bowling-forum.net
The bowlers choice for bowling chat.

Main
Date: 31 May 2007 20:26:28
From: pulpo
Subject: USBC League Handicaps
Can anyone help explain the logic behind handicaps being 90% and
pegged against a 190 or 210 benchmark? Would it not make more sense to
set it against a 300, with 100% of it's value, so that people who
average above the 210 don't have an advantage against the field?

For example, my league has a benchmark of 210 and the handicap is 90%
of the bowler's average against the benchmark. If my team consists of
four members who all carry a 150 average and we are bowling against a
team that has four members carrying 220 averages; then the 150 team is
at a distinct disadvantage.

Assuming everyone bowls their average, the 220 team bowls a net of 660
and the 150 team bowls a net 612.

The USBC handicap system seems very out of whack. It would be similar
to saying Tiger Woods has a 0 handicap in golf and therefore should
have an even match against Head Pro John Doe, who is a scratch
handicap. In reality, Tiger has a USGA handicap of at least a +4 and
he would have to give those 4 strokes to someone who was a true 0
handicap.





 
Date: 01 Jun 2007 15:41:22
From: Darby
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
USBC does not tell you what percentage or from what base score handicap
should be figured. That is a league rule. You make a very good point, tell
this to your members when the Fall organizational meeting is held. You vote
on league rules then. Perhaps you can get it changed, if not, it will be
something to discuss with league members during the season and maybe a
change will be made next year. Sometimes it takes a while for people to
understand the scoring system.
Good luck,
Dar

"pulpo" <austinstyle@yahoo.com > wrote
> Can anyone help explain the logic behind handicaps being 90% and
> pegged against a 190 or 210 benchmark? Would it not make more sense to
> set it against a 300, with 100% of it's value, so that people who
> average above the 210 don't have an advantage against the field?
>
> For example, my league has a benchmark of 210 and the handicap is 90%
> of the bowler's average against the benchmark. If my team consists of
> four members who all carry a 150 average and we are bowling against a
> team that has four members carrying 220 averages; then the 150 team is
> at a distinct disadvantage.
>
> Assuming everyone bowls their average, the 220 team bowls a net of 660
> and the 150 team bowls a net 612.
>
> The USBC handicap system seems very out of whack. It would be similar
> to saying Tiger Woods has a 0 handicap in golf and therefore should
> have an even match against Head Pro John Doe, who is a scratch
> handicap. In reality, Tiger has a USGA handicap of at least a +4 and
> he would have to give those 4 strokes to someone who was a true 0
> handicap.
>




  
Date: 01 Jun 2007 12:10:15
From: reynolds9835
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
Darby is correct about the percentage being a local league rule, rather than
a USBC mandate. The reason I wouldn't support a 100% difference from any
benchmark score is that there is no incentive to improve your average
against your fellow league members. You're always at par.

My league has a negative handicap for bowlers who exceed the benchmark. For
example, we run 90% of 200. I average 213, so I have a handicap of -11.

We tried to raise the benchmark to 210, but of course the lesser average
bowlers voted that down.

"Darby" <tenpinhawkeye@mchsi.com > wrote in message
news:C6X7i.81673$n_.67949@attbi_s21...
> USBC does not tell you what percentage or from what base score handicap
> should be figured. That is a league rule. You make a very good point, tell
> this to your members when the Fall organizational meeting is held. You
> vote on league rules then. Perhaps you can get it changed, if not, it will
> be something to discuss with league members during the season and maybe a
> change will be made next year. Sometimes it takes a while for people to
> understand the scoring system.
> Good luck,
> Dar
>
> "pulpo" <austinstyle@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Can anyone help explain the logic behind handicaps being 90% and
>> pegged against a 190 or 210 benchmark? Would it not make more sense to
>> set it against a 300, with 100% of it's value, so that people who
>> average above the 210 don't have an advantage against the field?
>>
>> For example, my league has a benchmark of 210 and the handicap is 90%
>> of the bowler's average against the benchmark. If my team consists of
>> four members who all carry a 150 average and we are bowling against a
>> team that has four members carrying 220 averages; then the 150 team is
>> at a distinct disadvantage.
>>
>> Assuming everyone bowls their average, the 220 team bowls a net of 660
>> and the 150 team bowls a net 612.
>>
>> The USBC handicap system seems very out of whack. It would be similar
>> to saying Tiger Woods has a 0 handicap in golf and therefore should
>> have an even match against Head Pro John Doe, who is a scratch
>> handicap. In reality, Tiger has a USGA handicap of at least a +4 and
>> he would have to give those 4 strokes to someone who was a true 0
>> handicap.
>>
>
>




