BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: adiabaticprocesses 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.
-
when using a 100% difference for handicap, it's not about the scratch score, it comes down to pins over and under average for everyone
what are they using for entering averages? after a few weeks real averages should come into play and you will see the scores closer to 230 across the board
every system can be sandbagged
-
!00% handicap leagues are really pins over average leagues. Lower average bowlers will ALWAYS have the advantage since they have more room between their average and 300.
I won't bowl in 100% handicap league and I cringe to bowl in 90% handicap leagues. 80% handicap leagues are the best.
-
In a handicap league you can't give away the pocket or miss spares at all if you're averaging the base number. You're bowling scratch in a handicap league.
You'll lose every time you bowl 220-250 if a 160 bowler throws a game in the 180s. Like the people said before me, it's about pins under/over average
-
A 230 average should be bowling in such a league for the social aspect, not looking for an advantage.
-
There was a time where I had a problem with 100% or even 90% handicap. I've got to the point where it just doesn't matter.
Part of the reason is that I almost exclusively bowl scratch. I win or lose based on my own performance, and don't have to worry about pins given to others.
But when I do get roped into bowling handicap, I've found over time that in most cases, even 100% doesn't make much difference. Most adult recreational bowlers are what they are, and vary little in their average from year-to-year. They don't practice, they don't improve, and few are capable of exploiting the 100% scenario.
Just last week I decided to join an upcoming senior daytime league with my mom to spend more time with her. The league has a 100% of 220 for their handicap. I called the league President to tell her I was going to sign up, and suggested she change the handicap to 100% of 230. I don't want handicap working in favor of my 225+ average, and certainly don't want any negative perceptions by others in the league. She appreciated the thought, but said the rules had already been voted on, and if necessary, can be revisited in the middle of the season. I'll certainly push the issue if I bowl well.
The bottom line is to chill and go with the situation. Bowl scratch if you want to eliminate the stress of handicap schemes.
-
I think what you're seeing is a few snapshots of the handicap situation. Yes, It's harder to bowl your average when you're up in the 220s, 230s but things do average out.
At different times, the ABC and, more recently, the USBC have calculated that it takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 110% to 115% handicap for the handicap bowler to beat the scratch bowler. So with a 100% handicap, you technically, in the long run, still have the advantage.
-
This is why I avoid bowling anything handicap if I can. There's a scratch sport league near me I might join, and sweepers that are scratch. I try not to do ABT because I can sniff a bagger a mile away, and it's not good for my blood pressure. I start having a mild bout of touriettes.
-
I would avoid 100% handicap leagues. This league is catering to the average joe bowler and at 230 you are out of place. Go scratch.
-
I would avoid 100% handicap leagues. This league is catering to the average joe bowler and at 230 you are out of place. Go scratch.
We consistently have posts about this. And here is the reality. Someone must lose. In every league/tournament, you must have donators.
No one I know of joins a league to lose it. You join the league thinking you have a chance to win it.
As others have posted, over the long 30+ week season, the higher average bowler or team will win MOST of the time. But sometimes you lose. And yet you are here posting that the HDCP % is too high because you lost. Yet you are fine if the lower average bowler loses every year. You seem to think it is ok and acceptable for that lower average bowler to play in the league and lose every year.
I can only speak for me. If I was only a team that constantly finished in the bottom of the league for 2-3 years in a row, I am either changing teams or quitting the league.
There is a big money: $80,000 prize fund league where I bowl. Last year there was 37 teams in the league. 38 the year prior. This will be the 3rd year since raising the weekly fee to $30. And what is happening? 8-10 teams are quitting because they are tired of being donators in the league. Both years since the increase in fees which led to the big prize, the same 10-12 teams are battling for the top spots. The league is HDCP but most teams get less than 10 pins a game as the top teams are 3 big averages.
No one wants to be a donator, yet the posts here seem to indicate that the high average bowlers expect the lower averages to just be a donator and accept it.
-
Don't do it if you plan on having a team that is composed of some good bowlers. You will simply be donating money. I was in one about 2 seasons ago, with a 5 man team. It was a mixed league (5 people per team), in the sense that both men and women were in the league, but the teams had to be entirely male or female.
Anyway, our team was pretty stacked with talent along with maybe 2 other teams. On average, we had to give a team anywhere from 250 to 450 pins in total team handicap based upon the league being handicap being 100% of 230. As a team we had a great group of guys and enjoyed bowling with each other, but by in large we did not have a chance to succeed. We were basically bowling every week for pots, brackets, or individual/team scratch accomplishments. When it was all said and done, out of about 22 teams, we finished dead last. Scratch wise we blew everyone out of the water, but there was no way we could consistently give up that many pins every week and hope that people would never bowl over their average.
