Jef Goodger, the bowling writer for About.com, recently posted an excellent article titled "Barnes, Belmonte Show What Bowling Can Be." Referring to the final match of last Sunday's PBA telecast, he writes: "Was it the best bowling match ever? Definitely not. But yesterday's final match-play contest between Chris Barnes and Jason Belmonte was one of the most entertaining I've seen in a long time." I agree. The final scores weren't close, but the road to those scores was paved with abundant excitement.
Jef goes on to write about how there's been a lot of talk lately about sportsmanship or the lack thereof in bowling and other sports, and how he likes to see good sportsmanship amongst the bowlers, but he also likes to see bowlers who really want to win and who effectively balance good sportsmanship with competitiveness in a way that commands our attention and fuels our excitement. He concludes by saying:
"To clarify, I'm a proponent of sportsmanship. I don't think bowlers need to be at the point of taunting each other on the lanes, as is what happens in most more popular sports like football, hockey and basketball, but that doesn't mean a bowler should have to hide his emotions. You can be competitive and a gentleman at the same time. Yesterday, we saw that out of Barnes and Belmonte. I'd like to see more of it out of more people."
Again, I agree. But how far can competitiveness go before it becomes unsportsmanlike, how far can sportsmanship go before it becomes monotonously if not sickeningly sweet and nice, and how can we tell the difference? What's more, does achieving a wholesome balance between competitiveness and sportsmanship make one the best bowler he can be, or does someone need to be more competitive than nice to be the best bowler possible?
You can read Jef Goodger's entire article here.
I don't see why it's a problem. Being a respectful, gentleman is not at odds with being extremely competitive. It's simply a mindset. You can see another example in the recent Dick Allen vs Jack Jurek match. Both players are very competitive and you can easily see that. But, in the 7th frame, IIRC, Allen got lucky on a washout conversion. He and Jack were both able to smile and joke about it, before Jack got up to bowl, where he was again, all business. Once the match was over, both players again were able to demonstrate good sportsmanship.
ReplyDeleteBut, you don't see that from many players, which is a shame and is at the heart of Goodger's article.
It takes maturity, self-respect and self-confidence, to be able to be a competitive gentleman, to win or lose with dignity and grace and to give proper respect to your opponents.
Kerry
Thanks for the link, Steve.
ReplyDeleteThe Allen/Jurek match was another good example of what I'd like to see, as Kerry mentioned. I noticed in the tenth frame, after Jurek almost guaranteed himself a loss, he was visibly upset with himself. However, he composed himself long enough to say, "Finish it off, Ritchie" prior to Allen winning the match. Jurek obviously wanted to win badly, but wasn't about to root for Allen to fail (and it would've taken a miserable failure) in order to win.
Kerry and Jef, I agree with both of you. I think there was a nice balance of competitiveness and sportsmanship in both the Barnes/Belmonte and Jurek/Allen matches. Yet I still wonder if all or at least some bowlers would perform better if they wanted to win so badly that they couldn't exhibit the kind of sportsmanship in losing that Belmonte and Jurek did.
ReplyDeleteNot only do I believe it unnecessary to have a win obsession such as you describe, I believe that such an obsession is counter-productive and harmful.
ReplyDeleteI competed as a semi-pro for almost 20 years with handguns. I got to observe, and get beaten by, the best handgun shooters in the world, like Robby Leathem, Jerry Barnhart, Brian Enos, Todd Jarrett and Jerry Miculek, to name only a few.
Not a single one of them has the obsession that you describe, not even close. Every one of them is a gentleman, at least when I observed them.
Kerry
Bowlers are no different than any other sportsman. The formula for winning is the same, in all sports. It takes talent, drive and lots and lots of hard work.
