Point 1.

In case you missed it, as explorers, we have operated two "Majors" where we have attacked this head on. We have looked at the topography, the lane pattern, the oil, a variable scoring pace within the events themselves. These items married with the use of modern balls and styles to try and create a unique competition where all can compete fairly. A left hander won one, a two handed player another. A little further down in the data though, you will find fairness might be possible.

Point 2.

My point is this, we were born to explore. Just because a certain style has dominated over a period of time doesn't mean that style should be excluded just as they haven't been exclude in the past (Earl comes to mind). It means we probably just need to explore all the factors that led to it and learn from it while also saying "congrats" to the winners instead of suggesting that a 19 year old winning today against more experienced bowlers is somehow different then Mike Aulby and Norm Duke doing it so many years ago.

To be clear, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at the balls, the lane and the oil as well, we should. Also the numbers of balls allowed in competition maybe should be on the radar. All, additional factors need to be "explored".

Maybe the USBC is trying to do some things.

I will say that at least Chad Murphy is trying to fix some of the mess that he inherited from the disaster that was Andrew Cain.

Sadly, it might be way too late no matter what Voss, Belmonte or anyone has to say because the organization is in total disarray. I mean, when you can't even get your bowlers sanctioned properly in a timely matter (or from what I learned last week, basically ripping some bowlers off of their sanction fee that they already paid)....that is a serious problem.