Powder used on hands in bowling[edit]

Why is there no mention in the equipment section about the use of talcum or powder on hands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.167.250 (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of problems with this page[edit]

Moved to top for importance 11/8/07 Tigreye007 14:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is a "B"-rated article, since there are no citations, and there seems to be a lot of gaps or misinformation.

If you agree with any items from the list below, feel free to make the changes to the article as you see fit and cross them off. I don't want to make some of these changes without someone seconding them.

Problems I've encountered:

Tigreye007 20:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


oops! --GranTurismo2 00:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I heard that the reason there is ten pins is because nine pin bowling was outlawed in many colonies due to gambling and such. well, this displeased most practitioners of the sport, but a large loophole was found: throw in another pin and it is no longer nine pins, but ten pins, making it therefore legal.

History Question*** What are the ref. to the statement that bowling originated in Finland and Yemen? Thank you. Mazighe 09:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.95.215 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throwing_sports I find a nice quote "Bowling games have similarly ancient roots, with games based on throwing stone balls in Ancient Egypt dating back to 5000 BCE, and a form of bocce being documented in Ancient Rome." complete with a ref to Introductory Manual. World Bowls. Retrieved on 2015-03-16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.95.215 (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ten-pin bowling technology subsection[edit]

The very long essay on the evolution of bowling technology seems to me more appropriately found either at Ten-pin bowling or on a page of its own; thoughts?

Zack 00:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it seems to unbalance the rest of the article. It should still be mentioned in this article though. Jono 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well...The article is long, and discusses issues that would generally be outside the confines of a "general" article about bowling. Additionally, the article contains many false or misleading statements. When I have more time, I will attempt to edit it. One minor problem: the U.S. Open, PBA World Championship, and PBA Tournament of Champions do not use "sport bowling" lane conditions. --MMan710 17:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


For the hell of it, I looked up "sport" after reading "There is disagreement over whether bowling should be regarded as a sport." Sure enough, bowling is easily classifiable as a sport (alongside darts, perhaps) according to that page. This is a good example of disagreement between wikipedia pages.

--DEL

I really enjoy bowling but yet it gets me mad as hec when i miss all the pins. Well who cares it just a sport right? Ciara from Califonia.72.132.129.101 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Ciara==Is bowling a sport?== I never knew that there was any debate about whether or not bowling was a sport before reading this article. Facts&moreFacts 22:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--MMan710 19:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that until very recently, the typical format of a PBA Tour tournament consisted of:

This is forty-two games in three days, not including the TV show. For anyone to not consider this to be a significant physical and mental challenge, well they are simply ignorant. Surely, at the top level, bowling is a great sport! Irish Pat 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think bowling is to sport as video games is to art, that is to say, the answer will vary by generation and by those who play and those who don't, and those who dedicate themselves to it. maybe the last sentence needs to reflect this? btw, videogames are totally art, even something as simple as frogger is art. like warhold and his blurred line between comercial and consumer and high art, etc. but that's me.

By what definition of sport is bowling not a sport? I don't think this section needs to be there. This is what the sports article says about sports:
A sport consists of a physical and mentally competitive activity carried out with a recreational purpose for competition, for self-enjoyment, to attain excellence, for the development of a skill, or some combination of these. A sport has physical activity, side by side competition, self-motivation and a scoring system.
Who has argued it is not a sport? Is there a citation to a reputable source claiming it is not a sport? Unless cogent arguements are given to the contrary I will remove this section tommorow. HighInBC 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there bowling shoes?[edit]

As the heading indicates, someone explain this.


The reason there are bowling shoes is because proper delivery of a bowling ball requires an approach to the lane (usually 4 or 5 steps), which requires sliding at the end (for a right hander, you slide on your left foot). If a skilled bowler were to take a normal approach wearing a normal shoe or sneaker, they would not slide, and their forward momentum would cause them to fall (and hurt themselves).

The reason why bowling proprietors require normal people to wear bowling shoes is because even if you are delivering the ball by walking slowly up to the lane, the forward movement of throwing the ball will make you slide. If you wear regular shoes, you may stick and fall.

