BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: mainzer on January 30, 2022, 03:23:10 PM
-
Been reading the comments about the winner yesterday ( no spoilers) and I honestly feel embarrassed to be a bowler. Why is two handed bowling such a terrible thing? Why is bowling changing so terrible for old bowlers? Mark Roth was very ground breaking in his day and he is held in very high regard rightfully so yet a two hander has hate thrown at him.
Old Bowlers complain that bowling isn't what it was yet they are the first in line to tear down anything new and different why? Why can't bowling progress forwards?
-
Bowlers just like to bitch and complain.
-
Because it’s “differentâ€.
When you’ve studied and worked a long time to perfect a needed set of skills, you easily tend to resent those who would seek to change the skill set completely that took you so long to learn.
I was one. I absolutely HATED reactive resin balls because they negated release skills I had learned that gave me an edge. They enabled people with what I considered “bad†releases, who had not been able to generate carry power with the older technology, to now throw the ball with their weaker “natural†release, and hit/carry as well as I could.
I felt cheated because I had to learn the right way to generate power with ball roll, but now you could just do it with balls the generated the friction with the cover technology, and right themselves into a roll with a gyroscopic weightblock.
Two handed bowling is no different. It lets guys who aren’t physically strong enough to do it with one hand to use their second hand to help generate power. Older players didn’t do it that way. Instead, we were taught to perfect the “proper†release and told to perfect that as much as we could, cause that’s all you can do. We weren’t taught anything else, so maybe we felt like the young two handers were cheating both us and the system.
There is hope though. I have gotten over it all, and I think many of us “old guys†are trying very hard to move into the 21st century, lol.
-
Because it’s “differentâ€.
When you’ve studied and worked a long time to perfect a needed set of skills, you easily tend to resent those who would seek to change the skill set completely that took you so long to learn.
I was one. I absolutely HATED reactive resin balls because they negated release skills I had learned that gave me an edge. They enabled people with what I considered “bad†releases, who had not been able to generate carry power with the older technology, to now throw the ball with their weaker “natural†release, and hit/carry as well as I could.
I felt cheated because I had to learn the right way to generate power with ball roll, but now you could just do it with balls the generated the friction with the cover technology, and right themselves into a roll with a gyroscopic weightblock.
Two handed bowling is no different. It lets guys who aren’t physically strong enough to do it with one hand to use their second hand to help generate power. Older players didn’t do it that way. Instead, we were taught to perfect the “proper†release and told to perfect that as much as we could, cause that’s all you can do. We weren’t taught anything else, so maybe we felt like the young two handers were cheating both us and the system.
There is hope though. I have gotten over it all, and I think many of us “old guys†are trying very hard to move into the 21st century, lol.
I'd agree with all that, and also add that the two hander doesn't have to worry about "thumb drag" or whatever you want to call it.
I'm sure many a bowler has grabbed it at a clutch moment or two and it cost them, whether a title or a local sweeper.
I coached high school bowling for 15 years, hung it up in 2019. The amount of two handed youth bowlers is astounding, but if it keeps the sport alive I'm ok with it. Jason Belmonte definitely inspired a generation that's for sure.
-
Because it's different. Agreed.
Because people whine. Agreed.
Because we don't want to bear any responsibility for our own results (unless we win).
-
Because it’s “differentâ€.
When you’ve studied and worked a long time to perfect a needed set of skills, you easily tend to resent those who would seek to change the skill set completely that took you so long to learn.
I was one. I absolutely HATED reactive resin balls because they negated release skills I had learned that gave me an edge. They enabled people with what I considered “bad†releases, who had not been able to generate carry power with the older technology, to now throw the ball with their weaker “natural†release, and hit/carry as well as I could.
I felt cheated because I had to learn the right way to generate power with ball roll, but now you could just do it with balls the generated the friction with the cover technology, and right themselves into a roll with a gyroscopic weightblock.
