I feel this thread has proved two things fairly definitively. Firstly, I think it's safe to say that all the "purists" (at least as a whole) have no real consensus definition of what they want the game (with the exception of "harder," a vague statement if ever there was one) to become for it to regain lost integrity. And secondly, I think it's safe to say that any proposed changes would ultimately go nowhere in regaining this so-called integrity.
Let's start with technology (which is unquestionably the root cause in higher scores in this era compared to past eras). For instance, some of you think bowling ball technology should be wound back across the board, but others feel this should only occur in the upper reaches of the game (i.e. the PBA). The problem is, some of you think the game has lost integrity because outsiders see recreational league bowlers scoring better than the pros on TV on a regular basis, a problem that would only be compounded were the pros limited to the ball technology of yesteryear.
On this argument, some of you feel this wouldn't be the case because the pros are so much better, which begs the following question: why even make the change in the first place if no relative improvement or decrease in scoring will result? Many of you might answer this by touting the new emphasis this will place on shotmaking, which is true (somewhat). Except you forget that if everyone was using the same equipment on Tour, stuff that didn't soak up oil like a sponge, then the emphasis on macroadjustments and laneplay strategy so common in this era would be highly demoted because most everyone would play the same part of the lane and wouldn't have to make huge moves as a block progressed. So, in essence, all you're doing is taking one challenge or hurdle or skill and replacing it with another. Again, we've gone nowhere.
Or maybe the solution isn't to change the equipment people use, but the patterns we bowl on. But yet again, we face a problem. If the typical house shots of today continue to be applied (never mind these shots differ little from the shots of the past 50 years in terms of topology), then the scoring pace will continue to be high in leagues across the country. And this alienates roughly 10% of the bowling population (the "purists"). But if you apply tough shots across the board, then recreational bowlers will be driven away in droves, and bowling membership and participation will decrease dramatically. So at what price (in terms of membership) is lower scoring worth it, and how is turning people off promoting integrity?
And even if you apply a tough pattern, what's to say that scores won't improve in a decade's time as people get used to it? When the PBA went to sport spots years back, scores were miserable. But over time, they improved, which is to be expected when people see these shots enough. So maybe we just curb bowling technology for everyone (which I mentioned earlier) and keep easier shots out to better resemble the past. The problem with that is lane surfaces are so much better now compared to the past, so scores will still remain high. And changing lane surfaces in every center is something that will never happen.
Basically, every fix the "purists" can possibly offer to this problem will be accompanied by secondary problems and issues. As it stands now, recreational bowlers get plenty of help on THS (which obviously isn't that easy for everyone since everyone doesn't average 230) while upper-echelon players are given plenty of more challenging options: sport bowling, scratch tournaments, the PBA (both regional and national), etc. In this respect, we have the best of both worlds and everyone can (and should) remain happy. And while there will surely be people that argue their location prohibits them from taking advantage of the latter examples, nothing is stopping them from taking initiative. It's entirely unfair for these people to expect sweeping changes because they live in a weak bowling market.
I'll be the first to admit that THS scoring paces can be out of control. But there's really no remedy, and honestly, all things considered, should there really be one? People keep looking for solutions to this problem, but is it that big a problem at all? I really feel that it's the way the game has to be to thrive, especially considering the advancement of technology, recreational bowlers being in the clear majority, and there being no "solution" that doesn't raise other issues. So I really think the "purists" should just stop looking for a solution that doesn't exist.
--------------------
"Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein."
-Broadcasting Extraordinaire and Mensa Member Joe Theismann