Additionally, since regular shoes can scuff the lanes or deposit dirt on the lanes, it can cause other bowlers to slide improperly and hurt themselves.

Bowling shoes are made with special soles that enable you to slide. While shoes you rent have sliding soles on each foot, shoes bought for the personal use of serious bowlers have different soles (the major brands of bowling shoes include Dexter and Linds). For a right hander, the left foot sole is made to encourage sliding, whereas the right foot is made of materials intended to allow your foot to grip the floor better for greater traction. I hope this answers your question. --MMan710 17:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be mentioned in the article. I think that bowling ball technology itself is sufficiently complex that it needs its own article. There is a lot more stuff (bowling ball bags, shoes, resin, wrist stabilizers, etc.) that can be listed under this article's 'technology' heading. - IstvanWolf 22:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The bowling ball technology section also has several problems and inaccuracies, with some poorly written sections (like the sentence you removed). When I have more time I plan to edit it and remove them. --MMan710 19:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm left-handed and I have normal dexter bowling shoes, both have sliding soles. Hm, I think they are making i for both right and left handed bowlers. -Frankyboy5

It seems like somebody has deleted the part about the bowling shoes off. If the section about bowling shoes has been taken off, why does "bowling shoes" still redirect here? I am going to get rid of the redirect. If somebody specifically searches "bowling shoes" they aren't going to be looking for terminology about bowling or the history.PhorkPhace 23:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Sections/Sentences[edit]

I am not an expert at this wiki thing, but I noticed that the pins are labeled as penis's in the first paragraph of the wiki page. I figured Id let people know it was there, although I am reluctant to change it because I can not be 100 percent sure its not called that somewhere else.

I removed the following, as the latter part is un-encyclopedic and the whole thing is pretty much self-evident (in what real-life example do people with money *not* buy the most advanced gadgets for use in whatever pursuits they are engaged?): "Many advanced bowlers frequently buy new, improved bowling balls to try to obtain an advantage over their opponents, and all have access, at least as far as their bank accounts can go." - IstvanWolf 22:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a paragraph, recently added, from the very problematic "Ball Technology" section. The section as a whole is poorly written, with content of questionable substantive content. The information about 15 to 16 pound balls is VERY questionable. While many professionals have gone to 15 pound equipment, it is because newer ball technology is more powerful, thus one sacrifices less power by switching to the lower ball weight. While this information would be useful if added, the current section was so problematic, it is better deleted than there. --MMan710 05:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten-pin bowling peer review[edit]

The article Ten-pin bowling is currently undergoing a peer review to bring it up to featured article status. As others who are interested in bowling, I invite you to leave your comments--Danaman5 04:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reactive resins[edit]

I read somewhere about how some compound called "reactive resins" has really changed the game recently...but no mention of it here?--Hooperbloob 07:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour Butts?[edit]

I don't know who invented bowling, but I doubt it was him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.103.111 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I doubt it too. Thanks for that. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even I, a rather gullible person, have my doubts about this Mearnhardtfan 05:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"2 handed technique": Information removed from article.[edit]

Many bowlers in this new era have begun to adopt the 2 handed technique in order to maximize pin action. Pro bowlers Jeff Leiber and John Hopkins have revolutionized this new style sighting a noticable increase in ball speed and acuracy. PBA rules state as long as 2 fingers are in the holes, a second hand is allowed. Traditional one handed style is still used by most of the PBA field.

I removed this information from the article. At the very least, it did not belong where it was. It also lacked citation and struck me as irrelevant. But perhaps this information is appropriate for this article, which is why I've moved it here. If the original contributor (User:Kwd357) wishes to replace it, I ask that it at least be placed somewhere more appropriate than in the lead-in paragraph. TaintedMustard 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology for sets of consecutive strikes?[edit]

This section of the article contains terminology which I, a long time league bowler, have never heard. Perhaps the terminology is different in certain parts of the world, but here in Connecticut, I've always heard the terms like this: strike, double, turkey, 4-bagger, 5-bagger, 6-bagger, 7-bagger, 8-bagger, 9-bagger, 10-bagger, 11-bagger, perfect game.