-
We consistently have posts about this. And here is the reality. Someone must lose. In every league/tournament, you must have donators.
No one I know of joins a league to lose it. You join the league thinking you have a chance to win it.
As others have posted, over the long 30+ week season, the higher average bowler or team will win MOST of the time.
It really depends on the demographic of the handicap league you're in. If it's a league that regularly attracts younger bowlers who want to get better and do throughout the season, the team with higher average bowlers will not win most of the time. This was the profile of the last handicap league I was in. Even though my team was regularly the highest average team, we never finished higher than the middle.
On the other hand, if the higher average team is in a league of mostly mature bowlers who have peaked, they have a really good chance of winning over the long haul. It's never easy finding the happy medium.
-
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.
-
OK, Someone please explain your thinking here.
For even numbers sake, lets say we have a 20 team league where 10 teams are the "high" average teams and all average within 20 pins (5 pins per bowler) of each other and the other ten are low average teams that are 75 pins or worse below the high average teams.
Only 1 team gets to win the league. So in 5 years, 5 out of the 10 high average teams have won the league, and every team in the high group has a couple top 5 finishes. That assumes that none of the low teams ever has a hot year and sneaks into the top 10.
Explain to me why the bottom 10 teams even bother to bowl the league?
If you are going to set the rules so that the bottom teams have no realistic shot, why do you expect them to bowl.
I don't want to hear well they need to improve etc. The standard crap us high average bowlers say.
It is just amazing that because they are so good, high average bowlers believe that low average teams shall bowl leagues against them and just donate.
Yet, those same bowlers will bitch and moan, or quit if all of a sudden a team of 240 averages joins their league and starts dominating.
Can you please explain it to me?
-
OK, Someone please explain your thinking here.
For even numbers sake, lets say we have a 20 team league where 10 teams are the "high" average teams and all average within 20 pins (5 pins per bowler) of each other and the other ten are low average teams that are 75 pins or worse below the high average teams.
Only 1 team gets to win the league. So in 5 years, 5 out of the 10 high average teams have won the league, and every team in the high group has a couple top 5 finishes. That assumes that none of the low teams ever has a hot year and sneaks into the top 10.
Explain to me why the bottom 10 teams even bother to bowl the league?
If you are going to set the rules so that the bottom teams have no realistic shot, why do you expect them to bowl.
I don't want to hear well they need to improve etc. The standard crap us high average bowlers say.
It is just amazing that because they are so good, high average bowlers believe that low average teams shall bowl leagues against them and just donate.
Yet, those same bowlers will bitch and moan, or quit if all of a sudden a team of 240 averages joins their league and starts dominating.
Can you please explain it to me?
Bowlers complain no matter what.
-
My experience has been the league format is independent of attracting or detracting bowlers. Today's bowling environment includes fewer and fewer lanes vying for leagues. This means a lot of bowlers might have one night a week where they are available to bowl and they have to bowl in whatever is available at that time.
So instead of affecting the format of the league which requires a large number of people to agree with you by a vote (changing hdcp % or hdcp base), they instead affect the prize fund distribution. I have seen it in my league. Perennially, the prize fund committee is comprised of the same people and they are members of teams that are not competitive.
So what they do is provide prize fund options that distribute the money somewhat evenly. My league last year provided 3 options where each one had 71% of the prize fund devoted to point money. The difference of the options was $100, that is all. They realize they aren't going to win the league, but they will try and recoup as much of the money they put in as possible.
-
It's a handicap geared league. Probably why there are no good bowlers in it.
My Wednesday league is 100% of 220 I just deal with it. I bow that league and 2 other scratch leagues, it doesn't bother me.
I'm decent, competitive, and know how to roll the ball well, it's all I need.
-
90% of the highest average or just above is what you want to look at for any type of handicap event.
-
90% of the highest average or just above is what you want to look at for any type of handicap event.
Our men's league uses 90% of 235. Generally we don't have anyone over 230 as carry sucks at that house. Highest averages end up being in the 215-225 range except for a couple seasons that had 230
-
The thing that amazes me is that people will enter the handicap division in tournaments or handicap leagues, and then will get upset because some bowlers actually have handicap.....Hello????????