   
Date: 01 Jun 2007 21:14:16
From: litefrozen
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
In article <FKOdnXZuYekv8_3bnZ2dnUVZ_v2knZ2d@comcast.com >, reynolds9835 <nospam@thisaddress.thanks> wrote:

> Darby is correct about the percentage being a local league rule, rather than
> a USBC mandate. The reason I wouldn't support a 100% difference from any
> benchmark score is that there is no incentive to improve your average
> against your fellow league members. You're always at par.
>
> My league has a negative handicap for bowlers who exceed the benchmark. For
> example, we run 90% of 200. I average 213, so I have a handicap of -11.
>
> We tried to raise the benchmark to 210, but of course the lesser average
> bowlers voted that down.
>

How do you figure there would be no incentive to improve? At a 100% a league would become basically a
pins over average league. So if you have to bowl P.O.A. to win you would have to keep improving.

I would think a negative HDCP for being over the scratch base figure(200 in this case) Is more of a incentive
not to improve and to sandbag for those under the base.

Cause you'll have bowlers not wanting to lose hdcp, so they'll just bowl good enough
for awhile to win. Then dump a couple to keep their ave down.

(A team could have one bowler sandbag some, the others bowl good to for the win. The next week your rotate
a different bowler doe's the sandbagging and the other bowl good for the win. They keep thier aves down and keep winning.)

Now it might be a incentive for those over the base to bowl harder to win. But they'll get tired of that, lay
back and get on par with the rest.


    
Date: 04 Jun 2007 15:55:38
From: reynolds9835
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
Edward's response is essentially correct. Pins over average places more
emphasis on single night performance.

I'm perfectly fine with my negative handicap. I'm under average if I can't
carry a couple ringing 10's and have to spare the frames. I'm beat by a much
lower average bowler that converts two frames into spares they typically
leave open.

It is FAR easier for a lower average bowler to show improvement in POA than
a higher average bowler. I'm covered by the 90% difference that already
rewards me for greater skill.

"litefrozen" <litefrozen@mothership.com > wrote in message
news:010620071716378262%litefrozen@mothership.com...
> In article <FKOdnXZuYekv8_3bnZ2dnUVZ_v2knZ2d@comcast.com>, reynolds9835
> <nospam@thisaddress.thanks> wrote:
>
>> Darby is correct about the percentage being a local league rule, rather
>> than
>> a USBC mandate. The reason I wouldn't support a 100% difference from any
>> benchmark score is that there is no incentive to improve your average
>> against your fellow league members. You're always at par.
>>
>> My league has a negative handicap for bowlers who exceed the benchmark.
>> For
>> example, we run 90% of 200. I average 213, so I have a handicap of -11.
>>
>> We tried to raise the benchmark to 210, but of course the lesser average
>> bowlers voted that down.
>>
>
> How do you figure there would be no incentive to improve? At a 100% a
> league would become basically a
> pins over average league. So if you have to bowl P.O.A. to win you would
> have to keep improving.
>
> I would think a negative HDCP for being over the scratch base figure(200
> in this case) Is more of a incentive
> not to improve and to sandbag for those under the base.
>
> Cause you'll have bowlers not wanting to lose hdcp, so they'll just bowl
> good enough
> for awhile to win. Then dump a couple to keep their ave down.
>
> (A team could have one bowler sandbag some, the others bowl good to for
> the win. The next week your rotate
> a different bowler doe's the sandbagging and the other bowl good for the
> win. They keep thier aves down and keep winning.)
>
> Now it might be a incentive for those over the base to bowl harder to win.
> But they'll get tired of that, lay
> back and get on par with the rest.




    
Date: 01 Jun 2007 23:56:27
From: Edward DeGraaf
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
Pins Over Average leagues are not fair, either. A 100 average bowler has 200
pins available to beat their average, but a 200 average bowler only has 100
pins available.

Handicap was NEVER meant to make things EQUAL. It was meant to give lower
average bowlers a better chance at winning without taking the advantage away
from the better bowler.

Edward DeGraaf,
USBC Certified Bronze Level Instructor.
Latest 300 Game - 05/25/2007.
President of the Internet Invitational XXIV.