I'm not asking for the article to be changed, not if the terms in the article are those generally used in most areas. But I have never heard these terms before. I'm curious to see if anyone else has heard the terms I've listed, and what part of the world the terms in the article are used in. Any thoughts? Regards!

Would the scoring system animations calling the strikes beyond turkeys as "*-baggers'" be reliable enough? ViperSnake151  Talk  21:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scoring systems around here are not all alike on calling strike strings anything, either. Even among the same version of the same manufacturer's system. The simple fact is that "-Baggers" and "-Pack" and such are interchangable on an international level.

Asked USBC (US governing body, and basically international governing body of ten pin) and they informed me there's no formal nick-name for any string of strikes, other than "-in a row". Complicating matters is the PBA, who's announcers called things somewhat randomly for a couple of years when they were trying to drum up interest on ESPN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.149.215 (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Shoes[edit]

Bowling Shoes redirects here, but there's not a mention of them or shoes in general on here. What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.249.8 (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes and Spares?[edit]

Hi! I came to the page to look up the terms "Strike" and "Spare" but found that no definition is given. Not everyone is familiar with bowling (such as me). I was unable to determine what a strike and spare is after having read this article. From a clueless point of view, I assume that a strike means that all pins are hit and a spare that no pin is hit - but this is just a guess. Assuming I guessed right, I still do not understand what the difference between a spare and a gutter ball is. Again I guess the gutter is the indentation to the left and right. Does that mean that every gutter ball is a spare? Is it called a strike when using the first ball or just when clearing all pins (with both throws and/or the last one?) etc... I think the article needs to introduce and explain these and possibly further terms. Thank you! PhalphalakTalk 20:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Lol! A strike is when all the pins are hit first time with first ball .,, you are right. A spare means all pins are hit,,, but takes two turns to do it(clearing all pins). A gutter ball is when the ball is knocked into a 'gutter' and no pins are hit. i guess it seems obvious to people familar with bowling (like me),It explains these terms in the article 'ten pin bowling' --78.149.214.70 (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing key info[edit]

no info on how to keep score. really bad omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.29.216.190 (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC) If you don't get a 300, it's not a perfect game! A strike a way is called a 279. But 5 strikes in a row is a wopper and then a six is a six pack. Also Andy's favorite sport! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.80.127 (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a strike away can be just about any high 200's score - all depends on where the strike was missed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.149.215 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth er syg til bowling!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.18.100 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Sport' or 'Game'?[edit]

This page seems to attract a lot of (dueling banjo) editing of whether it's a 'sport' or 'game'?

Can we get a consensus so that it's settled? David Unit (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sport, assuming you want some sort of vote. I say sport because it has the traditional defining feature that distinguishes a sport from a game. Namely, it requires physical skill. Chess, for example, is not a sport because even a quadriplegic can be Grandmaster. Smw543 (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sport, I also say sport. Bowling well consistantly does take an amount of physical ability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bktrey (talk • contribs) 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sport - for the above reasons -- physical coordination, effort, and skill are necessary.-Sarfa (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling is most certainly a sport!!! Yes, it takes a lot of coordination, effort and skill without a doubt as the above post says. However, it takes a lot more then that to actually become good at it. The amount of time and money that can go into this sport is endless. Decent, reactive bowling balls that are worth buying can cost anywhere from $100.00- $300.00!! Speaking from experience, it becomes very expensive. That also doesn't include paying for lane time to go and practice. Most professional bowlers bowl anywhere from 8-16 or more games in a day, and that is just during competition, not even including practice! In addition to this, an understanding of geometry, oil patterns on the lane, and mental toughness is also necessary. The beauty of bowling however, is that anyone can do it, and at any skill level. This is probably where the question of it being a sport comes from. Most people do not view it as such because they do not take the time, money and effort to become competitive at it. It is just a fun thing to do on a rainy day. Go watch the professional tour for a week, and then say it's not a sport!! --jenviens

Bowling is either a sport or a game. Depends on the bowler.

