I just want to know what you guys/ladies think of the handicap being 100% of 230. I bowl on Tuesday nights. Through hard work and dedication to this sport of bowling, I have increased my average to 230. I am the only person in the league over a 220 average. I am 1 of 2 over 215. The league's average as a whole is only 187. I forgot to mention the league does not play just by team score (handicap score after each game) but also individual team members handicap games. So the team can win up to 4 single points (1 from each team member) and two team points for each individual game, which means up to 18 pts could be scored every night.

Last night, I compared my individual scratch games (178,202, and 278) to how everyone shot and noticed I would not stand a chance even had I thrown average the first two games. There were many handicap games of 250+, 270+, 290+ and a few 310+. To be precise, there were 40 handicap games over 260. So in other words and correct me if I am wrong, if I mess up (not strike) more than 2 times, I do not stand a chance in the league. It sounds like a sandbaggers format to me. Tell me what you guys think.

A "TRUE" 180 average bowler will only shoot one or two 230+ games a year.

I have bowled many hdcp leagues and there are not a bunch of hdcp games over 300.

In a 36 week season you bowl 108 games.  Even if you say the 180 average bowler shoots 10 games at 230-250, that's still 98 games where you should win.

What you are not considering is what I call "bowling the big dogs" effect.  In one particular league it seemed that every hdcp team bowled well against us.  So finally I asked a few of the team members if they knew why. 

The answers were simple:  We are trying harder against you because we know you are good.  We don't drink beer/alcohol that night, and focus a little harder. 

And the final answer: they took pride is beating us. 

Think about it, it does make sense.

I think that this does happen a lot.  Lower average bowlers/teams bowl better against the higher average bowlers/teams.  And possibly the higher averages don't get up as much for the lower averages. 

What do you think?  If this effect is real, then a 100% handicap would give the advantage to the lower average bowlers.

I'm going to quote part of Charlest point.

"At different times, the ABC and, more recently, the USBC have calculated that it takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 110% to 115% handicap for the handicap bowler to beat the scratch bowler. So with a 100% handicap, you technically, in the long run, still have the advantage."

a while back I ran a couples league with 24 teams and this always came up.
I did contacted the USBC at the time and got the same info as stated above, additionally, the average of all games bowled over 2 a year span by bowlers was in the 150's

If you think you should get a 10 or 20% advantage against a lower average bowler, how is that fair? If you think that just because math statistics say they have a more room to bowl over their average, I think that's a selfish thought

Averaging 200 or more is the top 5-10% of all bowlers, so you are in the minority
I wouldn't want to give up 10 or 20% advantage to anyone who is better than me, how is that any fun....

bottom line thing I learned from years of running that league
NEVER...EVER going to make everyone happy

If you think you should get a 10 or 20% advantage against a lower average bowler, how is that fair? If you think that just because math statistics say they have a more room to bowl over their average, I think that's a selfish thought

Averaging 200 or more is the top 5-10% of all bowlers, so you are in the minority
I wouldn't want to give up 10 or 20% advantage to anyone who is better than me, how is that any fun....

In most handicap league settings, I agree with you. Lower average bowlers for the most part are stuck at whatever average they're at, and they're not going to improve. For this typical handicap environment, 100% makes perfect sense.
 
But like everything else in life, there are exceptions to the rule. We have a handicap league that continuously attracts younger bowlers who tend to improve. Every year, there are 15-20 who finish the league averaging up to 20 pins higher than what they entered. For this league, their 90% makes sense given the improvement curves, and there have been years where 80% would have been the better number. Again, this is more the exception than the rule. But it illustrates that a league has to be aware of it's internal demographics for establishing a percentage. There is no such thing as one size fits all.

A "TRUE" 180 average bowler will only shoot one or two 230+ games a year.

I have bowled many hdcp leagues and there are not a bunch of hdcp games over 300.

In a 36 week season you bowl 108 games.  Even if you say the 180 average bowler shoots 10 games at 230-250, that's still 98 games where you should win.

What you are not considering is what I call "bowling the big dogs" effect.  In one particular league it seemed that every hdcp team bowled well against us.  So finally I asked a few of the team members if they knew why. 

The answers were simple:  We are trying harder against you because we know you are good.  We don't drink beer/alcohol that night, and focus a little harder. 

And the final answer: they took pride is beating us. 

Think about it, it does make sense.

Very True Statement +1

>> Lower average bowlers for the most part are stuck at whatever average they're at, >> and they're not going to improve. For this typical handicap environment, 100% makes >> perfect sense.

Why are they stuck? Because they don't want to improve? They don't want to take the time to get some lessons and get better? They won't practice?

So what you are saying is we should just give them bonus pins and wins because they lack a desire to get better. Really?

Can we do this in Major League Baseball? That .200 average batter doesn't want to get better so 20% (1 in every 5) of his at-bats will automatically be considered a hit and he can just take 1st base.

A lack of desire to get better is NOT a reason to give anyone 100% handicap in anything. If this is case, these people need to stop playing sports. Why play a sport if you have no desire to get better at it? Unless you are averaging 300, you have room for improvement.

This up and down in shooting scores is all a product of THS. For every 230 game a 180 average bowler shoots there has to be some 140s and 150s to counter it.

All I can state, Big Money Handicap Leagues and THS is a bad combination.  Someone is not going to be happy.

Now one thing should be capped in my opinion is 300. There should not be any handicap score above 300.

Quote from: AMF300bowler on August 29, 2016, 11:44:11 AM

>> Lower average bowlers for the most part are stuck at whatever average they're at, >> and they're not going to improve. For this typical handicap environment, 100% makes >> perfect sense.

Why are they stuck? Because they don't want to improve? They don't want to take the time to get some lessons and get better? They won't practice?

So what you are saying is we should just give them bonus pins and wins because they lack a desire to get better. Really?

Can we do this in Major League Baseball? That .200 average batter doesn't want to get better so 20% (1 in every 5) of his at-bats will automatically be considered a hit and he can just take 1st base.

A lack of desire to get better is NOT a reason to give anyone 100% handicap in anything. If this is case, these people need to stop playing sports. Why play a sport if you have no desire to get better at it? Unless you are averaging 300, you have room for improvement.

 
As charlest stated, there are a number of reasons a 180 bowler doesn't improve, some of which are due to physical limitations or just plain getting old -- the fate that awaits all of us. 
 
But based on my experience, much of it is based on lack of desire. The vast majority of 180 bowlers in mixed handicap leagues enjoy their 3 games a week with their bowling buddies, and that's enough. I practice about 15 games a week outside of leagues, both during the week and on weekends, and there are very few out there practicing for improvement -- at any level.
 
The bottom line is that without these 180 average bowlers, you don't have leagues. So you have to come up some mechanism for 180 bowlers to bowl along side 230 bowlers, and as flawed as it is, 100% handicap is usually the best solution. Arguing the alternative that the typical 180 should stop bowling is not a realistic answer.

And for every bowler without the "desire" to get better there is the bowler who practices incorrectly for years hoping to get better.  I doubt you will find a bowler who doesn't want to get better.  However, you may find bowlers who don't want to go above and beyond to achieve it.  I just don't think desire to get better is disputable.