Post by: Steven on October 20, 2003, 09:50:36 PM
The winning team had a female 170 bowler who averaged 220 over 8 games. Maybe it was a legitimate streak, but the odds say not. However, assuming the scores were legit, I would have had to average 270 to keep pace, which was unrealistic. Again, assuming her average was real, it's much easier for a 170 average bowler to go 220 than it is for a 220 bowler to maintain 270.
The point is to illustrate the basic unfairness of 100% handicap (or even 90% handicap) formats. Because it's harder to score more as you move up the chain, handicap needs to be in the 80% range to ensure some semblance of fairness.
Anyway, I did the tournament purely for fun and for the opportunity to bowl with a senior friend, so I wasn't overly disappointed. However, the outcome was predictable.
Some food for thought the next time you enter a similar format.
--------------------
"Advertisers -- you too can have access to this prime demographic"
Post by: card79 on October 21, 2003, 01:13:45 PM
--------------------
I don't really play cards and I am not 79, but it fits together somehow.
Post by: T-GOD on October 21, 2003, 01:25:57 PM
Post by: The Hose on October 21, 2003, 03:44:55 PM
Steven, you said it best. It's much harder to shoot 250's to 270's then it is for a 180 bowler to shoot 210.
I was asked to bowl in a handicap tournament and turned it down because of the scores every year. A couple of years ago it took 889 to win Singles! I've subbed in the tournament for brackets the last couple of years and have averaged about 240 and never won a penny. Thanks, but No Thanks.
I bowled a handicap tournament last week because it was in my own center and my partner and I shot 1425 scratch in Doubles. We hope it will make us our entry back.
--------------------
CLIQUE MEMBER
Post by: card79 on October 21, 2003, 03:48:06 PM
If they choose not to rerate me I will take it. I figure it is the benefits of being new into bowling and working very hard at it everyweek.
--------------------
I don't really play cards and I am not 79, but it fits together somehow.
Post by: Steven on October 22, 2003, 12:21:40 PM
quote:
Steven, you said it best. It's much harder to shoot 250's to 270's then it is for a 180 bowler to shoot 210.
Hose, this should be fundamental to the whole concept of determining what should be "fair" handicap. Why are you one of the few on the forum who gets this?
So my next question is the following: If it's true that it's harder for a higher average bowler to shoot +30 to +50 than it is for a lower average bowler to do the same, why does the ABC keep pimping the notion that 100% handicap (or higher) is the fairest system?
There are only two possible answers. (1), they are totally inept and don't understand, or (2), they know that the majority of ABC bowlers are in the lower average category, and it's in their best interest to pander to the greed of this group.
While the ABC may be partially inept
, I tend to believe (2) is the correct answer. Unfortunately, the ABC has repeatedly shown that it's more interested in keeping it's shrinking base that doing the right things. If I'm wrong on this, I'd like some input.--------------------
"Advertisers -- you too can have access to this prime demographic"
Edited on 10/22/2003 12:44 PM
Post by: Pinbuster on October 22, 2003, 12:38:32 PM
Leagues are long term. Almost without exception with less than 100% handicap one the top 3 teams in average will win a league. The ABC is saying that for the lowest average team to have a change to win the league they would need about 105% handicap. That being said I’m not really in favor of that but my experience has borne out what the ABC says. Someone will cite how a team of new bowlers comes in improves and wins the second half and the whole league but I personally have only seen that one time in my 40 years of bowling.
In a sprint like a 3 game event in a tournament the handicap bowler always has the advantage. I believe even if you lowered it to 2/3 (67%) you would almost always see a handicap bowler win. I could even vary the handicap by event. The odds of a whole team of high handicappers getting hot is lower so to be fair there handicap maybe around 80%, with doubles around 67% and singles might only be 50%. But if you are going to do this then none of the entry money for the handicap side of these events should go to any scratch payout. Entry into the scratch portion would have to be voluntary and optional.
Post by: card79 on October 22, 2003, 12:56:26 PM
--------------------
I don't really play cards and I am not 79, but it fits together somehow.
