Hacker News Reader

Comment by perlgeek | Hacker News Reader

Why in the world would an online article not include a short gif or an embedded video showing the bowling technique? Is gq.com primarily a print medium?

View on HN

FWIW, I watched a couple of his throws on YouTube and indeed, I've never seen someone bowl like that. Neat stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfEKI5iL-Ok

I tried bowling like this when I was a teen, trying to get massive spin on the ball. I never got to a point where I could be consistent with spin and went back to using my thumb. Seeing a pro do it (and be successful) might have encouraged me to keep trying it.

Yes, GQ is a monthly magazine.

It seems you're right, but the Q is for quarterly.

Historically it was a quarterly. But they rebranded to GQ and around the same time increased print frequency.

So was it Gentleman's Quarterly?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GQ

Even if they are primarily a print magazine, they could include a lentricular print showing the technique. I am not sure if I am serious here tbh.

They could embed an animated epaper display into the magazine.

I think a flip book animation could be actually feasible and do more than three frames

That would indeed be neat, but it would significantly raise the per-unit cost of the magazine.

In skating magazines we had the same issue, so we posted rows of still frames of the action. It might not help us here, but if you want to learn to kickflip...

Even better: do it at the edge of the page, with subsequent photos on subsequent pages in the same position.

They do have a significant digital media staff; like most print publications they typically augment their print content with video content, podcasts, etc.

Primary sources are anathema to mainstream media. It's not just political articles, it's the whole damn profession. If you can watch ten seconds of him bowling you don't need to spend ten minutes on the article.

Maybe because it's not so different from the usual technique as the article wants you to believe. Unless you're a bowling expert you wouldn't even notice it.

Says someone who's clearly never bowled . . .

>Unless you're a bowling expert you wouldn't even notice it.

Having just watched a clip of it, I'm very skeptical of this remark.

I’m a good control. I watched the video linked in the comments and couldn’t tell the difference until I read the article and rewatched it again.

I clicked the video without reading anything but your comment, and, well, he's using both hands... I'm sure you missed it, but I'm not sure you're a good control.

Haha right. I guess I’m a control. I’ve never really watched bowling before though so maybe that does make me a good control.

I think your mistake is that you don't know what bowling looks like to begin with. Skip to the regular guy at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfEKI5iL-Ok&t=50s - he looks like he's melodramatically performing in _Swan Lake_ with his spare arm swinging way out. (Which is less dramatic than many bowlers.) Then go back to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfEKI5iL-Ok&t=25s and see how he's just sort of hunched over and casual.

Just watched it on youtube. He doesn't use the fingerholes but I wouldn't expect all pros use them. The second hand just remains on the ball longer before the throw. My verdict: not that different

He uses the finger holes (you can see this in the front-on shots), but not the thumb hole.

The holes are custom drilled to each bowler. If they weren’t being used why drill them?

It took me a few watches to notice the difference myself even after being aware of the difference

Arguably a language issue. What exactly is the threshold to be called "bowling expert"? You apparently consider the knowledge to regard the difference as obvious more baseline than expert, perhaps not even considering anyone "expert" who wouldn't feel at home commenting bowling on TV. Perhaps that threshold isn't all that unreasonable in American English (no idea how widespread the game is over the demographic spectrum). But there are plenty of people who'd consider baseline bowling knowledge to know that it's a game where you throw a ball at pins and if you can correctly name the number of pins you're already on the threshold of beyond baseline.

Yeah, technically you might still name levels of expertise below "expert" that would clearly see the difference, but that's not how the term is colloquially used. From the baseline perspective, shades of expertise are experts-only. In any field.

It’s a completely different technique. I have only attempted it a couple of times, never successfully. It’s the backwards bicycle of bowling.

Bowling with two hands versus bowling with one hand is not an obvious difference?

From a lay perspective, the difference is subtle. For a professional bowler, it probably looks night and day.

Don't lay people hold the ball using the finger and thumb holes with just one hand? The way he throws is completely different from any technique I've seen anyone play in regular bowling (though similar techniques may be more common in competitive bowling, so perhaps that's where the difference is coming from?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com