BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Zanatos1914 on February 19, 2014, 01:21:30 PM
-
We have a 4 member mixed tournament coming up and wondered how the max cap of 840 sounds 2 anyone.... Sounds like a donation to me but what do you think.... I this normal or the max cap alittle high...
You must at least of 1 female on the team
-
I'm not really sure what the intent is or who the targeted audience is. Could be high, could be low, but if that's the number you want, stick to it.
-
I don't think it's too high (210 a person). Is there handicap? If so what is it based on? If you had a couple of 230 guys/gals you'd still need 2 (190) guys/gals. Our state tournament is going to a 800 number based on divisions, but still is running 100% of 230 handicap.
-
80 percent of 220....
-
80 percent of 220....
This completely gives the advantage to the higher average bowlers. Not including the sandbagger scum who inevitably show up for handicap tournaments of course.
If you really want it to be somewhat fair for the true handicap bowler, you should go to at least 90%.
-
80 percent of 220....
This completely gives the advantage to the higher average bowlers. Not including the sandbagger scum who inevitably show up for handicap tournaments of course.
If you really want it to be somewhat fair for the true handicap bowler, you should go to at least 90%.
All of our local stuff is 100% of either 230 or 240....Not fun when you're a higher average guy, especially when they pay 65% to handicap and 35% to scratch. In one state I bowl in their annual tournament is always based on 100% of the highest average bowler in the state, which last year was like 253. Scratch guys couldn't get a sniff of the handicap numbers that paid way more than the scratch division.
-
100% never made sense to me. That just makes it a 'pins over average' tournament. Might as well label it as such.
-
820 cap with no hdcp
-
Nothing involving handicap will truly be fair to anyone. It doesn't take much for a lower or higher average to score well higher. Is it going to be a reasonably challenging shot? That would level the playing field some and keep the scores out of the stratosphere. It would also increase the longevity of the tournament, if it's something you plan to do often or annually. People don't return to tournaments if the winning scores are nearly unattainable.
-
Nothing involving handicap will truly be fair to anyone. It doesn't take much for a lower or higher average to score well higher. Is it going to be a reasonably challenging shot? That would level the playing field some and keep the scores out of the stratosphere. It would also increase the longevity of the tournament, if it's something you plan to do often or annually. People don't return to tournaments if the winning scores are nearly unattainable.
I'd agree for the most part. But in my opinion it is easier for a lower average bowler to bowl higher over their average. Just for an example a 150 bowler can get some luck and maybe bowl a 190. A 230 or 240 bowler can also get some luck, but a couple of ring dimes can put him out of wood real quick.
I have no problem with a handicap tournament as long as it pays fairly. If there are scratch and handicap divisions they should pay 50/50 not 70/30 or 60/40. I'm paying the same entry fee as a handicap bowler why am I only eligible for 35% of the prize fund? That's something that has never made sense to me.
-
Better watch it, that's the same opinion the Gizmo has, and he gets 'crucified' for voicing it 'every time.'
I'd agree for the most part. But in my opinion it is easier for a lower average bowler to bowl higher over their average. Just for an example a 150 bowler can get some luck and maybe bowl a 190. A 230 or 240 bowler can also get some luck, but a couple of ring dimes can put him out of wood real quick.
-
Better watch it, that's the same opinion the Gizmo has, and he gets 'crucified' for voicing it 'every time.'
Noice! The problem is, people state they want the sport to grow, but then they don't think it's fair that average bowlers (majority of participants in sport) have a chance at tournaments. There can be different divisions, but then the high divisions will just complain there aren't enough entrants/prize $.
Just bowl scratch brackets, take your 35% payout for scratch, and hope for the best with handicap.
-
Nothing that is handicapped will be fair unless it's bowled on the condition the averages were established on. Make them easier and the lower averages can't keep up, make them tougher and the lower averages aren't effected as much. Really no one is happy unless they feel they have the advantage.