Bowling is a popular recreational activity that involves rolling a ball towards a set of pins with the intention of knocking them down. It is played in dedicated bowling alleys, and it can be enjoyed by people of all ages and skill levels.
While some may debate whether bowling is a sport or a game, it combines elements of physical skill, strategy, and competition. The physical aspect comes into play through the coordinated movements required to deliver the ball with accuracy and effectiveness. Strength, balance, and coordination are all important factors in achieving consistent results.
Bowling also requires mental focus and strategy. Bowlers must consider factors such as lane conditions, oil patterns, and pin placements to adjust their approach and increase their chances of success. This adds an additional layer of complexity to the game, making it more than just a simple recreational activity.
Competitive bowling exists at various levels, ranging from local leagues to international tournaments. Professional bowlers spend countless hours honing their skills, studying the game, and participating in competitions. The sport requires dedication, practice, and a deep understanding of the mechanics of the game to excel at higher levels.
One of the great aspects of bowling is its accessibility. Anyone can participate and enjoy the game regardless of age or physical ability. It can be a social activity, bringing people together for friendly competition or as part of organized leagues or tournaments.
Overall, whether you classify it as a sport or a game, bowling offers a unique blend of physical skill, strategy, and camaraderie. It continues to be a popular pastime worldwide, providing entertainment and enjoyment for millions of people.
Ultimately, the classification of bowling as a sport or game may vary depending on individual perspectives and definitions. It is worth considering the physical abilities, strategy, competition, and dedication required in bowling classification when determining its classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.244.24 (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I think Bowling terms should either be merged with Bowling or moved to List of Bowling terms. Please let me know what you guys think. OverSeer (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something should be done with the Bowling terms article. If we do merge, I think it should be merged to the section on terms in ten-pin bowling rather than to this article. Another option would be to move the terms from the ten-pin article into the bowling terms article.Twinkie eater91 (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be merged. Cleanup and expanding it would also be in order. I'd be interested in seeing a reference to "dirty game" being originated with an Illinois high school student, Dutch game and sandwich game seem to refer to the same thing, etc. Right now there just isn't much there to justify it's own article.Wolfhound668 (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"===Bowling Allies of the late 1950’s and early 1960’s," Allies should be Alleys. User: TygrHawk (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TygrHawk (talk • contribs) [reply]

I agree with Twinkie eater on moving "Bowling" to "Ten-pin Bowling". I put up a merge sign because it duplicates an existing topic, even though it's been around for a while. Minimac94 (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose to Merging Bowling into ten-pin bowling, for various reason including my big reason not to merge is the focus of the 2 articles. The Article about Bowling Covers all types of Bowling not just 10 Pin, Doing so would create a Systemic bias of the topic on hand. Also the Current size of the Ten-pin Bowling article is at over 80 KB doing such a merge will make the article easily over 90 KB and a far worse in violation of WP:SIZE in fact the Ten-pin Bowling article should probably be split off and the merge of Bowling terms should probably be undone or resplit. Gotta remember Ten-pin Bowling is not the only type of Bowling around and therefore for that big reason I am against this merge proposal. Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 05:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, largely for the same reasons stated by Sawblade5. Additionally, while I can appreciate the idea behind the merge, combining 10-pin with the broader "bowling" would result in readability and structural issues. Jeff Bedford (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I'm just a random IP, but even I can see merging with a 'ten-pin bowling' would be stupid; for the same reason 'Football' should not be merged with 'Association Football' (despite it being by far the most popular version of 'football'). In fact the problem with the article is actually that the article is far too biased towards American tenpin bowling; effectively ignoring the centuries of history of bowling sports and then concentrating on the only decades old and more localised 10-pin version. This article should start with the old European games like Bocce and Petanque and move towards the more recent stuff - by rights ten pin should be a small section at the bottom, not dominating the entire article. The comments below titled "Worldwide" and "Why is this almost completely unrelated from the "Bowls" article?" are spot on about it.86.182.8.187 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grease 2 reference?[edit]

There's nothing on how the movie, Grease 2, helped bring the sport out of its 1970's-80's decline. Maybe a brief reference in the history section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.197.203 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds interesting. I don't know if it's true but I think it's worthy of being included if a reliable source can be found.--Victoria h (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bowling is a sport

