Thoughts on Negative Handicap

[Outerlimits]

Until now have never bowled in a league that had this rule. Although it doesn't apply to me, I am still trying to wrap my head around it. Any bowler with a 220 or higher average gets negative 90% of the difference of his average and 220. First thought was why should a guy who worked to get his game to this level be penalized? No handicap ok, but negative? Rule was installed because of a local PBA Member that subs sometimes. Chris Keane, nice guy, great bowler, has donated time and tips to a lot of the same bowlers that have installed this rule to prevent him from hurting them when he bowls. One regular bowler had a 225 average in the league several others have 215 plus. So it really effects only one person. But is it the best way to go about it. What about raising the handicap limit to 230? League has 123 bowlers, 168.7 composite avg. Men avg. 181.04, Women avg. 153.9. Did a search read some earlier responses. Interested in your thoughts.

[fordman1]

Sounds like a 4 person mixed league. Easy fix would be to make it 90% of team avg. from 800. That way unless a team goes over 800 there is no problem. Now your league avg. is 672 or so. If they are determined to have individual H\C make it from 250. Remember you may run into people who say we have always done it this way and if yo don't like it don't go away mad just go away.

[J Anderson]

Until now have never bowled in a league that had this rule. Although it doesn't apply to me, I am still trying to wrap my head around it. Any bowler with a 220 or higher average gets negative 90% of the difference of his average and 220. First thought was why should a guy who worked to get his game to this level be penalized? No handicap ok, but negative? Rule was installed because of a local PBA Member that subs sometimes. Chris Keane, nice guy, great bowler, has donated time and tips to a lot of the same bowlers that are installed this rule to prevent him from hurting them when he bowls. One regular bowler had a 225 average in the league several others have 215 plus. So it really effects only one person. But is it the best way to go about it. What about raising the handicap limit to 230? League has 123 bowlers, 168.7 composite avg. Men avg. 181.04, Women avg. 153.9. Did a search read some earlier responses. Interested in your thoughts.

The point of having handicaps is to allow lower average bowlers to be competetive with high average bowlers. In theory, any two bowlers, if they hit their average, would wind up within a few pins of each other.
What many league bowlers fail to realize is that if a bowler has a 230 average in a league that uses 220 as the basis for the handicap, that bowler has at least a 10 pin advantage. Should you suggest moving the basis higher, there will be howls, “You can’t do that! We’ll be giving that guy pins! He doesn’t need any pins. The negative handicap essentially does the same thing but is an easier sell to those who can’t be bothered wrapping their heads around the math.

All handicap systems are unfair to those who by some combination of talent and hard work are more skilled.

[boatman37]

I don't like it. Don't penalize a guy/girl for being good. I guess our league was based off a 220 average but we currently have 8 or 9 guys over 220 average this year. The current handicap is based off of 230 because of these guys. I just started in January and we bowled the highest average team (4 of the 5 over 220 average) and beat them all 3. Our highest average bowler this year was 204 on our team. Seems to work ok for us.

The summer league I'm in is 80% handicap. That gives more advantage to the higher average bowlers.

[vdubtx]

My competitive Tuesday league put this rule in place several years ago and it only lasted one season. Was kind of out of the blue that the league voted this in. Several PBA members that bowled in the league left and I don't have them. One young guy in particular that left the league is now a star in the PBA, Anthony Simonsen. Made no sense to me why anyone would accept a negative handicap. I would quit bowling in the league too.

[Outerlimits]

The "discussion" started at the league awards banquet, and will be formally discussed at the league meeting next fall. But its already a hot topic and I can see a very spirited debate ahead. Yep.....all ready encountered those that have expressed those sentiments, that's ok, Ill go along with what ever the league votes to do. I just don't see the logic in approaching the issue that way. Hate to see those who work to get their game to a certain level, get penalized.

[fordman1]

I hear that a lot about how the better bowler worked hard to get better and now it causes him or her to be penalized. Remember they asked to join a league that is below their skill level. If they don't like the rules they should go bowl with bowler their on level.
As I said earlier have a team H\C and keep all the teams under a certain cap and the problem is solved.

[mc_runner]

I'm not a huge fan. Max it out and give the best bowlers a 0 if they are over the base. Easy solution is to simply raise it (league I bowl uses 250) or move to team handicap format like fordman said. That might be a little more of a learning curve for some people who've been bowling on individual handicaps forever though.

[J Anderson]

Statistically, there is no difference between using a negative handicap for those with averages over the basis for the handicap and raiing the basis so everyone falls under it.

For example, bowler A has an average of 195 an bowler B has one of 225. In a league using 90% of the difference based on 220, with a negative hadicap for those over 220, A gets 27 pins and B loses 4. For a game where both bowlers hit their averages on the nose A winds up with a 217 while B gets a 221.

Raise the basis to 230 to get rid of the negative handicap and A’s handicap becomes 36, and B’s becomes a positive 4. A’s score becomes 226. B’s is now 229.

In both cases, the playing field has been leveled to the point that the lesser skilled bowler is within a mark of the better player. The only difference is that in the first case the better bowler feels penalized, and in the second case the lower average bowler might feel that it’s not fair for the higher average bowler to get any pins.

[boatman37]

Statistically, there is no difference between using a negative handicap for those with averages over the basis for the handicap and raiing the basis so everyone falls under it.

For example, bowler A has an average of 195 an bowler B has one of 225. In a league using 90% of the difference based on 220, with a negative hadicap for those over 220, A gets 27 pins and B loses 4. For a game where both bowlers hit their averages on the nose A winds up with a 217 while B gets a 221.

