1997 PBA Sr. National Championship - Laub vs. Hricsina (Pt1)

Larry Laub and John Hricsina met in the final of the 1997 PBA Senior National Championship. Contrasting styles, but still a great match. Part 1 of 2.

Category:

Sports

Tags:

• larry
• laub
• john
• hricsina
• pba
• senior
• bowling

[20alphabet]

@agratias716 And you are just a plain idiot.

[20alphabet]

@dunnzo228 Reread what you typed. Indeed, half of that is my point. It IS easier to score! It requires LESS talent, skill, and ability to obtain the benchmark highs than before the BPAA took control of the ABC, turning it into the USBC and changing the game. Any sport or game has one purpose. It's to develop and improve the human. Scoring is how we measure it. To approve equipment and conditions that artificially inflate the score we nullify the effort and the game dies. Compare then and now.

[agratias716]

@MikeHL78

20 alphabet bashes on all good players because hes a house bowler that thinks hes the shit. Well Hrscina bowls at my local lanes and still averages 220 he would gladly take alphabets money on anyday. John has done it all from rubber to reactive resin.

[agratias716]

@20alphabet

Hrcsina is local he still averages 220 on a THS at his age what have you done? Have you won a PBA title? I bet your average is a 160 and you talk crap. Hrcsina has done it all from rubber bowling balls to reactive resin.

[htc6600]

I've always liked Larry Laub, who, to me anyway, is the ultimate stroker. Anyone else see his resemblance to Gordon Lightfoot?

[20alphabet]

Nope... on all counts.

[dunnzo228]

But you're arguing two different things. Scores were lower in the 30s through 70s. Now they're higher. That doesn't mean the bowlers were better in the 30s through 70s, it means it was more difficult to score high, which is a different discussion. A guy with a 200 average is the best if everyone else averages 199. A guy with a 250 average is the best if everyone else averages 249. The "best" bowlers are the ones who score the highest, and that doesn't matter what the conditions or equipment are.

[20alphabet]

How can we determine who was best? It's not that difficult, really. Look back to the 30's through the 70's; during this period a 300 game or 800 series was rare, whereas now these scores are commonplace even in handicap leagues. Have bowlers improved that much? In 1971 Barry Asher set a PBA record high average of 247 for 41 games with a rubber ball against pins that weren't double-voided. That record stood for 12 years until urethane and high-density cores were approved. Coincidence?

[dunnzo228]

@20alphabet Bowling has always been about change, whether it was from lacquer to oil, wood lanes to synthetics, plastic to urethane to resin, or any number of things. How can we determine who was the best? I think it's an open question, but I think Hricsina's accomplishments in the 90s on the senior tour speak for themselves and he has an argument that he was as good as any during that time.

[dunnzo228]

@20alphabet Well I think I kinda did reference your previous points. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that it's the new equipment, not the talent, of guys like Hricsina that made them bowl well. Isn't the same equipment available to Asher and Durbin? And isn't part of being a good bowler adapting to the times? I hear where you're coming from, but I think Lance Armstrong is a good cyclist no matter what he's riding. The same is true for bowling to a lesser degree.