Thursday, March 24, 2011

Who Didn't Vote for Kelly Kulick, and Why Not?

The Bowling Writers Association of America (BWAA) just selected Bill O' Neill and Kelly Kulick as the BWAA male and female Bowlers of the Year for 2010. I can't think of more deserving choices, and they are the candidates I would have voted for. Wait a minute. As a card carrying member of the BWAA, I did vote for them.

But what astonishes me is that not everyone voted for Kelly Kulick to win. Yes, she received 46 out of 48 first place votes, but two people cast first place votes for Wendy Macpherson.

Now I have nothing against Wendy Macpherson. She's inarguably one of the greatest female bowlers in history. But female Bowler of the Year after the unbelievable season Kelly Kulick had? Come on now! What "bowling writer" would fail to give proper due to what is very possibly the greatest year a female bowler has ever had?

I blogged recently about how Kelly Kulick has never received the respect she deserves for what she's accomplished. Her not garnering all 48 first place votes for Bowler of the Year is just another example of it. And the fact that the two dissenters were bowling writers with presumed expertise in the sport makes it all the more striking. It seems to be either a manifestation of abject ignorance and incompetence on the part of those voters, or a deliberate and spiteful slap in the face for Kelly Kulick for heaven knows what. Or maybe it just reflects a perverse fixation on Wendy Macpherson.

Here are the stats for Kelly Kulick and Wendy Macpherson. For whom would YOU have voted?

Kelly Kulick

1st, 2010 PBA Tournament of Champions

1st, USBC Queens

1st, U.S. Women's Open

1st, PBA regional, Lakewood, Wash.

1st, Pan American Confederation Women's Championships doubles

1st, Pan American Confederation Women's Championships team

1st, Malaysian Open

2nd, Pan American Confederation Women's Championships all-events

3rd, Pan American Confederation Women's Championships singles

3rd, Pan American Confederation Women's Championships trios

5th, PBA Earl Anthony Memorial Women's Series

7th, PBA Don and Paula Carter Mixed Doubles

PBA Women's Series average - 219.32

PBA Women's Series earnings - $46,440

Wendy Macpherson

1st, Japan Open including a 300 game

6th, PBA Don and Paula Carter Mixed Doubles

PBA Women's Series average - 198.42

PBA Women's Series earnings - $3,000

You can read more about the BWAA's selections here, and watch the championship match of the 2010 USBC Queens below.


  1. Great question, Steve. For the record, I, along with you, am one of the 46 and can't fathom a legitimate reason to vote otherwise.

  2. Jef, the way I see it, anyone allowed to vote on this must have known better than to vote against Kulick yet did so anyway. I'm guessing it was because they either have a "thang" for Wendy, or they're mad at Kelly for beating out the boys in the TOC and think a woman's place is decidedly NOT in the PBA.

    In any case, I find it irksome.

  3. I agree completely. I would like to see a strong case outlined from one of the two non-Kulick voters explaining the vote. The vote, regardless of the candidates, is subjective, obviously. But if you're a member of the BWAA and you're voting for the best bowler of the year and you see the list of accomplishments you posted (which we all receive along with the ballot), I find it hard to believe there is a compelling case against Kulick.

  4. Yes, let's have an online conference meeting of all the voters, see who didn't give Kelly their first place vote, and watch them squirm when they're asked why they didn't. ;-)

  5. Wow, this story is incredible to me. I can't imagine a more deserving player than Kelly. Indeed, in my mind, Bill O'Neill is second to her. As for Wendy, she won the Japan title, but nothing else, so "where's the beef?"

    I can think of others that might be more deserving than Wendy, like CDB for instance. These 2 votes smell, like agenda... That's sad.


  6. Yes, Kerry, voting for anyone other than Kulick for female Bowler of the Year for 2010 smells like either "agenda" or unpardonable ignorance and incompetence for a member of the BWAA. Fortunately, the other 46 voting members exhibited neither shortcoming.