WHY DO THEY HAVE IT ON TSN? ROFL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.129.49 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide[edit]

Many parts of the word "bowling" means lawn bowling. I think this usage should reflect that rather than assume it means ten-pin or five-pin. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this almost completely unrelated from the "Bowls" article?[edit]

I only found the relation via my own diligence. kind of embarrasing. Don't defend yourselves, just correct it. 71.131.186.156 (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ball Release and Delivery Styles[edit]

Wanted to add a section on the main page about different types of ball releases and delivery styles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvooo91 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1.1 Bowling alleys development[edit]

This information seems oddly specific for such a general article. Also, the lead in about the development of bowling alleys being important in the 1960s seems like a rather flimsy excuse for the next four paragraphs about Louis Lesser. This seems like a thinly veiled case of inserting a biography or perhaps an autobiography into a page where it clearly doesn't belong. Is it hero worship or self promotion? Since it was created by a mere IP address, it's hard to tell.

Also, it is seriously inconsistent, it says, in reference to bowling alleys " some of which cost tens of millions of dollars (in 1960s dollars)" yet the most expensive one mentioned cost only two million in 1960s dollars! Did the writer actually mean "in 2011 dollars" or "when adjusted for inflation"?

Someone who actually cares about the integrity of this article should evaluate where this section belongs in it at all! 3Dham 04:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit further, most people have never heard of Louis Lesser and certainly wouldn't associate him with bowling. Why should he even be mentioned in this article, let along have four paragraphs dedicated to him? There is no mention about famous bowlers such as Earl Anthony or Mark Roth or other people who are associated with bowling, so why bring up such an obscure figure who isn't even associated with the subject? John Elson★3Dham★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 06:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that whoever is responsible for this section either doesn't care to defend it, or can't think of a good defense for inserting such irrelevant material into this article. So, unless they can give a convincing argument for why that section is there it will soon be gone. John Elson★3Dham★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 06:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Headings Structure[edit]

I would propose amending the heading structure of this article to make clearer the sections relating to bowling in general to the specific items about "pin bowling" Current sections 4-5; 7-8; and 10 relate to variations of pin bowling, and could be made sub sections of heading "Types of Pin Bowling " or similar. Sections 6 and 9 could be combined to identify the variations of bowling indoor/outdoor, pin v "lawn" bowls and other variations. the other sections remain valid and could be added to to include references to all bowling variations with possible sub headings for information related to the main variation groups, including See also; In popular culture; health benefits; bowling accessibility. Re-structure avoids any loss of information already placed here but hopefully provide clarity for all - any thoughts. MasterTTFV (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of headings updated MasterTTFV (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther's role in bowling[edit]

The citations for Martin Luther's purported role in the development of bowling do not appear to be at all authoritative. If you read the first citation, it merely references a brochure which contained a quote attributed to Luther. If you read the second source, it extensively quotes Lutheran Witness Magazine, but does not cite a date or issue number; I have searched the magazine's electronic archives, and have been unable to find anything containing those quotes. Overall, both "sources" feel very much like the sort of thing you would get in a bad email forward. I would suggest removing all references to Martin Luther unless verifiable sources can be found. Dowobeha (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture[edit]

Seriously, full episode synopses for every TV appearance of bowling? In the main article? Gutenberg weeps Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther (again)[edit]

Already questioned in Aug 2016 (above);

About 1520 Protestant Reformation founder Martin Luther set the number of pins (which varied from 3 to 17) at nine, and built a bowling lane next to his home for his children, sometimes rolling a ball himself.[10][14]

Two references cited (as though they both corroborate the whole sentence);

[10] A biographer of the 16th-century cleric Martin Luther has written that Luther built a bowling lane for his children which he occasionally visited, sometimes throwing the first ball.
["bowling - game". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 24 January 2016.]
[14] Read this and this and this.  According to some of those articles, Luther standardized the rules...  [A friend] debunked the “Wise Turk” quote, and he was suspicious of this one. 
["Luther and bowling?". Cranach. Retrieved 24 January 2016.]


