100% Handicap does (2) things:

 

1) Does nothing to discourage sandbagging, period.  In fact, it almost promotes it to an extent.  At 100%, a bowler could throw 10 pins below their normal average for the entire first half of the season, and get a team of 5 players doing it, then that's 50 sticks a game, or 150 sticks for a three game set.  That is only (1) missed spare per person on the team, per game, and there is NO WAY you could prove intent with that low of a number, but you can see how big of a difference it makes when you add it up for an entire team.  Now, this same team, once they get enough games in at the end of the first half of the season, can start bowling well again because their averages won't go up as fast since they have probably 45-50 games in on the season.  This means they have the benefit of extra sticks they wouldn't normally have if they weren't sandbagging, and can dominate the second half of the season and win the league.  Go to 90% handicap, for example, and since you get less sticks the lower your average is, compared to a bowler at the average cap, then there isn't as much incentive to sandbag, period.  If you are going to get penalized pins for intentionally bowling below your average, then why do it?

 

2)  It also does not encourage lower average bowlers to improve their game.  I feel like the bowlers who put in the time and become good at the sport of bowling deserve some sort of reward for their effort, and that can be in the form of handicap that is less than 100%.  A 140 average bowler has no incentive to get better if they are getting the same amount of pins per game as the guy averaging 235.  I feel this is wrong, and by making the hanidcap a lower %, you are encouraging that 140 bowler to get better, so that they will be penalized less pins by increasing their average.  Now, people will tell me that many bowlers don't want to spend the time getting better and should not be forced to do so based on the handicap system.  Well, I say to them that why even bowl a league for prize money and awards if you don't want to get better? Just go in and have a few beers and bowl open practice instead.  It works both ways with that argument, so don't even go there.

 

The one thing any study doesn't realize is that yes, in theory 100% handicap would "level the playing field", and the USBC study was still saying that even at 100% handicap the higher average team still wins more of the time.  But, this is because the higher average team is more consistent from game to game and bowler to bowler, hence the higher averages, so that is why they win more games and not because of the handicap.  USBC says handicap should be around 111% or so to make the field truly "fair", which is absolutely crazy.  You think people sandbag now, try and run a league with that kind of handicap system, it will be out of control.  Those are my statements on handicap, and I'm sticking to them.

 

Edited by Maine Man on 9/16/2011 at 1:00 AM

Handicap is one of the biggest problems in all of bowling.  Another is the fact that many "bowlers" are unable to see outside of their own "little world."

 

Let me pose this question to those that think handicap levels are too low...

 

Why don't you institute individual average caps for your league?  Cap an individual at 200 or 210...then you'll have a league with more parity and less of a problem with handicap.  Every league is "invitational" by nature, so establishing rules that prohibit certain bowlers is well within the leagues "rights."  In addition, according to many of you that complain about the high average bowler, the high average bowler is the minority so the league shouldn't lose too many members, right?

 To be honest...the below quote may be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard (with all due respect).  A bowler gives his opponents a chance at beating him by making poor shots.  If you do not GET this simple point, why are you even discussing this?

Maybe the Yankees should let every team start off with 5 runs before they begin.  Perhaps the USA "Dream Team" should have allowed the rest of the world to start off with 50 points...so they would have a chance to beat them.  Maybe instead of handicap, all better bowlers should have to start off with 3 open frames...would that be more FAIR to you?  (SMH)

 

Edited by EagleHunter on 9/16/2011 at 6:41 AM

 

Since you didn't understand what I was talking about, here is the quote I was referring to:
"give your opponents a chance at beating you!"

How often does anyone WANT to give their opponent a chance to beat them?  If you wish to do that good for you.  I do not know of ANYONE who goes out looking to give their opponent the best chance possible at beating them.

As for Pros playing with Amateurs...I am 100% for it!  Any Amateur worth their salt WANTS to compete against the best STRAIGHT UP, to see how good they are and how much they need to improve.  And if, by the grace of God or their own ability, they manage the beat the Pro, it will give them a boost of confidence, not to mention it will be a REAL accomplishment.

The big problem here...the one that no one wants to admit...is this issue is 100% about the money.  For some reason, bowling has gone the way of the nanny state in thinking that it should "spread the wealth" around.  Why should the more talented players win the money?  Darn it...I paid into the system too and I should get my fair share...who cares how good we are?

Again, for those of you clamoring that handicap is unfair for the lower average bowler, here are two solutions:
1.  Eliminate ALL prize money and jackpots (so the higher average players all leave...since they are ONLY there for your money, right?).  Then you'll be competing for the fun and sport of it.

2.  Institute an individual (NOT a team) cap for ALL league members.  Make it 200 or 210...then you'll have a league of EQUAL caliber bowlers who won't need handicap, right?

So many of you complain about the high average players killing your leagues, why not just eliminate them completely?  Of course, when some of the remaining players actually get better, you'll probably have to kick them out too...but that's okay, after all the high average bowler is the minority, so you'll be able to fill those spots quite easily.

 

Again, so many of you have ZERO ability to see outside of yourself and your little pond.  THAT is why bowling is in the shape it is.

As for the proprietor side of the problem...it's really quite simple...they were/are LAZY!

Let's be honest, which of the following options would be the best for bowling:
1.  Leagues created with average-based divisions (no handicap), allowing bowlers an incentive to get better and a visible option of what is next in their career process.

2.  Leagues created by throwing everyone in together (must have handicap) regardless of skill.

Short of a FUN league (to define:  A FUN league is one where the lineage fee is paid and NOTHING else.  No prize fund, no jackpots...you're just there for the fun and the people), anyone being HONEST would have to select option 1.  Yet why is it that option 2 is pretty much the only option out there?

Because proprietors are LAZY!  It is much easier to lump everyone together and let them "sort themselves out" (which has led to many sorting themselves out of bowling altogether), rather than do the work needed to make option 1 work.

If you are a high average bowler, or know some high average bowlers, ask yourself this...how is it that so many of these bowlers know one another?  Around here (Detroit area) a high average bowler could walk into just about any center and find more than a few bowlers that he/she knows.  Have your average bowler walk into a center other than their own...they will most likely know NO ONE. 

And why should they?  Most average bowlers don't know anything other than their home center and their league.  Why is that?  Because bowling (largely proprietors) has FAILED to give them the opportunity to compete (should they choose to) with others of LIKE ability.

As a youth, I bowled in a scratch travel league that had divisions (you didn't have to be a high average player to bowl).  All of the bowlers in a division knew each other.  We also knew who the bowlers were in the upper divisions, and we WANTED to get there.  The league worked and is still in existance MANY years after I was there.

What does the average player have to aspire to?  The only thing he/she sees is their own center, with those mean high average players always winning and the rest complaining how it isn't fair.

Handicap is NOT a solution to anything...it is merely a weak band-aid for a much larger problem, LAZINESS.  Bowlers, both average and higher average, want to bowl.  They do NOT want to have to do the leg-work that a proprietor should be doing to put together leagues with divisions based on skill.  Proprietors are too LAZY to do the work, because "the bowlers just keep coming back."  Except that they aren't.

This is the ONE industry problem that should be addressed by BPAA, USBC, and any other integer that claims to have the best interest of bowling at heart.  Fix this problem and the band-aid isnt' needed.

 

Edited by EagleHunter on 9/16/2011 at 8:53 AM