Scoring Systems

[Big Paulie]

Do not, will not and am not trolling, but thanks for your input anyway.

And besides it is all within the OP's original question.
Rob

You are not trolling? Then I am sorry my friend but you really don't get it.

Take 100% of 200 for example.
If bowler A averages 150, his handicap is 50. He shoots a 200 game, his handicap score is 250.
Bowler B averages 190, his handicap is 10. He has to shoot +240 to win that game.
Now tell me, which is easier? A 150 average bowler shooting 200, or a 190 average bowler shooting 240?
At 100% of 200, the lower average bowler has the advantage... for what? Being a less capable bowler?

Now take 80% of 200 with the same scenario.
Bowler A averages 150. Handicap is then 40. He shoots a 200 game... handicap score is 240
Bowler B averages 190. Handicap is then 8. He has to shoot a 233 to win (rather than +240 in the above scenario).
Now what is more likely? 150 shooting 200, or 190 shooting 233?
This is 'fairer', but there should still be an incentive to improve as a bowler, and not simply rely on a favourable handicap system to keep you competitive.

And remember, if the league has multiple 200+ bowlers, we increase the scratch score to suit which also benefits the lower average bowler.

Come on now, its not that difficult to understand.

[bowlrig]

You are not trolling? Then I am sorry my friend but you really don't get it.

Take 100% of 200 for example.
If bowler A averages 150, his handicap is 50. He shoots a 200 game, his handicap score is 250.
Bowler B averages 190, his handicap is 10. He has to shoot +240 to win that game.
Now tell me, which is easier? A 150 average bowler shooting 200, or a 190 average bowler shooting 240?
At 100% of 200, the lower average bowler has the advantage... for what? Being a less capable bowler?

Now take 80% of 200 with the same scenario.
Bowler A averages 150. Handicap is then 40. He shoots a 200 game... handicap score is 240
Bowler B averages 190. Handicap is then 8. He has to shoot a 233 to win (rather than +240 in the above scenario).
Now what is more likely? 150 shooting 200, or 190 shooting 233?
This is 'fairer', but there should still be an incentive to improve as a bowler, and not simply rely on a favourable handicap system to keep you competitive.

And remember, if the league has multiple 200+ bowlers, we increase the scratch score to suit which also benefits the lower average bowler.

Come on now, its not that difficult to understand.

1. I am not your friend.
2. Your wit and sarcasm are noted.
3. It is all about fairness and equality.

On the other side of your argument...... why should the more skilled bowler have more of an advantage than skill alone?

Rob

[Big Paulie]

1. I am not your friend.

Pfft... your loss

2. Your wit and sarcasm are noted.

An example of where I have used wit and/or sarcasm in any of my post would be appreciated.

Just to help you out:
Wit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sarcasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. It is all about fairness and equality.

Why bother keeping score then at all? Rather than turn up to bowl every week, lets meet in the woods, sit in a circle and sing kumbaya... I guarantee you it will be fair and equal then.

why should the more skilled bowler have more of an advantage than skill alone?

Because they have worked hard and earnt the right... perhaps it will encourage a lower average bowler to push themselves

And just a disclaimer... I am by no means a high average bowler

[RobbieB]

Take 100% of 200 for example.
If bowler A averages 150, his handicap is 50. He shoots a 200 game, his handicap score is 250.
Bowler B averages 190, his handicap is 10. He has to shoot +240 to win that game.
Now tell me, which is easier? A 150 average bowler shooting 200, or a 190 average bowler shooting 240?

I'm going to go out on a limb here - 30 years of working in bowling centres tells me that it is FAR more likely that a 190 average bowler will shoot 240+ than a 150 average bowler shoots 200. Game to game variance at higher averages is generally more than at mid-range averages. A 190 average bowler is probably already throwing 5ish strikes per game - nail 2 extra with no opens and there's 230-240. The flip side is that with 2 less and 2 opens he shoots 150-160. For the vast majority of 150 average bowlers throwing 200 is a very rare event.

Couple of other observations - first, there is absolutely no difference between negative handicaps and raising the cap above the highest average. Second, even at 100% handicap, USBC studies showed that higher averages still have an advantage. Why? - because when it comes to close games, higher skilled bowlers will deliver better results under pressure than less skilled bowlers. So good bowlers win more of the close matches. Handicap systems are there to give everyone a chance in recreational leagues. The different %ages all have a place IMO, but in a league where first place might buy a couple of slabs, people are there to enjoy themselves, and part of that is being in the hunt if you can bowl well in relation to your skill level. Nobody likes getting belted every week, which is what happens in low % systems. As far as the 'incentive to get better' argument goes, most people want to improve simply because getting better is its own reward.

We have a 100% with negative h/c system for our Thursday triples league. It's a strong league, with a huge variety of averages and skill levels. No team has won the league twice in a row for at least the last 8 seasons, and we went into the last weeks of the last season with 4 or 5 teams still in the running for 1st place. Team Tellytubby, carrying a respectable -30odd, finished a creditable 9th. With 100%, everyone walks in knowing they have a fair shot on the night - whats more, if they get some help and improve, then it actually makes the same difference to their chances whether they were averaging 120 or 190.
Strong leagues are the foundation of the sport. As bowlers want more of a challenge, they can migrate to stronger, more 'serious' leagues with lower %ages or even scratch. But etting them get belted every week in 'fun' leagues is not likely to foster a long-term interest in the sport.

