This seems to be stirring some conversation on social media...not saying I agree with all these points but I respect his perspective.

https://www.11thframe.com/news/article/8199

Trash Heap:

Yes. That is exactly what happened. When the lane dressing rules were relaxed
after 1977, the bowling center I worked at initially refused to go with the changes.
That did not last very long as our league bowlers were watching the scores of bowlers in
surrounding centers exploded, and wondering what the heck was happening. Most league bowlers were unaware that the ABC had relaxed the rules--- that the "lid" was now off. It literally happened overnight. It forced our center to go along with the relaxed rules which placated both, our leagues and the proprietor's cash register.

There are certain events that occur where we will never forget when they took place.
The year 1977 was one of those years for me. That was the year that marked a sea change in the scoring environment. I remember Bill Taylor going berserk over the
rule change. He launched a crusade in staunch opposition and along the way garnered both his share of supporters and detractors. Today, the argument has not died down.

But make no mistake. Before 1977, a 200 average was reserved for only the very best
bowlers--and they were very few.  Beginning in 1978, all of that changed quite dramatically, thanks not to superior bowling balls, but largely thanks to the lane dressing rules change by the ABC at that time.

I agree with Voss on the no-thumb and two-handed style.  It gives the player an advantage over the field.  It is the same as anchored putting in golf.  The PGA banned it for the benefit of the game.  The USBC needs to do the same.  Bowling is on its last legs as a sport.  They should do everything to save it.

i have seen and bowled against some 2 handed bowlers in my area and they have no advantage.  They still need to hit their marks and throw good shots like the rest of us. 

So the game doesn't turn into a 4 hr home run derby.

Hate to use a comparison to another sport but here it goes:

What is the main reason that Major League Baseball prohibit the use of metal bats?

 

I personally don't have a problem with the two-handed style or the one handed, no thumb.  I think it bring a mix to bowling that makes it exciting to watch.
However, I have noticed from a viewing standpoint with the traditional style I watch to see a strike and with the two-handed style, I watch to see a miss.

In regards to the past (pre-1977), the ABC was quite strict about lane conditioning.
In those days stacking oil in the middle of the lane (blocking/crowning) was illegal.
In fact, many of you who were around prior to 1977 can surely remember how many times the ABC had rejected "honor" scores, because of lane blocking.

Granted, the ABC
didn't have the technology that the USBC has today in measuring the lateral distribution of oil on the lane. Instead, they mostly relied on the old "finger test" .
It really wasn't until the ABC dramatically eased the rules that lane blocking/crowning
became the "norm", at least as far as what we  refer to as the typical house shot  today. The primary reason for the change was due to the fact that bowling proprietors were the ones getting the flak from their league bowlers when their honor scores were being rejected. The other reason being that back then, if a league bowler shot say, a 300, the lanes had to be shut down and the bowler's equipment was "confiscated" until an ABC inspector came to the site to verify if in fact, the score was bowled under the rules. This became somewhat of a logistical
problem for both, the ABC and the proprietor.

So with all due respect to those who believe that lane blocking/crowning was always
part of the game, I know from experience that it was not. Prior to 1977, it was much, much harder to get the ball to the pocket under the ABC's lane conditioning rules in effect at that time. The proof can also be found in the comparison of data as it relates to the number of honor scores bowled before and after 1977. Since then, there has been a dramatic increase. Some of it due to today's balls but a lot of it is also due to
the relaxation of the lane conditioning rules.

The "THS" was a whole different animal in those days. It was a lot tougher one.

I agree 100%.  I remember the local association coming to the center the night of, or morning after an honor score was shot to take a "tape" of the lane.  Yes, scores were rejected then for walled up / blocked shots.  Now the so-called THS is the illegal block shot from years ago.

The lane conditioning rule that people are referring to was not introduced until 1975, and was still in place in 1982.  It was a bad rule because the technology, nor the knowledge existed to properly construct such a rule  It was also the rule that spawned the biggest mis carriage of justice most of us can think of in the rejection of Glenn Allisons 900 series. 

The ABC had no idea of the implications of the change from lacquer to urethane lane finish.  I learned on lacquer, and getting to the pocket was dead easy, partly because we didn't have the down lane friction between ball and lane surface.  Carry was usually more difficult for the same reason.  You couldn't just rev up a ball and find the friction to make it hook on the long oiled lacquer. 

When urethane lane finish came in, the oiling patterns used on lacquer produced   a mess.  Oil was pushed off the heads and moved down lane rather than tracking as it did on the softer lacquer.  The fist answer to this problem was to put more oil in the heads and strip the back ends more often.  This technique was combined with putting little or no oil outside to build a track that would not develop in and of itself.  Softer polyester balls reacted more strongly to the artificially created dry areas, allowing the development of the power player who could now rev up the ball and find more down lane friction. 

Lane blocking is as old as the game, but it became much more predominant with the introduction of urethane finish.  In addition the scoring disparity between blocked and non blocked lanes became much greater on urethane than it had been on lacquer as softer polyester balls were introduced. 

I remember bowling pot games ( really dating myself ) on lacquer in a house that was walled off the corner in 1967.  I was not a good corner shooter, but I could play the track at 15 board and compete with the house full roller guys who specialized in the corner shot.  5 of the 7 houses in my city employed lane conditioning methods to help scoring even prior to the switch to urethane in the early 70's. 

Another thing people don't understand is that the older soft lacquer finish did not reward the higher friction balls the way urethane could be made to.  The last ABC bowled on lacquer was the 1975 tournament in Dayton OH.  It was also my first ABC.  I shot a very respectable 1860 all events with my new carmel white dot.  I watched Bobby Meadows win all events throwing a black diamond.  Right beside him was a guy scoring almost as well using a super soft Shore D, playing about 3 boards deeper.