I've been looking forward to the winter leagues starting up again for a few weeks. But it's just always something, isn't it?

Started at a new house in a new league, and I was really looking forward to it. After soundly beating the team we bowled tonight every game, they pulled out the pencil at the end, went to work, and said they won every game. 100% handicap. Not 100% of 200, or 100% of 220. 100%, as in add up team A's new averages, add up team B's new averages, (the first week) and subtract the smaller from the larger, and THAT's the handicap.

I never heard of this. Every league I've ever been in was 80%, and I think one was 85% But this is this league's rule - 100%. I'm now thinking I don't want to go back to this league. What's the point of setting a high average if all I'm going to do is give away the entire difference to somebody with a lower average and get beat by it all the time? No matter how much better I am than somebody else, they get the whole difference handed to them and I now have to work that much extra harder, while they enjoy less room for error.

Now isn't it easier for someone with a 100 average to bowl 130 than it is for someone with a 200 average to bowl 230? A 100 average needs one stinking mark to make their average. And they have 10 opportunities to get one or more lucky breaks. A 200 average needs, what, 9 or 10 marks every game? Isn't that much less room for error?

I'm told this thinking is flawed, and to make things fair, handicap should actually be set at 110% I flat out don't see it. And I'm extremely angry that I wasn't told this going in. I probably would not have joined this league if I had been told this.

Has anyone ever heard of this?

It's always a good idea to attend league meetings where things like the handicap are discussed. I've heard of 100% handicap leagues, and 95% too. Around here, 90% is the most common.

While I agree with the notion that a scratch bowler has it within him or her to strike when necessary (they're a little better at the pressure aspect), I can safely say I'd never bowl a 100% hcp league let alone a 116% hcp league (USBC's claim of where fairness starts).

My feeling, even in an adult/jr league or kids league, is that leagues need to offer some incentive to bowlers to actually try and get better. A 100% handicap league really risks losing the higher average bowlers as some of those new bowlers get their own ball and shoes midyear, and start shooting numbers that no one can even come close to (ever seen a 316 or higher handicap game score?).

Good luck, but again, attendance at the league meeting would have saved you the heartache.

Where I live I don't have much choice for leagues. In the house I bowl in, there are only 5 people capable of averaging 180+, I being one of them. Both of the leagues I bowl in are going to 100%. Whatever, I don't care. If that's what it takes for some of these lazy sandbagging bowlers to stick around and have 10-12 teams instead of 6, fine. Most of these bowlers like no-tap so that has to give you an idea about their mentality. In one of the leagues, I sarcastically mentioned going to 1000% of 300 for handicap. It was met with a couple of chuckles and a lot of glares.

When I'm forking out $12/night per league and $7 is going to lineage, there isn't a lot coming back to me by year's end, so for me it's all about fun, personal motivation, and maintaining my focus for every ball. My incentive is to get 10 pins myself...by averaging 210.

If I had a choice to bowl in any league it would be scratch with a sport shot. Shoot, I wouldn't even mind 100% on a sport shot. I know most of the inflated average bowlers in my house would not like the "reality check" a sport shot would bring them, but I do love to bowl on a challenging, but fair, pattern.

Its like so many things in our society. Just call it WELFARE BOWLING. They feel entitiled to be made equal to someone else that works very hard at this game. I'd drop this league like a bad habit.

Erin

I don't get it, is it a "team" handicap? How does it adjust week to week? This does not seem fair at all!!

Welfare bowling. I like that term. That pretty much describes bowling in my area. The good bowlers suffer because the rest cry about losing night after night. One word: tough!

Depending on where you live, you might be able to find a better league, Broncobilly. If you like the people in the league, maybe you stick it out. I know that if I do not like the majority of people in the league (for whatever reasons - mainly sandbaggers, loudmouths, etc.), I usually find someplace else to bowl, or another league. It's worse when I don't like the majority of the league AND their scoring system (which has happened once). Ugh! Talk about major headaches.