-
Better watch it, that's the same opinion the Gizmo has, and he gets 'crucified' for voicing it 'every time.'
Noice! The problem is, people state they want the sport to grow, but then they don't think it's fair that average bowlers (majority of participants in sport) have a chance at tournaments. There can be different divisions, but then the high divisions will just complain there aren't enough entrants/prize $.
Just bowl scratch brackets, take your 35% payout for scratch, and hope for the best with handicap.
I'm not saying I don't think having handicap is fair, I think handicap is needed. My one and only complaint is why my entry fee is worth less as a scratch guy compared to handicap bowlers at certain tournaments. I bowl in my state tournaments regardless where this happens, any other tournament i bowl is scratch, so for me this only happens a couple times a year.
And BTW I am nothing like GIZMO....lmao
-
What percentage of entrants are scratch? And are scratch entrants still eligible for handicap prizes?
-
I know Storm :)
It does sound unfair indeed.
-
Look at this way, 200 people bowl in a tournament with each bowler supplying $50 to the prize fund. That is $10,000 in prize fund. If there are only 30 bowlers bowling "scratch", then how can you justify a 50/50 split?
The tournament should either be scratch or handicap, not both. If you want both, then have the group left out submit extra money to apply to a separate prize fund. Where I bowl, the tournaments are generally handicap and you can add say $10 for the Scratch All Events prize fund. The more people that enter, the more money the winner can make.
And a little side note, why is there a cap AND handicap? That seems contradictory.
-
Look at this way, 200 people bowl in a tournament with each bowler supplying $50 to the prize fund. That is $10,000 in prize fund. If there are only 30 bowlers bowling "scratch", then how can you justify a 50/50 split?
The tournament should either be scratch or handicap, not both. If you want both, then have the group left out submit extra money to apply to a separate prize fund. Where I bowl, the tournaments are generally handicap and you can add say $10 for the Scratch All Events prize fund. The more people that enter, the more money the winner can make.
And a little side note, why is there a cap AND handicap? That seems contradictory.
I'd agree on the entry thing. I'm not denying there are probably more handicap entries. There's no perfect solution, i'm aware of that. I think it also depends on your definition of the word "scratch" is these days.
-
How about this idea....
Pro's and Higher avg bowlers pay more to enter the tournaments...
-
Well, a cap and handicap is needed for the lower average teams. You want to cap it at 840 so you don't have some team come in with 920 and obliterate everyone, but just because the cap is 840 doesn't mean that all the teams will be near that. If you have an 840 team, but also have a 700 team, that 700 team needs some pins.
Look at this way, 200 people bowl in a tournament with each bowler supplying $50 to the prize fund. That is $10,000 in prize fund. If there are only 30 bowlers bowling "scratch", then how can you justify a 50/50 split?
The tournament should either be scratch or handicap, not both. If you want both, then have the group left out submit extra money to apply to a separate prize fund. Where I bowl, the tournaments are generally handicap and you can add say $10 for the Scratch All Events prize fund. The more people that enter, the more money the winner can make.
And a little side note, why is there a cap AND handicap? That seems contradictory.
-
Well, a cap and handicap is needed for the lower average teams. You want to cap it at 840 so you don't have some team come in with 920 and obliterate everyone, but just because the cap is 840 doesn't mean that all the teams will be near that. If you have an 840 team, but also have a 700 team, that 700 team needs some pins.
That is all fine and dandy, but I guess I am a little old school (never thought I would say that) or perhaps it is different for leagues. If I am told the cap is 840, well then I better have a team near that to be able to compete. I can't enter a competition with a 700 average team and expect to compete. That makes it seem like a fun, casual environment where people just bowl with their friends instead of bowling with people who give them a chance to win.
To me, handicap tournaments mean it doesn't matter who your team is and capped tournaments mean you need a team near the cap. Not both. If you want to prevent high average teams from winning, then adjust the handicap accordingly.
