Interested in %hdcp-base

[Joyce Lost]

I bowl in a senior Community. The past 4 years we changed to 90% of 200 base. I had explained why an individual hdcp would be the most fair way, since averages vary so much from 80 to 170. Low average bowlers would be recognized for pins over average and individual handicap games and series.

(We changed from a 90% of difference between team averages, then only one team received handicap - 4 years ago.)

I still see high average bowler on high avg teams showing up in more than the top half. One team or two with a low team average may show up in the top 1/2. I believe the handicap should go to 100%-

It takes 116% handicap to bring the low avg. bowlers to the top Average ones in a 32 or longer schedule. Let's have some discussion on this topic Thanks,Joyce

[Lance Rasmussen]

Joyce,

at least IMHO, you did a great thing in moving from difference between team handicaps. When you do the math between the 3 major systems, you really only see maybee a pin or two at the most for difference. I once tracked a league I ran through all three methods and the standings stayed the same between all three, with one a couple minor point differences, because there was a tie in pins or won by a pin, that went the other way.

I'm glad you saw the figure with 116% being the "truely fair" figure. While it really is what makes it fair, its usually not supported at the scoring systems, plus its tougher to calculate on the fly at the lanes.

100% is a good figure to make things very very simple. The only thing I would suggest would be possibly to raise the base, unless you dont have ANY bowlers that are above the base. This way EVERYONE gets something.

[Bob Lanouette]

100% hdcp is truly a fair way of calculating handicap, even more so when you use individual handicaps. But, one observation: 100% handicap is really a beat-your-average league, and, in really competitive leagues, the better teams really balk at that because, in their view, it's 'easier' for lower average teams to go over average than it is for higher average teams to do so.
Like Lance, I have purposely calculated the same league with 2 different handicap percentages and proved to several better teams that the result is generally the same across a long season. I didn't win them over, but at least I made my point.

Lance's observation about the base is very pertinent: the base should always be higher than the highest average in the league (we use 230); otherwise the advantage falls to those bowlers whose averages are higher than the base.

[Frank Goebel]

My guess is that Joyce's league isn't as competitive, therefore a higher percentage is called for. And I think she said her high average is 170, so theoretically 175 could be a base. But 200, at least you get a round number. If you're at 100%, then it's a fairly easy thing to figure an individual handicap...most can easily figure that a 130 average gets 70, for example.

I'm involved with a competitive environment, therefore 90%...and we're also at 230 for a base. But that's a different scene altogether than what she's at. But I don't think as many, or any at all, would balk at a "beat your average" league, in her case.

[Bob Lanouette]

I totally agree with you, Frank. My men's league is also at 90% of 230. Works for us. The purpose of my comment was just info... some folks don't realize that 100% handicap is a beat-your-average league, totally suitable and fair for, dare I say, most leagues.

[Lance Rasmussen]

Some leagues do phrase the rules to "whoever bowls most above their average", and this is like you describe.... 100% handicapping.

Setting the base high, like some of you noted, is a good thing when high averages are potential.

I've seen so many leagues use negative handicapping, which most scoring systems don't support or use difference between, which causes more grief than not (as well as 100% incompatability with A/S).

I talked with many secretaries over the years and they have said things were easier (for them) to calculate the figures with the odder ways).

But now with the computers doing most of the work and the autoscoring systems, its just SO much simpler to use sum of handicap. Whats on the scoring system screens is what it is (unless someone is establishing ave). Less confusion.

Plus... When bringing in a lot of new bowlers.... its hard enough to explain how to score, much less goofy handicaps...

Joyce's point though with the odd %, really is a good point, only in that it is what would bring the scoring to be "fair".

[Joyce Lost]

I wish to thank all of you who responded -

My Senior ladies - who range in age of 55-95

Several of these ladies have all they can do to get their ball and go up to the lanes. This is my 4th year as Secretary here in AZ -Came from WI with knowledge I had gained there. But had not met up with the BLS- It is great - Had an old Boss program and had done allot of pencil work on the recording sheets. This Bls is wonderful.

Most of our ladies are in the 100-130 average. Some of us have over 150 averages. Many of them do not have the knowledge to figure hdcp.

In the past 30 years, prior to my taking over Sec-Treas; the officers had done everything - NOW, they are active on the committee and I 've had many small meetings to get the new committees up to speed.
I still basically do the prize list - But love doing it -I like figures - but I am working with the prize committee.

I have impressed many of the ladies with all the knowlege base I have and they are asking many more questions. They feel more a part of the League, now. As a former Coach of youth bowling in WI
they now come with bowling questions,too.

THANKS AGAIN_ will use your comments to encourage the 100% increase for next year.
Joyce - Sun City, AZ

[Lance Rasmussen]

Joyce,

do you bowl out of Johnson Lanes?

[Joyce Lost]

Lance,

Nope I am not - That is in "Sun City West"

and I'm in Sun City @ Lakeview Lanes - Thunderbird Blvd.

I really enjoy hearing from all of you about % of handicap & Base-

I will use the responses in the Fall at our Organizaional Meeting.

Joyce

[Lance Rasmussen]

Joyce,

ok. I set them both "east siders" there with BLS, but I personally visited Johnson Lanes about a year ago.