There is never any resolutions to these arguments. People bowl for different reasons, and more important get their satisfaction from different aspects of the game. Fundamentally there is a human appeal to the violence of knocking down heavy pins with even heavier balls. People have found the challenge of attempting to knock down pins appealing enough that they want some level of standardization, necessitating the creation of a ruling body.
As the game advances the types of issues that need to be dealt with become more complex. For example during the 50's and 60's the ABC didn't have a need to deal with oil patterns. It was enough to make sure lane men didn't sand physical grooves into the lanes to enhance scoring. The difference between a flat oiled lane and a wall went away after 2 games when a track developed that made the pocket just as easy on either condition.
It was really the advancement in ball surfaces that necessitated rules to curb scoring. The soft shelled polyester increased carry potential so much that a hardness rule was adopted for the first time. Unfortunately the ABC was behind the curve technology wise. First they didn't recognize the impact on ball reaction of the change from soft lacquer to much harder urethane lane coatings. The result was a much more random and difficult lane transition on oil patterns that they had mandated. Scratch didn't like playing on flat oiled urethane and the ABC lost a lot of support from competitive bowlers. Even the PBA refused to oil their lanes in accordance with ABC rules.
The ABC ultimately softened the requirements, but once again got caught behind the curve when resin enhanced urethane was introduced. The resin balls increased the friction differential from oily to dry without violating the hardness rule. This advancement in ball technology effectively put the game back where it was in 1974 with shore D balls and no lane conditioning standards.
The game would be better if balls couldn't be made to hit so hard, but lane conditioning rules aren't the way to do it. The balls over power the patterns anyway.
Just to throw in the obligatory golf comparison the only thing that has saved golf from being over powered by technology is putting. I am 69 years old, and I can hit the ball as far today as I did when I was 35, thanks to my graphite shafted 460,cc driver.
Bottom line the USBC is far from perfect, but they are faced with an impossible task when you add prize money to all the technological issues they must deal with.
