win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: 100% of 230???  (Read 17378 times)

adiabaticprocesses

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
100% of 230???
« on: August 24, 2016, 10:40:05 AM »
I just want to know what you guys/ladies think of the handicap being 100% of 230. I bowl on Tuesday nights. Through hard work and dedication to this sport of bowling, I have increased my average to 230. I am the only person in the league over a 220 average. I am 1 of 2 over 215. The league's average as a whole is only 187. I forgot to mention the league does not play just by team score (handicap score after each game) but also individual team members handicap games. So the team can win up to 4 single points (1 from each team member) and two team points for each individual game, which means up to 18 pts could be scored every night.

Last night, I compared my individual scratch games (178,202, and 278) to how everyone shot and noticed I would not stand a chance even had I thrown average the first two games. There were many handicap games of 250+, 270+, 290+ and a few 310+. To be precise, there were 40 handicap games over 260. So in other words and correct me if I am wrong, if I mess up (not strike) more than 2 times, I do not stand a chance in the league. It sounds like a sandbaggers format to me. Tell me what you guys think.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 11:11:51 AM by adiabaticprocesses »

 

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
Re: 100% of 230???
« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2016, 01:39:03 PM »

And for every bowler without the "desire" to get better there is the bowler who practices incorrectly for years hoping to get better.  I doubt you will find a bowler who doesn't want to get better.  However, you may find bowlers who don't want to go above and beyond to achieve it.  I just don't think desire to get better is disputable.

 
I specifically said I see very few "practicing for improvement", which for me includes those who  practice incorrectly.
 
As far as "desire", it's a two edged sword. Satisfying desire for almost anything worthwhile requires hard work. If you're not willing to put in the work, I'd argue the desire really isn't there. In this case, the word is reduced to little more than a cliche.

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
Re: 100% of 230???
« Reply #47 on: August 29, 2016, 02:26:39 PM »
I think every 180 bowler would like to be better, which could be considered "wanting" to get better. Desire is a different matter altogether. As Steven says, if they truly desired to get better, they would get off their lazy a$$(if possible, there are always exceptions) and do what it takes.


Most of us here who have managed to achieve a 200+ average didn't just want to get better, we took action to make that happen. Show me a healthy, under the age of 70 bowler with a 180 average who can successfully pick up 10 pins(7 for lefty of course) and I will show you a unicorn.  But you have to practice to get better, so they don't.
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

"If you don't stand for our flag, then don't expect me to give a damn about your feelings."

spmcgivern

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2079
Re: 100% of 230???
« Reply #48 on: August 29, 2016, 02:49:22 PM »
I think every 180 bowler would like to be better, which could be considered "wanting" to get better. Desire is a different matter altogether. As Steven says, if they truly desired to get better, they would get off their lazy a$$(if possible, there are always exceptions) and do what it takes.


Most of us here who have managed to achieve a 200+ average didn't just want to get better, we took action to make that happen. Show me a healthy, under the age of 70 bowler with a 180 average who can successfully pick up 10 pins(7 for lefty of course) and I will show you a unicorn.  But you have to practice to get better, so they don't.

I see where you are coming from, but I don't think in today's THS world actual practice is necessary.  I honestly think you can take a healthy 180 average bowler who bowls once a week and improve their average without extra bowling other than league.  It is all about knowledge.  Too many bowlers, especially 180 average bowlers, are using too strong equipment, too weak equipment, playing the wrong part of the lane or are approaching spares incorrectly.  Simple knowledge can add many pins to an average, and can get some 180 average bowlers over 200.

But this is my opinion.  It won't work for everyone, but for many I see it can.

kochimatengu

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: 100% of 230???
« Reply #49 on: June 14, 2023, 02:34:34 AM »
One league I bowl in runs at 90% of 230, we put a max handicap rule (game and series) in the constitution. The max handicap a bowler can have is 81 pins per game and I think its 325 pins for series.  Those limits still give the handicap bowler quite a bit of handicap and it doesn't remove the possibility for a win by a high average bowler either.
I don't want to hear they should better.  High-average bowlers' nonsense.

It's amazing that high-average bowlers think low-average teams will donate in leagues against them because they're so good.

TWOHAND834

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4335
Re: 100% of 230???
« Reply #50 on: June 16, 2023, 06:38:18 AM »
One league I bowl in runs at 90% of 230, we put a max handicap rule (game and series) in the constitution. The max handicap a bowler can have is 81 pins per game and I think its 325 pins for series.  Those limits still give the handicap bowler quite a bit of handicap and it doesn't remove the possibility for a win by a high average bowler either.
I don't want to hear they should better.  High-average bowlers' nonsense.

It's amazing that high-average bowlers think low-average teams will donate in leagues against them because they're so good.