Post by: JOE FALCO on October 22, 2003, 01:01:45 PM
The HANDICAP percentage favors the bowler who AVERAGES at or ABOVE the cutoff. The PERCENTAGE is irrelevant!
HANDICAPS are FAIR (other then the case above) with the exception of the ENTERING AVERAGE. There are bowlers that purposely keep their average down (SANDBAGGERS) for tournament purposes. There is NO WAY that a bowler can AVERAGE 170 then average 220 in a TOURNAMENT .. the tournament DIRECTOR should have INVESTIGATED the bowler. Either CHECK out their CURRENT LEAGUE or the LAST TWO years BOOK average. It is feasible that the 170 bowler could hit 220 in one or two games but to average it for EIGHT GAMES is a situation that should be LOOKED AT by SOMEONE!
I prefer the HANDICAP tournaments (I average 200) but due to the ENTERING AVERAGE situation ... I have been staying clear of most of the TOURNAMENTS.
There has to be a BETTER WAY to get HONEST ENTERING AVERAGES!
--------------------
Hit them light and watch them fight
J O E - F A L C O
Post by: Pinbuster on October 22, 2003, 01:21:59 PM
Post by: s1nger1 on October 22, 2003, 02:38:23 PM
Post by: JOE FALCO on October 22, 2003, 04:00:24 PM
Using the example of a 220 bowler (thats what the POSTER is) and 220 being this cutoff:
180 AVERAGE at 100% gets 40 leaving him with 220 (180+40)
180 average at 75% gets 30 leaving him with 210 (180+30)
220 average at 100/50/80% gets 0 leaving him 220 (at 75% thats 10/game or 30 pins).
What you want to do is GIVE the game to the 220 bowler .. I say 100% is FAIR! (REMEMBER MY OPENING STATEMENT).
SAWBONES has an acceptable answer in my books .. the only problem is the PAY OUT would be reduced to NOTHING with groupings as defined unless you had a REALLY BIG FIELD!
--------------------
Hit them light and watch them fight
J O E - F A L C O
Post by: JOE FALCO on October 22, 2003, 10:33:27 PM
Should a HANDICAP Tourney be won by someone who shoots the most over his average? ... You tell me!
--------------------
Hit them light and watch them fight
J O E - F A L C O
Edited on 10/22/2003 10:46 PM
Post by: pchee2 on October 23, 2003, 04:56:05 AM
--------------------
pchee2<~~~stroking the ball with MANLY revs and spraying the lanes for an average of a buck 62. This guy is full of STUFF!
Post by: WAYouthBowler on October 23, 2003, 05:17:01 AM
...
Ok I'll shut up now
Post by: JOE FALCO on October 23, 2003, 11:14:16 AM
--------------------
Hit them light and watch them fight
J O E - F A L C O
Post by: Steven on October 23, 2003, 11:56:03 AM
However, Joe Falco, I'm disappointed that you still don't understand the handicap dynamics surrounding lower vs. higher average bowlers. The example of 100% handicap and calculations for a 170 average vs. a 220 average are very clear. Again, at 100% handicap, if a 170 bowler shoots 220, then the 220 bowler must shoot 270, which is a much more difficult feat to accomplish. Remember, as one progresses in average, it becomes increasingly more difficult to score higher. This is not a matter of opinion, but is one of fact. If there is something unclear here, I (or one of many others) would be happy to clear it up.
--------------------
"Advertisers -- you too can have access to this prime demographic"
Post by: Doc Hollywood on October 23, 2003, 12:05:03 PM
Most of the time the individual scores are not that much different than usual.
Only in a few instances where an individual or a team does really well in a tournament. That is usually luck and on rare occasion the condition matches up well. I know for a fact that I bowl on some of the worst if not the worst league conditions around. When I get to bowl a tournament the condition is fresh so it lends itself to higher scoring conditions for me. So I always bowl better. Since money is involved I usually step up to the challange as well. Some people fold. Also some people have true averages where no matter where they go they average the same and then there are those that can only average high in one house.