Angel is right, though, you should've gone to the meeting. Fortunately, it's only one week so to up and quit wouldn't be too bad. Not much lost in terms of money, so you won't feel sick about it.

Yeah, it'll fluctuate depending on the averages of the two teams. Say Team A has a team average of 680 and Team B has a team average of 620, then the per game handicap is 60 pins (total handicap is 180). Next week, Team A's average rose to 700, and team C has a team average of 590. Now the per game handicap is 110 (total handicap is 330).

Essentially, it's not much different than adding up the per bowler handicaps of both sides and taking the difference (unless you have a bowler averaging over the handicap base).

Erin,

Part of the problem isn't with the lower average bowlers, I'm afraid. A good center has a "starters" league (might be short season, might have music playing, etc), and then leagues that get gradually more competitive, and hopefully some type of scratch or sport options.

Unfortunately, more and more centers are just dumping anyone who walks in the door into any night they have openings, and that causes the trouble.

All is not lost, though. At my center we're actively making the older teens aware of handicap, and how to make a league fair without it. Our matchpoint high school league is scratch matchpoints and a handicap team game (90% to 400, and no team averages 400). The individual bowler points are worth one point each, and the team game is worth 2. The real reason? While the kids all wanted to reward the higher averages and get better, some of them wanted to bring in friends that were not as good. Seems like a decent compromise coming from a bunch of kids We also offer an Adult/Jr that's hcp and a later one for the older (better) kids that's scratch. The sad thing is that some of them have to find a different adult to bowl with since Mom or Dad might not be able to keep up with the closer to duece averages.

My winter league just recently siwtched from 90% of 210 to 100% of 210 because of one bowler who's consistently hitting 230+. The rest of the league averages 200 and below. Supposedly it's supposed to make it more even for those who aren't scratch bowlers. However, your situation just sounds weird.

That would be a league that I would say no thank you to. As was mentioned above, we have a leage that is a "practice league" It is set up as a fun league with a high handicap & they get free practice games each week.

Camper,

I don't understand why they went with 100%. Why not just go 90% of 230 to include the highest league average?

100% handicap encourages sandbagging and discourages improvement.

Angel, I think your Jr ideas are great. Plus when you bring on a lower average bowler you have great opportunities to improve that bowler. If you have kids bringing on lower average friends, then its a great idea two help those lower averging kids improve. An improving bowler and team is the one that wins, not the highest average.

Higher average bowlers were not 'hatched'. They worked for their skills. And that ability to work to improve is available to everyone. Its all about the amount of effort you can put into it. If you cannot, due to finances, time constrictions, other hobbies and sports that's fine. But you shouldn't just get given equal playing field when you did nothing to earn it.

Erin

That's the wrong solution to the problem. The cap should be about 10 pins higher than your highest bowlers average. So in the case of your league, they should have changed the handicap to 90% of 230 or thereabouts. I am strongly against 100% handicap. 90% seems to be good for most leagues. More competitive leagues may use lower - 80% or lower, or scratch. I could see 100% handicap for a beginners league, but that's it.

Every year we have our league meeting and the president says USBC is pushing all leagues to go to 100%, I don't know if this is false or misguided information but I don't know why the USBC would want all leagues to go to this format. I can understand to bring in new bowlers but what do you do to retain the veterans?

And guess which type of bowlers always suggest the 100% rule? Unfortunately, we will never rid ourselves of the cheats in this sport, and it's terribly difficult to catch them, so usually, my motiviation against a bunch of sandbaggers it to beat them. That's all you can do. I pick the best teammates I can find to "beat the cheats". As long as they don't win the league, then I'm happy. If they win, then I'm not at all happy.

This was my first night in both this house and this league. This is an established league that has apparently been around for awhile. Lots of seniors. There are 10 teams, 3 people to a team.