-
I feel the same way . . but therein lies the issue. I feel like to enter a competition or to justifiably be concerned about wins and losses, that I should have a fair bit of experience or skill. I understand wanting to make the opportunity available to as many people as possible, but there's only so fair you can make something, at some point you have to be realistic. I suppose at the same time I just really don't like the idea that you should adjust it so a 150 average bowler will beat a 230 average bowler 50% of the time. What kind of competition does that really make it? How is that "fair?" People are trying to turn it into a roll of the dice, and that completely removes the spirit of competition in the first place. Let's just do like we do with the kids and give everyone a trophy regardless of how they do, that's where this is headed.
Well, a cap and handicap is needed for the lower average teams. You want to cap it at 840 so you don't have some team come in with 920 and obliterate everyone, but just because the cap is 840 doesn't mean that all the teams will be near that. If you have an 840 team, but also have a 700 team, that 700 team needs some pins.
That is all fine and dandy, but I guess I am a little old school (never thought I would say that) or perhaps it is different for leagues. If I am told the cap is 840, well then I better have a team near that to be able to compete. I can't enter a competition with a 700 average team and expect to compete. That makes it seem like a fun, casual environment where people just bowl with their friends instead of bowling with people who give them a chance to win.
To me, handicap tournaments mean it doesn't matter who your team is and capped tournaments mean you need a team near the cap. Not both. If you want to prevent high average teams from winning, then adjust the handicap accordingly.
-
" I suppose at the same time I just really don't like the idea that you should adjust it so a 150 average bowler will beat a 230 average bowler 50% of the time."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Playing Devil's Advocate Here ----
Why shouldn't both bowlers have an equal shot at winning the tournament. They are both paying the entry fee in hopes of winning.
If they are both legitimately averaging 150 and 230 (not a sandbag 150), how are you to convince the 150 to pay his entry fee with without an equal chance to win.
I'm not advocating 100% handicap. (80 to 85 is where I like it)
What I am talking about is the mentality that seems to exist that since I am a 230 average bowler, I deserve to take the 150 average bowlers money 9 out of 10 times.
Also, be happy that you are not a tournament director here in the Dallas/Ft Worth area. You try to start up a tournament to attract bowlers. If you are successful and the word starts to spread, Chris Barnes and team USA sign up to bowl. Now you lose 1/2 of you entries because they have no desire to compete against the upper echelon of elite bowlers in the area unless they are getting pins.
-
Fair enough, lol I like playing devil's advocate . . I suppose I would ask why a 150 average bowler would feel like they should be able to enter any tournament and be guaranteed a chance at winning. I've got a couple tournaments coming up that I have ZERO chance of winning, absolutely zero chance. We also had a smaller sweeper here a month ago that I also knew I had zero chance of winning, but I bowled anyway. Bowling seems to be the only sport where people try to ensure that money, time, work, practice, and effort gains you absolutely NOTHING.
Obviously you aren't going to have a lot of entries into a tournament that's skewed in the favor of one group or another, but it's still the everybody gets a trophy mentality. Should they start handicapping basketball? Baseball?
Now I realize that just due to the nature of the sport, it's impossible to make things truly fair. I don't think 230 averages and 150 averages should ever be in the same league or tournament in the first place, but that's also impossible to avoid. But I also don't understand why simply paying an entry fee is the most important factor in the competition.
Fair or not fair aside, if you make everyone "equal," you're boiling it down to the equivalent of a slot machine tournament, which resembles a competition in no way at all.
" I suppose at the same time I just really don't like the idea that you should adjust it so a 150 average bowler will beat a 230 average bowler 50% of the time."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Playing Devil's Advocate Here ----
Why shouldn't both bowlers have an equal shot at winning the tournament. They are both paying the entry fee in hopes of winning.
If they are both legitimately averaging 150 and 230 (not a sandbag 150), how are you to convince the 150 to pay his entry fee with without an equal chance to win.