     
Date: 03 Jun 2007 00:33:22
From: litefrozen
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
In article <zradna79rpjwd_3bnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@wideopenwest.com >, Edward DeGraaf <amf300bowler@spamwowway.com> wrote:

> Pins Over Average leagues are not fair, either. A 100 average bowler has 200
> pins available to beat their average, but a 200 average bowler only has 100
> pins available.
>

While the numbers are right, this doesn't make POA unfair. It assumes
the lower average bowler is going to shoot way over average all the time
and that doesn't happen.

Ok lets look at this (no handicap just pins over).

Whats is it going to take for the 200 ave to lose a 3 game series in POA
to the 100 ave?

1-Lets say the 200 ave bowls normal shoots his ave, 200 each game/600
series thats zero pins over.

That means the 100 ave bowler will have to shoot 101 pins over to win
each game and 301 pins over to win series! Thats pretty long odds of
that happening.

2-Now Lets say the 200 ave feels fired up, he shoots 210-215-225=650
series. Thats 50 pins over for the night.

That means the 100 ave bowler will have to shoot 211-216-226! for 351
pins over to win series! Thats really long odds now.

3-Ok now the 200 ave has a bad night 180 each game 540 series. thats
60pins under ave.

That means the 100 ave bowler will have to shoot 81 pins over each game
to win and 241 pins over to win series! Now if this happened the 200 ave
needs to lose.

In these 3 cases the 100 ave would have to bowl over double his average
each game to win. Against the 200 average bowler who just bowled his
average.

Now this will change as the the 100 ave improves and his ave goes up.
a 170ave can start really challenging the 200 ave, so the 200 ave will
have to start improving or start losing. till the lower ave reachs 200
and gets on par with him. thats the way it should be.

---------------------------------------------------
Now lets try it with handicap (90% of 220)
200ave has 27 pins hdcp. a game
100ave has 117 pins hdcp. a game

1-Lets say the 200 ave bowls normal shoots his ave, 200 each game/600
series thats zero pins over. for hdcp games of 227 and a 681 series

That means the 100 ave bowler will have to shoot only 11 pins over to
win. That happens alot.

2-Now Lets say the 200 ave feels fired up, he shoots 210-215-225=650
series. Thats 50 pins over for the night. so he has hdcp. games of
237-242-252=731 series

That means the 100 ave bowler will have to shoot 21 & 25 & 35 pins over
to win each game. This happens too they have a good night.

3-Ok now the 200 ave has a bad night 180 each game 540 series. thats
60pins under ave. Hdcp- 207 games. he deserves to lose he didnt bowl his
ave.

------------------------------------------------
So if your the 200 ave bowler which would you rather bowl P.O.A. or
handicap.


      
Date: 03 Jun 2007 00:54:18
From: litefrozen
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
In article <020620072035464011%litefrozen@mothership.com >, litefrozen <litefrozen@mothership.com> wrote:

> ------------------------------------------------
> So if your the 200 ave bowler which would you rather bowl P.O.A. or
> handicap.

Strike all of that post. I got lost on the wrong train of thought and scratch bowling.

But I do believe alot of the complaints about HDCP etc. assume the lower average bowler is going to
shoot way over average all the time and that doesn't happen. In the long run the higher ave has the advantage.


       
Date: 04 Jun 2007 16:02:45
From: reynolds9835
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
But it is true that the lower average bowler is more likely to have more
games over average than the higher average bowler, as a function of
improving their game.

In most cases, the lower average league bowler is new to the sport and on
pace to improve fairly quickly. In the leagues I bowl in, the most improved
bowler for the season is typically NOT the bowler that started with the
highest average at the beginning of the season, but a bowler starting in the
bottom 10% of averages in the league.

"litefrozen" <litefrozen@mothership.com > wrote in message
news:020620072056416384%litefrozen@mothership.com...
> In article <020620072035464011%litefrozen@mothership.com>, litefrozen
> <litefrozen@mothership.com> wrote:
>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> So if your the 200 ave bowler which would you rather bowl P.O.A. or
>> handicap.
>
> Strike all of that post. I got lost on the wrong train of thought and
> scratch bowling.
>
> But I do believe alot of the complaints about HDCP etc. assume the lower
> average bowler is going to
> shoot way over average all the time and that doesn't happen. In the long
> run the higher ave has the advantage.