Back in 1990 I bowled in a summer mixed league and they used negative handicap. I started that league with a 677 series or close to it , so the 2nd week of bowling I had a -26 handicap or there abouts , unfortunately I didn't raise my average at any point during that summer season, and the negative handicap ended up killing me.
Brad
-
Who here started bowling because they could make money at it?
Me, I started bowling because it was fun. NOT because it was a lucrative activity, but simply for the fun of it. It was never about the money, it was always about the fun and personal challenge.
Hell, we used to bowl for trophies, had a banquet for the entire league at the end, and everybody was happy with getting their dinner paid for.
Back then, if you wanted to make money at it, you either bowled tournaments, or you bowled "pot" games (I believe some called it "action"). If you wanted to make a living at it, you turned professional where the real money was.
MONEY. That has done more to kill bowling than anything else. When the "average" league bowlers focus changed from having fun at a social outing, to futilely donating money to a useless cause and getting nothing in return, the situation we are in today became inevitable.
STOP MAKING AN ACTIVITY DESIGNED TO BE FUN INTO SOMETHING ELSE!
Turning bowling league into a financial thing is the worst thing that ever happened.
Forget the money, forget the handicap, and forget all the other bull***t too, just go bowling and try to remember why you started in the first place.
BECAUSE IT'S FREAKING FUN!
-
Amen, Juggernaut!
I've had my butt kicked by the high handicap bowler so many times. It's okay. He needs to win some too. It doesn't upset me anymore as long as I rolled the ball reasonably well (and if I didn't then it was my fault anyway).
I've also beaten some very good bowlers over the years because the pattern was forgiving enough to give me a chance against them. On the tough/flat patterns the better bowler will almost always win though.
I have always believed that the lower average bowler will likely bowl close to that average most of the time. He may throw a 240 against me game 1 but he'll likely bowl a 160 game 3. (Perhaps the same line that carried everything game 1 was now leaving the 10 pin and my opponent missed three of those...) It doesn't matter because he has "earned" that lower average somehow, and so I try not to get wrapped up in what he's doing.
When I worry about his score I lose focus in my process and start trying to "make" the ball strike instead of "letting" it strike. Think back on those great nights when everything went right for you... Were you relaxed? Probably so.
Handicap or scratch ya gotta find some enjoyment in the game. Appreciate that you can get away every week for league, when there are many people who can't afford to do even that. In a moment life can throw you a curve ball and maybe bowling is taken away from you. If that happens you'll want to have great memories of league nights and friendships, etc. Instead of regret that all that mattered was your score.
-
Good man Jug!
-
Well said Juggernaut. One of the best posts I have seen on BR.com in years!
-
I don't advocate what i going to write here. What if everybody got handicap...that is 100% of 300
-
I don't advocate what i going to write here. What if everybody got handicap...that is 100% of 300
Most pins over average would win!
-
I don't advocate what i going to write here. What if everybody got handicap...that is 100% of 300
Since most leagues set the handicap to be based on either what the highest average is or over it, that is what it ends up as anyways. (everybody gets handicap)
-
This 100% handicap thing is what is wrong with America today. Everyone wants INSTANT gratification. Nobody wants to work at getting better, just make it easier for me to win money. I don't care how you do it. It's just sad.
Handicap was added to the sport to make it more fair for the lower average bowler to win WITHOUT taking away the advantage of the higher average bowler. Back in the day, the ABC recommended 80% handicaps. Now in order to appease the Millennials, the USBC is touting 100% handicap leagues in order to not lose any league bowlers.
What is so wrong with looking at the teams in the league and realizing that, yes, the best teams should win every year. If we want to win, we have to get better. It's the way it used to be.
-
You are correct Juggernaut but this is the money league. The other 6 nights of the week are fun leagues, family leagues, cruise leagues, youth leagues, senior leagues, and casual mixed leagues.
Back to the Topic at hand. Politics. Politics became involved whenever the league secretary, which btw is a serious sandbagger, realized I was on a team. Apparently, his team finishes within the top 5 every year, and he fears my 230 average will be a factor in him not winning.
Now the issue as hand. 230 is too high for that individual league. There are 180 bowlers in that league that shoot 200-250 every night. If the league moved the handicap to 100% of 230. I must shoot 260-310 to have a chance. Oh wait, the highest I could shoot is 300. So if that 170 bowler shots anything over 240, I loss no matter what. Even more realistically, one bad shot can put me in the 260's but someone with a 170 average can open 2-3 frames then a few spares and some strikes later he rips the 230 average bowler a new one.
