Changing Handicap %

[Dean Skoog]

I was approach by 200 plus average bowler if league might think moving the handicap 100% of 300 next year. So I want know the pro & cons changing my handicap league from 80% of 200 to 100% of 300? My league average is 165 (110 on low end & 210 on high end). Also is there any thing else to keep low average & high average happy together?

[Frank Goebel]

Dean, is there a negative handicap applied to bowlers above 200 as things currently stand?

If nothing else, please explain that whenever you have a 100% handicap (based on any score greater than or equal to the highest bowler), it's essentially pins over average. Using 300 as a base means that the handicap scores used in the league will be extremely high (all the time), where anyone beating their average beats 300. I mean, you could base handicaps on 500 if you really wanted to.

Usually, I've seen leagues with lower average ranges (such as yours) use 100% handicapping anyway; it's the more competitive leagues that will use a percentage. I've seen more 90% than 80% being used.

Part of the argument for using at least some percentage is that there is mathematically more "range" for a lower average bowler to beat an average. A 150-average bowler can bowl, say, a 260 (110 pins over average) while a 210 bowler cannot be as much over. But usually the case with averages as low as that one finds that the scores are usually in that low range and the higher (100%) handicap is called for.

If you do go for a 100% handicapping, though, I'd suggest to base it on 220 (use a round number). The highest bowlers will still get some pins, and they might temporarily be above that 210 threshold. Use 220 and you could tell even the lowest bowlers, "Even the highest league members have room for improvement".

[Bob Lanouette]

Frank's observations are 'right on'. I've used 100% handicap in some of my leagues for years. Important thing is to set a base higher than the highest average bowler in your league, with a little room for new bowlers with unexpectedly higher averages. Frank's suggestion of 200 or 220 is appropriate. One of my most competitive league's uses 230 as a base.

[Lance Rasmussen]

I would agree with Frank and Bob.

Take a reasonable approach with the base. If 200-205 is most likely the highest, then use something like 210-220. 230 would most likely carry you the longest in years and give you something reasonable. I tend to use 90%, but nothing wrong with 100% (easiest to do the math in the head if needed too).