I do very much want to bowl with the people I am on the team with. The problem is that I think we are going to be one of the higher average teams. I can see there are a lot of seniors and women in this league with low averages.
So we're going to give away alot of pins at 100% handicap.

It didn't help our cause any that the team we bowled against also didn't have all 3 of their people the first night, and used a 120 league vacancy, which of course, is used in figuring the handicap. I have complained about this many, many times in the past as well. When a team doesn't have all their players, why does it always become their opponents problem? They either use a 120 vacancy in figuring handicap like they did to us, or during the regular season, they get rewarded with a sub, who 99% of the time has a higher average and bowls better than the missing bowler, in my experience.

I'm probably goig to try one or two more weeks at least, because I do like the people I'm bowling with. But I just have a horrible feeling about 100% handicap. I also still can't seem to figure out how, even giving 100% handicap the first night while establishing averages, we can beat them all4 games and they win all 4 by handicap. We didn't give them more than we beat them by, so I'm totally confused there.

And I didn't go to the captains meeting, as I am not the captain, and I'm not even sure if there was one. There was a very short speech by the league secrertary between practice and starting bowling, and they handed out some papers. Took about a minute and a half. Maybe that was the meeting in question. It was mostly "welcome back" stuff. Again, I'm not a captain and I wasn't paying much attention.

Part of the reason I'm so mad about this is that I feel like I was totally blindsided by it.

Hi Broncobilly. I think you need to find out a bit more about the league's Constitution. I believe that every bowler should be given a copy or, at least, have it made available for your viewing. It is not usual to have established team averages the first night unless the constitution states otherwise (like using the previous season book averages) and the scores and averages are established after a minimum of three weeks (9 games) of competition and then applied retrospectively. Whatever the case.. check it out first. If you feel that the handicap system is not going to give you a chance of winning the league (if that is your intention) then you can use it for good game scoring practice and improving your average. Have a talk with your team-mates as well.. they may feel a little differently.
As for the 100% system.. I bowl in a league operating this way and we have very few problems. Currently there is only one scratch bowler and his team are low handicappers... they do just as well as any team in the league. Interestingly, it was the scratch bowlers that set up the current system!
Whatever happens, enjoy your bowling, especially if you enjoy bowling with your team-mates.
Good luck.
Allan

Camper, I'm wondering why the league went to 100% handicap instead of just raising the handicap level to 90% of 230.

Angel, you have some really good ideas for your Jrs. And bowling with bowlers that are at a lower skill level gives your upper level Jrs a chance to share what they've learned.

Higher average bowlers were not just hatched. They had to learn and practise and work to get better. Its the same opportunity everyone has. If you cannot do so due to finances, time constraints or other hobbies/sports (which I understand) then that doesn't mean you have earned an equal 100% level playing field. It only encourages sandbagging and discouragaes improvement. What kind of sport is that?

Erin

Bronco, just keep in mind that if you end up quitting this league you usually have to give two weeks written notice to the officers of the league. You don't want to leave and do so breaking any rules. So check out USBC's rules about leaving a leauge and then consult the league's rules about it.

Erin

"It is not usual to have established team averages the first night unless the constitution states otherwise"

I don't know about all that. This league is an established league, and I gather it has been around for awhile and many of the people are returning regulars. Many seniors. Somebody did ask us if we bowled in this league last year. None of us did. So they probably are using book averages from last year for those who bowled in the league last year. Again, though, they used a 120 vacancy due to missing player.

I do know that out of 4 leagues here - 2 that I bowled in last year and 2 that I'll be bowling in this year - 3 of them count averages and win/losses the first night. The argument for doing this is that if you don't, people sandbag and don't bowl their real averages since the wins and losses the first night don't count. I think most of the leagues here are doing this now. The one of the 4 leagues that didn't do it was a company sponsored "fun league" that I bowled in last year. Most of the people in that league are in it for fun, about half the people in that league probably have averages under 100. And a couple of the
better teams in that league were asking to have wins and losses count the first night in that league, too, this year.

