It won't work because you can't change the basic layout of a golf course and you can change the lane pattern at a push of the button. 

The slope rating won't work, because there is not enough manpower to determine the difficulty/condition of every house.  I won the senior championships in Virginia for my age group a few years ago.  Went to Vegas to bowl in the national championships.  I was high scratch and finished 11th with handicap, out of the money.  I talked to some of the winners and they all bowled in crappy houses that were in terrible condition.  It kept their averages low and handicap high.  140-160 in the bad houses, with 180-200 in good houses.  The difficulty of each house would have to be determined by going to each house and doing a lot of measurements.  Not enough manpower or coordination to do this on a national basis.

It can be done, but not against the characteristics of the house. Bowlers should be rated as compared against other bowlers on similar conditions, not the characteristics of the facility.

If you are in the top 1% of bowlers in your house, then you will probably be in the top 1% where ever you bowl.

USBC has all the data needed to use this method. With the league, USBC Open, State and Local tournament averages, it would be a somewhat simple task to rate bowlers correctly.


I guess it would be a slope rating of the bowler, instead of the house. 

Quote from: milorafferty on October 18, 2017, 10:50:15 AM

If you are in the top 1% of bowlers in your house, then you will probably be in the top 1% where ever you bowl.

This is likely correct, but that's a very small portion of bowlers. What about the bowlers below that? I have definitely been much better at certain houses over the years than others, and I've seen the same from many people in my area.

And then what about the larger centers? Sometimes one end plays much differently than the other. I'm assuming that some multi-level houses also have the same issue.

Lastly, some areas are more prone to humidity changes than others.

I just don't see it working.

Okay, let me extrapolate the idea a bit. Sure, the top 1% are generally going to be in their same top 1% group no matter where they bowl.

Therefore, a bowler who is in the 5% to 10% range of bowlers in their house, will probably fall into that same group if they bowl elsewhere.

If a bowler is not better in the top 40% of bowlers in their house, but IS better than the bottom 40% of bowlers in their house, I would guess that said bowler would fit into the same percentile group no matter where they bowled or on what condition.

A golf handicap is not your average, it's your potential.  If bowling made you adjust your scores and only used your best 10 out of 20 sets then they would be comparable. 

A single digit handicap golfer can't post a score toward their handicap over double bogey.  Maybe a bowler averaging 220 shouldn't be able to count a 140 toward their handicap.

A golf handicap is not your average, it's your potential.  If bowling made you adjust your scores and only used your best 10 out of 20 sets then they would be comparable. 

A single digit handicap golfer can't post a score toward their handicap over double bogey.  Maybe a bowler averaging 220 shouldn't be able to count a 140 toward their handicap.

I don't know all the intricacies of the golf handicapping system, but I've been wondering if bowling could do something similar to golf.  Currently in bowling if your handicap is 50 pins, you get 50 pins added to your score if you shoot 150 or 300.  Shouldn't the system be more like the golf system to where the handicap allows you to aid your bad shots.  Could this help eliminate sandbagging as well, as you will only get help on bad shots and not additional pins if you bowl well.  Not sure how it would be able to work with the automatic scorers though.

Whatever system is used, you should not be able to go past 300/900. Just absurd that this is allowed.