Reading these comments, its a small miracle we are not still using wood bowling balls. If we are all competing on the same condition, does it really matter what condition that is? Not to the real competitors it doesn't.
You're confusing two completely different subjects.
The transition from wood balls, to rubber, to urethane, to resin were all advancements that moved the game forward.
People aren't resisting strings because they hate change, they're resisting strings because it's a step backwards in every aspect of the "bowlers" world. (I can't argue the benefits they obviously have for owners\alleys\business)
Pretending that "all change" is the exact same, is an extremely close minded perspective to have. If people were just resisting change (many of the bowling world does, so I completely understand why you're confused) then I would completely agree with you. People crying about oil, resin, 2 hands... Old grumpy people stuck in the past, who refuse to accept the "advancing" of the game "for the good" of the sport.
This is the exact opposite scenario though. This is a step backwards, to an inferior technology, with zero benefit to the competitive aspect of the sport, specifically done with the intent of turning higher profits.
Now, if you want to argue that the cost savings and profit are what are required to save the sport... You'd have a strong argument there. We've all seen the number of alleys that have failed in the past 5 years, and obviously strings could have potentially altered the finances of them, so from that angle, I understand that strings may inevitably be the way the bowling world goes, but let's not pretend it's for the benefit of competing. It's a blatant sacrifice to the validity of the game, in order to ensure the game survives.
2 very different things that you have to be able to differentiate.