"If you feel that the handicap system is not going to give you a chance of winning the league (if that is your intention) then you can use it for good game scoring practice and improving your average."

Well, here's the deal. I'll be bowling in 2 leagues this year. I was fortunate for this league to be with 2 other people who are very skilled bowlers. My average is in the 170's, and both of them are higher than me. One is much higher than me, over 220. So I kind of felt, yes, this would be the league I wanted to at least have a decent chance to win with this team.

The other league I am starts this monday. For that league, I don't have a team. They guys I was bowling with were guys from work. One took a new job and left the company, the other is his best friend, and I think was only bowling because his friend was. So neither of them are returning. So I have no team, and am signing up as an individual. I do not know what team I will be, or who with. I do know fro mlast year that there are 4 extremely good teams in that league. (None of whom needed a guy). I figure I will proabably get put on a team with whoever else happens to sign up - and they will probably be low average bowlers. But I had a great time in this league last year and wanted to come back. So I had already resigned myself to using THIS league as the practice and "skill building" for the other league, where I knew I had better team mates.

I'd like to have a decent chance to win a league, yes. Nothing is guaranteed, I know. Nor should it be. But to have NO chance is a real de-motivator for me. A fair chance is all I ask.

I'm concerned about the 100% because I think we are definitely one of the higher average teams and I know we will be giving away alot of pins every week. The ususal wisdom with 85% handicap is "The more pins you're giving away, the better off you are" because of the pins you're holding. But I think this simply not true with 100% handicap. In fact, with 100% handicap, I'd say the more pins you're giving away, the worse off you are.

Somebody with a 100 average needs 1 mark to make thier average. Even with my 170 average, I need 7 to 8. So there is much more room for them to bowl over average, and much more room to "get lucky". And low average bowlers always tend to have big swings in their 3 games. My wife, who bowls twice a year and averages about 85, will bowl 65, 137, 83. With 100% handicap, I'd be giving her 85 pins and if she bowled a 137 I'd need to bowl 222 just to tie. A 137 is 4 marks out of 10 frames. Relatively simple. 222 is how many marks? I have to fill every frame and double twice probably. So I think we're guaranteed to lose a whole of games we otherwise wouldn't.

This is my concern.

The whole point of handicap is to encourage lower average bowlers to participate. Why would a 150 average bowler want to bowl 190+ average bowlers, contributing money every week, with no reasonable chance of getting any sort of return? Why would you, as a 170 average bowler, want to bowl with a bunch of deuce bowlers at a cost of $20+ a week just for what is essentially practice? While I agree that a 100% HCP would make it very difficult for you remember that the other team has such a low average because they are low average bowlers. The operative word is average. Sure they might occasionally have a super game, but on average they are not going to have anything remarkable. The main problem is that the higher average team sees the 100+ pins they're giving away and suffer a mental let down and don't bowl up to their own averages. If your team has a let down the week that the other team is on a roll that's just luck...for the other guys.

I waffle on this issue because, to me, it's all in how someone sees it, I guess. Personally, I don't care if the handicap's 100% of 200 or 80% of 250. You still have to try to knock down all 10 pins. Unless you have a sponsor putting in a grand or two into the league, you aren't going to take anything home at the end of the year, really. So essentially it's practice for 3 games at a reduced rate and you get a kickback at the end of the year. How you choose to approach those 3 games of practice at a reduced rate with a kickback at the end of the year is up to you.

You make your real money at tournaments and in brackets. League bowling, in this day and age, doesn't pay but peanuts, so just have fun and try to achieve your personal goals, especially if your choice of leagues is very thin, like mine is.

Great topic here that I've been perusing yet have waited to formulate a response until now as this topic has progressed.

Nu uh...no way will I participate in a league that is 100% h-cap.