Now Comparing a 180 bowler to a 230 bowler in a 100% of 230 league.
I will even put some simple mathematics and ratios to help you understand the advantages a 180 bowler has over a 230 bowler in a 100% of 230 league. As a 230 bowler, I can only shoot 70 games over average. Just one mistake holds me to only being able to shoot nearly 30 of those 70 games (270-299 range). I am going to make at least 2-3 mistakes on any given game allowing my scores to range between 206 and 270. SO when observing the situation realistically, I have 40 games over average that I will shoot regularly.A 180 bowler will shoot between a 180 and 200 regularly which is my 230-250 range. A 180 will throw a few games that range between 200 and 250 on any given night. If the bowler shoots between the 220 and 250 range, his handicap game is in the range of my one mistake game (270-299). Anything above 250, I lose no matter what. So mathematically he has 50 games that I can not beat no matter what. So when comparing a 180 bowlers odds to my 230 odds as a 3 part ratio (# of games a 180 bowler could shoot and beat me not matter what I shoot : # of games a 180 bowler could shoot and beat me If I were to have 1 open or "1 mistake": # of games a 180 bowler could shoot and I have a realistic chance of winning) you get a ratio of 50:30:20.
Let me explain ratios more simply for you. I just placed three different colored beans in a bowl. I placed 5 black beans to describe the games the 180 bowler could shoot and I would lose no matter what. I placed 3 red beans to describe the number of games the 180 could bowl and most likely win if I were to make just one mistake. I also placed 2 white beans to describe the realistic number of games I will shoot on any given night and still have a chance to win. You would have a ratio 5(180 avg wins) : 3(180 avg most likely win): 2(either one can win). MY 230 average odds of winning are 2 vs 10.
I started this post to get more information and view points from other bowlers. I wanted to say thank yall.
-
A "TRUE" 180 average bowler will only shoot one or two 230+ games a year.
I have bowled many hdcp leagues and there are not a bunch of hdcp games over 300.
In a 36 week season you bowl 108 games. Even if you say the 180 average bowler shoots 10 games at 230-250, that's still 98 games where you should win.
What you are not considering is what I call "bowling the big dogs" effect. In one particular league it seemed that every hdcp team bowled well against us. So finally I asked a few of the team members if they knew why.
The answers were simple: We are trying harder against you because we know you are good. We don't drink beer/alcohol that night, and focus a little harder.
And the final answer: they took pride is beating us.
Think about it, it does make sense.
-
A 230 average bowler should be more consistant, make more spares and have more strikes than a 180 bowler. The 230 should win more games over the season if always head to head. The fact that it is not always head to head will lead to results like txbowler stated where the lower average bowler may have more over average series than normal against certain teams/bowlers.
There are always some teams/individuals that the rest of the league either wants to beat or just don't care for so they try harder against them.
-
A "TRUE" 180 average bowler will only shoot one or two 230+ games a year.
I have bowled many hdcp leagues and there are not a bunch of hdcp games over 300.
In a 36 week season you bowl 108 games. Even if you say the 180 average bowler shoots 10 games at 230-250, that's still 98 games where you should win.
What you are not considering is what I call "bowling the big dogs" effect. In one particular league it seemed that every hdcp team bowled well against us. So finally I asked a few of the team members if they knew why.
The answers were simple: We are trying harder against you because we know you are good. We don't drink beer/alcohol that night, and focus a little harder.
And the final answer: they took pride is beating us.
Think about it, it does make sense.
I think that this does happen a lot. Lower average bowlers/teams bowl better against the higher average bowlers/teams. And possibly the higher averages don't get up as much for the lower averages.
What do you think? If this effect is real, then a 100% handicap would give the advantage to the lower average bowlers.
-
I agree that a lot of times lower average teams get up when they bowl against top tier opponents. However there is an offsetting impact. Typically if the game gets close the top tier bowler is more able to strike in the clutch than the lower average bowler.
While I am at it let me give 4 stars to Juggernauts post
-
I'm going to quote part of Charlest point.
"At different times, the ABC and, more recently, the USBC have calculated that it takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 110% to 115% handicap for the handicap bowler to beat the scratch bowler. So with a 100% handicap, you technically, in the long run, still have the advantage."
a while back I ran a couples league with 24 teams and this always came up.
