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?

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.

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?

As in Mike Trout who has been compared to Mickey Mantle for the past 7-8 years.

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 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

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.

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.