To put it in a different perspective but yet still advocate for the better bowlers....last fall on my Thursday night mixed league, we were still 90% of 210. There was one particular team that was bad and I do mean bad. Highest average bowler on that team was @ 154 in the anchor position. We bowled them a couple of times as the lineup made it back around but in the first case at 90% of 210, my team was giving up 1,152 total for the set each time we bowled them. So in the light of 100% of (let's say for this year)220 if we had to do it this year (fortunately, they are not a returning team)that would be an additional 540 in addition to the 1,152 they would be getting for a total of 1,592 pins for the set or 530.67 sticks per game. Now tell me what is fair about that?

Personally, I think if there is going to be a handicap system, it needs to stay at the old 80% of 200. If it's anything above that...I say SCRATCH. I may not be able to hunt with the big dogs any more but I'm still in the pack and I say that if they want to be able to play with those big dogs, then improve and stop hiding behind such a large buffer just so they can be even with the better players. If they want to be even, then let them earn it like I have (at one time in my life) or like the many others that have dedicated themselves to improving to a level where they can be true equals rather than saying they are on a level field because they have to be GIVEN gifts of tons of sticks.

I will ashamedly admit that the averages that I have established this year only seem to be an indication of the fact that I am struggling badly rather than the proverbial sandbagging and I will also admit the shame of having a decent amount of h-cap on the 2 leagues I am on and I absolutely hang my head because of that and you can absolutely bet that if every league eventually goes to a 100% of....? whatever, then once again I will head straight into retirement and stay there permanently.

Cowboy, there was a guy in our company league last year on a team we bowled who had a 91 average. 91. He was not a sandbagger or a cheater, I know the guy, I work with him and I know for a fact that he was a beginner bowler who even still used a house ball. His scores would vary from week to week, depending on which ball he could find, etc. He was very erratic.

When we bowled his team, he caught fire that night. He bowled a 198 and a 201 against us. 91 average. He was more than 100 pins over for 2 out of his 3 games. Did he deserve to win? Certainly. But in a case like that, their team was going to win no matter what the handicap was, whether it was 100% or 80%.

My point is that is more common for a low average bowler to bowl significantly over their averages and that these bowlers will have wild swings in their scores very often.

I'd like to see a study of how many 50 pins over, 75 pins over and 100 pins over awards were given out by USBC last year, and what the averages were of the peopl ewho received those awards. I'd bet that not many are going to the higher average bowlers. Its always the 100-125 average bowlers who kill you with those kinds of games.

In the past year, I got just one award, and it was a triplicate award. 212, 212, 212. Just a patch, no money. I had one great night where I had exactly the right ball for the right condition at just the right time. And quite a bit of luck. Several Brooklyn strikes, etc. The bowling gods were smiling on me that night. Those games were only about 40 pins over my average, not enough to get a 50 pins over. One great week, then it was back to reality.

But think about that - 50 pins over for him is a 141. For me its 220. 75 pins over for him is 165. For me, its 245. 100 pins over for him is 191. For me, its a 270 game. Now who's more likely to do any of that?

I don't like handicap leagues either. I really dislike giving up 150 pins a game to bowlers that are lucky to stay behind the foul line and keep the ball on the lane. That having been said, when they bowl; 10 pins over and beat us it's because 1) our team didn't bowl our average and 2) we couldn't deal with adversity. My own feeling is that anytime a 120 bowler beats me it's my fault, not because of the handicap. I know how to bowl and I know how to read the lanes and adjust bwetter than the bowkler who doesn't know the difference between conventional grips and finger tip. If I lose there's no point in whining about how unfair the handicap was...it's my fault for not executing up to my own level.

Broncobilly
A 91 average can bowl 100 pins over average. A 210 bowler will never bowl 100 pins over. However, I would expect the 210 bowler to be more consistent in his games. This is still a game of averages, and the high/low spread for the 210 bowler should be tighter.

