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.