I'm not advocating 100% handicap. (80 to 85 is where I like it)
What I am talking about is the mentality that seems to exist that since I am a 230 average bowler, I deserve to take the 150 average bowlers money 9 out of 10 times.
Also, be happy that you are not a tournament director here in the Dallas/Ft Worth area. You try to start up a tournament to attract bowlers. If you are successful and the word starts to spread, Chris Barnes and team USA sign up to bowl. Now you lose 1/2 of you entries because they have no desire to compete against the upper echelon of elite bowlers in the area unless they are getting pins.
-
I'm not really sure what the intent is or who the targeted audience is. Could be high, could be low, but if that's the number you want, stick to it.
This is the question. If you up the Cap, Lower the Handicap base, or Lower the Handicap percent, you attract the high average bowlers. Reverse it and the low average guys come out. There is no way to satisfy either group. High Average Guys win the low average guys complain. The low average guys win, high average guys throw a fit.
Lower cap like that keeps things sort of in play. Of course imagine a team with two 230 average bowlers and two 190 bowlers. I am sure some will cry foul.
-
Simple answer: I do not know anyone who enters a tournament that doesn't have what they believe is a "fair" chance of winning.
In bowling that has been handicap.
In golf, there is a handicap. They let certain level of players tee off from different tees.
Now if you label a tournament as scratch and a 150 or 180 enters, then so be it.
But on a handicap tournament, if a lower average bowler exceeds their ability and the higher average bowler just meets their ability, yes I expect the lower average bowler to win every time in that case.
Why else would you expect them to enter?
Most average casual bowlers (I am not talking about competitive tournament bowlers, or bowlers working towards that goal) are not going to enter a tournament they have no or little shot at winning. People value their hard earned money more than that.
That's my 2 cents.
Fair enough, lol I like playing devil's advocate . . I suppose I would ask why a 150 average bowler would feel like they should be able to enter any tournament and be guaranteed a chance at winning. I've got a couple tournaments coming up that I have ZERO chance of winning, absolutely zero chance. We also had a smaller sweeper here a month ago that I also knew I had zero chance of winning, but I bowled anyway. Bowling seems to be the only sport where people try to ensure that money, time, work, practice, and effort gains you absolutely NOTHING.
Obviously you aren't going to have a lot of entries into a tournament that's skewed in the favor of one group or another, but it's still the everybody gets a trophy mentality. Should they start handicapping basketball? Baseball?
Now I realize that just due to the nature of the sport, it's impossible to make things truly fair. I don't think 230 averages and 150 averages should ever be in the same league or tournament in the first place, but that's also impossible to avoid. But I also don't understand why simply paying an entry fee is the most important factor in the competition.
Fair or not fair aside, if you make everyone "equal," you're boiling it down to the equivalent of a slot machine tournament, which resembles a competition in no way at all.
" I suppose at the same time I just really don't like the idea that you should adjust it so a 150 average bowler will beat a 230 average bowler 50% of the time."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Playing Devil's Advocate Here ----
Why shouldn't both bowlers have an equal shot at winning the tournament. They are both paying the entry fee in hopes of winning.
If they are both legitimately averaging 150 and 230 (not a sandbag 150), how are you to convince the 150 to pay his entry fee with without an equal chance to win.
I'm not advocating 100% handicap. (80 to 85 is where I like it)
What I am talking about is the mentality that seems to exist that since I am a 230 average bowler, I deserve to take the 150 average bowlers money 9 out of 10 times.
Also, be happy that you are not a tournament director here in the Dallas/Ft Worth area. You try to start up a tournament to attract bowlers. If you are successful and the word starts to spread, Chris Barnes and team USA sign up to bowl. Now you lose 1/2 of you entries because they have no desire to compete against the upper echelon of elite bowlers in the area unless they are getting pins.