     
Date: 02 Jun 2007 15:25:00
From: litefrozen
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
In article <zradna79rpjwd_3bnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@wideopenwest.com >, Edward DeGraaf <amf300bowler@spamwowway.com> wrote:

> Pins Over Average leagues are not fair, either. A 100 average bowler has 200
> pins available to beat their average, but a 200 average bowler only has 100
> pins available.
>
> Handicap was NEVER meant to make things EQUAL. It was meant to give lower
> average bowlers a better chance at winning without taking the advantage away
> from the better bowler.
>
> Edward DeGraaf,
> USBC Certified Bronze Level Instructor.
> Latest 300 Game - 05/25/2007.
> President of the Internet Invitational XXIV.
>
>
Lets see what we have so far-
Handicap is unfair to Higher average bowlers.
Because Lower averages have room to improve, they are more likely to bowl over average
and have more pins available to bowl over average.

Pins Over Average is unfair to Higher average bowlers.
Because Lower averages have room to improve, they are more likely to bowl over average
and have more pins available to bowl over average.

Hmm a pattern seems to be developing.

All of the complaints are based on the fact that.
Lower averages improve or have good nights and bowl over average.
Higher averages either can't improve or improve very little and can't bowl as much over average.

So at that rate nothing is fair, the lower averages will always have the advantage.
I guess higher averages could bowl scratch in some sort of "scratch league".

Lower averages do have a advantage on some nights, but not all the time. The USBC's numbers have shown that
in the long run, Higher average bowlers have the advantage.

I think the thing that would make it "fair" is to get rid of "THS" the house shot. Then bowlers averages would
fall more inline with their real skill level. There are challenging but fair oil patterns that can be used.

Then things like handicap wont factor in has much as they do now.


      
Date: 02 Jun 2007 12:42:48
From: Edward DeGraaf
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
> I think the thing that would make it "fair" is to get rid of "THS" the
> house shot. Then bowlers averages would
> fall more inline with their real skill level. There are challenging but
> fair oil patterns that can be used.
>
> Then things like handicap wont factor in has much as they do now.

I TOTALLY agree and if Roger Dalkin gets his way, only USBC Sport Leagues
and Tournaments will be certified for competition by the USBC.

Edward DeGraaf,
USBC Certified Bronze Level Instructor.
Latest 300 Game - 05/25/2007.
President of the Internet Invitational XXIV.




       
Date: 02 Jun 2007 22:46:10
From: litefrozen
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
In article <K-OdnU-WtZWXA_zbnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@wideopenwest.com >, Edward DeGraaf <amf300bowler@spamwowway.com> wrote:

> > I think the thing that would make it "fair" is to get rid of "THS" the
> > house shot. Then bowlers averages would
> > fall more inline with their real skill level. There are challenging but
> > fair oil patterns that can be used.
> >
> > Then things like handicap wont factor in has much as they do now.
>
> I TOTALLY agree and if Roger Dalkin gets his way, only USBC Sport Leagues
> and Tournaments will be certified for competition by the USBC.
>
> Edward DeGraaf,
> USBC Certified Bronze Level Instructor.
> Latest 300 Game - 05/25/2007.
> President of the Internet Invitational XXIV.
>
>
He has some good ideas and it will be interesting to see how they play out.
with his "line of demarcation"

I bet the USBC wil divide up into two branches.
The USBC Competitive division and the USBC Recreational Division each with it own sancitioning.

Which is basically what its already trying to do with Sport sanction cards and regular sanction cards.


 
Date: 01 Jun 2007 07:47:24
From: pulpo
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps

Yes, I would prefer the average being your best 10 out of your last 20
games (USGA/golf) over any system that allows 220 bowlers to bowl for
prize money against a 210 scratch.

Again, why is this so complicated? Wouldn't a 100% handicap based on
300 scratch be fair to everyone? What if any problems would it cause?



 
Date: 31 May 2007 23:38:23
From: PromptJock
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
Methinx the origins of the current "handicap system(s)" are Shrouded
In The Mists Of Antiquity. Personally, I think ALL handicap leagues
should use ** 100% of (whatever) **. IOW, the PERCENTAGE should be
100%, regardless of the "cap".

This is the only way to guarantee "fairness" as wins would be
determined by most pins over average - the true test of skill. As it
is, with less-than-100% handicaps, the LOWER-AVERAGE BOWLERS are
always screwed-over whereas the higher-average bowlers get an
advantage.

Always Remember: many games are lost by LESS THAN TEN (10) PINS, and
those "lost" poins are always due to the 90% (or whatever) handicap
calculation for the LOWEST AVERAGE player/team.