Comes to mind a tournament in Vegas recently where the Peach joined my team.
We happen to do well but we do usually cash anyways. No baggers on our team but when we hit the right conditions we bowl really well.
--------------------
Doc
Owner and Inventor of
DOC'S MAGIC BOWLING BALL ELIXIR
For more information click on the link below
http://home.comcast.net/~docsmagic/
or message me at:
http://Doc65@aol.com
Post by: LadyW on October 23, 2003, 12:27:11 PM
Being a 170 bowler I can totally understand how someone can bowl those numbers with that average.
Most of us are 170 bowlers because we're inconsistant. We're usually good spare bowlers but have problems understanding and adjusting to lane conditions which affects our strike percentage. This prevents us from getting to the next level.
When the shot is there for us, watch out because chances are we'll blow you away in handicap competition. On the other hand when we can't figure out the conditions, we're totally lost, hence the 170 average.
We usually have good basic skills and can take advantage of the shot when it's there for us.
So why not give credit where credit is due?
--------------------
LadyWannabe
Post by: bennett on October 23, 2003, 03:34:13 PM
Post by: Steven on October 23, 2003, 05:27:56 PM
quote:
Visual image received of Steven bowling with 130-140 average straight bowlers... HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Leftside: LOL! It actually wasn't the most comfortable situation. But sometimes we make sacrifices. The "senior friend" I partnered with was dear old Mom (who I don't see that often). As I said up front, it was about the fun and companionship first, and anything else was gravy.
Plus40: You nailed down the essence of LadyWannabe's response. She probably didn't realize that she explained the evils (and unfairness) of 100% handicap. Unfortunately, her answer was to live with it, instead of fix it, because the current system plays to her advantage.
Doc Hollywood: There were 80 doubles teams, and I didn't analyze how everyone did overall. When I scanned the final standings, it looked like a fairly even distribution of very good, average, and below average scores. It's not a high average house (I usually have trouble there) so I expected to see some lower scores. And while it's not the topic of the thread, we did OK overall. We cashed with a 6th place finish, and I came in second in the optional scratch sidepot with a 244 average. So this isn't about sour grapes -- just basic fairness.
--------------------
"Advertisers -- you too can have access to this prime demographic"
Post by: JOE FALCO on October 23, 2003, 08:49:26 PM
KEVIN 62 ..A 160 bowler bowling 247 .. YES they do .. but NOT VERY OFTEN otherwise it would be reflected in his average .. the same with a 220 bowler bowling MUCH higher (I won't say 307) but much higher but not that often otherwise it would be reflected in their average! AVERAGES are averages .. sure they bowl higher .. we are talking TOURNAMENTS here .. should they bowl like the original poster said (average 220 for a 160 bowler in a tournament) ..NO! The idea is to be FAIR .. if the AVERAGE is CORRECT (no sandbaggers) 100% is FAIR and it should be calculated with a cutoff of the HIGHEST average in the TOURNAMENT!
STEVEN .. a 170 bowler has as much chance of bowling 220 as a 220 bowler has of bowling 270 .. to think otherwise would be ridiculous.(eliminating SANDBAGGERS).
Tell me the last tournament that you were in that MOST OF the 170 bowlers bowled 220 average? You are living in DREAM WORLDS!
--------------------
Hit them light and watch them fight
J O E - F A L C O
Edited on 10/23/2003 8:59 PM
Edited on 10/23/2003 9:00 PM
Post by: JOE FALCO on October 23, 2003, 11:05:08 PM
How many 170 bowlers were in that tournament in question and HOW MANY shot more than their average without handicap .. how many of the 220 shot more then their average .. probable will find the PERCENTAGE is the same .. thats why 100% is the FAIREST!
HOW MANY BOWLERS FIT YOUR QUALIFICATIONS? In your case it would be impossible to check back 2 years for your average because of your NOT BOWLING .. Of 20 tournament in the last year how many participants do you feel fit the situation you define for yourself? LIKE YOU SAID .. YOU ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE .. do you suggest that's a reason to not give the OTHER 99% lower average bowlers a CHANCE?
