Rags: Thanks for clearly pointing out my intent. I thought it was simple, but I guess it was being lost.
It's been a good thread with lots of interesting input. While most seem to agree with the truth that in general (i.e. most cases), 100% handicap favors lower average bowlers, there is a notable exception that might bring out further discussion -- Senior Bowlers.
For the most part, these folks have leveled off at whatever skill levels they have achieved. They are fighting the reality of diminishing skills as opposed to focusing on reaching new athletic highlights. This group tends to be steady without huge 'ups and downs'. My mom typifies this. She is a 155 book average bowler, which for her advanced age is really impressive. Her scores in most cases are in the 140-180 range. This is Joe Falco's world, this is what he sees, so he is convinced that 100% handicap is the right solution. And I would agree that seniors should be given the full difference.
However, for bowlers still developing (or capable of developing) their skills, 100% handicap becomes an advantage. In this group, it becomes a very real possibility to have a streak of averaging 50 pins or more over average. Of course not all of these 'up and comers' execute and come through, but it doesn't matter -- it only takes a few in each tournament to cast a shadow over the results.
LadyWannabe clearly understands this. However, what I find disturbing is the attitude of "Tough. That's the way it is and since it's to my personal advantage, I don't want it fixed".
Competitors should always call for as level a playing field as possible, because victory under any other circumstances is hollow. This is being lost on too many bowlers, and ultimately damages our game.
--------------------
"Advertisers -- you too can have access to this prime demographic"
