Bowls: you are absolutely correct on large scale lane blocking and the evolution of the modern machine. It did come out of the switch to hard lane finishes in the 70s.
The thing that changed with the introduction of resin was ability of the balls to radically and quickly destroy an oil pattern.
It is too bad because the modern lane machines provided the opportunity to create patterns of varying degrees of challenge.
It does little good when high rev players are able to throw 300 grit surface balls and quickly carve up a pattern. I dint understand how USBC can be fixated on softness and ignore the impact of aggressively altering the ball surface
Great points and I align with your stated views Bob.
On ball surfacing, hardness and our governing bodies guidance I guess I deflect back to my negative view of the ABC in general and their questionable motives. I hate every conditioning rulling they have made since 1980 and know they where influenced by proprietors so how can I trust a single test, study or decision they have made in regard to any equipment? Let alone trust they focus their attention on the real issue or see one you speak too?
My hope for a governing body is one that is transparent, independant so to act above approach and first job to maintain their sports integrity. So my view of how the USBC should act adds up to 40 plus years of failure but also maybe more importantly lack of vision.
I get a baseline for hardness and never any problem with their ruling there.
To your knowledge have they graphed a pattern with aggresively sanded or modern reactive coverstocks and compared? Pattern wear should shake out fast and approving any method, cover that creates rapid deteriontion / destruction of a pattern is an epic failure or further example of their bubbling oversight.
All that said fun to yak about and love this game as much as ever.