--------------------
Hit them light and watch them fight
J O E - F A L C O
Post by: JOE FALCO on October 23, 2003, 11:28:49 PM
I'll agree that it was a TYPOGRAPHIC ERROR on the scores!
--------------------
Hit them light and watch them fight
J O E - F A L C O
Post by: JOE FALCO on October 23, 2003, 11:51:44 PM
ALL THE TIME I've been saying .. CONTROL has to be on AVERAGE VERIFICATION .. my comments are tied to what percentage of HANDICAP is FAIR .. MY FEELING IS 100% OF THE CUTOFF EQUAL TO THE HIGHEST BOWLERS AVERAGE! EVERYONE STARTS OFF WITH THE SAME FOOT. Using 210 as a cutoff and allowing a bowler to bowl with a 220 average is like giving the tournament to the 220 bowler.
I'm not dictating to ANYONE what is right or what is wrong .. I offer my opinion .. I'm willing to discuss the topic further .. here's my email address: jkjfalco@aol.com. I think the points have been made here and everyone reading has food for THOUGHT!
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to VOICE MY OPINION!
--------------------
Hit them light and watch them fight
J O E - F A L C O
Post by: LadyW on October 24, 2003, 11:54:40 AM
Steven stated that it was a doubles tournament. He failed to mention the entering averages and scores bowled of both his and the winning teams partner. Why didn't Steven enter with a lower average partner to try and level the playing field?
My objection was to the insinuation that the 170 entering average wasn't believable.
Contrary to what Dragon says, 170 bowlers don't stink, his attitude does.
I'm sure all of you didn't become 220 bowlers overnight. Have you all forgotten what it was like when you were at our level of play and still trying to improve upon your game?
You're obviously a lot more skilled than we are, but that doesn't mean that when we bowl really well that we didn't earn it.
--------------------
LadyWannabe
Post by: Steven on October 24, 2003, 12:47:10 PM
It's been a good thread with lots of interesting input. While most seem to agree with the truth that in general (i.e. most cases), 100% handicap favors lower average bowlers, there is a notable exception that might bring out further discussion -- Senior Bowlers.
For the most part, these folks have leveled off at whatever skill levels they have achieved. They are fighting the reality of diminishing skills as opposed to focusing on reaching new athletic highlights. This group tends to be steady without huge 'ups and downs'. My mom typifies this. She is a 155 book average bowler, which for her advanced age is really impressive. Her scores in most cases are in the 140-180 range. This is Joe Falco's world, this is what he sees, so he is convinced that 100% handicap is the right solution. And I would agree that seniors should be given the full difference.
However, for bowlers still developing (or capable of developing) their skills, 100% handicap becomes an advantage. In this group, it becomes a very real possibility to have a streak of averaging 50 pins or more over average. Of course not all of these 'up and comers' execute and come through, but it doesn't matter -- it only takes a few in each tournament to cast a shadow over the results.
LadyWannabe clearly understands this. However, what I find disturbing is the attitude of "Tough. That's the way it is and since it's to my personal advantage, I don't want it fixed".
Competitors should always call for as level a playing field as possible, because victory under any other circumstances is hollow. This is being lost on too many bowlers, and ultimately damages our game.
--------------------
"Advertisers -- you too can have access to this prime demographic"
Post by: LadyW on October 24, 2003, 01:55:05 PM
Quote "Tough. That's the way it is and since it's to my personal advantage, I don't want it fixed."
Was that comment directed towards me? If so, please say so. If that is the case, you totally misunderstood what I was trying to say and I would like the opportunity to clarify what I was trying to get across.
--------------------
LadyWannabe
Post by: Berreez on October 25, 2003, 10:12:30 AM
Except for the HUGE handicap tournaments most high average bowlers make their money in the brackets. What does it matter if a 170 average bowler signs up for the scratch bracket? If you bowl better then him/her, you win.
Kevin62571: I commend you are you’re honesty, but let me state the obvious: When you enter a tournament re-rate yourself to the higher average! Do you do that? There isn’t a tournament director out there that wouldn’t let you do that.