Two handed bowling is no different. It lets guys who aren’t physically strong enough to do it with one hand to use their second hand to help generate power. Older players didn’t do it that way. Instead, we were taught to perfect the “proper†release and told to perfect that as much as we could, cause that’s all you can do. We weren’t taught anything else, so maybe we felt like the young two handers were cheating both us and the system.
There is hope though. I have gotten over it all, and I think many of us “old guys†are trying very hard to move into the 21st century, lol.
I'd agree with all that, and also add that the two hander doesn't have to worry about "thumb drag" or whatever you want to call it.
I'm sure many a bowler has grabbed it at a clutch moment or two and it cost them, whether a title or a local sweeper.
I coached high school bowling for 15 years, hung it up in 2019. The amount of two handed youth bowlers is astounding, but if it keeps the sport alive I'm ok with it. Jason Belmonte definitely inspired a generation that's for sure.
.
Nice backhanded comment on two handed bowlers not being strong enough your a fool
-
Because it’s “differentâ€.
When you’ve studied and worked a long time to perfect a needed set of skills, you easily tend to resent those who would seek to change the skill set completely that took you so long to learn.
I was one. I absolutely HATED reactive resin balls because they negated release skills I had learned that gave me an edge. They enabled people with what I considered “bad†releases, who had not been able to generate carry power with the older technology, to now throw the ball with their weaker “natural†release, and hit/carry as well as I could.
I felt cheated because I had to learn the right way to generate power with ball roll, but now you could just do it with balls the generated the friction with the cover technology, and right themselves into a roll with a gyroscopic weightblock.
Two handed bowling is no different. It lets guys who aren’t physically strong enough to do it with one hand to use their second hand to help generate power. Older players didn’t do it that way. Instead, we were taught to perfect the “proper†release and told to perfect that as much as we could, cause that’s all you can do. We weren’t taught anything else, so maybe we felt like the young two handers were cheating both us and the system.
There is hope though. I have gotten over it all, and I think many of us “old guys†are trying very hard to move into the 21st century, lol.
I'd agree with all that, and also add that the two hander doesn't have to worry about "thumb drag" or whatever you want to call it.
I'm sure many a bowler has grabbed it at a clutch moment or two and it cost them, whether a title or a local sweeper.
I coached high school bowling for 15 years, hung it up in 2019. The amount of two handed youth bowlers is astounding, but if it keeps the sport alive I'm ok with it. Jason Belmonte definitely inspired a generation that's for sure.
.
Nice backhanded comment on two handed bowlers not being strong enough your a fool
Your lack of reading comprehension and understanding is nothing short of astounding.
Troll on man.
Troll on.
-
The percentage of people complaining about anything hasn't changed that much over time. The difference now is they have a platform to post their complaints. And posting their complaints gives them some sort of fullfillment by finding at least a couple people on the internet to agree with them. Instead what they should be focusing on is themselves and what they can do to improve.
-
Two handed bowling is no different. It lets guys who aren’t physically strong enough to do it with one hand to use their second hand to help generate power
Evidently this isn’t your trash
-
The percentage of people complaining about anything hasn't changed that much over time. The difference now is they have a platform to post their complaints. And posting their complaints gives them some sort of fullfillment by finding at least a couple people on the internet to agree with them. Instead what they should be focusing on is themselves and what they can do to improve.
Ain't that the truth.
Two-handed is just one of many things bowlers will complain about (urethane, lefties, wrist devices, handicap to name a few others). Many of the bowlers that complain are the same people who never practice and expect to walk in the door and average 230 in league.
I actually switched to two-handed over the summer after being frustrated at my own game and I can say firsthand that it's not easy at all. My average is down in 2 of my 3 leagues (and even in the 3rd league it's only up by a couple of pins). That's after practicing a lot over the summer (and getting in at least one practice session per week since then) and getting a lot of positive feedback from knowledgeable bowlers that my two-handed game looks good and I should stick with it. As it turns out, rev rate going up doesn't automatically equate to scores going up. Two-handers have to develop their skills just like anybody else.
