Author Topic: Handicap Max -- Should there be one? (Read 8703 times)

DrillLord · « **on:** August 27, 2008, 06:01:53 AM »

I currently bowl on a MENS league that has always had handicap at 80% of 200. Last year we had a couple of bowlers average over 200 and acquired a couple more that probably will. During the league meeting it was recommended that the handicap be changed to 80% of 220 to account for this.

The league has always had a MAX handicap of 52 pins. So if a bowler averaged under 135 they would still receive no more than 52 pins of handicap.

The league did nat address changing the maximum until some of the bowlers (the ones that average under 155) on the first night started to complain since they maxed on the handicap and felt that they should get more. I like having the max, but if we set the max any higher it wil begin to remind me of my mixed doubles team that started 180 pins in the hole each game. I always thought that the max handicap would inspire bowlers below that level to become better?

Opinions?

?

mainzer · « **Reply #16 on:** August 28, 2008, 11:01:40 PM »

9 said it best.
--------------------
MainzerPower

Kinalyx · « **Reply #17 on:** August 29, 2008, 02:21:40 AM »

Everyone makes the same type of comment during these handicap debates. The bowlers that improve the most throughout a season will more than likely win the league.

Well, lets find some logic in this that DOESNT say that the low averages actually have a pretty decent advantage over the 200+ average bowler.

Say a team has a low man of 170, three at 200 & 1 at 220.

Now another team has 5 averages under 140.

Which team is going to improve throughout an entire season?

The higher average team MIGHT go up 40 total pins, & thats still a BIG stretch. All while the sub 140s could all go up to around 150-160 fairly easily, especially if they havent been bowling long, or get some lessons.

How is it fare to give so much handicap in these leagues that the BETTER bowlers dont have ANY advantage at all?

I think putting a max of 40 pins of handicap, regardless of what its based off of should be the norm. Low average bowlers SHOULD get some sort of a negative for not being good. Not everyone deserves to win. How it it in any way fair that a good "scratch" team, that has worked hard on their game, researches bowling & equipment whenever possible, practices & actually give it their all day & in day out to be as good as they can, loses to a team of drunks that show up & just kinda hang out & have fun?

Im sorry, i hate handicap, always have, always will.

Basically this whole rant comes down to, stop enabling people to suck, make them want to be better, give them a reason to try. With all of this handicap, people can average 150 & be completely content with it because theyre making money.....its ridiculous

Shawn

Jay · « **Reply #18 on:** August 29, 2008, 04:34:43 AM »

I agree 100% with Kinalyx. I am in a league where handicap is the deciding factor of my team winning or losing just about every game. We've dealt with 100-200+ pins in the hole regularly(5-man teams). Now, saying these bowlers shouldn't have handicap is pretty harsh, because it's a junior league. But I'd bet money that my team from the last two years would have won the league if 100 pins, maybe even 150, was the max they could get.

I couldn't tell you what the handicap system was but there's no way it was fair for higher average bowlers. As a team we didn't quite average 200 and we never got handicap(unless they subtracted it from the handicap the other team had). I didn't pay too much attention to it honestly, but I'm going to make some suggestions this year to make it a real fair game rather than higher average bowlers bowling their butts off just to have a chance. From what I've been told it'll be 4-man teams this time, so I was thinking of suggesting that we go with one of these:

90% of 210
90% of the difference between the two teams' total averages

Assume no more than 4 people(2 on one team and 2 on another) would break 210, and the majority are 140-190 in a 15-team league. Might raise that 210 to 215 just in case, that's a safe number for sure. Thoughts?

9andaWiggle · « **Reply #19 on:** August 29, 2008, 07:22:49 AM »

quote:
Work schedules travel and time often dictate which centers and nights you can bowl. For many its also an issue of wanting to bowl with a spouse or significant other, or family member. So saying that all 200 average bowlers must bowl scratch is just ludricris.

I understand where you're coming from, and in these instances the 200 avg bowler should expect to NOT be bowling for money if they choose to bowl any handicap league for whatever reason. Plus, they should receive no handicap in said league.

quote:
And by the way, I don't think any adult, no matter what they average wants to bowl for a trophy these days. Trophies and plaques are something you leave behind in Jrs and most Jrs (especially the older ones) would rather have money too, but can't.

That should just be incentive for them to PRACTICE and get good enough to bowl on a scratch level - where they would be allowed to compete for money.