(So) only one reference for the “nine” bit, and the source regards the claim as (very) unlikely. MBG02 (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


PS There are (thousands) of Google finds citing the “factoid” that Luther invented the rules. I’m hoping the statement stays in the article and is refuted: not removed due to being unsourced. Or at least, carried across to List of common misconceptions. MBG02 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably tens of thousands of Google hits stating that the Earth is flat. The number of places something is claimed has no weight. We need reliable source.
That Luther had a lane built next to his house is well cited. I've broken apart the run on sentence and relocated that source.
The nine pins claim cites a blog, which is not acceptable. The blog cites three sources. The first does not give the number of pins claim. The second is another blog, which cites a dead ling at yet another blog. The third source is another blog, citing a work I cannot locate.
I am removing the original blog source and marking it "cite needed" for now. If anyone can find and verify the source cited in the third blog cited by the first blog, we might have something. Otherwise, we'll eventually lose this bit of trivia.
(Side note: To include something in List of common misconceptions we would need a reliable source confirming that it is both a misconception and "common".) - SummerPhDv2.0 13:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major renovation of article (sourcing, deletions, possible sourced additions)[edit]

This article suffers from inadequate sourcing, possibly warranting substantial deletions. There is also a heavy dose of anecdotal text requiring copy editing. Though I'm working on articles related to ten-pin bowling in particular, I don't plan on working on the present Bowling article in the foreseeable future. However, other editors may want to include some of the following content (which has long been improperly included in the Ten-pin bowling article) that I've placed in collapsible text here:

Click at right to show proposed text

In 1934, British anthropologist Sir Flinders Petrie, along with a team of archaeologists, discovered various primitive bowling balls, bowling pins and other materials in the grave of a protodynastic Egyptian boy dating to 3200 BCE, very shortly before the reign of Narmer, one of the very first Egyptian pharaohs. Their discovery represents the earliest known historical trace of bowling.[1][2] Others claim that bowling originated in Germany around 300 CE,[1][2] as part of a religious ritual in which people would roll stones at clubs (or "kegels") to absolve themselves of sins.[3]

A site in Southampton, England claims to be the oldest lawn bowling site still in operation, with records showing the game has been played on the green there since 1299.[4] The first written reference to bowling dates to 1366, when King Edward III of England banned his troops from playing it so that they could focus more on their archery practice.[5] It is believed that King Henry VIII bowled using cannonballs. Henry VIII also famously banned bowling for all but the upper classes, because so many working men and soldiers were neglecting their trades.[4]

In Germany the game of Kegel (Kegelspiel) expanded. The Kegel game grew in Germany and around other parts of Europe with Keglers rolling balls at nine pins, or skittles, in a diamond formation (1–2–3–2–1).[6][7] To this day, bowlers in the United States and United Kingdom are also referred to as "keglers".

Ninepin bowling was introduced to the United States from Europe during the colonial era, similar to the game of skittles.[8] It became very popular and was called "Bowl on the Green". The Dutch, English, and Germans all brought their own versions of the game to the New World, where it enjoyed continued popularity, although not without some controversy.

References

  1. ^ a b ububu.com Archived December 8, 2006, at archive.today
  2. ^ a b bowlingmuseum.com Archived October 24, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  3. ^ "The Jordan of ... Bowling". Article in ESPN the Magazine on Mаrch 26, 2008. [1]
  4. ^ a b Hunsinger, Earl. "Bowling – The Sport of Kings and Working Men". Article at www.buzzle.com
  5. ^ Hall, Loretta. "Bowling Ball – Background, History, Structural Evolution". www.madehow.com. Retrieved April 22, 2006.
  6. ^ TBPA. "A History of Bowling in the United Kingdom". www.gotenpin.co.uk. Retrieved April 17, 2006.
  7. ^ TenpinBowling.org Staff (2006). "TenpinBowling.org: All about bowling". TenpinBowling.org. Archived from the original on April 15, 2006. Retrieved March 31, 2006. ((cite web)): Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Masters, James (2005). "Skittles, Nine Pins – Online Guide". Tradgames.org.uk. Archived from the original on June 2, 2009. Retrieved March 31, 2006. ((cite web)): Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

