Three strikes in a row is a turkey. Most people know this. Even people who don't bowl know this. But once we hit four, there's confusion as to what each subsequent strike is called.

Hambone is the emerging term for four strikes in a row. This is far better than its leading competitor, four bagger. A four bagger is obviously a takeoff on baseball, where a four bagger is another term for a home run.

My fight against four baggers in bowling stems from my fight against four baggers in baseball. On a baseball field, there are three bases, sometimes referred to as bags. That's fine with me. But home plate is not a bag and doesn't resemble a bag in any way. Thus, a home run should not be referred to as a four bagger. Therefore, four bagger should not be a term, and bowling should not be able to borrow a term that doesn't exist. It's simple logic.

But it gets worse. Bowling then goes on to refer to five baggers, six baggers, and more. Where are all these bags coming from? Maybe bowling isn't taking after baseball but rather taking after grocery shopping? You're knocking down so many pins you need extra bags to carry them all?

Bags have no place in bowling (with the obvious exceptions of bowling bags and the occasional popcorn bag for the weird guy who likes to shove his greasy bowling hands into his popcorn and his greasy popcorn hands into his bowling ball). We need to be more creative.

Luckily, I am. Soon, I will use this blog to name each successive strike, all the way from one strike to twelve strikes.

Maybe you already have your own names. As long as "bagger" isn't attached, I'm fine with your names, whatever they may be. Keep using them. But if you're new to bowling or simply looking for a better way to flaunt your six strikes in a row, stay tuned.

A couple months ago, Walter Ray Williams, Jr. defeated Chris Barnes in the finals of the Motor City Open at the inaugural World Series of Bowling. Yesterday, we saw it on TV.

This was an excellent match most of the way through. Strikes abound from both men. Then came the ninth frame. Chris Barnes was up seven and in the midst of a hambone (four strikes in a row) when he left the 3-6-9-10. That's not a classic Chris Barnes clutch split, but he missed the 10 pin on his spare attempt, leaving the tournament in Williams' hands.

However, Williams, riding a brat (five strikes in a row), threw a 9 and a spare for his ninth frame. Had he struck out in the tenth, he would've clinched. But he threw another 9. Suddenly, Chris Barnes was right back in it.

Williams finished with a 238, and Barnes came up in the tenth with the ability to win. He needed two strikes and an 8 to clinch. To his credit, he didn't throw a clutch split...but he didn't throw a strike, either. Barnes finished with a 230, giving Williams his 46th career title.

It interests me two of the best bowlers of all time can turn a great match into a battle of futility at the end. It also interests me that a battle of futility for these two results in scores that are far better than most people can throw on their best days.

Something else worth mentioning from this tournament: at one point, when Williams threw a fourth consecutive strike, ESPN play-by-play announcer Rob Stone shouted, "Hambone!" Stone then corrected himself, saying Williams doesn't like that term and prefers "Four bagger."

Well, I don't like the term "Four bagger." In a future blog, I'll offer a list of the official names for x number of strikes in a row. And when I say official, I mean according to me. That's where the previously referenced brat (as in bratwurst) for five strikes in a row comes from.

What about you? Do you throw "Bagger" at the end of everything? Or do you use customized names for strings of strikes?

People like trick shots. That, or people think people like trick shots. Pool players have trick-shot championships. The NHL holds a skills competition during the All-Star weekend to showcase players' fancy abilities. The NBA hosts a slam-dunk contest. The PBA is no different, showcasing ridiculous trick shots from some of its best bowlers.

This past Sunday, the Trick Shot Invitational aired on ESPN (and was won by Norm Duke). If you saw that or have ever seen one of these things, bowlers stack pins on top of pins, add pins to the rack, use multiple lanes, balls, and bowlers, all in an attempt to make each other laugh, apparently.

The trick shots don't intrigue me. I always zone out very early in the telecast, but there is one thing that keeps me interested: the bowlers and their light-hearted ribbing.

They're on TV and they're completely audible, so they have to keep it family-friendly, but it feels like some sitcom writers get together to write lines for these guys. And if we can't bask in unintentional hilarity (or intentional hilarity that's only funny for the unintentional portion), what can we bask in?

A great example was this past Sunday. Chris Barnes was explaining his trick shot, which involved his two sons. His wife, fellow pro bowler Lynda, wasn't present. One of the other competitors asked Barnes, "Where's Lynda?"

Barnes responded with, "She doesn't need as much help as I do." That's a wonderful example of self-deprecating humor a sitcom might provide. And, on cue, the audience laughed.

Then, just to make sure everyone got the joke, another bowler added, "We know that!"

Everyone had a good laugh, then Barnes, Barnes, and Barnes threw a criss-crossing three-ball shot that resulted in a strike. Sitcom humor followed by a sitcom happy ending.

Some of the shots these guys throw are very impressive, whether they make the shot or not. But for me, by far the best part is watching the bowlers interact with each other. The high level of safe humor bantered about is hilarious for multiple reasons, but oddly refreshing.

While I'm sure Kirk Maltby and Sean Avery have some lovely discussions on the ice, we don't get to hear them on TV (at least not in full). But when Parker Bohn III and Sean Rash get into it, the sitcom writers race to their laptops or notepads to jot down ideas.

What about you? Do you care about the trick shots? The banter? Sitcoms?

Kelly Kulick won the inaugural PBA Women's World Championship, shown yesterday on ESPN. The event actually took place in the first week of September at the World Series of Bowling in Allen Park, Michigan.

Kulick defeated Shannon Pluhowsky 219-204 in the final match to win her first PBA Women's Series title. Also, with the win, she will be the first woman ever invited to bowl in the PBA Tournament of Champions January 19-24 in Las Vegas.

While the score seems close, the match was never really in doubt in a battle of not-so-exciting bowling. However, featuring the Women's World Championship on ESPN's debut telecast for the season could be a boon to women's bowling.

Most people assume there must be a women's pro tour, but the truth is there hasn't been since 2003. The PBA Women's Series, US Women's Open, and USBC Queens events offer optimism for the future of women's bowling

The win earned Kulick $15,000, and Pluhowsky took $7,500 for second place. Kulick led the field after the first, second, and third rounds, but Pluhowski was the leader after four, going into best-of-seven match play. Each woman won two best-of-seven matches, leading to the final against each other.

What does this mean for women's bowling? Is it really making a comeback? Or is this merely one event for optimists to hang on to?