-
Two handed bowling is no different. It lets guys who aren’t physically strong enough to do it with one hand to use their second hand to help generate power
Translation: "2 handed bowling = more power, but I'm ironically upset at people using a superior method."
When it comes to athletic motion, the bigger and stronger muscle groups you can engage and efficiently utilize, the more power you can create. Period.
2 handed bowling, is the superior method because whether anyone likes it or not, the laws of the universe dictate so. The measurements and calculations of energy transfer and pre-determined. Until a new way of delivery finds a way to create a higher peak energy transfer, then 1 handed will always be the sub-optimal way to bowl.
Yes, you can overcome raw power with technique and still be competitive, because bowling is more than just energy transfer, you also have to transfer that energy at a specific point, angle, launch, and repeat it consistently. much of which before the ball touches the lane. The problem is, when a 2 hander (such as Belmonte) has just as much technique AND more power, then his advantage is undeniable.
Analogy:
Keenan Allen is regarded as the best route runner in the NFL. His technique is flawless and that's how he does what he does so well, with accuracy, technique, skill etc.
DK Metcalf however, is pure, raw, unadulterated strength, speed, and power.
2 completely different ways to accomplish the same goal in the same sport. Metcalf can learn and develop technique, but Keenan Allen can NOT learn to be taller, faster, stronger.
This is why the NFL has consistently gotten bigger, stronger, and faster at every single position for decades. Because if you can turn a physical freak into a technically sound player, they will almost always prevail over someone who is just technically sound.
Belmote is both.
Many 2 handers (especially in THS leagues) are just exploiting power to mask their lack of technique/accuracy/consistency.
Many 1 handers, are just exploiting accuracy and technique to mask their lack of power.
Again, 2 different methods to obtain the same goal. But if a 2 hander can develop the same amount of technique, accuracy, and consistency, COMBINED with more power... they will be the superior bowler.
-
I like it when people say it is the second hand that generates the power. No it doesnt. I have been a full time two hander since the mid 1990s. The second hand comes off the ball before the release point. So all the second hand is, is a glorified wrist brace.
What separates the winner of the Players Championship is his ability to repeat shots and with the accuracy he has. Power has nothing to do with being superior. Look at the top guys in all time wins and not many are high rev rate guys.
Walter Ray
Earl Anthony
Norm Duke
Pete Weber
Parker Bohn III
Mark Roth
Dick Weber
Mike Aulby
Don Johnson and Belmo tied
Brian Voss
Marshall Holman
You take Belmo out of the list and the highest rev rate is Parker? Belmo has 26 wins and Walter has 47. Do we think Belmo gets to Walter? I am saying no for the fact that Belmo is already pushing 40 and is 21 behind. Also have to remember he got started late whereas guys like Norm and Pete were already on the PBA as teenagers. Accuracy is still the #1 factor in succeeding on the tour. Does power help? Of course. But does it make you superior? Absolutely not. While Roth was the power guy of his time; he wouldnt be anywhere close to even guys like Johnson or Tackett much less Belmo and Osku. Be willing to bet Roth's rev rate was high 300s. If we took Roth in his 20s and 30s and paired him up with todays game; he probably would be low to mid 400s maybe. But the fact that the way they drilled balls back then with the stretched spans and other factors; you could tell Roth didnt get out of the ball very cleanly as compared to todays game which helps to generate more rev rate.
-
Two handed bowling is no different. It lets guys who aren’t physically strong enough to do it with one hand to use their second hand to help generate power
Nice backhanded comment on two handed bowlers not being strong enough your a fool
Not for nothing, but the self-own here is hilarious. Oof.
BL.