Hey Kochi!  And I dont understand why low average bowlers just automatically think they have no chance against high average bowlers.  It is easier for 150 bowlers to shoot 170-180 than a 230 bowler to shoot 250+.  This is a dead horse that has been beaten so many times on this site.  The issue is not the handicap.  The issue is the idiot mechanics not putting out a shot that can narrow the gap between the lowest average bowler and the highest.  Uneducated bowlers seem to think if it isnt a house shot with no oil outside 5 then it is a sport shot (which is completely untrue) and we just cant have that.  If centers would drop the ratio down to around 6:1 or 7:1 then the only people it really affects is the guys averaging over 220 as the bowler averaging 180 and below probably wouldnt even know the difference in the change of lane conditions.  In my league there is a 120 pin gap between the lowest average and the highest.  We have a beginner female averaging around 120 and the "house pro" averaging 240.  Out of 90 bowlers, only 3 average over 220 and yet the handicap is based on 230.  Turns out 2 of those 3 averaging 230 are the mechanic and the house pro which happens to also be his teammate.  I got into that league because I took off 5 years and was new to the area so that was the only league looking for people to fill out rosters.  Two more weeks and the league is over and I am likely not going back.  For one, I dont belong in that league.  Met some pretty nice people but it sucks walking in to a trio league and every week having to spot a team 150 pins on average (think the highest we have spot is around 200 pins) and I have a guy on my team getting 50 pins by himself.  I would much rather get out-bowled than out-handicapped.  But everywhere I look including tournaments; handicaps are based off 230.  The same center I bowl league at runs 3 tournaments a month (singles, doubles, and a trio) in there and I tried it once and dont think I am going back.  For 5 games in doubles; handicap scores to win are around 2450-2500.  The scratch guys really dont have a chance as it always seems to be the 180 guys that roll in there and average 230+.  Now that I just turned 50; I am likely to seek out senior tournaments which are few and far between locally.  I would have to travel to The Villages (popular PBA50 spot) where I believe they run monthly senior tournaments.  But the bottom line and to your point; complaints come from both sides of the average spectrum.  Until the mechanic grows a pair and puts out a shot that lowers the ratio a bit; this is always going to be an issue.
Steven Vance
Former Pro Shop Operator
Former Classic Products Assistant Manager

Bowler19525

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 879
Re: 100% of 230???
« Reply #51 on: June 16, 2023, 07:06:01 AM »
This is the exact reason I don't bowl in tournaments anymore.  It's time for there to be divisions based on average.  Don't put the 150 bowlers in with the 220+ bowlers.  Divide the bowlers so that bowlers of similar skill compete with each other.  In our state tournament this year, the all events leader was a 150 average bowler who, after handicap was added in, averaged 277 for the tournament.  There was only 1 or 2 220+ bowlers in the top 10 for all events.

It would be better for everyone if they would have divisions such as under 150, 150-170, 171-190, 191-210, 211-230, 231+

For league, it's not as big of a deal.  But in tournaments the divisions would make it more evenly matched for the handicapped singles and all events categories..

TWOHAND834

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4335
Re: 100% of 230???
« Reply #52 on: June 16, 2023, 10:14:14 AM »
This is the exact reason I don't bowl in tournaments anymore.  It's time for there to be divisions based on average.  Don't put the 150 bowlers in with the 220+ bowlers.  Divide the bowlers so that bowlers of similar skill compete with each other.  In our state tournament this year, the all events leader was a 150 average bowler who, after handicap was added in, averaged 277 for the tournament.  There was only 1 or 2 220+ bowlers in the top 10 for all events.

It would be better for everyone if they would have divisions such as under 150, 150-170, 171-190, 191-210, 211-230, 231+

For league, it's not as big of a deal.  But in tournaments the divisions would make it more evenly matched for the handicapped singles and all events categories..

There doesnt have to be divisions if the shot laid down is "fair".  The person averaging 150 wont be able to walk into a house shot tournament with their 70 pins a game and shoot 600 scratch and run away with it.  Lay down patterns like Kegel Chromium and Middle of the Road and drop the handicap base down to 210.  The 150 guy still gets his 55 pins a game and the scratch guy still feels like he has a fighting chance even if that 150 guy shoots 550-600.  The biggest difference is the 150 guy wont shoot 600 and run away with it and the 230 guy wont feel like he has to walk in there and shoot 750-800 just to make the top 5.

I would be willing to put money on it that if you take a typical 230 league house shot bowler and put him on a middling challenge pattern with a ratio around 5-7:1; he doesnt shoot 700.  You may have a bowler or two that are tournament bowlers that may get to that number but there are a lot of 230 guys that bowl league that instantly becomes 210 once you knock that ratio down a bit.  I bowled in a sweeper several years ago where they laid out Middle of the Road and for the 8 games, the winner averaged 221 with the gap only being about 50 pins between 1st and 5th place.  I believe the turnout was around 75 bowlers. 
Steven Vance
Former Pro Shop Operator
Former Classic Products Assistant Manager

Bowler19525

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 879
Re: 100% of 230???
« Reply #53 on: June 16, 2023, 10:41:15 AM »
Pattern change would help, but not totally solve the problem.  The lower average bowlers would then complain that the "harder pattern" puts them at a disadvantage.

Putting people in divisions by average helps alleviate things as well, because the 150 bowler that has a great tournament is then only impacting his/her division, as opposed to suddenly taking out the 230+ bowlers with them.  Everyone still has the experience of bowling in the tournament, with their performance then put up against bowlers of similar skill.  It may mean smaller payouts to account for more divisions, but at least there is an attempt to reduce dissent due to claims of "sandbagging".