I did contacted the USBC at the time and got the same info as stated above, additionally, the average of all games bowled over 2 a year span by bowlers was in the 150's
If you think you should get a 10 or 20% advantage against a lower average bowler, how is that fair? If you think that just because math statistics say they have a more room to bowl over their average, I think that's a selfish thought
Averaging 200 or more is the top 5-10% of all bowlers, so you are in the minority
I wouldn't want to give up 10 or 20% advantage to anyone who is better than me, how is that any fun....
bottom line thing I learned from years of running that league
NEVER...EVER going to make everyone happy
-
..
bottom line thing I learned from years of running that league
NEVER...EVER going to make everyone happy
Dave, if I may add to that, "Especially bowlers", and I included myself in that company.
We are hard, if not impossible, to please. Just ask any league secretary. :)
While I have been satisfied after many 3 games league sets, I think the only times I have been truly happy is when I had 30 clean with 725 or above AND we won all 3 games from the other team.
-
If you think you should get a 10 or 20% advantage against a lower average bowler, how is that fair? If you think that just because math statistics say they have a more room to bowl over their average, I think that's a selfish thought
Averaging 200 or more is the top 5-10% of all bowlers, so you are in the minority
I wouldn't want to give up 10 or 20% advantage to anyone who is better than me, how is that any fun....
In most handicap league settings, I agree with you. Lower average bowlers for the most part are stuck at whatever average they're at, and they're not going to improve. For this typical handicap environment, 100% makes perfect sense.
But like everything else in life, there are exceptions to the rule. We have a handicap league that continuously attracts younger bowlers who tend to improve. Every year, there are 15-20 who finish the league averaging up to 20 pins higher than what they entered. For this league, their 90% makes sense given the improvement curves, and there have been years where 80% would have been the better number. Again, this is more the exception than the rule. But it illustrates that a league has to be aware of it's internal demographics for establishing a percentage. There is no such thing as one size fits all.
-
txbowler,
You replies are spot on.
To the OP. 100% of 230 doesn't make it a sandbagger format....the type of bowlers in your league define that. If you have guys throwing gutter balls and missing spares on big leads then you have a sandbagging problem. And for all purposes most sandbaggers today have moved away from leagues, it's all about establishing a low league average then going to tournament and cleaning up.
-
A "TRUE" 180 average bowler will only shoot one or two 230+ games a year.
I have bowled many hdcp leagues and there are not a bunch of hdcp games over 300.
In a 36 week season you bowl 108 games. Even if you say the 180 average bowler shoots 10 games at 230-250, that's still 98 games where you should win.
What you are not considering is what I call "bowling the big dogs" effect. In one particular league it seemed that every hdcp team bowled well against us. So finally I asked a few of the team members if they knew why.
The answers were simple: We are trying harder against you because we know you are good. We don't drink beer/alcohol that night, and focus a little harder.
And the final answer: they took pride is beating us.
Think about it, it does make sense.
Very True Statement +1
-
another thing to consider is that a 180 average bowler is a guy who likely owns his own shoes and a ball, maybe a spare ball as well. He averages 180 because he cant adjust to the changing conditions and misses more spares. if he finds the shot, he can easily hit 200 or 220; its finding it quickly or at all that makes him up and down in score.
Sometimes the 180 ave bowler uses the better bowlers he is up against as guide to where to play the lanes. assuming general style is close enough, if the 230 average bowler is shooting 230+, the 180 guy can try to play the lanes the same. and then use the 230 ave bowler to key his adjustments from.
-
>> Lower average bowlers for the most part are stuck at whatever average they're at, >> and they're not going to improve. For this typical handicap environment, 100% makes >> perfect sense.
Why are they stuck? Because they don't want to improve? They don't want to take the time to get some lessons and get better? They won't practice?
So what you are saying is we should just give them bonus pins and wins because they lack a desire to get better. Really?
Can we do this in Major League Baseball? That .200 average batter doesn't want to get better so 20% (1 in every 5) of his at-bats will automatically be considered a hit and he can just take 1st base.
A lack of desire to get better is NOT a reason to give anyone 100% handicap in anything. If this is case, these people need to stop playing sports. Why play a sport if you have no desire to get better at it? Unless you are averaging 300, you have room for improvement.
-
>> Lower average bowlers for the most part are stuck at whatever average they're at, >> and they're not going to improve. For this typical handicap environment, 100% makes >> perfect sense.
Why are they stuck? Because they don't want to improve? They don't want to take the time to get some lessons and get better? They won't practice?
So what you are saying is we should just give them bonus pins and wins because they lack a desire to get better. Really?
Can we do this in Major League Baseball? That .200 average batter doesn't want to get better so 20% (1 in every 5) of his at-bats will automatically be considered a hit and he can just take 1st base.
