Bowlers Journal International - January 2008 - (Page 28) UPCLOSE one time, I had a losing record on TV; now I have a good winning record. Right, but all I'm saying is that the record kind of hits you upside the head with five wins in the 2-year '86-87 span, but only one the next five years. I only had one win, but I was on TV 30some times. I made TV about 10 times in 1988, and led four tournaments. Things just didn’t work out for me. I guess that's proof of the old saw that they don’t remember who finished in second place. That’s the truth. I believe 1988 was one of my better years, but because I never won a title, it never got much [notoriety]. Brian Voss was Player of the Year, he got the points… I just didn’t win on TV, which is what you need to do. Yet you were right in there in terms of money, but then even that tapered off. So what happened? My lean years were probably '89 and '90; I bowled pretty decent in '91 and '92. I won in Japan in 1991, and I think I made seven TV finals. Everybody attributes it to reactive resin, which obviously didn’t hurt my game. I attribute it more to the oiling patterns and the reactive resin; then it just sort of clicked for me and I started winning on TV. I think I made 15 TV finals, and had seven wins. That’s pretty remarkable. Tremendous. I remember an interview in 1993 in which we talked about your mindset in horseshoes as opposed to bowling, and how they were different in that you basically took it for granted that, in horseshoes, you felt you would win or come close, but not in bowling. Actually, my horseshoes game has deteriorated while my bowling game has gone way up. I think part of it is my attitude in bowling — I realize there is so much good competition that, even though I want to win every week, I realize it won’t happen, even at the top of my game. But I do the best I can, and figure it will happen. I can’t take that approach in horseshoes, and it probably hurt me. In bowling, it’s really been good to have that attitude. And it’s not like I’m happy when I don’t win because, trust me, I’m not. Who would've guessed that? 28 bowlers journal international I definitely have a better overall attitude, which is to keep grinding away, and a title will come. I got that because of what happened to me in that fourto five-year stretch, because I was bowling pretty decently, but things just weren’t clicking for me. So I said, just keep bowling well, and one of these days, something is going to happen. Finally, it did. Did it ever. [Laughter]. I think the record speaks for itself. Everybody has their own view, but I think anybody who has been able to win tournaments and compete for Player of the Year has been a great player. Pete Weber, for some reason, has never gotten that honor, but he is a great player. That’s just one of those strange oddities. I’ve seen it in horseshoes; they have the one World Championship each year, and a lot of top players have never won. But it's pretty amazing when it happens to somebody like Pete Weber, who has been such a dominant player in the last 20 years. It is. For example, he is one of only three people who have won the U.S. Open four times, arguably the toughest event to win — you’ve won it twice yourself — yet he’s never been P.o.Y. Part of it is that he’s never had that one year that stood out. I guess the most he’s ever won in one year is three titles; back when there were 30 or so tournaments, you needed more. Now, when you win two or three titles, you are definitely in the mix. Last year, I thought it was a coin flip. I was really surprised Wes Malott wasn’t more of a factor, but everybody looks at different things. Obviously, the 'majors' are a big influence; other than the majors, Doug [Kent] didn’t really have a good year. That’s what our point system showed. Anyway, I’ve got a question, and I don’t expect you to answer it, because you don’t want to turn things around for Pete, but do you have a good idea as to why he can’t beat you? [Laughter.] I think I’ve gotten into his head a little. Every time I bowl him, I get a few breaks, and you can see his demeanor. It’s not like he’s bowling bad. He’s not getting the breaks he could be getting, but his demeanor could be better. It’s hard to say; for whatever reason, things have been going good for me. He’s bowled some good games, but things haven’t been going his way, and that’s too bad. I’ve had plenty of times when things didn’t go my way. It’s unbelievable that I’ve had a career like that against Pete, especially with the match-play system, where it means so much more. In the old days, when we had round robin, we probably bowled each other like 100 times, and I’d be willing to bet that we were 50-50 on wins. But this other system, where it’s a little more life and death, things just seem to go my way. You probably know my viewpoint on the formats… It's well-documented that you don't like the new one. You don’t always get the best players in the finals. Perfect example: Tommy Jones bowled great in qualifying, then Wes Malott just ran him over in their match. It’s not like Tommy bowled badly, just that Wes bowled superb. It’s unfortunate that’s what we have to contend with, but you've gotta deal with what is. I know one of these days, Pete is going to beat me in a match. Hopefully, it’s on the Senior Tour. So you haven't changed your mind about the format? No. I realize it might be better for me, but I still don’t like it. I would much rather have the round robin with cuts. I just think total pins is a much better way of determining who the best player is. There’s a new Baby Williams in the household. Has that been a new, extra driving force for you? I don’t know that it is. It’s definitely something I missed out on for a long time and didn’t realize what I had been missing. I told my wife we should have done it a long time ago. Paige wanted to postpone it until after I was done traveling on Tour, but I kept it going for a few more years… anyway, it was something we were blessed to have happen to us. Even though we are a bit older, we are definitely having a good time with it. It’s not 100% fun, but… [Laughter.] It’s not necessarily supposed to be fun. JANUARY 2008
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.