Of course, the 91 average bowler is the exception. The majority of bowlers are probably 140/160. But, they still can bowl 100 over. They also have a better chance of being 30 pins under, and maybe twice in a night.

"I would expect the 210 bowler to be more consistent in his games. This is still a game of averages, and the high/low spread for the 210 bowler should be tighter."

Yes, this is exactly the point I'm making. The higher average bowlers are going to be closer to their averages each game. The lower average bowlers are going to have more spread. And it is this spread that I'm saying virtually guarantees wins for the lower averages with 100% handicap.

Again, going back to my wife. 85 average. Bowls 62, 137 and 80. These are the kinds of wild swings these bowlers will have much of the time. The 137 is 52 pins over her average. Again, for me to match that, I need 222. I have to fill every frame and double at least twice. I'm not quite at that level to just be able to turn that off and on whenever I want. If I could, I'd average 222. What if I leave one split, miss one ten pin, or I can't manage to double twice? I have alot less room for error and alot more opportunity to fail. I will probably win the first and third games. But I am virtually guaranteed to lose the second game with 100% handicap, and hope not to lose total.

Plus, lower average bowlers can drastically improve quickly and have alot more room to do so. If my 91 average friend finally goes out and gets his own new ball, say in the 6th or 7th week of the league, he comes in with his 91 average and shoots 50 or more over his average every week until his new average finally catches up to him, which will take at least 4 or 5 weeks. Meanwhile, he's cleaning house.

100% handicap to me seems fine for beginnner leagues, or kids. Outside of that, I don't think its fair to the higher average teams. There are guaranteed losses built in.

I have no problem going to the highest average in a league (230 or 240), but I really think there's is absolutely no incentive to get better.

Of course, I'm more in favor of centers creating levels of leagues where they have introductory hcp leagues, then leagues with groups of higher averages (and higher maxes) and then low max scratch leagues and then higher max scratch leagues.

Of course, many centers don't have enough bowlers to do that, or they don't want to spend the time creating the cultures that encourage that type of competition.

Dennis,

I will disagree with one thing--a normal 91 average bowler is NEVER going to bowl 100 pins over their average. On the other hand, bowlers starting in the 170s and 180s can shoot much higher when everything starts clicking together.

Yes, there are sandbaggers, and the rare person that really improves, but I've seen the folks that average 91. They'll never shoot 100 pins over to get to the 400 series pin. That said, I know enough of what I'm doing to pop off a 650 or close to 700 when I'm paying attention.

The real answer is find a scratch league, even if it means driving further.

Angel,

I said a 91 bowler can (may be able to) bowl 100 pins over, and a 210 bowler cannot because one can only bowl 300 max.

I know a starter bowler who has an 88 average over the first 2 weeks of league play. He is a male, RH, and uses a 12 # house ball, sometimes straight, sometimes backup. He will bowl 100 pins over.

I know this because he was a walk-on to our league, and was placed on my team to fill a vacancy. Just as I was the week after. There is NO WAY I will let this fellow languish in the depths where his handicap is higher than his average. Now, I am not a qualified trainer, but I can teach enough of the basics to help him improve dramatically, if he wants to. I watched him, he is NO sandbagger.

I shot 650 and he bowled a 272 series last time. That is already an improvement to raise his average to 88. We didn't bowl last week, Labor Day, but I will approach him tomorrow night to see of his interest.

This is like a personal challenge now.

But a 210 bowler can do things to adjust that a true 91 average bowler has no concept of.

Thankfully, I don't see very many 91 average bowlers that are older than, say 8 years old. Even the brand new parents in the Adult/Jr leagues come in at 110-120.

I'll just be thankful of the leagues I deal with--the scratch sport leagues and the kids leagues. I honestly don't think I could bowl a true handicap league with a prize fund ever again.