Personally, I get a whopping 2 pins when I enter the 75% of 220 tournaments. I’m lucky that most of the time I get full sponsorship from my company in all events. Hell we even get our rooms free, but that’s another topic!
Yet I still enter these. Why? Friends, meeting new friends, different oil patterns, etc. I just enter in the scratch brackets and hope for the best.
This was said once already, but if the tournament director(s) would re-rate these 170 bowlers when they come back the following year based off of their tournament average we would see allot less sandbagging. There are such things called data bases!
--------------------
My wrist brace is just like my RADAR detector, I really don't need it but it sure makes me feel better when I have it on.
Post by: JOE FALCO on October 25, 2003, 10:30:09 AM
--------------------
Hit them light and watch them fight
J O E - F A L C O
Post by: allengrace62 on October 25, 2003, 10:49:16 AM
likely to win a tournament, especially if the shot happens
to agree with his game. But to say a 160 bowler is more
likely to shoot 200 than a 200 bowler is to shoot 240 is
ridiculous. If it happened consistently he would soon not
be a 160 bowler. My observation shows that regardless of
the average, a bowler will shoot about half of his games
above average and half below. If he does anything much
different his average will either go up or down because
nobody whether they average 160 or 220 will bowl those
exact scores very often. I bowl in a league that has two
teams that are all nearly scratch bowlers. The handicap is
80% of 210. The only way most teams take many games from
these two teams is when a couple of their bowlers have
a bad night and the opposing team bowls over their average.
These two teams have finished 1 & 2 in the league for the
past three or four years.
Handicap level the playing field somewhat but unless it
is 100% the teams with the best bowlers will generally win.
Post by: LadyW on October 25, 2003, 11:00:41 AM
Tell me where in my post I said "Tough. etc, etc. etc."
I will try to explain one more time so that everyone else on this forum doesn't get the wrong impression of me.
The tournament rules and handicap % are set by those running it. It is not a matter of fair or unfair. When one chooses to enter any competition, they are well aware of the rules and the odds of them winning based upon the handicap percentage.
If you accept the challenge and lose, you can't then blame it on the rules because you knew them going in. Noone forced you to enter the competition especially when you knew the odds were against you.
I am an erratic 170 bowler who is very capable of shooting 220-240 games on occasion.
There's a group of gentlemen with averages between 180 to 210 that are at the alleys almost daily.
Sometimes I join them and they play for $.50 a game scratch. Now I know going in that every single one of them is a better bowler than I am but I still choose to accept the challenge even though the odds are against me.
I've come in first on several occasions, second and third on others and somtimes I'm totally destroyed.
I don't walk away saying I lost because the rules weren't fair. I knew the rules, chose to participate and lost because I just wasn't good enough that day.
A tournament or any form of competition is a contest. You know the rules, you step up to the challenge and accept the outcome. It is not a matter of fair or unfair.
--------------------
LadyWannabe
Post by: kendog on October 25, 2003, 11:47:39 AM
--------------------
Ken Stoner
Post by: JOE FALCO on October 25, 2003, 12:56:41 PM
VERIFICATION of averages falls on the TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR .. tournaments that I was involved in .. we ALWAYS verified the TOP 10 winners. Tournaments we ran were all LOCAL BOWLERS and it was not THAT difficult. BIG CASH prizes attract OUT OF TOWN BOWLERS .. AGREE that is GOOD but VERIFICATION is TOUGH! My feeling is a bowler showing an average based on LESS THEN 2/3 of a FULL WINTER league should be advised that they will bowl SCRATCH or that their average will be CALCULATED at the end of the tournament.
There is NO REASON for a 210/220 average bowler to be IN a (SINGLES) HANDICAP TOURNAMENT!
--------------------
Hit them light and watch them fight
J O E - F A L C O
Post by: seadrive on October 25, 2003, 01:16:56 PM
Tournaments held near the end of the season often have the problem of rapidly-improving bowlers, whose averages don't reflect their current bowling ability.
