Define 'technology', really. They are weighted differently these days (with corresponding science behind why they're weighted that way) but there are a few things which haven't changed a bit. The bat is still a chunk of willow with a v-shaped cut for splice and handle. The weighting changes are what's causing a bat to pick up differently. I own two pro-level bats; a GN Powerspot from the 80's (with Greg Ritchie's signature on it! Hawt) and an Impala Redback from last year. The Impala is much chunkier yet is easier on the pick-up. The only difference? Where the weight is distributed.
And players may claim they're getting more power but some of the 'advances' I would hazard make very little difference at all and if you're getting told by the bat manufacturer, who is vying for you to use their gear, that the bat they're handing to you is 20% more powerful, if you're a bloke like Symonds you're probably going to believe it. It defies logic and science that chucking some graphite into the handle, when the stress of ball on bat stop at the glue of the handle, will result in more power. Unless you can find some magic bat glue which transfers all vibration from the impact straight to the graphite handle, it's going to do bugger-all. And then, of course, you'd have to invent some method of dampening the impact wave so you don't feel like you're holding onto the batting equivalent of Rolf Harris' wobble board. Speaking of Symonds specifically, the bloke used to hit
more sixes with less powerful bats (apparently) and they were just as big.
Think bat makers are above hyperbole to sell bats? How about the Hunts County honeycomb technology?
Wow, what an innovation that was and was promoted as such. So good was it that no other bat manufacturer gave it a go and Hunts stopped after that run of bats were sold. Why? Because it made no bloody difference to the power of the bat whatsoever. Same with the Kooka bats with the graphite back; there's no logical reason why that sort of thing should change the power of the bat positively.
If all bat makers are doing (as I suspect) is putting some scientific inquiry into the optimum shape/weight distribution for bat power then I don't find anything wrong with that. It's not changing the tech of the bat at all. Let us also not forget that pro batsmen are provided with bats by sponsors which are of softer (i.e. much more spring) willow these days because they don't need them to last as they did in the past. Softer willow breaks much easier but hits the ball much harder, after all.
Come on. How far are the boundaries roped-in? I once saw that model of athleticism and strength David Boon in 1993 edge (note: not middle) a cut for six to a much longer boundary at the Oval and saw both Mark Waugh and Geoff Marsh play the same shot many times.