-
The correct title of this post could be "Why Do Bowlers Hate Losing"
Better techniques have always caused people to complain. When the gentleman tried a new form of high jumping (Fosburry - didn't Google) he made the old technique futile. Athletes who were great at the old style, no longer mattered. Back before resin balls, bowlers had adjusted their release and might be the best in their area before resin came out and now they were no longer the best. They no longer mattered. Now 2 handed bowling has come along and the 1 handers are learning that they may no longer matter. It is a huge smash to your EGO and pocket book when you used to be feared on the lanes and now cannot dominate.
There is a very limited amount of money in bowling, and if you choose bowling to feed you and your family and suddenly some new style is causing you to lose way more than before, it is frustrating. Sure you can learn to bowl 2 handed, but until you master it, you won't make money and you won't matter.
-
The correct title of this post could be "Why Do Bowlers Hate Losing"
Ain't this the truth as well. At my center we have a 21yo kid two hander with more revs, speed, and versatility than I have ever seen. He can slam the pocket and convert tough spares with a back-up ball just as easy as he does from the right side. All he needs to make the next step is some good coaching to improve his knowledge and mental game. We're in SoCal so I suggested he give Mark Baker a try.
I don't mind losing to him and do my best to pass on some knowledge if he screws up, while still beating me. At 51yo I have no shot at being PBA material and even if this kid knocks me out of a local tournament and I lose some money I don't mind. I got enough $.
And for what it's worth, all of the really good two handers I know are still very impressive and very competitive when using one hand.
-
Because it’s “differentâ€.
When you’ve studied and worked a long time to perfect a needed set of skills, you easily tend to resent those who would seek to change the skill set completely that took you so long to learn.
I was one. I absolutely HATED reactive resin balls because they negated release skills I had learned that gave me an edge. They enabled people with what I considered “bad†releases, who had not been able to generate carry power with the older technology, to now throw the ball with their weaker “natural†release, and hit/carry as well as I could.
I felt cheated because I had to learn the right way to generate power with ball roll, but now you could just do it with balls the generated the friction with the cover technology, and right themselves into a roll with a gyroscopic weightblock.
Two handed bowling is no different. It lets guys who aren’t physically strong enough to do it with one hand to use their second hand to help generate power. Older players didn’t do it that way. Instead, we were taught to perfect the “proper†release and told to perfect that as much as we could, cause that’s all you can do. We weren’t taught anything else, so maybe we felt like the young two handers were cheating both us and the system.
There is hope though. I have gotten over it all, and I think many of us “old guys†are trying very hard to move into the 21st century, lol.
I'd agree with all that, and also add that the two hander doesn't have to worry about "thumb drag" or whatever you want to call it.
I'm sure many a bowler has grabbed it at a clutch moment or two and it cost them, whether a title or a local sweeper.
I coached high school bowling for 15 years, hung it up in 2019. The amount of two handed youth bowlers is astounding, but if it keeps the sport alive I'm ok with it. Jason Belmonte definitely inspired a generation that's for sure.
.
Nice backhanded comment on two handed bowlers not being strong enough your a fool
Hmmm....I don't understand how you came up with that analogy of my comments. I've got nothing against 2 hand bowling, just wrote about thumb drag.
Have a good day.
-
Power has nothing to do with being superior. Look at the top guys in all time wins and not many are high rev rate guys.
Walter Ray
Earl Anthony
Norm Duke
Pete Weber
Parker Bohn III
Mark Roth
Dick Weber
Mike Aulby
Don Johnson and Belmo tied
Brian Voss
Marshall Holman
You take Belmo out of the list and the highest rev rate is Parker?
The competition of today's era, simply didn't exist when many of the above won their titles. Both in the 2 handed fashion, as well as the reactive era. Urethane dictated a different set of strengths to optimize than reactive in my opinion. Not diminishing either skillset, but Urethane never really promoted and minimally benefited from the massive amounts of revs, and board covered, that 2 handed opens up. So it's no coincidence that the rise of 2 handed bowling in the PBA, came after the reactive evolution of the sport. We're now watching in real time, as the oil patterns are evolving, reverting pros back to urethane, because they've used oil to punish overreaction of resin. The irony is humorous.
