em:

For those of you that are questioning the scores of a certain individual in the classified division see rule (f). If this criteria was followed, then what transpired was a legal and the average is also legal. If it was not followed then there is grounds for disqulification and should be, end of discussion either way. The rule as stated, allows anyone the opportunity to just have a sport average and that is all. Let your conscience be your guide.... some have one and some don't. It all comes down to the USBC enfocing its own rule. The below was from another post about 10 yr average but it should also apply in this case. Justt my thoughts....

 

Here are the current average rules for the Open Championships.

AVERAGE REQUIREMENTS

The average to be used will be determined in the following order:

a. Highest book average from the 2006-07 USBC winter season, based on 21

or more games.

b. If no 2006-07 USBC winter season average, the highest ending average from

the 2006-07 USBC summer season, based on 21 or more games.

c. If no 2006-07 USBC winter season average, the highest 2007-08 USBC

winter average as of Jan. 1, 2008 based on 21 or more games.

d. When a bowler's current 21 game average as of Jan. 1, 2008 is 10 or more

pins higher than the previous season's average, that average must be used.

e. Bowlers who do not meet any of the above requirements will be entered

with a 220 average.

f. Bowlers that have both a USBC SPORT LEAGUE AVERAGE and a

standard league average from the same season shall use the highest of the

two averages.

Any bowler who has ONLY A USBC SPORT LEAGUE AVERAGE must submit and

use his/her adjusted Sport Bowling league average utilizing the USBC Average

Adjustment Scale. The scale can be found on bowl.com, or on Page 77 of the USBC

Playing Rules.

 

Matt Cannizzaro
Media Relations Manager

EM,

You are jumping into this fight way late. I take it you did not read the thread that dealt with this situation. But I will bite anyway.

RULE F does not apply. He bowled in an "UNCERTIFIED SPORT LEAGUE" by his own words read his quote. So he cheated. Its not his true average. Look at his average history. He flat out bowled on a tuff condition and did not adjust his average as a Sport certified Bowler would have. Anyway Dead Horse beaten again.

Brian

OMG this thing is driving me nuts.  I DON’T CARE CHEATING OR NOT THERE IS NO WAY IN H. E. DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS THAT THIS GUY IS A CLASSIFIED BOWLER PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Sorry for yelling I just had to get that off my chest.

The problem with this particular bowler is that the ONLY league he bowled in was a "sport like condition" league that didn't register as a sport-shot league. 

Therefore, he has a sport shot average that does not have to be adjusted.  This is what the stink is all about.  

He is a bowler who hasn't averaged less than 190 for the past 7 years, while having no injury as per Matt, but suddenly lowers his average 21 pins in one season, therefore allowing him to bowl classified division, then averaging almost 210 on a sport-compliant condition.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

To answer your question:  YES

Not to hi-jack a thread but I have a question. Rule (f) listed above states that if you have both A)Sport League Average and B)Standard League Average that you must use the highest. When bowling the USBC Open Championships, you are bowling on a Sport-Compliant Condition. Why would you use the highest instead of using the Sport League Average??????? That would make more sense to me!!

The point of this whole post was to bring the onus on the USBC for approving an average that is not certified, hence not adhereing to they're own rule. The guy got away with stretching the rule and if the USBC did not see fit to oversee or correct it they do not consider it cheating. Believe me I am not condoning the action, the conversely is the way I feel. Just lookig at it another way.  and i know I am late and would have not responded, but when I read the 10 year post this rule just struck a nerve. Rule (f) clearly states what should take place.

As far as not being registered as a Sport League shot, I must admit I over looked that issue... my bad. But I do know that it is possible to be under average by that much. I have avearged as high as 227 in travel leagues, but my USBC avg. for 24 yrs is only 190. I find the shot very demanding for me and it sure brings out a lot of inadequacies in my game, this year was no different, especially in team, being the only portsider.

So I guess in retrospect maybe i should have left well enough alone....  

 

 

I have no problem with you bringing it up again. The more people who see this and respond to it, tyhe better chance that USBC will realize they have a credibility problem. It seems every tounament, someone finds a loophol;e to exploit. perhaps a more thorough reviews of rules and scenarios should be undertaken so these situations can't develop. Most tournament rules I have seen, say that you adjust your average if it is a Sport shot/league average. Most don't say USBC Sport Shot/League. Mr Kistler falls within the guidelines of the rules as written, but again, it's the intent of the rules that is not apparent. Personally, the guy belongs in regular division. One year shooting over 1800 at Nationals could be a fluke, but back to back years, and over 1880 both times, I'm afraid that stretches the limits of credibility. The Classified division is for bowlers like the current leaders, lifetime 175 bowlers who happened to get hot and bowl well. Unfortunately, it's turning into a haven for sandbaggers and cheaters, who don't have the morals or cojones to bowl where they belong.

em,

It might help you get a better feel for the SITUATION if you were to take the time, it will take a while to read it all, to read the initial post  I don't know how to ask......it is a Classified Division question started by  Full Dump. There are over 400 posts on just that one heading.

