The Fans Speak Out

Bowling Digest, August, 2001

* No ordinary Joe

It was my privilege for the past five years to be a member of Joe Norris' companion team. I had never met anyone who really loved everyone he came in contact with before I met Joe. He was a truly spirited person.

I remember once when I had to go to Joe's apartment to finalize the next year's reservations for the ABC Tournament; what was supposed to be a 10-minute visit turned into four hours. He told me stories of the old times when bowling was front-page sports news, and he showed me his trophy room--of which any athlete would have been proud--but most of all he show me a man of kindness, compassion, and caring. I will never forget him. Bowling has lost its greatest ambassador. Joe, you will be missed but never forgotten.

Bob Rutkowski
San Diego

* Under the influence

After reading your June 2001 article, "Whatever It Takes" about the most influential bowlers in history, you were right on at least one account: Let the debate begin.

It appears the main criteria for the men are not simply their past records, but what they are doing now to promote the sport. That is a troubling combination. No one doubts the records of the men on the list, but their contributions to game need to be measured at the time they were most visible to public. That is when they had the greatest (or most influential) impact on the game.

Left off the list was Mark Roth. Besides all the money and titles he won, Mark was the poster boy for the power game that has become so popular with bowlers today--professionals and amateurs alike. His unorthodox style sent the message that you do not have to be graceful to be effective.

I found the demotion of Earl Anthony to eighth on the list to be the most troubling. On top of all of his impressive statistics, the man has been an incredible ambassador to the game. Just as Marshall Holman now does, Anthony also provided commentary on bowling telecasts after his retirement. In addition, no one ever went further to make himself available to the public than Anthony.

On a final note, isn't it interesting that with the exception of Aleta Sill, there are no full-time bowlers on the list? Do they pale in comparison to those on the list or is it their inability to make any impact on the game?

Randy Michael
San Diego

I'd like to suggest my own 10 most influential bowlers of all time, and No. 1 would be Earl Anthony. I don't care if he turned his back on bowling--he is simply the most influential bowler, period. I have seen a lot of bowlers emulate his style, and that, to me, is influential. More so, Anthony is the reason why TV ratings, according to Mark Roth, were higher in his day. How can you argue with that?

Jay D. Hicks
via e-mail

I believe that Larry Paladino, in his article about the most influential bowlers, was unfairly harsh toward Earl Anthony. Mr. Paladino seems to feel that Earl should continue to compete whether or not he is at his best. One of the things that made Earl great was his commitment to excellence, his will to win, his fierce competitive attitude, and his incredible concentration. We have all lamented former great competitors in various sports who "stayed too long." Fifteen-plus years of travel and pressure are enough. I, for one, respect this decision by Earl.

Art Zerbach
Gresham, Ore.

I read through the top 10 influential bowlers list, and one omission was glaring: the great Mark Roth. I thought Roth could easily have been ranked among your top three, and was shocked he didn't even make the list. Roth revolutionized the modern power game, and paved the way for a generation of hard-throwing bowlers. Can you honestly tell me that bowling has been more influenced by the trio of La Verne Carter, Paula Carter, and Leila Wagner than Mark Roth?

Dick Duke
via e-mail

* The name game

Regarding Clifton A. Ziems, Jr. being displeased with the naming of bowling balls after the atomic bombs ["The Fans Speak Out," April 2001], maybe he would like them better if they were named "Pearl Harbor" and December 77?"

J. E. Cox
Oklahoma City

If this is the attitude in the U.S., we have become a second-rate country. This letter is a response to Clifton A. Ziems Jr., who wrote regarding a company naming their bowling balls, "Hiroshima" and "Nagasaki," in honor of the atom bombs that were dropped on Japan, shortening World War II and saving Allied lives. I agree that the bombing was horrific, but is this person stating that the U.S.A. should have invaded Japan in "Operation Olympic"?

Edward Muich
St. Ann, Mo.

No, Mr. Ziems did not suggest that the Allied strategy in World War II was faulty. He is simply suggesting that of any of the names that could have been selected for a new bowling ball, ones that "honor" mass destruction, may not have been the most appropriate.

* New wood if they could

When was the last time you noticed new pins on the deck at your local bowling center? Machines are slower to cycle when they do not have enough pins in them. League bowlers pay the bills for AMF and Brunswick up to four or five times a week: Would it be too much to ask for new wood at the start of each season?