I'm not taking anything away from any of the above bowlers and their feats, but it's like saying that because Ben Hogan won so many awards in the 30's, that the new era of golfers aren't superior to him. If Ben Hogan had to compete against Tiger Woods he would have been absolutely humiliated. Not just because of the advancements in club technology, or ball aerodynamics, nor that today's courses are 1-2000 yards longer, but because Tiger Woods revolutionized the game, by being a physically superior player, who ALSO had the accuracy and finesse of the best players that proceeded him. Tiger's introduction to golf, was much like Belmonte's, in that he shared the accuracy, consistency, and finesse/touch of all the best in the sport, but it was combined with more power than any other bowler or golfer could create at the time. They both dominated so often and so quickly, that the entire landscape around them had to adapt to try and keep up. Jimmie Johnson did the same thing in NASCAR, the entire landscape started fitness regimens to keep up, and his dominance faded with time. Every sport goes through these cycles, in which someone finds a better, more efficient way to do something, and the world tries to catch up, until the next evolution pops up.
Look at how many 2 handers are on PBA now. Look at how many golfers are actual athletes now. Hell, look at Bryson Dechambeau, who is AGAIN moving the goal posts, of what pure, raw strength can accomplish in golf, when combined with the same accuracy as the best players. It's just a superior player. That's not a knock to 1 handers, or older generations, it's just the reality that everything in life is constantly evolving to find a competitive edge, and that when it is found, the associations will try to find a way to combat it. Bowling does it with oil, golf does it with course length, both have put caps on equipment limits, it's never ending.
In bowling, and in golf, the ball does not know anything other than physics, and will follow the laws of motion. The bowler has to put the ball in the right place, but after that, the ball is simply a vessel of transferring of energy imparted by the bowler, into the pins. Assuming accuracy is relatively constant, more energy transferred will result in a higher strike percentage. (Probably to a certain point, but I can't find that answer at the moment, I wonder what the highest EARL can accomplish is?)
It's a simple question really. If you have multiple rev/speed matched players with the exact same accuracy, which player will have the highest probability of higher scores/strike percentage? Which one has a wider area of miss room?
15mph/200rpm
16mph/250rpm
17mph/300rpm
18mph/350rpm
19mph/400rpm
20mph/450rpm
We all know the answer, because we all know why many casual bowlers are frustrated with 2 handed bowling. That's why this conversation exists.
-
Adrenaline,
That was very well thought out and I get where you are coming from. To answer your question regarding having multiple rev/speed matched bowlers and who would have the wider area of miss; the answer may not be as obvious as you think. If the guy at 15mph with 200rpms has the right ball on the right condition, his miss room would be pretty equal to the guy at 20mph and 400rpms simply because he is speed/rev matched. Strike percentage may be a different story though. Perfect example is take the women. Liz Kuhlkin shot 890 during league one night with I believe the Scandal. She goes spare next 35 to set the ladies world record. Look at Kulick beating Barnes at the ToC. On the flipside, look at Michelle Feldman. Had the highest rev rate on the ladies tour at the time but was far from being dominate when someone like a Tish Johnson was still making shows along with Wendy MacPherson. Wendy was not a 400rpm player and Tish was more like 275 maybe 300 on a good day.
Regarding Tiger....it wasnt hitting 300 yard drives that made him dominate. It was his short game. While Tiger was one of the longest hitters; he was also not the most accurate when it came to hitting fairways. If Tiger was Jim Furyk-esque with driving accuracy; he would have 100 wins because his short game was far superior at the time.