[RobbieB]

An example of where I have used wit and/or sarcasm in any of my post would be appreciated.

Why bother keeping score then at all? Rather than turn up to bowl every week, lets meet in the woods, sit in a circle and sing kumbaya... I guarantee you it will be fair and equal then.

Another irony meter bites the dust....
edit - unless you were serious, in which case I'd have to find another example to get to a full wit..

[Big Paulie]

Another irony meter bites the dust....
edit - unless you were serious, in which case I'd have to find another example to get to a full wit..

You know that my comment 'An example of where I have used wit and/or sarcasm in any of my post would be appreciated.' was in reference to my previous post #21... post #23 was deliberate in both wit and sarcasm. Sadly it seems that you missed this

Moving on, and by no means was it my intention to hijack the thread, but you will also note that I never made reference to 'negative handicaps'. I completely agree that a negative handicap works in much the same way as raising the scratch score, but that isn't my argument here.

100% of X still favours the handicap bowler. Take out the fact that I disagree with your statement regarding 150 average bowlers struggling to bowl 200, my comment was in reference to how easy it is, not how likely or how common. You know yourself, you can string a few strikes together and manufacture a 200 game whilst still leaving open a decent number of frames. Try doing that for a 240 game.

80% of X is recognised as the fairest calculation - I'm not suggesting that I think all leagues should be 80% of X... far from it. I like to see a handicap set lower than 80%. As a middle of the field bowler, it gives me added motivation to compete with the high average bowlers. There is a time and place for all different systems. But to say that 100% of X is fairer than 80% is a joke, and to say that a higher average bowler should be disadvanted for being a higher average bowler will do nothing but remove an incentive for people to improve.

[jimcross]

I'm going to go out on a limb here - 30 years of working in bowling centres tells me that it is FAR more likely that a 190 average bowler will shoot 240+ than a 150 average bowler shoots 200. Game to game variance at higher averages is generally more than at mid-range averages. A 190 average bowler is probably already throwing 5ish strikes per game - nail 2 extra with no opens and there's 230-240. The flip side is that with 2 less and 2 opens he shoots 150-160. For the vast majority of 150 average bowlers throwing 200 is a very rare eve
Couple of other observations - first, there is absolutely no difference between negative handicaps and raising the cap above the highest average. Second, even at 100% handicap, USBC studies showed that higher averages still have an advantage. Why? - because when it comes to close games, higher skilled bowlers will deliver better results under pressure than less skilled bowlers. So good bowlers win more of the close matches. Handicap systems are there to give everyone a chance in recreational leagues. The different %ages all have a place IMO, but in a league where first place might buy a couple of slabs, people are there to enjoy themselves, and part of that is being in the hunt if you can bowl well in relation to your skill level. Nobody likes getting belted every week, which is what happens in low % systems. As far as the 'incentive to get better' argument goes, most people want to improve simply because getting better is its own reward.

We have a 100% with negative h/c system for our Thursday triples league. It's a strong league, with a huge variety of averages and skill levels. No team has won the league twice in a row for at least the last 8 seasons, and we went into the last weeks of the last season with 4 or 5 teams still in the running for 1st place. Team Tellytubby, carrying a respectable -30odd, finished a creditable 9th. With 100%, everyone walks in knowing they have a fair shot on the night - whats more, if they get some help and improve, then it actually makes the same difference to their chances whether they were averaging 120 or 190.
Strong leagues are the foundation of the sport. As bowlers want more of a challenge, they can migrate to stronger, more 'serious' leagues with lower %ages or even scratch. But etting them get belted every week in 'fun' leagues is not likely to foster a long-term interest in the sport.

I'll keep you company out on that limb. I've had similar experience over time, and bowled in every type and style of League / Tournament around. ( prefer scratch leagues - though my days of being able to win seem to be over ) I've been Bowler / Tech / Instructor, Coach / Asst Mgr AMF / Owned and ran independant Centre /. I have seen all similar examples as you have outlined. I agree with everything you've said

[mcpeter]

We set our scratch ave. at least 10 pins higher than last seasons highest average.
Last season 220, set ave at 230
Handicap 100% if both bowlers bowl average it's a draw as should be.
But no one bowls exactly average each game. That where the luck comes in, good luck if you bowl below average but still win. Bad luck if you bowl above and lose,good luck to the other bowler who bowled better than you to win.

[bowlrig]

Thankyou Robbie, but it seems we are still wrong though.

Rob

[BigDaz]

100% of X still favours the handicap bowler. Take out the fact that I disagree with your statement regarding 150 average bowlers struggling to bowl 200, my comment was in reference to how easy it is, not how likely or how common. You know yourself, you can string a few strikes together and manufacture a 200 game whilst still leaving open a decent number of frames. Try doing that for a 240 game.

Not trying to get involved in this tiff y'all are havin. But im just gunna note one thing, on a walled pattern a 150 ave bowler that bowls hook would likely jag a lucky 200 game here and there. But at the real centres that oil lanes properly(subjective i know, anyway) a 150 ave bowler will have a harder time cracking that nut. On the flip side somebody who bowls a 190 ave on those same conditions can obvisously spare and potentially throw good shots making 230-240 easier to hit, imho.

Back to the side line!