Personally I feel this "loophole" happens more then people realize. In our league on year we had a regional  pro card holder shoot in a summer league on a "sport" shot, problem sec forgot to mark the right box the "pro" averages 175-78, bowls less then 21 games in the Association so when Ass. tourney come about he is abnle to use that low average and guess what shoots huge numbers just to earn a little extra cash, BTW he only averaged about 190 for 18 games. Illegal not really because of a clerical error, morally wrong to me a big yes, same as with this guy. Also isn't this guy the Ass, sec or pres. if so thats even a bigger blsck eye to him and even to his Association.

 

This is what happens when someone finds out about a mistake and then takes full advantage of it and does not take the high road and correct it on there own, personally I could not do that, for no matter how much money is involved

 

mnr magoo

I really don't want to go read a 400 post thread so I will continue to reply to this one. I know I will be in the minority on this one but KUDOS to him for finding a loophole to help himself. Hear me out. I bowl in one league that is "sport compliant and I average 178". With the current system in place, that would make my ent. avg. over 180 and now I'm suppose to compete against guys like Shady and Riggs. LOL!!!!!!!!! Now that's not right either. So, what is the right answer??????? I don't know, but until someone can figure it out, good for the little guy!!!!!

Chado:

I really don't want to go read a 400 post thread so I will continue to reply to this one. I know I will be in the minority on this one but KUDOS to him for finding a loophole to help himself. Hear me out. I bowl in one league that is "sport compliant and I average 178". With the current system in place, that would make my ent. avg. over 180 and now I'm suppose to compete against guys like Shady and Riggs. LOL!!!!!!!!! Now that's not right either. So, what is the right answer??????? I don't know, but until someone can figure it out, good for the little guy!!!!!

 

This is the most ridiculous statement made so far. So in your view its OK TO CHEAT and BRAGG ABOUT IT. If you would go read the other thread you would see that he has averaged as high as 217. So you are bowling against a high average bowler in the wrong division.

Also if you were not in a sport league you would have an average over 178 so either way you would have an average over 180 and in the regular division. But if cheating is what you like then knock yourself out....... WOW.

Brian

No matter what rules are used and no matter what average is used as the cut-off point there are going to be bowlers that either by design or happenstance have some kind of advantage.  The best we could hope from USBC is that they examine their "rules" and make sure they are the best they can be.  A person that bowls in a modified sport shot league that is not certified as such has the same advantage as the person that bowls in the proverbial brickyard where lanes are oiled twice a week and stripped every other month.  If these people make a substantial amount of money by exploiting their artificially low averages, then the rules could be changed so that they are re-rated to a higher average.  If a person maintains a low average year after year, yet bowls considerably higher in the "Open" year after year then they could also be re-rated.  Bowlers that really do not belong in the Classified Division could be taken care of in this way.  I find it interesting that "Bowler K" has created such furor this year with his Classified scores.  He is not the first nor will he be the last to leach money from the pockets of the true Classified Division bowlers.  If you pay attention to high scores shot in the Classified Division and then look at the history of the individual bowlers involved you will see that there are a number of these bowlers that really do not belong in the Classified Division.  My favorites are the ones with huge summer league averages and much lower winter league averages.  Bowl in the brickyard in the winter and then in the stand left and throw right league in the summer.  The Classified Division team winners from several years ago broke no rules either.  Their winter league averages totaled 851 which comfortably put them in the Classified Division.  But three of the five had summer averages considerably higher (42 pins, 16 pins and 12 pins respectively).  Use the summer averages and their team average jumps to 921.  A bowler with a 21 game winter average of 180 and a 36 game summer average of 222 should not be allowed to bowl as a 180 average bowler.  No one with six working brain cells would think so, yet this is what the current rules dictate should happen.  Again, the bowlers themselves broke no rules.  They did nothing that went against the "rules".  But do these "rules" need to be looked at and changed?  If you want a Classified Division that exists with any degree of integrity, I think so.   

    

Brian.......lmao!!!!!!! It is in your view that he cheated. Its my view that he did NOT break any rules. As a matter of fact. He followed them to a "T"!!!!! All I said was "kudos" to him for finding a loop-hole. Please don't construde what I said. My statement/question about carrying a 178 avg has nothing to do with a guy cheating. Let me phrase it a different way. The current lane condition for the USBC Open is sport compliant. If the only league that I bowl in bowls all 30 weeks on a sport compliant condition and I am sport compliant sanctioned, why then if I carry a 178 average for those 30 weeks bowling on the same condition as what is at the OPEN would I have to bowl in the Open division instead of the Classified???

Chado:

I really don't want to go read a 400 post thread so I will continue to reply to this one. I know I will be in the minority on this one but KUDOS to him for finding a loophole to help himself. Hear me out. I bowl in one league that is "sport compliant and I average 178". With the current system in place, that would make my ent. avg. over 180 and now I'm suppose to compete against guys like Shady and Riggs. LOL!!!!!!!!! Now that's not right either. So, what is the right answer??????? I don't know, but until someone can figure it out, good for the little guy!!!!!

You, sir, are a douche