Same goes for Walter Ray. He was nowhere close to being the highest rev rate yet rarely ever missed a spare much less the pocket. So while guys like Robert Smith were hitting 600rpms; he couldnt stay away from the big split in order to win more than he did. So while 2 handed bowling is gaining popularity in our sport; it does not guarantee success. If that was the case then Osku would have way more wins than he does. People can look at Troup but he isnt even among the highest rev rates. He is up there but both him and Simonson are consistently in the upper 400s when you have guys like Tackett and AJ Johnson right there with them. Heck I am not a tour player but at almost 50 years of age I am still around 540rpms. Two handed bowling while gaining popularity is not going to overtake the sport simply because you have to have the flexibility and timing to make it work and not everybody has both.
-
Another thing I want to point out, is when it comes to the guys I listed; half of them didnt really do their damage until reactive came out. Even though Walter, Parker, Norm, and Pete, which happen to be 4 of the top 5 on the list, came out on Tour in the 80s, most of their titles came after resin was released. You figure that all four have been on tour for 40 years give or take, 30 of those years were in the reactive era as I believe the first reactives were released in 1991 (X-Calibur and Purple Rhino Pro). Parker really didnt start doing his damage until the Danger Zones and Zone line as a whole (DZ, Ice DZ, DZ2, Speed Zone). I do believe he had some titles with the Rhino Pro line but it was the Zones (where the name Bohn Zone originated I want to say) that help make him dominate in the mid 90s. There was plenty of competition out there as fields were generally larger than todays tour as well.
Obviously guys like Anthony, Roth, Holman, and Johnson were before the reactive era. But most everyone else on that list, the majority of their careers were throwing reactives. These are always interesting conversations to have because it always comes down to comparing the best from different eras and trying to determine who the best is whether it is Tiger vs Jack, Michael, Bill Russell, Kobe, or LeBron. Mantle vs. Trout or Ruth, and others.
-
Who in the heck is trout and how did we get off on fishing?
-
Who in the heck is trout and how did we get off on fishing?
As in Mike Trout who has been compared to Mickey Mantle for the past 7-8 years.
-
Who in the heck is trout and how did we get off on fishing?
As in Mike Trout who has been compared to Mickey Mantle for the past 7-8 years.
I figured he knows/knew that and is just trying to stir the pot for his personal pleasure. :o ::) ;)
-
I always have to laugh when anyone is compared to Ruth. The closest would be Barry Bonds from around 2000-2004. But then Barry never lead the league in wins as a pitcher.
-
I think Adrenaline's analysis is the best I have seen concerning the evolution of the game. From a technology perspective the the impact of the resin ball is much like titanium and graphite in golf.
-
I always have to laugh when anyone is compared to Ruth. The closest would be Barry Bonds from around 2000-2004. But then Barry never lead the league in wins as a pitcher.
Thats just it Milo. You cant really compare players/athletes from completely different eras because I doubt back then that pitchers were throwing upper 90s fastballs and pitches like the split finger and cutter didnt even exist. Heck, even Aroldis Chapman was an anomaly just 8 years ago with the ability to hit 102 on the gun and now there are many pitchers hitting 100 and pitchers in high school already hitting mid to upper 90s with Chase Petty hitting 100mph as a high school senior. Hunter Greene in the Reds organization has allegedly hit 105. How would Bill Russell fair in today's NBA? How would players like Snead, Jones, and Hogan fair in today's PGA? The unfortunate truth is that we will never know.
Actually I just Googled this and Walter Johnson was credited as one of the hardest throwers back in that era and it claims his fastball was in the upper 80s. That is basically a batting practice fastball in todays game. So does Ruth against todays pitching still hit 714 HRs? We will never know. But below is an interesting read.
https://www.quora.com/How-fast-was-Babe-Ruth-s-fastball
-
Very true, but I think you have judge them against their peers who were raised in a similar environment. If Ruth and Walter Johnson had been born in the 60's or 70's, they would still have been dominate.
Keep in mind, Ruth had a year where he hit more home runs than ALL the other teams did in the league. Also, Ruth was first to hit 30, 40, 50 and 60 home runs in a season.
