Math Is Fun Forum
  Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

#1 2011-06-24 15:59:39

reconsideryouranswer
Member
Registered: 2011-05-11
Posts: 172

In part, bowling scores should be based on the number of strikes total

in a game, not as they are now where consecutive strikes have more
weight in the total score, in my opinion.


Signature line:

I wish a had a more interesting signature line.

Offline

#2 2011-11-12 08:41:21

John E. Franklin
Member
Registered: 2005-08-29
Posts: 3,582

Re: In part, bowling scores should be based on the number of strikes total

i agree with that, no doubling up scores from previous boxes.  plus candlepin is my fav.


igloo myrtilles fourmis

Offline

#3 2011-11-12 10:37:15

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 90,791

Re: In part, bowling scores should be based on the number of strikes total

Hi keglers;

For the professional or the strong scratch league bowler that is the point. Stringing strikes shows that you are locked in on the lane. That you understand it. That your form ( stroke ) is perfect and in harmony with the lane. That your ball speed and number of rotations is perfect. That you are capable of rolling the same shot over and over, the mark of a pro.

For ordinary bowlers 150 - 160, strikes are a random event, for 180+ bowlers they are the culmination of years of practice. Makes perfect sense to score consecutive strikes as they do.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.

I agree with you regarding the satisfaction and importance of actually computing some numbers. I can't tell you how often I see time and money wasted because someone didn't bother to run the numbers.

Offline

#4 2011-11-14 16:51:07

reconsideryouranswer
Member
Registered: 2011-05-11
Posts: 172

Re: In part, bowling scores should be based on the number of strikes total

bobbym wrote:

Makes

perfect sense
to score
consecutive strikes as they do.

No, it's not to me.

Hypothetically, a bowler could get three (or four?) strikes in a row in the
first three (or four ?) frames and then get all gutter balls, showing he
can't maintain.  Not only are the points in his frames inconsistent,
he "goes downhill" to 0 on the gutter ball and stays there for the
remaining frames of a game.

While another bowler could throw five strikes about evenly spaced out,
with gutter balls in between, and score less than the previous player.
The points in his frames would have a closer to symmetric form
(a greater relative consistency), and he wouldn't be suffering from a
downward trend of decreasing strikes.

It'd be similar to a student answering the first 3 (or 4?) questions
on a 10 - 12 item multiple-choice quiz correctly (and the rest wrong)
and being awarded more points (a higher grade) than a student
who would get 4 to 6 questions correct in total.  And these would
be about evenly spaced out as possible for the questions which
were marked correct.

And, across 3 consecutive games (max. total of 900 points), the
first bowler could bowl 5 strikes in the first 5 frames, and 5 gutter
balls in the last five frames in the first game.  And then bowl 4
strikes in the first four frames with 6 gutter balls in the last 6
frames.  And in the third (last) game, that bowler could throw 3
strikes in the first 3 frames, with 7 gutter balls in the last
7 frames.

In contrast, the second bowler could bowl more strikes than the
first bowler did in his respective games (the rest gutter balls),
but spaced out with a lower official bowling score per respective
game.)  Not only would the second bowlwer be getting more strikes
than the first bowler in each game, but the first bowler's performance
would be getting worse with each successive game.

Last edited by reconsideryouranswer (2011-11-14 17:19:29)


Signature line:

I wish a had a more interesting signature line.

Offline

#5 2011-11-14 17:46:33

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 90,791

Re: In part, bowling scores should be based on the number of strikes total

Hi;

Your giving a mathematical exposition on a hypothetical bowling game that just lacks the merit of being realistic.

Having come through every level of bowling I am forced to say that it is extremely unlikely for two bowlers to consistently exhibit the kind of games you are describing. It might be possible for a bowler who is bad to once in his lifetime throw a five bagger ( 5 in a row ). A pro can do that at will.

To throw strikes consistently, you have to roll the ball at the correct speed and the correct number of rotations. You must hit an area around the pocket ( about 2 inches ) from 60 feet away. The bowling ball must not deflect off the headpin in its path through the pins to the gutter. Your timing must be so accurate that your left foot and the ball must reach the foul line at precisely the same time in order to have a powerful release.

For someone to throw 4 strikes in a row and then all gutterballs on a consistent basis is so rare that there is no reason to change the game to suit this hypothetical person. Also such a person would have a score of 90, quite easy to beat by even a 120 average bowler. The four strikes do not nullify the cardinal sin of professional bowling: Never leave an open frame!


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.

I agree with you regarding the satisfaction and importance of actually computing some numbers. I can't tell you how often I see time and money wasted because someone didn't bother to run the numbers.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB