Bowlers Journal International - February 2008 - (Page 10) BOWLITICALLYINCORRECT BY JIM DRESSEL IS LONGEVITY THE MANTLE OF GREATNESS? Walter Ray Williams Jr. is really, really, really good. But is he great? Time should determine the answer. WHEN IT COMES TO ANSWERING THE QUESTION WE posed on last month's cover — "Is Walter Ray Williams Jr. the world's greatest Ever?" — we want to keep our distance from ESPN bowling analyst Randy Pedersen, whose historical perspective of the game is akin to that of Shamu the Killer Whale at Sea World. Instead, we turned to Johnny Petraglia to get some more studied input. "I have an old bowling book that says that Jimmy Smith averaged 202 from 1900 to 1920, while any other [ABC Hall of Famer] averaged no higher than 191," says Petraglia. "When you consider what the lane conditions must have been like, with no arrows on the lane nor dots on the approach, and that he had to use a conventional 2-finger ball — a wooden one, at that, for the first seven years — to average 202 for 20 years with those obstacles seems almost impossible. Try and imagine Walter Ray Williams being 11 pins better than Earl Anthony or Pete Weber." No wonder Petraglia calls Smith the Babe Ruth of bowling. All of which suggests the obvious: It is next to impossible to compare the relative talents of any bowler to other than those of his own era. Simply put, it is more correct to say that Walter Ray Williams might be the best of the modern era — and even that might be arguable — than he is the best ever. WRW has to be very much aware of this. It's one reason he has fielded questions about the subject so gingerly. He has even acknowledged in that same BJI cover story referred to earlier that Earl Anthony might be the best. The great Carmen Salvino acknowledges as much when he says, "Knowing [Dick] Weber, Anthony and [Don] Carter, I feel Walter Ray Williams might be two or three years away from being [generally acknowledged] as the greatest ever." Salvino feels WRW will achieve that status, and to support that argument, offers the matter of Williams' mental toughness and his intelligence. He also stays in great condition. "As long as he stays in shape, he should get there," Salvino continues. "He’s built for greatness in bowling. He’s got all the gifts, like good eye-hand coordination and the touch you need in our sport, which he's developed by playing horseshoes. The reason I respect him is that he has honored these gifts." Still and all, it’s very difficult to define greatness. Is it someone who dominates for 10 years, or is it someone who makes all the adjustments for decades like Dick Weber, who won 10 bowlers journal international FEBRUARY 2008 championships in six different decades? The thought here is that you can only define greatness by examining the best in each 10-year period over the decades. Start with Smith, who was fairly dominant in the first two decades at the start of the last millennium. There were a lot fewer events by which to judge the talent in the 1900-10 era, where Smith probably was the primary stand-out. In the 'teens, Smith began to have company at the top of the charts. Our esteemed historian J.R. Schmidt, a.k.a. "Dr. Jake," examined the issue, and selected his own "retro" Bowlers of the Year of that era, a list that included Jimmy Blouin, Mort Lindsey and Smith, by this time the self-declared "world's match game champion." Blouin came along to challenge that status in the 1922 World's Classic, and was joined by such other stellar talents as Charley Daw, Adolph "Swede" Carlson and Frank Kartheiser, among others again, including Smith. The '30s found the emergence of Hank Marino, adjudged the "Bowler of the First Half-Century" by the bowling scribes. Dr. Jake I.D.'d the other stars of the era, which included Joe Falcaro, Ned Day, Joe Norris, Paul Krumske and Gil Zunker. Marino was probably the closest to rating as another "Babe Ruth of Bowling," but he wasn't quite as dominant as Smith was in the first two decades of the millennium. Then came the '40s, and a quick glance at some of BJI's All-American Teams since then should provide readers with a fairly thorough birds-eye view of some of the elite talent in each of the decades since. The names of both Don Carter and Dick Weber were featured quite prominently in those lists until, finally, BJI began naming its own Bowlers of the Decade, starting with our selection of Earl Anthony as the Bowler of the '70s. He was followed by Marshall Holman, who emerged as the best of the '80s, and by Walter Ray Williams Jr. as the top gun of the '90s. So what happened to Mark Roth, you might ask? He may have helped revolutionize the game itself, but as a Bowler of the Decade, he was one of those 'tweeners who might've rated a selection had the honor been based on the mid-'70s to mid-'80s time period. It proves that even the best of a given decade might slip through the cracks if a strict chronological delineation of the decades were de rigeuer, as they are. So, back to WRW, and the big question: Is he the best ever? Well, he was adjudged the best of the '90s so what about the current decade? He's the career leader in PBA titles, the generally-accepted yardstick to determine greatness today. His most recent surge gives him 14 wins for the current decade, more than 70% into the 10-year period. Tommy Jones with 11 and Norm Duke with 10 are giving him a battle. The decade isn't over yet, but WRW is the clear leader. "He’s passed Carter and Anthony because he’s already done it for more than a decade," says Salvino. "Now, he’s going after Weber. WRW is working on the longevity part of his record, which is why I say he has to go another decade or so to top Weber. But, eventually, he should be able to do that." At the risk of agreeing with Salvino, my sentiments exactly.
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.