What do you think constitutes a fair handicap?

[bowl1820]

What do you think constitutes a fair handicap?

Meaning should it be something that gives all bowlers a equal chance of winning regardless of their skill level.

Or should it be something that just helps a little, but still require you to bowl over average to beat a more skilled bowler.
--------
Let me try rephrasing the question.

If you think today's handicap system is unfair, Why is it unfair and how would you make it fair?

Update-
Heres a link to USBC information on handicaps

Click here for THE FACTS ABOUT HANDICAPS

[tomg2100]

yeah i think its nice that it gives everyone a chance but when it comes down to a time when your about110 pins its got to stop.

[Graaille]

The leagues I used to bowl in did 90% of 200, so if you were a 100 average bowler, you got 90 pin handicap.

[threeripmin]

20 years ago most leagues where i bowled were 80% of 200.

[bowl1820]

20 years ago most leagues where i bowled were 80% of 200.

The leagues I used to bowl in did 90% of 200, so if you were a 100 average bowler, you got 90 pin handicap.

yeah i think its nice that it gives everyone a chance but when it comes down to a time when your about 110 pins its got to stop.

Elaborate on those answers. How do they apply to the question.


Let me try rephrasing the question.

If you think today's handicap system is unfair, Why is it unfair and how would you make it fair?

[tomg2100]

I think its unfair sometimes if someone wins the league because of their handicap and you could make it fair by only being able to have up to 75

[Graaille]

If I were to say anything to the (rephrased) question, it would be the handicapped system is misapplied in my opinion. In the church league I was in a couple of years ago, there were people of widely different skill levels participating, and what usually happened was there were 1. 4 skilled people on teams, 2. 4 completely unskilled people on teams, or 3. husband/wife teams where there was maybe one person on the team that was completely unskilled who pushed the team handicap up quite a bit. So over 12 teams, the team handicap varied from 70 pins to over 400 pins of nothing but handicap.

Now, in my example, the high handicap teams became the 'spoiler' teams - they wouldn't win the league, but when they played the low handicap teams - it pretty much guaranteed that the low handicap team would lose most or all the games that evening - simply because if the high handicap team improved at all (which they usually do over the season), then the low handicap team needs to shoot well above average to have a chance of winning.

My solution: have handicap enabled leagues that have low/high end caps: i.e. must average between 140-180 to join this league. I know it doesn't work for social leagues like church leagues and such, but I think that would be a valid change for sanctioned leagues. That way the handicapping will be more uniform across the league, and would help in transitioning to scratch leagues because that would give people something to shoot for. Perhaps leagues that involve bowlers from having 60-100 averages, 100-140 averages, 140-180 averages, 180-220 averages, then scratch.

[BearFan]

There seems to be a general sentiment that a highly skilled team with a low handicap will most often lose against a lesser skilled team with a large amount of handicap points. In our league that has not been the case whatsoever. The team with the highest handicap (my team) came in dead last place during the 1st half of our bowling season. We improved enough during the 2nd half to finish in the middle of the pack, however the team that took over from us the honor of highest team handicap ended up coming in dead last place instead. Both the 1st half and 2nd half winners were 2 of the lowest handicap teams in the league. Also, in head to head competition I've found the higher skilled teams mop the floor with lower skilled teams despite all the extra pins given to them. Our league bases their handicap system on 90% of 200. The problem with this (IMO) is the better teams tend to have bowlers averaging well over 200. So our 120 bowler with 72 handicap pins would have to bowl 23 pins over average just to keep up with another teams 215 bowler who just rolls his/her usual game.

Do I believe high handicaps can be used to a teams advantage? Absolutely. If a team is full of beginner bowlers who are just getting into the game or starting to take is seriously, then there is high potential to improve and use all those pins to dominate a league. Or a team can be filled with baggers, but now I'm off topic and talking about cheating.

[Strike Domination]

I'm not too sure what's fair and what's not actually. Should higher average bowlers be punished? Should lower average bowlers be punished? Should the only advantage be to those who are improving? Examples:

1. 100% of the highest average

2. 80-90% of a lower base(such as 200)

3. 100% of 300

[Jord_84]

I like to keep handicap to a minimum...or bowl scratch. Bowling is a game of skill, the playing field shouldn't be leveled to give those less skilled the advantage.

My league uses 90% of 210....I think.