-
Maybe I do not understand the question. Whats the problem with a capped tournament at 840. If you have bowlers with 230 averages you just have to include some lower average bowlers to be allowed to bowl. Same for the 150 average bowlers, they need to find some higher average bowlers to bowl with. We do this all the time in leagues why not tournaments. I do agree, you would want to get as close to 840 as possible just like you would in trying to get close to your league max. If a team can only get to 700 then its their problem, they new the cap going in. All this does is make the majority of the teams competitive. What did I miss ?
-
If you have (or expect) enough entries, you could consider having two average divisions ... say, 800-up and 799-under. In that way, you wouldn't likely have too many 220+ players competing for the same prize-list standings as 150 or 160 bowlers.
-
Good suggestion.
If you have (or expect) enough entries, you could consider having two average divisions ... say, 800-up and 799-under. In that way, you wouldn't likely have too many 220+ players competing for the same prize-list standings as 150 or 160 bowlers.
-
Well but that's the deal I have with the handicap . . if you go into a tournament or league knowing it's 90% of 220 and there are 230 averages in the league, you should know what you're getting yourself into, right?
And having a "fair" chance of winning is much different from having an "equal" chance at winning. The THS makes everything so volatile that it's more the problem than handicap. It doesn't take much for a 230 average to shoot 750, and it also doesn't take much for them to shoot 600. It's still much easier for a 150 average to jump up to 170 a game than it is for a 230 to jump up to 250 a game.
Maybe I do not understand the question. Whats the problem with a capped tournament at 840. If you have bowlers with 230 averages you just have to include some lower average bowlers to be allowed to bowl. Same for the 150 average bowlers, they need to find some higher average bowlers to bowl with. We do this all the time in leagues why not tournaments. I do agree, you would want to get as close to 840 as possible just like you would in trying to get close to your league max. If a team can only get to 700 then its their problem, they new the cap going in. All this does is make the majority of the teams competitive. What did I miss ?
-
Maybe I do not understand the question. Whats the problem with a capped tournament at 840. If you have bowlers with 230 averages you just have to include some lower average bowlers to be allowed to bowl. Same for the 150 average bowlers, they need to find some higher average bowlers to bowl with. We do this all the time in leagues why not tournaments. I do agree, you would want to get as close to 840 as possible just like you would in trying to get close to your league max. If a team can only get to 700 then its their problem, they new the cap going in. All this does is make the majority of the teams competitive. What did I miss ?
I think the issue arose having a cap AND handicapping the same tournament. I don't see the need in both personally.
-
I am sitting out any tournements until at least the year after next. I have been bowling badly the last half of last year and all this year due to back problems. My back is now better and I have not bowled under 630 for the last 5 weeks now. I am hearing alot of complants due to having a 170 average and getting around 40 pins a game handicap, so this is my way of trying not to be accused of being a bagger. Can you imanagine what would be said if I bowled in the local city tourney and we won because I bowled a 650 +?
-
I am sitting out any tournements until at least the year after next. I have been bowling badly the last half of last year and all this year due to back problems. My back is now better and I have not bowled under 630 for the last 5 weeks now. I am hearing alot of complants due to having a 170 average and getting around 40 pins a game handicap, so this is my way of trying not to be accused of being a bagger. Can you imanagine what would be said if I bowled in the local city tourney and we won because I bowled a 650 +?
Wouldn't be any different than any city tournament I have been in. Just finished our city tournament and we were leading scratch team with 2941 (4 member team) and handicap was OVER 3200!! That is over 800 a man!!
-
I am sitting out any tournements until at least the year after next. I have been bowling badly the last half of last year and all this year due to back problems. My back is now better and I have not bowled under 630 for the last 5 weeks now. I am hearing alot of complants due to having a 170 average and getting around 40 pins a game handicap, so this is my way of trying not to be accused of being a bagger. Can you imanagine what would be said if I bowled in the local city tourney and we won because I bowled a 650 +?
