文章基本信息

标题：Reactive reaction - The Fans Speak Out - Letter to the Editor
作者：Eric S. Blum
期刊名称：Bowling Digest
印刷版ISSN：8750-3603
出版年度：2001
卷号：Dec 2001
出版社：Century Publishing Inc.

Reactive reaction - The Fans Speak Out - Letter to the Editor

Eric S. Blum

John Jowdy's August 2001 column ["Reactives: Who Have They Helped?"] implies that the 1990s success of Walter Ray Williams Jr., Norm Duke, and--to a lesser extent--Parker Bohn III is due to the advent of reactive urethane. Jowdy's premise is that in the PBA "statistics prove that the vast improvement of some players is primarily due to advanced equipment, particularly ... the advent of reactive urethane bowling balls in 1991." He then almost dismisses true talents such as Jason Couch and Chris Barnes as bowlers who are successful merely because they know how to match up equipment. This does them a great disservice and fails to take into account the hours Couch has spent improving his physical and mental game or the years that Barnes improved his craft on a variety of lane conditions against a spate of international stars.

Jowdy does the biggest disservice, however, to Duke and Williams, and in the process makes it easy to dismiss his own self as someone who has totally misread the effect of reactives.

Although Jowdy pays lip service to Duke's reputation as the "most versatile player" on the tour, he still claims the bowler's success is due to reactives. As proof, he cites Duke's record prior to 1991 and the advent of high-powered bowling balls. But this ignores the value of experience. After all, Duke was an 18-year-old kid when he joined the tour competing against the likes of Mark Roth and Earl Anthony.

Jowdy takes the same shot at Williams, all but ignoring that Walter Ray is known as "Deadeye" for his uncanny accuracy. If anything, Williams is living proof of the bowling axiom that accuracy and the ability to repeat shots are paramount.

These guys win because of talent and hard work. Are they benefiting from reactive technology? Undoubtedly. Does Jowdy unfairly cheapen their accomplishments by implying that they would not be the same without reactives? Absolutely.

Eric S. Blum
Irvine, Calif.