Raise the basis to 230 to get rid of the negative handicap and A’s handicap becomes 36, and B’s becomes a positive 4. A’s score becomes 226. B’s is now 229.

In both cases, the playing field has been leveled to the point that the lesser skilled bowler is within a mark of the better player. The only difference is that in the first case the better bowler feels penalized, and in the second case the lower average bowler might feel that it’s not fair for the higher average bowler to get any pins.

I understand that statistically it is the same but the perception is that you are penalized for being a better bowler. The perception would be that that league doesn't want the higher average bowlers in their league.

[fordman1]

John is exactly right. The thing is if you have ever went to or ran a league meeting you can't get that point across to some people. I have been around for 72 years and I can't believe politics and religion are this divisive in todays world.

[Outerlimits]

That is not a perception.....that is the truth. The By Law for negative handicap was added because of one Sub that lit up a couple of teams while subbing. The PBA member that the league was trying to prevent from hurting them wont sub in the league anymore anyway. Now its effecting a regular team member whos average is above 220. I see both sides of the issue, yes, the higher avg. bowler could just go bowl somewhere else except their are no scratch leagues. The mens league uses no negative handicap and 90% of 225. Or just accept his negative handicap and keep bowling in this league.
Since I have never encountered this I was hoping for this kind of conversation. My first thought was it was penalizing a bowler for being good. I think to a degree it still is, but as you folks have pointed out, their is more than one way to look at it. And if the league wants to discuss it, their are several ways to handle it.
All input and thoughts are appreciated.

[Outerlimits]

John is exactly right. The thing is if you have ever went to or ran a league meeting you can't get that point across to some people. I have been around for 72 years and I can't believe politics and religion are this divisive in todays world.
Fordman1 thanks for the input. I have ran league meetings, and have been around a lot of testy, down right nasty meetings........but that was in the 80's and 90's. Negative Handicap was never an issue back then. Fact was I wasn't aware this league even had it until I noticed the minus sign next to the bowlers handicap. Just trying to educate myself about both sides of negative handicap issue.

[BobbyGunz89]

Not a fan of negative handicap. Never looked into either. But why should someone that shoots 300 and has -10 max at 290 and someone that shoots 290 but gets 10pins win.

[fordman1]

The individual h\c should only be used at the end of the year to see who wins $10 for high game of the year with h\c.
If you use the team h\c all of the crying could be stopped. Put in a high cap for team, no team can have an average over such in such. Say 800 for a mixed league. 255-85-120-250=760 or what ever.

[Amyers]

I have never seen that and bowled in quite a few leagues. Sounds like it was a poor choice to discriminate against one bowler. at the next league meeting I would try to get this rule pitched

[fordman1]

A few years ago I was a house rep for the local assn. I attended the organizational meeting for all 22 leagues. Now that was a learning experience. You can not imagine the things that they would argue over. They would almost come to blows. H\c, subs, no subs, avg. entering avg. pay out, how much to charge, absent score, almost everything.

[Outerlimits]

This same league has a by-law that a legal lineup must have at least one bowler of the opposite sex on the team. Its a mixed league......ok except when you need a sub. That was pulled on us early on. It seems that their is no requirement for a sub to be male for male or female for female, or even to keep the 1 member of the opposite sex on the team when using a sub. Yep....their 120 female became a 195 male sub. Their mixed league team was 4 men now. :confused: When I inquired as to why this was allowed, they said they have a hard time finding female subs. So they wave the ratio of male to female, except during position round. No subs allowed at all.
Not trying to sound like sour grapes, or remake the wheel, as I said before quite bowling in 1996, just got back into it in 2016 after retirement. Time goes on, things change, I understand that. I have been gone a while.....like almost 20 years, but trying to get current. lol

[fordman1]

Funny thing was at all the meetings the ones that complained the most were mixed or lower avg. leagues. Women seemed to come in with an attitude. One lady who was a league sec. while fielding questions got mad and told her husband to "sit down and shut up". I rarely said a word unless they were trying to put in or change a bylaw that was totally against USBC rules.

[Stormed1]

One answer is to juse 90% difference in the team average. So t soesn't mater what aerage the sub has. You just add up the averages of the people bowling that night and the lower average team gets 90% of the difference between the 2 teams and the higher aerage team gets 0

Many years ago I dealt with negative handicap in 4 leagues. Monday league was based off 220 and I had -9 at the end of the season. Wed. league was 90% of 210. started the hyear at -43 an ended up at -15. Sunday once a month was 100% of 200 and I ended up at -20.. I subbed in a Tues mixed which was 90% od 210 and ended at -21. I just kept tryinmg to do my besty and take my lumps. BTW we won the Monday,Wednesday and Sunday leagues. And the team I subbed fr (all of 4 times) won their league too

[fordman1]

Be honest now, have you been drinking or smoking something?

[Stormed1]

nope 89/90 season I averaged 230 , Wed was a 227 ave, Sun was 220 ave and the tusday I subbed was 234 avbe ( remember i only bowled 12 games in that league and first night 768. hat same year I average 229 in my Friday scratch leagu and was 21st ib average . High average in that league was 232

[fordman1]

Not questioning your bowling ability. It just looked like a drunk did your typing.

[mishatx]

If you're going to give negative pins, or team pins, why not just base off 300 and give everyone positive pins and be done with it? (As long as you don't cap hcp scores at 300)

[Davidjr113]

Finally!