(^ end of expandable text ^) —RCraig09 (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling shoe listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bowling shoe. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "ancient egypt" bowling...[edit]

The whole Ancient history section needs to be removed, it is a fake with no serious reference. When we take a look at the research papers we don't find anything related to bowling in ancient times. For example see this or this or this or this. Reuns (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That bowling is not mentioned in a given source, is completely different from a source that affirmatively states that bowling did not exist. The latter type of source would be needed to justify deletion. Several existing sources are reliable, even if some others may be of questionable reliability under Wikipedia standards. See also my edit comment of a few minutes ago. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you remove the "unreliable sources" tag when it is obviously needed @RCraig09: ? All the sources are fakes or unreliable and for such a subject only research papers / history books are considered reliable sources. Do you really want to keep that fake on wikipedia ? There are only a few balls found in Egypt and they weren't thrown on a bunch of pins. Several people mention that "maybe the jeu de quilles could go back to ancient egyptians" but they never claim to have reliable sources. Your britannica link is written by a "bowling historian" (the same guy as the one of your main references !) who isn't capable to give any reference and is clearly reusing the same fakes are you do. Why don't you find that "-3200 ancient egyptian child grave with bowling stones" ? See also that book on ancient egyptian games and sports. Reuns (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are reliable sources that do not mention somethings covered here. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (That no biography that I am aware of mentions Freud's toes is hardly compelling evidence he didn't have toes.)
Saying flatly that "All the sources are fakes or unreliable" would depend on us accepting you as the ultimate authority on the history of bowling.
Insisting that "only research papers / history books are considered reliable sources" seems to be well beyond what WP:IRS has to say on the subject.
Given that another editor disagrees with your broad statements, I would strongly suggest that you partialize and take it one piece at a time. Two possible approaches come to mind.
You might pick what you feel is one of the weakest sources and discuss here how you feel it fails to meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS. The two of you can then work back and forth removing any weak sources you both agree are insufficient, bringing in new sources to shore up material, rewording portions you feel are over-reaching, etc.
You might pick one of the stronger sources (Sports Illustrated and UPI leap out at me) and, again, discuss how you feel they do not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with SummerPhD. In addition to the Sports Illustrated and UPI sources, consider Bruce Pluckhahn as a source: he was the curator of the National Bowling Museum, and was chosen by Britannica to create the bowling article on that encyclopedia, both of which are indications of the reliability of what is attributed to him. Definitely, the broad-brush attack on all sources in the section (!), and the groundless conspiracy-theory accusation that they are all "fake", are dead wrong. At most, a "((Better source))" template on specific sources might be appropriate: then put in the time doing research on what is stated in reliable sources. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order: I haven't reviewed any of the sources and have no opinion on whether or not the sources support the content, just that the broad brush strokes aren't productive. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RCraig09: Thanks to Mr rnddude you have the original source from Petrie 1895 campaign (p107 & p.47 & there), I think it is not obvious it is table skittle and that you should make it clear it is only the interpretation made by Petrie 120 years ago (one of his main point is the weights of the balls, the pins and the gate). Reuns (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I will study these links further. There is already an article, Skittles (sport). —RCraig09 (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Nine pin tap" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nine pin tap. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Editing Process[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BLsxu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by BLsxu (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring; missing information[edit]

Hello, I have noticed that the scoring information is good for very basic knowledge, but is lacking a bit on how the scoring adds up throughout the game. I would not take away any information from what is already up, and the information I would add is just a little more in depth on spares and strikes. The specific information I would add is how strikes are worth 10 points plus the points of the next two shots. Also a spare is 10 points plus the next ball rolled. This a school project so if there is any help editing this I am more than open to suggestions, comments, or any help in general. Moose237 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moose237: This article is about bowling in general, but you are describing some of the details of ten-pin bowling in particular (other types of bowling are different in some respects). In "high level" articles such as this, we usually make a summary and provide a link—like the existing "Further information: Ten-pin bowling#Pins and scoring"—to more specific articles. If anything, the /* Scoring */ section here should be trimmed a bit rather than expanded. I think I've saved you a bit of work! :-) Good luck in your studies. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories