the correct average there is lower than the correct average at the Tournament of Champions, for example. There are some who say the correct average should always be around 190-200 to cash and 205-210 to make the cut to match play (almost exactly what was required at last year’s U.S. Open). There are others—not as many, but they exist—who say the correct average should always be 230 or more because strikes are fun.
There are still others—the vast majority of the television viewing audience—who don’t care what the correct average is because all they know and see is the people on TV bowling understandable, high-score-wins, head-to-head matches. When it’s 279-268, the casual viewer is amazed at how good the bowlers are. When it’s 192-184, the casual viewer is appalled at how awful the bowlers are, even if it’s very possibly true the better bowling was done on the lower-scoring show.
If bowlers are bowling for bowlers, low scores are better. If bowlers are bowling for mainstream society, high scores are better. If bowlers are bowling for the U.S. Open title, being any seed lower than one is better.
The correct average is whatever it actually takes on whatever oil pattern in whatever bowling center over however many games to make it inside the cut to whatever the next round is. Unless too many or not enough lefties make it, in which case we need an in-depth investigation from an independent investigator.
In other words: there is no correct average.