And then, of course, you have the baggers.
As a matter of principle, I would refuse to bowl a 100% handicap league or tournament. I worked too hard to get to my current level of ineptitude
to lose to someone who bowls 150 with a 130 average. That's just silly.--------------------
seadrive
Cogito ergo bowl
Post by: kendog on October 25, 2003, 01:23:54 PM
--------------------
Ken Stoner
Post by: kendog on October 26, 2003, 02:52:06 PM
--------------------
Ken Stoner
Post by: kendog on October 27, 2003, 10:45:13 AM
--------------------
Ken Stoner
Post by: Steven on October 27, 2003, 10:49:46 AM
quote:
What I resent most is someone putting words in my mouth. Tell me where in my post I said "Tough. etc, etc. etc."
OK, fair question. Please examine two of your statements in previous posts in this thread:
1) "You knew going into the tournament that the handicap was 100%. Since that puts the advantage on the lower average bowlers side, you had the choice of not participating. "
2) "Of course the advantage is on the side of the lower average bowler at 100% handicap. My point was that everyone entering knew that and still chose to participate. "
Your message was very clear. First, you acknowledge that one group (i.e. lower average bowlers) has an inherent advantage going in. Second, your analysis of the situation concludes that the solution is for the higher average bowler not to enter. In other words, you are saying "Tough" to the bowlers who get the short end of the stick.
Remember, the ideal intent of handicap is to ensure that all participants, regardless of ability, have an equal chance of winning. However, since this particular format favors you, your answer is to leave it alone.
So if you recognize that the format is unfair, why don't you take the approach that as a lower average bowler, you'll refuse the participate because the competition rules are tainted? That seems to be the higher road to take.
--------------------
"Advertisers -- you too can have access to this prime demographic"
Post by: LadyW on October 27, 2003, 11:59:49 AM
Unless you haven't noticed, we don't live in an "ideal" world.
You can't expect every tournament to be designed to satisfy the needs of the higher average bowler who is the minority, not the majority.
What about scratch competitions? Should they be abolished because they cater to the higher average bowlers? What chance does a 170 average bowler have there? Is that fair?
Why don't you run your own tournament so that you can set up the parameters?
We could go around in circles on this forever.
Let's just agree to disagree.
-----------
LadyWannabe
Post by: card79 on October 27, 2003, 12:17:53 PM
--------------------
I don't really play cards and I am not 79, but it fits together somehow.
Post by: Steven on October 27, 2003, 12:38:13 PM
Your example of scratch tournaments is interesting and there is actually some truth to what you said. Scratch tournaments do in fact cater to higher average bowlers, but that reality is right up front in flashing neon lights, so if you choose to enter, you know the rules (Card79, thanks for pointing this out first).
Conversely, Handicap format tournaments are supposed to be designed to eliminate the concept of favoring one group over another. And if the intelligent application of handicap percentages across different groups of bowlers was implemented, it could probably be achieved.
The problem is that the ABC does in fact want to cater to lower average bowlers, because that majority group is the only force that stands between them and organizational extinction. They pander this silly notion the 100% - 115% handicap is "fair" in a losing battle to maintain membership.
You can close your eyes and pretend this is good, or do the right thing and speak up against blatant competitive unfairness. You're right that we don't live in an ideal world where there are simple answers to all problems. However, when the answers are clear and easy to implement, we're remiss when we don't choose to speak up.
--------------------
"Advertisers -- you too can have access to this prime demographic"
Edited on 10/27/2003 1:48 PM
Post by: LadyW on October 27, 2003, 01:09:00 PM
You're exhausting me. I'm running out of steam as I'm not as young as I used to be and need to conserve some energy for bowling later.
I'll reply tomorrow after I take my iron pills.
-----------
LadyWannabe
P.S. I'm amazed at how many people have viewed this post. Last count 1,345.
Post by: JOE FALCO on October 27, 2003, 10:33:15 PM
Less see if your SPECULATION is reality!
--------------------
Hit them light and watch them fight
J O E - F A L C O