Originally Posted by Richard
Yeah, I meant every bowler threw as according to the old definition, the one based on the false ideals.
I certainly don't understand about hyperextension - as far as I knew, it was the exclusive preserve of those with double-jointed joints. Thought the every-joint-does-it was called altrusion and extrusion or something (or is that a type of hyper-extension?)
The point is, now we've discovered what we've discovered, there is no fair way of doing things. Everyone now knows that you can't expect bowling to be done with an elbow that doesn't alter in angle; but equally IMO it's completely ludicrous to suggest that a bowler who has elbow-flexation of 16 degrees is in the slightest different from one with 14 degrees. And I don't mean virtually nothing - I mean ABSOLUTELY nothing. Those 2 degrees will make no difference at all.
I think there'd be varying levels of hyper-extension involved with all bowlers, with those that are double jointed being at the top end of the spectrum.
As far as I see it, the fairest way to do things is not to take hyper-extenision into account, as it's not controllable (if they actually are taking it into account that is). It's quite obviously not what constituted a throw in the first place.