I do not have any problem with a handicap league. I bowl in two scratch and two handicap leagues. The handicap leagues are more social. There is a little money involved but not enough to worry about. If you have a problem with handicap just don,t bowl in that type of league. I do it because I enjoy bowling and if all I bowled in were competitive leagues I would burn out. This keeps me bowling and enjoying it. Besides, many of the people involved in those leagues still get excited when they get something going and it's fun to watch and be a part of.

Oh how I miss bowling in my old hometown where the choice of scratch leagues was greater then my choice of handicap leagues here. Personally, I'd love to bowl in a scratch league with a sport shot, but hey, that's ain't happenin' around here.

100% handicap, to me, is about as fair as we can get here. 90% I would prefer, but then I have a 15-20 pin advantage out of the blocks against 90% of the bowlers in the house I bowl in. How many people are going to stick around once you knock them down a handful of times? If they're competitive, they'll view it as a challenge. Unfortunately, bowling is a social event in my area, thus most of them would rather quit than face me and my team again.

I remember when I was still in junior bowling in a travel league. It was 90% of 200 and I carried a 195-199 for most of the year. This was also a 30 point head-to-head league, and most weeks I was bowling against kids who had averages no higher than 160. Man up, I was giving away 30-40 pins a week. But...they didn't win a whole lot of games. I took 52 out of 72 possible points against kids with averages 40-50 pins less than me. Part of that was my 10% gain for the higher average, but mostly, it was because I knew some of these kids had potential to "bowl out of their tree" to beat me. If they beat me, most of them shot at least 30-40 pins over for their point. I didn't give up because they were getting 30-40 sticks. I saw it as a personal challenge to not get beat just because I was giving up 3 marks. Big deal. I can make 3 marks in 2 frames. After that, we're even. I never worried about who I bowled against nor did I care and still carry that same attitude today. Just like I tell my juniors, if you bowl your best, 9 times out of 10 you will come out a winner, but never think that you're unbeatable, because you are. There will always be one game or series when you knock 'em dead and someone else has a better day. That's life. Move on.

My point is that regardless of the handicap system, you still have to bowl at least average to have a reasonable chance of winning no matter who you bowl. You still have to carry a teammate who is having a bad night, or you still have to make open frames count better off of a strike. You can't lose focus or get upset just because you're giving up 100-200 pins. As Angel said, most of the time, the lower average bowlers aren't going to have a massive game against you. There's a reason why their average is so low. Bowl within yourself and have a good time doing it. Use that league environment to practice up for tournaments, which is where you're going to stand the best chance of making money.

If you're more worried about your opponent's handicap than you are about your own bowling, you will lose to them 9 times out of 10.

[quote]But a 210 bowler can do things to adjust that a true 91 average bowler has no concept of. [/quote}

So what trumps what? Does Luck + handicap trump higher skill, or does higher skill trump luck + handicap.

But I can tell you this, when the shot is horrid, lower average bowlers at not effected by lane conditions. But higher average bowlers can make their own luck (or I should say exploit it when they see it) through skill and experience. But they will always be more adversely effected by a more challenging lane condition then lower average bowlers.

We have quite a few adult bowlers that are under 110 in our mixed league. Plus last summer we had an adult lady that came into the season late to fill a vacancy, and established at 46. As you can imagine for the remainder of the season she improved and in a big way. So how do you fight someone that is handicapped at 46 and repetitately shoots 40 pins over per game for at least three or four weeks untill she evens out again?