This is a decision that very few bowlers make. Most would enter as many tournaments as possible, due to the idea, well others are doing it. I think you could enter a tournament and request your entering average be increased.
-
I'm almost on his side, I wouldn't want to deal with the flak or possible rerating circus. There was a guy here that got really good really quick, and for about a year he was winning or nearly winning everything, and everybody HATED him.
-
I'm almost on his side, I wouldn't want to deal with the flak or possible rerating circus. There was a guy here that got really good really quick, and for about a year he was winning or nearly winning everything, and everybody HATED him.
Heaven forbid someone get better. I don't mind those instances where the bowler has just a few years of experience and has gotten better every year. I hate those that have consistent 190 averages and miraculously get better for just a couple weekends a year that happen to coincide with tournament season.
-
Exactly
I'm almost on his side, I wouldn't want to deal with the flak or possible rerating circus. There was a guy here that got really good really quick, and for about a year he was winning or nearly winning everything, and everybody HATED him.
Heaven forbid someone get better. I don't mind those instances where the bowler has just a few years of experience and has gotten better every year. I hate those that have consistent 190 averages and miraculously get better for just a couple weekends a year that happen to coincide with tournament season.
-
Let be truthful...
I dont know about the tournament everyone else bowls but we always get a ton of PBA's and staff people bowling.. They might not get wood but let be truthful what are the odds of avg bowler winning against them and they pay the same price as everybody else...
-
Lets be honest about something.
THERE IS NO WAY TO MAKE BOWLING FAIR.
As a higher average bowler, I cannot tell you how many times I have lost games, series, tournaments, and awards to lower average bowlers who beat me to death with their handicap.
What the higher average bowlers must realize is, there are far more bowlers with averages below 200 than there are with averages over 200, and ANYTHING that is going to be held is going to try to appeal to the MASSES, which automatically means bowlers with averages below 200 who are getting some type of handicap.
Higher average bowlers feel like they should have the advantage, many times it is because they have worked hard to get where they are.
Handicap bowlers feel like they should have an equal chance at winning, given that they are putting just as much money into the entry fee.
You cannot reconcile the two, and the real sandbaggers are just going to continue to exploit this.
In a perfect world, everybody would be a scratch bowler, and all tournaments would not need any handicap
It is not a perfect world.
-
Just wondering could you do a handicap tournament, where the hdcp. was based on just what you averaged in the tournament?
No entering averages, you come in bowl your games see what you averaged and see how much hdcp. you get and add it to your score. and see who wins.
example: a 150 average bowler enters and bowls 600, he ave. 200 so he gets hdcp. based on the 200 ave.
-
Like many tournaments, the money is rarely made from the tournament payout... it's from the brackets and other pots. Keep it handicap, but make sure there are plenty of other options, brackets, eliminator, etc. Etc.
-
Just wondering could you do a handicap tournament, where the hdcp. was based on just what you averaged in the tournament?
No entering averages, you come in bowl your games see what you averaged and see how much hdcp. you get and add it to your score. and see who wins.
example: a 150 average bowler enters and bowls 600, he ave. 200 so he gets hdcp. based on the 200 ave.
Unfortunately, everyone may end up with the same score.
Example: Everyone gets 100% handicap based on the highest average bowled. Then everyone would get the same score. If the percentage is 90%, then the highest scratch series would get the advantage of NOT losing the 10%. Your example would have the same results as scratch.
-
I have to admit, this is the first time I have ever heard of having an average cap AND handiap. Usually it is one of the other. I agree with what has been posted before, if I see something that has an average cap, I am not going to enter into it unless I have a team that is near the cap. If the cap is 840, I want to be at least 830 or 835 (depending on the situation, in a league I would probably go with 830, but in a tournament setting I would want to be closer to 835 and up). If you are giving handicap, let the averages go as high as they want, the handicap should make up for it.
