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

It doesn't have to be allowed if a league doesn't want to allow it. Handicap scores can be capped at 300/900

USBC Rule 100g. Handicap
5. A handicap game or series shall not be capped unless otherwise provided by league rule. If a league adopts such a rule, a game or series cannot be capped below the highest possible scratch score.

I've read dozens of threads and opinions on handicap and I don't know if I've seen anybody mention this idea I just thought of.  I probably ain't the first but here it goes -

What about a progressive type of handicap system?  Handicap is 90% of 220.  To get 90% you have to average at least 210.  200 average gets 85%.  190 average gets 80%.  170 average gets 75%.  165 average gets 70%, ect.  What say you???

I'm thinking this is more incentive for the low average guys to get better so they can get a bigger percentage of handicap.  Plus is sucks when a 210avg/9handicap bowler rolls a 220 for a net 229 and ends up losing to a 135average/76handicap that rolls a 155 for a net 231.

In your system, every lower average bowler who can do basic math will quit.

I was a lower average bowler once.  I'm guessing none of us came out of the womb bowling scratch.  But we are still here and still bowling.  But I see your point.

Usually a majority vote at the beginning of the season sets the handicap.  I guess a true test would be to bring it up for a vote and see how many hands get raised.  I know for a fact it would never pass where I'm at. But I thought I'd throw it out there to you guys and get some feedback. Good or bad.

   

The problem, at least in my area, is the average age of league bowlers. Most of use are at least 40 with ages going all the way up to the mid 90's.

There is the occasional "new" bowler, but I would guess that %80+ of these folks have been bowling for years. They would like to improve on their 160-200 average, but at this point in their life/bowling career, it ain't gonna happen and they know it.

So if you give them a handicapping system where they have zero chance to be competitive, they will be at bingo on Tuesday nights instead of bowling . 

I'm sure there is a point to this story...

Quote from: milorafferty on October 20, 2017, 05:35:13 PM

I'm sure there is a point to this story...

Wishfull thinking.  Handicap threads and clean game definition threads go on and on and on like the energizer bunny.  Hey, at least there isn't a politics section in this forum.  Then we would get invaded by trolls, bots, and paid posters. 

Yea, if there was a "Non-Bowling Misc" forum, things might get ugly with name calling, cursing, verbal fights, threats, making sh1t up about other people and just general being an a$$hole.


I know this because I've seen me do it.   

I would think that having a bracket approach where a bowler has to bowl within a range of their average for the score to count towards winning money. I think drag racing does something like that where you cannot be a lot faster than the time you entered.

Seems like some approach to clamp down on sandbagging would help more than anything else and I guess is the thought behind the original post.  It is common knowledge in my area that some people only bowl at the houses that you cannot score well at. I guess it can work the other way as bowlers who bowl were the scores are higher will not do as well handicap wise. 

I would venture a guess that most people who bowl in a league have seen people who seem to sandbag. 

I'm a numbers/math guy and I've crunched, plotted, and graphed handicaps out over time on spreadsheets.  I'm sure there are hundreds of guys before me who tried to do the same thing, and I'm sure many we're much smarter than me.

I finally gave up because no matter what system you put in place cheaters/sandbaggers will come up with a way to beat or circumvent the rules you create.   

If you base it on the bowlers average, you are right, there is no way to keep the shitbaggers in check.