  
Date: 01 Jun 2007 15:41:30
From: litefrozen
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
In article <1180679903.222883.159790@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com >, PromptJock <102151.3223@compuserve.com> wrote:

> Methinx the origins of the current "handicap system(s)" are Shrouded
> In The Mists Of Antiquity. Personally, I think ALL handicap leagues
> should use ** 100% of (whatever) **. IOW, the PERCENTAGE should be
> 100%, regardless of the "cap".
>
> This is the only way to guarantee "fairness" as wins would be
> determined by most pins over average - the true test of skill. As it
> is, with less-than-100% handicaps, the LOWER-AVERAGE BOWLERS are
> always screwed-over whereas the higher-average bowlers get an
> advantage.
>
> Always Remember: many games are lost by LESS THAN TEN (10) PINS, and
> those "lost" poins are always due to the 90% (or whatever) handicap
> calculation for the LOWEST AVERAGE player/team.
>

I've tried a couple of times to get the 100% in at the our league startup.

But the high averages scream bloody murder about it. They say they lose alot now to low aves+hi-hdcp's,
they figure they'll lose even more at 100%. Nobody seems to get the P.O.A. concept

And your right most games are lost by about 10 pins (or 10 pins a man on ave).


  
Date: 01 Jun 2007 09:08:18
From: 6ballman
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
I have been in leagues where the handicap was based on the DIFFERENCE in
average between 2 opponents. That way there is no actual ceiling that
has to keep being adjusted if the big guns get bigger. Personally, I
would rather bowl scratch in a tiered system. That way you only compete
against those of similar ability. What if you are on the improve? Well,
good for you, and BTW - next session you go up a level. The handicap
system as currently construed favors those on the improve because they
are consistently bowling above their stated average, until they reach
equilibrium with their actual ability.

For the folks that think golf has a better way...consider...They toss
out the bottom 1/2 of your scores before computing your average.
The equivalent in bowling would go something like this:

week1...466
week2...574
week3...550
week4...501
week5...575
week6...540
week7...598
week8...572
week9...600
week10..524

usbc average is 183.33 under golf rules the average would be 194.6.
Still want to go the usga way?

For anyone who thinks those numbers are unrealistic, they are my last 10
sessions for 05-06.



PromptJock wrote:
> Methinx the origins of the current "handicap system(s)" are Shrouded
> In The Mists Of Antiquity. Personally, I think ALL handicap leagues
> should use ** 100% of (whatever) **. IOW, the PERCENTAGE should be
> 100%, regardless of the "cap".
>
> This is the only way to guarantee "fairness" as wins would be
> determined by most pins over average - the true test of skill. As it
> is, with less-than-100% handicaps, the LOWER-AVERAGE BOWLERS are
> always screwed-over whereas the higher-average bowlers get an
> advantage.
>
> Always Remember: many games are lost by LESS THAN TEN (10) PINS, and
> those "lost" poins are always due to the 90% (or whatever) handicap
> calculation for the LOWEST AVERAGE player/team.
>
>

--
--
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended
upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts."
--Abraham Lincoln


 
Date: 01 Jun 2007 03:51:11
From: litefrozen
Subject: Re: USBC League Handicaps
In article <1180668388.961818.274240@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, pulpo <austinstyle@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Can anyone help explain the logic behind handicaps being 90% and
> pegged against a 190 or 210 benchmark? Would it not make more sense to
> set it against a 300, with 100% of it's value, so that people who
> average above the 210 don't have an advantage against the field?
>
> For example, my league has a benchmark of 210 and the handicap is 90%
> of the bowler's average against the benchmark. If my team consists of
> four members who all carry a 150 average and we are bowling against a
> team that has four members carrying 220 averages; then the 150 team is
> at a distinct disadvantage.
>
> Assuming everyone bowls their average, the 220 team bowls a net of 660
> and the 150 team bowls a net 612.
>
> The USBC handicap system seems very out of whack. It would be similar
> to saying Tiger Woods has a 0 handicap in golf and therefore should
> have an even match against Head Pro John Doe, who is a scratch
> handicap. In reality, Tiger has a USGA handicap of at least a +4 and
> he would have to give those 4 strokes to someone who was a true 0
> handicap.
>

In most of the USBC stuff they saynow the scratch figure should be higher than the highest average on the league.
190 or 210 scratch figure is kinda low, most are around 220 or 230 now. 300 would work, but all you need is
a number higher than the top average of the league.

Heres a USBC link that tells all about the handicap and what your are talking about.

http://www.bowl.com/Downloads/pdf/rules/THEFACTSABOUTHANDICAPS.pdf

It good to have a copy of this when you have a league startup meeting and your setting the handicap.