How come any other legitimate sport you are required to become at least semi-professional before playing for money, yet with bowling we allow any schlub that can pay the entry fee to bowl for the big bucks, PLUS give them handicap so they can be competitive without putting any practice or effort into their game?

I still say if you want to bowl for money, put in the time and practice to get good enough where you can compete on a SCRATCH level - where the only outside factor influencing the outcome is luck, and not some devised system which can be easily manipulated for an advantage - ala SANDBAGGING.

--------------------
9~

It's a Sheep thing... You wouldn't understand!

Pinbuster · « **Reply #20 on:** August 29, 2008, 08:01:31 AM »

I love that the higher average handicap league bowlers complain about giving handicap to lower averages.

But will not bowl in scratch leagues because they donâ€™t feel they are competitive. Or at least they want caps so they feel they have a chance, which is nothing but another form of handicapping teams.

Using Kinalyx example, one team has a team average of about 700 the other 990.

Even at 90% handicap the high average team wins by 29 pins if both teams shoot their average. The high average team will win 60+% of the matches.

Everyone remembers the time that team shot 800 and smoked them but forget all the games they shoot 640 and get creamed.

The low average team has to get better during the year to have a chance. And many of the bowlers on these low average teams have been bowling for years. They most likely are not going to get much better.

DrillLord · « **Reply #21 on:** August 29, 2008, 08:38:29 AM »

I have no problem with giving people handicap or bowling on a handicap league. I just think it is amusing when a person is getting 52 pins of handicap and complains that they want more.

When I shoot 220 and they shoot 160 do they really feel that they should have won that game??

I understand that when they joined the league they were not looking to join a scratch league, but I don't think that every time a team loses a match the solution is more handicap.

Grayson · « **Reply #22 on:** August 29, 2008, 08:41:40 AM »

the problem with handicap is not the handicap but the sandbaggin

So the local house league (there will be league meeting on monday) has a plan... there will be 1:1 games ... maybe 6 or more within every of the three devisions and handicap set to the last number used last season... or maybe no handicap at all... this way you will have equal teams facing in the league after those "beginning" games with everyone playing as good as possible or the team will be placed lower of even kicked out of actuall devision...

I don't have the exact idea... just some rumors... on Monday night I can tell you more... but from what I heard it sounds good.
It should prevent tactical sandbagging as the first six games you have to give your best or get kicked out of the devision and then the handicap is related to those games.... I think that was the idea.

I'll see and then tell you...
--------------------
Sebastian Koch
"Have fun and bowl well!" - Grayson
"Some things are made so even idiots won't fail using them.... But I ask what about the genius?" - Grayson

(\_/)
(x_x)
c(')(')

Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ
Hot Water Bath - instructions and experience

Bowling lessons and tips VIDEOS - VERY GOOD!

DrillLord · « **Reply #23 on:** August 29, 2008, 08:49:00 AM »

Also,

This house is famous for low averages. Many of the bowlers also bowl in other houses and average 20+ pins higher. The bowlers that complain that they want more handicap in the league are the same bowlers that brag about how well they do in tournaments (with unlimited handicap) because of the difficult shot that their average is established on. I always liked the handicap max because it takes away the incentive to sandbag for tournaments.

BTW, many of these maxed out bowlers are very capable of raising their average 15 - 20 pins but don't want it that high for tournaments.

trash heap · « **Reply #24 on:** August 29, 2008, 08:55:59 AM »

All you higher average bowlers don't know your facts. Even at a league at 100% handicap the higher average team wins.

Any handicap league that does the following is .... in my opinion giving the higher average teams more advantage:

1. Capping handicap at the individual level. (This is stupid)
2. Setting any handicap % lower than 90%. (It should be 100%).
3. Have the handicap base lower than the high average bowler. If your league's base is set at 200 and you have several bowlers with 205, 220, or 215 averages....obviously you don't know what fair play is about.

If your league does any of these things...instead of asking low average bowlers to bowl in your league....do them a favor....just ask if they want to contribute to prize fund instead!!!

Handicap league is what it states. Its not....

This is a Handicap League but if your average is below 155 you not allowed to beat someone with a 200 average because the 200 average play is too sensitive and might quit the game if this happens.

DrillLord · « **Reply #25 on:** August 29, 2008, 09:06:18 AM »

Here are some examples from a different house here in Michigan. This is at the state bowling tournament.