Just one little story about handicap, about 5-6 years ago, I was bowling in the Houston city tournament. I came in as basically a scratch bowler (they based handicap off the highest average in the city, I think it was 90% but I don't remember, so I got something like 4-5 pins a game). I shot over 2300 for those 9 games (had 810 and 786 in D/S). I finished second in scratch, by about 4-5 pins. But both the guy that won ( a very good bowler in his own right) and I finished in the mid teen to early 20's in Handicap. While I had no illusuions or complaints about not finishing second in Handicap too, I found it disheartening that we were both non-competitive in the Handicap side. I think first was well over 2400 (over 800 a set). I find it hard to believe one can average over 255 scratch and not be competitive in Handicap as well. To me, that shows that something is broken. Now maybe I am having a Gizmo moment here, and I will get flamed for this, but I am willing to take it. I don't mind giving handicap, but to me this shows that something is out of whack.
-
That's because as a scratch bowler you're thinking 2300 is 500 over. But if the highest average in the city is 240 you are only really 140 over.
-
Maybe its my understanding of the word PRO...
This is just me but it means you are the best and are entitle to certain benefits..
Amateurs dont have the right to participate in professional event so why should they be allow to participate in Amateur events...
-
Jorge, I know the feeling, but as itsallaboutme stated, the average base for that tournament is always really high.
This year's invitational handicap was 90% of 246, so my 223 average garners 20 pins A GAME!!! I love that. But I believe I was only entered in scratch (was asked last minute to bowl). We did well in team, but even with 20 pins a game, I didn't do anything else.
-
Maybe its my understanding of the word PRO...
This is just me but it means you are the best and are entitle to certain benefits..
Amateurs dont have the right to participate in professional event so why should they be allow to participate in Amateur events...
Zanatos,
Actually Amateurs can compete in PBA events. I have bowled probably close to 10-12 PBA Regionals over the years and I have never been a PBA member. The USBC Masters is a PBA title, yet is open to any USBC member (I believe), and I believe the WSOB is open to anyone as well.
Reminds me of NASCAR, having the Sprint Cup drivers competing in the Nationwide and Truck Series. A lot of people like it, says it makes them better to compete against the best. Plus if you do win, makes it that much sweeter. Last time I checked the PBA players were human and they can have bad days just like the rest of us.
-
Spmcgivern,
Are you from the Houston area? Did you ever bowl at Copperfield? Maybe I know you, lol.
And I know, as I said, wasn't expecting to finish in the same spot, but after bowling 25 pins a game over my average (in round figures of 5), and getting a few pins of handicap a game, I figured I would have been top 10, maybe top 15 at worst. But to be like 20th, seemed to me something was out of whack. Either there were a lot of sandbaggers, or a large group of people bowled their best 2 days ever, or something is wrong with the way the handicap is given. Maybe the real answer it was a combination of all 3, who knows.
-
Spmcgivern,
Are you from the Houston area? Did you ever bowl at Copperfield? Maybe I know you, lol.
And I know, as I said, wasn't expecting to finish in the same spot, but after bowling 25 pins a game over my average (in round figures of 5), and getting a few pins of handicap a game, I figured I would have been top 10, maybe top 15 at worst. But to be like 20th, seemed to me something was out of whack. Either there were a lot of sandbaggers, or a large group of people bowled their best 2 days ever, or something is wrong with the way the handicap is given. Maybe the real answer it was a combination of all 3, who knows.
Have only bowled Copperfield once (that I remember) when I subbed for Bubba Haney's team a few years back. Was based out of College Station at the time. I have been based out of Alpha the last few years with some bowling at Arm I & II also.
-
I didn't get down to that side of town too often, lol. I think the only time I bowled at Arm I or Arm II was the year the state tournament was there. I bowled the Wed night scratch league at Copperfield while I was there. Good league, had Shawn Maldenado, Pete McCordic, Bill Lillard...and a bunch of other really good bowlers in it.
-
If that is case - I am wrong.. They can bowl if they pay more...