Are you saying if raised in the same conditions as today's players, he wouldn't be dominate? All you can do is rate them based on how they do against their peers, if they were dominate, they would figure out a way to be dominate now.
Same goes for Walter Johnson, Earl Anthony, Bill Russell etc. The only exception of notable athletes would be a horse named Secretariat, his times from the 70's are still unbeaten.
-
I'm betting that the bowlers who "remember" how dominate they were "back in the day before whatever changed" weren't really as good as they think, so they blame it on the changes.
-
Exactly. The older I get the better I was
-
Very true, but I think you have judge them against their peers who were raised in a similar environment. If Ruth and Walter Johnson had been born in the 60's or 70's, they would still have been dominate.
Keep in mind, Ruth had a year where he hit more home runs than ALL the other teams did in the league. Also, Ruth was first to hit 30, 40, 50 and 60 home runs in a season.
Are you saying if raised in the same conditions as today's players, he wouldn't be dominate? All you can do is rate them based on how they do against their peers, if they were dominate, they would figure out a way to be dominate now.
Same goes for Walter Johnson, Earl Anthony, Bill Russell etc. The only exception of notable athletes would be a horse named Secretariat, his times from the 70's are still unbeaten.
The thing that made Secretariat so dominate was the fact his heart was double the size of a normal horse. So he could be pushed without straining himself. No horse will ever come close to what Secretariat did at the Belmont let alone the move he made going from last to first at the Preakness in a matter of about 1000 feet.
-
Who in the heck is trout and how did we get off on fishing?
As in Mike Trout who has been compared to Mickey Mantle for the past 7-8 years.
I figured he knows/knew that and is just trying to stir the pot for his personal pleasure. :o ::) ;)
Sorry for joking around but I haven't been following baseball since I was a kid . To me we used to compare mickey mantle to the GOAT not the fish.
-
Two handed bowling is no different. It lets guys who aren’t physically strong enough to do it with one hand to use their second hand to help generate power
Translation: "2 handed bowling = more power, but I'm ironically upset at people using a superior method."
When it comes to athletic motion, the bigger and stronger muscle groups you can engage and efficiently utilize, the more power you can create. Period.
2 handed bowling, is the superior method because whether anyone likes it or not, the laws of the universe dictate so. The measurements and calculations of energy transfer and pre-determined. Until a new way of delivery finds a way to create a higher peak energy transfer, then 1 handed will always be the sub-optimal way to bowl.
Yes, you can overcome raw power with technique and still be competitive, because bowling is more than just energy transfer, you also have to transfer that energy at a specific point, angle, launch, and repeat it consistently. much of which before the ball touches the lane. The problem is, when a 2 hander (such as Belmonte) has just as much technique AND more power, then his advantage is undeniable.
Analogy:
Keenan Allen is regarded as the best route runner in the NFL. His technique is flawless and that's how he does what he does so well, with accuracy, technique, skill etc.
DK Metcalf however, is pure, raw, unadulterated strength, speed, and power.
2 completely different ways to accomplish the same goal in the same sport. Metcalf can learn and develop technique, but Keenan Allen can NOT learn to be taller, faster, stronger.
This is why the NFL has consistently gotten bigger, stronger, and faster at every single position for decades. Because if you can turn a physical freak into a technically sound player, they will almost always prevail over someone who is just technically sound.
Belmote is both.
Many 2 handers (especially in THS leagues) are just exploiting power to mask their lack of technique/accuracy/consistency.
Many 1 handers, are just exploiting accuracy and technique to mask their lack of power.
Again, 2 different methods to obtain the same goal. But if a 2 hander can develop the same amount of technique, accuracy, and consistency, COMBINED with more power... they will be the superior bowler.
I agree with everything you said, except Keenan Allen is not the best route runner in the league! That title would clearly be held by Davante Adams! :)