Erin

I forgot to mention in my post in this thread that, although I bowl in a 100% league, there is a handicap limit. Our league is 100% of 190 with a minimum average of 137. There are several bowlers whose actual average is below that but for scoring purposes they are awarded a 137 average (53 pins per game). The hardest we are going to have to work is to get 159 pins back per game. Those with averages below the limit are working hard to get above that figure so that they can "level out the playing field" for themselves. The rest of us are working to get our averages up so that we can outscore them. It has had a positive effect. One thing that is for sure... there are no Sandbaggers in this league. If there is a tournament or trial, just about everyone is there... even the 130 average bowlers! Maybe we are lucky but I think that the limit set has had a very beneficial effect. One lady who joined the league a couple of years ago averaged just over 100 when she started, now she is bowling around 160 and regularly pops in 200+ games. I have spoken to her about the improvement and she told me that she just wanted to get up with the rest of the "Guys" and has worked hard to get there. She hated not having a "real" average that reflected her ability when she started and that was the motivation to get better and bowl without her team-mates having to make up her shortfall in pins.
My 2 cents worth anyway. Let the debate continue.. it has been great fun watching this one.
Good bowling everyone,
Allan

3 years ago, when I started bowling again, I was invited to join a Mixed league by a friend of mine. It got me hooked. Over the Summer, my friend and his wife asked if my wife and I would like to join a Summer League. We accepted.

My wife was a 100 bowler, no more. Over the 14 week season, she improved to about 125. That meant she was bowling almost 140 at the end of the Summer to raise her average so much.

In the final roll-off for the Championship, she bowled her highest series of the year. She was at least 25-30 pins over average in each game, plus her handicap. This was tough for the other team to overcome, and they didn't.

A weak bowler can improve more over a season than an established bowler can. And, when a weak bowler is bowling 25+ pins over average each game in a handicapped league, the opponent has a tough time.

Well, here's how I look at it - when you bowl in a handicap league, you should expect newer bowlers to improve at some point, and you should expect sandbaggers.

As for the original post by Boncobilly with being "hit" with the handicap system his league has, well, if it wasn't expected, I understand the grumbling. It's sort of unfair to change while not giving everyone who plans to bowl the opportunity to voice their say.

Those of us who are stuck in small-market places where there's nothing but handicap leagues, well, it's tough, but it's not the end of the world. Those of us who are lucky to have a variety of leagues and centers around, be thankful you have those choices.

There will never be one handicap system that's fair for everyone. 100% should be a limit (not 116% or whatever USBC says - it's no wonder why league and association directors are getting more than a little peeved by the goings on at headquarters). If your leagues are pretty competitive, make it 80% of 220 or whatever's the highest average. If it's a social event, give 'em 100%. Otherwise, have fun.

So there's always a way to get around 100% handicap. Because in your system why would anyone under 137 join the league?

In our recent past summer league we had 41 people (11, 4 man teams with 3 vacancies). 13 bowlers were under 137. That's about 1/3 of the league. And those numbers were taken from a week 11 out of 13 season standing sheet. So this was as high as they'd gotten in 11 weeks of bowling. In our 90% of 210 system they would all get more handicap then if they were in your 100% system. Plus one of the teams of 4 had three players under 137 and their strongest player was 140. They'd have absolutely no chance in your league. But by week 11 they were in the middle of the pack in our league.

Erin

Yup Atochabsh, we only have a couple of bowlers under 137 (and the way I bowled tonight I may be amongst them very soon!) but they joined because this league has the highest number of our top bowlers in it. It is very competitive and those people, like me, joined to learn and get better. Don't let the low averages fool you though, we play on very tough and unforgiving lanes that vary wildly week to week. We have just one bowler currently running a 190 average so the top cut-off is pretty much right on. Our averages are cumulative throughout the season, so if you start off bad, it is very difficult to get your average up. At this point in the year, we have bowled something like 76 games. Many of the lower average bowlers can bowl well above their average at times, but the lanes will not allow it to happen often and when we get particularly difficult nights the handicap system keeps the games tight and interesting. I'm not saying that it works for everyone but I am saying that it can work. I have yet to see a system that will treat every bowler fairly, but it does provide a challenge to those high average bowlers and keeps the lower average bowlers interested. As those bowlers improve their advantage is steadily whittled away by their improving average. Anyway, its all we have, so we live with it.
Cheers,
Allan