A lack of desire to get better is NOT a reason to give anyone 100% handicap in anything. If this is case, these people need to stop playing sports. Why play a sport if you have no desire to get better at it? Unless you are averaging 300, you have room for improvement.
But then, from what I have seen, it is NOT a lack of desire that prevents a 180 bowler from getting better. There are any number of reasons but desire is rarely one of them.
Your assumption is not valid in the majority of cases and your analogy to baseball is inappropriate. A 100% handicap is not equivalent to a free hit, in so any respects.
-
This up and down in shooting scores is all a product of THS. For every 230 game a 180 average bowler shoots there has to be some 140s and 150s to counter it.
All I can state, Big Money Handicap Leagues and THS is a bad combination. Someone is not going to be happy.
Now one thing should be capped in my opinion is 300. There should not be any handicap score above 300.
-
>> Lower average bowlers for the most part are stuck at whatever average they're at, >> and they're not going to improve. For this typical handicap environment, 100% makes >> perfect sense.
Why are they stuck? Because they don't want to improve? They don't want to take the time to get some lessons and get better? They won't practice?
So what you are saying is we should just give them bonus pins and wins because they lack a desire to get better. Really?
Can we do this in Major League Baseball? That .200 average batter doesn't want to get better so 20% (1 in every 5) of his at-bats will automatically be considered a hit and he can just take 1st base.
A lack of desire to get better is NOT a reason to give anyone 100% handicap in anything. If this is case, these people need to stop playing sports. Why play a sport if you have no desire to get better at it? Unless you are averaging 300, you have room for improvement.
As charlest stated, there are a number of reasons a 180 bowler doesn't improve, some of which are due to physical limitations or just plain getting old -- the fate that awaits all of us. :)
But based on my experience, much of it is based on lack of desire. The vast majority of 180 bowlers in mixed handicap leagues enjoy their 3 games a week with their bowling buddies, and that's enough. I practice about 15 games a week outside of leagues, both during the week and on weekends, and there are very few out there practicing for improvement -- at any level.
The bottom line is that without these 180 average bowlers, you don't have leagues. So you have to come up some mechanism for 180 bowlers to bowl along side 230 bowlers, and as flawed as it is, 100% handicap is usually the best solution. Arguing the alternative that the typical 180 should stop bowling is not a realistic answer.
-
>> Lower average bowlers for the most part are stuck at whatever average they're at, >> and they're not going to improve. For this typical handicap environment, 100% makes >> perfect sense.
Why are they stuck? Because they don't want to improve? They don't want to take the time to get some lessons and get better? They won't practice?
So what you are saying is we should just give them bonus pins and wins because they lack a desire to get better. Really?
Can we do this in Major League Baseball? That .200 average batter doesn't want to get better so 20% (1 in every 5) of his at-bats will automatically be considered a hit and he can just take 1st base.
A lack of desire to get better is NOT a reason to give anyone 100% handicap in anything. If this is case, these people need to stop playing sports. Why play a sport if you have no desire to get better at it? Unless you are averaging 300, you have room for improvement.
As charlest stated, there are a number of reasons a 180 bowler doesn't improve, some of which are due to physical limitations or just plain getting old -- the fate that awaits all of us. :)
But based on my experience, much of it is based on lack of desire. The vast majority of 180 bowlers in mixed handicap leagues enjoy their 3 games a week with their bowling buddies, and that's enough. I practice about 15 games a week outside of leagues, both during the week and on weekends, and there are very few out there practicing for improvement -- at any level.
The bottom line is that without these 180 average bowlers, you don't have leagues. So you have to come up some mechanism for 180 bowlers to bowl along side 230 bowlers, and as flawed as it is, 100% handicap is usually the best solution. Arguing the alternative that the typical 180 should stop bowling is not a realistic answer.
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.
-
Maybe comparing the Tuesday Mixers to rec league co-ed softball might be a little closer than MLB. Ain't no handicap in the PBA.
-
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.
-
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$$(if possible, there are always exceptions) and do what it takes.
Most of us here who have managed to achieve a 200+ average didn't just want to get better, we took action to make that happen. Show me a healthy, under the age of 70 bowler with a 180 average who can successfully pick up 10 pins(7 for lefty of course) and I will show you a unicorn. But you have to practice to get better, so they don't.
-
I think every 180 bowler would like to be better, which could be considered "wanting" to get better. Desire is a different matter altogether. As Steven says, if they truly desired to get better, they would get off their lazy a$$(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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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".