ReplyDeleteKerry
Kerry, I know next to nothing about shooting, although I've certainly heard of Jerry Miculek and seen his miraculous speed shooting showcased awhile back on a TV program featuring "Amazing Marksmen." However, I wonder if bowling and shooting aren't sufficiently different, especially in their physicality, that a higher degree of aggressive competitiveness might help at least some elite bowlers more than it would help any elite shooters.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I suspect that you're right that if it becomes unsportsmanlike, it doesn't help anyone in either sport. But I just like to wonder about these things out loud, so to speak. :-) Sports psychology is a fascinating topic, and I hope to learn more about it, especially in reading and eventually reviewing on this blog books on bowling psychology by Dr. Dean Hinitz and Dr. Eric Lasser with Fred Borden and Jeri Edwards.
I don't understand your application of aggressive, with competitiveness.
ReplyDeleteBowling is like any other sport that doesn't involve a capability for offensive and defensive action. IOW, bowling, golf, shooting, among others, are sports that involve man against the elements. They all require basically the same physical and mental elements for success.
Success requires that one to strive for perfection and that one has the physical attributes necessary to accomplish that end.
Kerry
Kerry, I'm not saying there IS a link between being aggressively competitive to an unsportsmanlike degree and being a successful bowler. But it seems to me that bowling is a more physical activity than is shooting or possibly even golf, especially given the ball speeds and revolutions that seem necessary for success in many elite tournaments today, and, like I said before, I'm just wondering aloud whether some may need to charge themselves up in an aggressive way that makes it difficult for them to unwind at the end of a match they lose and to be sportsmanlike in order to perform at their best.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this kind of unsportsmanlike aggressiveness may help some to win over their superiorly skilled opponents by distracting or disturbing them with their unsportsmanlike conduct.
I may be talking vacuous nonsense, and, for the record, I value sportsmanship very highly. To me, it's actually more important than winning. But then I'm not bowling for a living. If I were, I'd go broke fast. ;-)
I'm still not understanding your use of aggression for being competitive. Given that it's the bowler against the lanes and pins, where is the aggression directed and to what end?
ReplyDeleteBeing aggressive toward your opponent gets you nothing, unless you can upset them to the point that they can't perform. That's called gamesmanship and that does nothing to help the gamesman be a better bowler, which was your stated goal.
Kerry
Kerry, I'm not advocating that bowlers be unsportsmanlike. Quite the opposite, in fact.
ReplyDeleteI was merely wondering whether the attitude that some bowlers might need in order to perform at their best might make it difficult for them to be as sportsmanlike as we'd like to see them. I just have an admittedly vague sense I can't begin to explain coherently that some bowlers may bowl better if they come into a match with a very aggressive, I've got to win at any cost mentality from which it would be difficult to unwind enough at the end of a match that they've lost to manifest good sportsmanship. The aggressive attitude toward the pins and the opponent might get adrenalin pumping for throwing the ball harder (which might be needed on some lane conditions) and help the bowler to focus stronger and more consistently on his task.
Like I said, I'm just wondering about this, not claiming that it's true or that the pros should be unsportsmanlike. I think they should follow the examples of people like Jurek and Belmo.
One more thing. These ruminations on aggressiveness and the like are actually more generally about the optimal mental attitude to have when one bowls in an elite tournament, especially in match play, and, more especially still, on TV for relatively big money. I hope to explore this whole area of bowling psychology more in future blogposts.
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand that you're trying to explore the psyche. I just don't get it, when you talk about aggression.
ReplyDeleteIn the sports I outlined, aggression is not needed and is, IMO, harmful to your performance. The same with making distinctions for match play and your opponent. Ideally, it shouldn't ever matter, when you are bowling and against whom.
IME, competitors make the most mistakes, when they concern themselves with an opponent or differentiate matches. In a sport where muscle memory is key, mistakes cause confusion, which further hampers performance.
Kerry
I should add that the highest level sportsmen that I've observed, have the ability to concentrate and focus completely on the task at hand. They exhibit no emotion other than slight nervousness at the beginning. It's no different for the video clips of elite bowlers I've watched. When they want to, they're in a world all their own.