ALL EVENTS HANDICAP
Place Bowlers Names Score Handicap ActualScore From
1 Kubik, Anthony W 2,414 825 1,589 Deckerville, MI
14 McConnachie, Tom 2,262 873 1,389 Deckerville, MI
29 Thompson, Edward C 2,230 825 1,405 Deckerville, MI

DOUBLES HANDICAP
6 McConnachie, Tom / Kubik, Anthony W 1,542 566 976 Deckerville, MI

These same bowlers brag about how much money they make from the state tournament. I don't even want to get in to how much money these guys made in brackets. I can't fathom how an individual can average 176 and finish 1st in a state championship.

I bowled on a previous league where the team bragged about how they would sandbag the first half and then pour it on in the second after they had their averages low enough.

We must have a handicap MAX to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Dan Belcher · « **Reply #26 on:** August 29, 2008, 09:11:21 AM »

DrillLord, even with a handicap max, you're still going to have sandbagging to some degree. You'll never be able to eliminate sandbagging as long as handicap is used to artifically help the lower average bowler compete with the higher average bowler.

trash heap, you're assuming the point of all handicap leagues should be to create absolute parity, any team should be able to win at any time, and the final standings would be basically random. For some leagues that might be the goal (though I disagree with it since that reminds me of being just shy of the "we don't keep score so everyone wins and nobody gets their feelings hurt" mentality in tee-ball and kiddie soccer these days). However, other leagues view handicap as just a way to give the lower average teams some chance to be competitive, but not a guarantee, as talented bowlers are rewarded for their ability, though not to the extent of a scratch league. It's all about what balance that particular league wants.

Rileybowler · « **Reply #27 on:** August 29, 2008, 09:15:11 AM »

The fact of the mater is handicap is decided by each and every league so if you don't like the way the vote went don't bowl in that league. For all you high average bowlers go join a scratch league then you would probably argue that you don't have a handicap. Thats life deal with it its only a game
--------------------
Carl

DrillLord · « **Reply #28 on:** August 29, 2008, 09:21:16 AM »

Trash Heap,

If you had read my original post this is not at all what I am saying. 52 pins is not that much handicap, I have given over 120 pins to a bowler at one time. They started off with the first 3 (1 brooklyn, 1 through the nose) and finished with a 147, I shot 258 with a pair of ten pins and lost. I had to laugh at this situation. I do not cry nor will I ever leave the league, I just don't understand why the solution is always more handicap.

My complaint is that during the league meeting we agreed to change the handicap to 80% of 220. After the first week the team that we spanked now wants more handicap. They bowled like sh1t and deserved to lose. One of the bowlers averaged under 130 for the night and he averaged 157 last year. The team is upset because they can't reap the benefits of his poor night next week since he will only receive the max.

Rileybowler · « **Reply #29 on:** August 29, 2008, 09:41:16 AM »

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, a vote is a vote and thats the way it should stand
--------------------
Carl
Bless the LORD o my soul and all that is within me bless his holy name

gsback · « **Reply #30 on:** August 29, 2008, 10:17:20 AM »

I won't go through the whole thread, but I will say this much.

First, we had a max on average. We have 3 teams that are made up of guys and gals that have Downs Syndrome. In the past, we had a 110 pin max handicap and the main reason was because the better teams were complaining because they were giving up handicap to those teams and they struggled to beat them.

Now, to sit there and say that they have just as good a chance to get better is and isn't true. I've seen them throw a 180 game with a 100 average as easily as I've seen them throw a 50 game.

In the end, they've never come close to winning the league. If anything, they moved up a couple places from the bottom and that's it when the max handicap was removed.

Second is the format used. It's my opinion that for those leagues using a 4 point (which you shoulnd't be using for 3 games anyways) or a 7 point system, then yes, removing a max handicap is going to hurt and for the obvious reasons. That person could be the sole reason for his/her team picking up 5 points night because of good bowling 1 or 2 games.

In a 20 point system like what we use, that person bowling 2 good games is going to account for 4 points only.....out of 20!! So the impact made is greatly decreased.
--------------------
BR.com.....going down the toilet one nugget at a time!!

g thing is back....with a vengeance!!

Author Topic: Handicap Max -- Should there be one? (Read 8703 times)

DrillLord

Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

mainzer

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

Kinalyx

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

Jay

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

9andaWiggle

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

Pinbuster

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

DrillLord

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

Grayson

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

DrillLord

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

trash heap

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

DrillLord

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

Dan Belcher

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

Rileybowler

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

DrillLord

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

Rileybowler

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?

gsback

Re: Handicap Max -- Should there be one?