Was having a discussion with a pro shop owner and he was raving about how much better balls are now vs 15 years ago.. I am just a league bowler 210 average at one night a week. But i am here to offer my opinion as i presented it to him..
My thought is that the early 1990's brought urethane balls that were durable and still used today. Hammer's come to mind. Then the mid 1990's brought all the Brunswick "Zones" which i personally consider some of the best hardestr hitting balls ever. Then the ball company explosion came in the late 1990's but I don't beleive people had any idea of the market that was to come that it is now for all these bowling balls and all the crazy combinations of coverstocks etc.. Bottom line is i think the balls were meant to last longer 15-20 years ago because back then people didnt run out and get another one a year later... This is also why all the balls had initials back then. it was a ball for life. You dont see that anymore either.. its all a big business. any business needs repeat customers so the balls seem to not be nearly as durable long term, as they used to.. i have seen it first hand. Myself and with other bowlers. I know a bowler in our house that uses all original Zones and he averages 233 bowls twice a week. Why pay 200 dollars twice a year or even once a year? Unless of course we just like the new ness factor and appeal.
I may be in the minority on this topic, but i will continue to stand behind the thought that balls were built to last back in the day, still perform now, and the balls of today are not designed to maintain there performance because if they did the ball companies would not have repeat customers.