ReplyDeleteThe elite don't differentiate when and against whom and will perform in practice identically to their top competitive performance.
Kerry
uh, sorry, one more thing. Why can't elite bowlers shoot top scores all the time, same in practice as in final match?
ReplyDeleteOne big thing affecting performance, is that the lanes are all different and they change. Bowling is the only sport I am familiar with, that has that kind of obstacle. Each time they throw the ball, it encounters conditions that were different from every prior shot. The oil, how the lanes absorb or spread the oil, and how the ball reacts to the oil, are key elements in today's game.
Therefore an otherwise flawless performance is affected by conditions beyond the bowler's control.
Kerry
To further complicate the issue, the 2010 Dick Weber final match with WRW and Fagan had some contradictory commentary from Pederson.
ReplyDeletePederson talks about the huge lead Fagan had and that WRW was putting pressure on him, "putting a little WRW in Fagan's head". That makes no sense to me. Fagan is ahead and only needs to continue making good shots.
2nd half, Fagan falls apart mentally and is making poor shots. Pederson then responds to a question saying that Fagan isn't bowling WRW, he's only concentrating on beating the pins to win his first title. That's as it should be, always.
I've heard him talk about putting pressure on opponents before. If you are in your zone, scoring well, it matters not what your opponent does.
But, I don't know if "opponent pressure" is a learned cultural thing, thus is a real factor in bowling, which would support your theory.
Kerry
Generally, aggression in sports like bowling comes across after the result, e.g., Pete Weber's crotch chops after a strike. In contact sports, it comes more into play during the play, as in ice hockey checks, football hits, etc.
ReplyDeleteSure, some bowlers may try to aggressively psyche themselves into making a good shot (although that's pretty rare, right?), and football players will flex and taunt after making a big play (and that's more for show than anything else).
But as I see it, the aggression in bowling is largely a release of tension that built up prior to the play. A side effect could be that it might theoretically get in the head of the opponent. I say theoretically, because while a bowler might think he/she is getting into someone else's head, it may only serve to inspire the oppponent even more.
I generally agree with Kerry that such aggression is probably more detrimental than helpful in bowling. Also, putting pressure on the opponent simply by throwing strikes isn't really what's happening. The goal is to make them string strikes to win instead of just needing marks. Yes, it perhaps puts pressure on them, but it isn't the pressure per se you are after, it's just trying to make the actual task at hand more difficult for the opponent.
I'm not sure if that is making sense, so I'll try a different sport analogy. Look at a billiards player who plays "defensively" so the opponent has a more difficult next shot. The difficulty of the shot may add some "pressure," but it's really about the increased difficulty of the task at hand that the player is trying to affect and nothing else. The added "pressure," real or not, is just a side effect.
I just watched the 2004 Reno Open clips. I almost passed on it, because my least favorite bowler, Angelo, was one of the finalists.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm glad that I watched it in its entirety, because the Brad Angelo of 2004 is a completely different man than the Angelo of 2011. He bowled very well up until the final match. All the time, he was focused, no gamesmanship and a complete gentleman.
In the championship match, apparently his nerves got the best of him and he fell apart, bowling very poorly. His opponent was Mika Koivuniemi, who bowled very well, winning the tournament. But, again, Angelo's worst game, produced his best moments. He never gave up, but he couldn't put it together. He was an extremely gracious loser, a true gentleman and a guy I could admire without reservation.
What happened to that Brad Angelo? No aggression, no stunts, no "Bad Boy" image, letting his bowling ball do the talking. I wish he were here now.
Kerry
Kerry, I think BA is still, at heart, a decent guy. This comes across in even recent interviews. I think he's just gotten a little caught up in the "take no crap" wave spurred on by some of his fans and the media. Frankly, I like him a lot better than I do the Dick.
ReplyDeleteYou may well be right. My only experience with BA was the Barnes "Brooklyn" match and bottlegate, both making me sick. The 2004 BA is a completely different man. He needs to return to that 2004 mindset, to win me over to his fan club.
