We are past the point of diminishing returns on power and revs.  I say this partly based on Belmos struggles, but partly based on the physics and geometry of of the game in general.  Belmontes success has been partly due to his power, but also to a great degree on his versatility.   The problem I am seeing is that the super powerful rev rates magnify the impact of lane transitions to the point that super power players simply cant keep up
  To me it is no surprise that a player like Rash who has totally revamped his release to minimize axis rotation ( the real culprit in extreme lane transitions ) is starting to dominate.

I agree to a degree.  We can look at the high-speed, high-rev success of the past 10 years and understand why they were successful.  But at the same time, these releases wouldn't have been as successful during other periods.

The current trend of low rotation will be successful for a while until someone takes advantage of the conditions in a different way and then that method will be style du jour.

And at some time in the future, the high-speed, high-rev release can be successful again.  It just takes a talent to use it successfully for everyone to copy them.

Let me clarify.  As an old rev challeged stroker I would like nothing better than being able to add 150 rpm and 3mph of ball speed to my game.  However somewhere north of 500 revs you hit a law of diminishing returns, especially on flatter patterns.  That is why pros are piping it up15 board on the badger rather than trying to over power the oil with lots of surface.

Also I am not talking about league bowling but rather the game at the highest level where guys are capable of repeating shots with high rev rates.   The ability to repeat is diminished in importance when every transition in the pattern is magnified to the extreme. 

I agree, with the caveat that the high rev player can keep his axis rotation low.

In everything, there is always an optimum point, a point at which there can not exist anything better, only different. Bowling is not an exception to this.

 At some point, the laws of physics dictate that the optimum strike ball is achieved. I do not know what that point is, but once it has been reached, changing it in ANY way does not and can not make it any better.

 For conversational purposes only, we will say that the optimum strike ball is achieved at 4 1/2 degrees entry angle with 425 revs at 18 1/4 mph.

 ANY variance from this will only take away from your strike percentage, even more of any factor. At this point, more revs, or more speed, or more entry angle would do you absolutely no good. So would lessening any of thise factors.

 Has the actual optimal strike ball been reached in reality is the question, and I think the answer is yes. I watch people like Belmo and Tackett, and sometimes wonder how a certain shot they throw actually kept from striking, and think the only reason must be that they are outside the window of opportunity to strike by having too much of some factor involved in the shot.

 Now, I have no data to back me up on this, so the fine points are pure conjecture, but they say "the proof is in the pudding", and I know what my eyes see, and that is what it looks like to me.

If it was all about power, people like them would strike every ball, regardless, and they don't.

Something to keep in mind: the bowlers that struggled on this show were only there because they bowled so well across several tournaments.  Their struggles may be a bit overstated.

Another point I have wondered about on the this subject is the margin of error in releases, regardless of style.

If a bowler makes a 10% deviation of their release, at 300 revs that is plus or minus 30 revs but at 600 revs that is 60 revs. Is that 30 rev difference enough to make a significant reaction difference on the lane I don't know.

The same with ball speed, a 5% variation at 16 mph is .8 mph at 20 mph it is 1 mph. How much difference does that make in reaction?

The top professionals are very consistent with their releases and speeds but I have to believe as you get towards the top end of speed and revs any variation in your timing causes significant changes to your rev rate and/or speed.

I agree that there has to be a point of diminishing returns but I'm not sure it has been reached.