ReplyDeleteAllen is confusing to me. I was really disappointed with his attitude and actions in this match. I liked to watch him before, because he was rather carefree and a good sport, while still being competitive. The birth of his child was a big deal to him. Several comments were made by Pedersen that Allen had told him that he needed to be more serious and competitive, now that he was a father. I hope that this isn't the result, the behavior that he thinks is necessary to win.
Kerry
Kerry, I share your hope about Allen. I don't hate the guy, despite some of the unflattering things I've posted about him here lately. I've actually enjoyed some of his commentatings on X'tra Frame, and I suspect that if I were to sit down with him and get to know him, I'd actually like him.
ReplyDeleteAnd, as Jeff Richgels pointed out yesterday, there's something positive to be said for being yourself in the public eye and saying what you really think instead of being and saying what you think the public wants you to be and say.
I guess it comes down being yourself within reasonable parameters that Mr. Allen very publicly steps beyond, in my opinion. In other words, there can be too much of a good thing, and Allen sometimes shows us what it is.
I'd forgotten about the Jack Jurek vs Dick Allen match, immediately preceding the finals. Both Jurek and Allen were gentlemen, gracious, while being competitive. Of course, Allen won that match, but he didn't exhibit behavior anywhere near what he did in the final. Maybe it was Barnes being the key, with Allen being intimidated and lacking confidence. I don't know, but the difference in Allen's behavior in the 2 matches is striking.
ReplyDeleteKerry
Agreed.
ReplyDeleteIt was also interesting to observe how sportsmanlike Chris Barnes was in the match against Allen. He has often been derided as a jerk, although I never agreed with this, for his conduct in prior tournaments. But he conducted himself admirably in defeat Sunday. Perhaps he figured he tried his best and executed pretty well and that was that.
I agree. I've never thought Barnes was anything other than a good sportsman, never having seen him behave poorly. Indeed, given his record, he has more right than anyone, to have slipped off the mark at some point. But, if he did, I've not seen it.
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about it, the more I think that Barnes is the key to Allen's behavior in that match. I don't know if it's bad blood, envy or simply a bit of self-doubt, lacking in self-confidence that caused Allen to behave the way he did. But, I'd be willing to wager that it's the latter. Barnes is a formidable opponent for anyone and had just handily beaten Allen in the first match.
Kerry
I think some people have pointed to Barnes' sarcasm (e.g., his "brooklyn" remark to Rob and Randy during his match with Angelo) and to what they perceive as his undeserved reputation and arrogance as reasons why they dislike him. I posted an entry about this last year: http://stevesbowlingblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-do-so-many-love-to-hate-chris.html
ReplyDeleteBut I agree with you, Kerry, that Barnes has generally come across to me as a guy who fiercely wants to win but who is quite sportsmanlike most of the time when he loses, and when he gets angry with anyone, it's not with his opponent but with himself.
Having said that, I think he was unusually calm and gracious toward Allen and himself during that final match last Sunday. As I said previously, maybe he figured that he had executed well overall, or maybe we're seeing a mature mellowing of Barnes in which his drive to win is balanced but not vitiated by a growing realization that winning, contrary to the old saying, isn't everything after all. How you play the game is also very, very important.
I don't have a problem with people not liking Barnes. He may be arrogant, sarcastic, etc, but there's no denying his skill and sportsmanship, IMO.
ReplyDeleteA pro shouldn't ever be throwing Brooklyn strikes. Angelo got mad because he knows that and Barnes embarrassed him after he "celebrated" the "strike". The people defending Angelo on that aren't on the tour and don't know what it's like to lose a paycheck to someone that got rewarded for throwing a terrible shot.
I'll have to watch the show again. I hadn't noticed Barnes being different than normal. Seemed to me that when he got the 2nd pocket 7-10 that he knew he was done, so he had plenty of time to absorb the loss and put on his best face.
Kerry