Does there come a time when a Player's handicap should go down?

[Snapshot9]

Younger players may not understand this, but I am sure all of the older or nearly older players will.

Does there come a time when a Player's handicap should drop 1 or 2?

Yes, we all would like to think we could compete on the same level well into our 80's, but the truth of the matter is, when we get so old, our bodies, eyes, and reflexes don't respond like they did when we were younger players.

You see this in your local Pool rooms and in Pros alike. No matter what level you achieved, it gets harder to maintain that as you age. It's very apparent in the Hall of Famers in the IPT. Earl hasn't won a major tournament in 5 years. Other pros have their problems too. Parica, 58, still can win 'AA' or 'AAA' tournaments, but doesn't win major tournaments anymore. Sigel is 49?, and even he can not perform like the Mike of yesterday.

When should a player be looked at? and decided if he should be reevaluated for a handicap, maybe going down 1 or 2?

And I am not talking about anyone, amateur or pro below 50 minimum, so keep your examples or illustrations to 50 or above.

I know some people do get consideration when they haven't played for years or have had a medical problem which prevents them from performing at their top level.

 

[catscradle]

....
When should a player be looked at? and decided if he should be reevaluated for a handicap, maybe going down 1 or 2?
...

That is a hard question to answer. I'm 60, but, due to constraints of silly things like paying bills and raising 4 sons, I had neither the money nor the time to take pool seriously and give it significant attention. At about 54, I got a bonus, bought a table, and started playing a lot. My game has steadily gotten better since then and I foresee it getting better for a while yet though I anticipate it will eventually start to decline again. On the other hand is somebody who started playing young and devoted significant time to pool during his prime years (possibly you are an example of this). That person can anticipate a relative decline earlier, from lose of phyisical ability and desire. Someone like myself will never reach the level of the person who reached such a high level so young even given their decline, but will face a relative decline at a later age. I'm sure the decline will hurt just as much for me an older age as it does for another person at a younger age, but maybe I won't live that long, who knows.
Pool may be the one area of my life I'm not declining. I used to run about 2500 miles a year and have run 13 marathons, but now I don't even count the miles, just try to do 30 minutes a day regardless of pace. In my job I used to routinely put in 60 hour weeks and still make time for my kids (coaching, etc.) and running; now I just put in my 40 if I can get away with it. And the beat goes on...
At any rate in answer to your question, I think a person's level can go up or down at any age and a good handicap system should automatically adjust based upon performance. That is one reason I object to the APA policy of "locking" a person at the highest handicap they acheive in a higher level tournament.

 

[SCCues]

At any rate in answer to your question, I think a person's level can go up or down at any age and a good handicap system should automatically adjust based upon performance. That is one reason I object to the APA policy of "locking" a person at the highest handicap they acheive in a higher level tournament.

I couldn't agree with you more! I used to play APA pool in my home town and I practiced and steadily improved because I had a strong desire to improve and I was eventually locked into the highest skill level. I played for quite a while and then I got tired of the sandbagging that goes on where I live and I decided to take a break from league pool. Now, if I wanted to start playing again on a team my game isn't what it was when I quit playing and i'd be playing at the highest skill level. What are you gonna do since some of the top players could just lay down and have their handicap lowered prior to big tournaments if they weren't locked in so I guess you have to live with the system the way it is. Someone is always going to try and beat the system and locking in players is one way to stop some of the handicap manipulating.

 

[Gregg]

I thought that's what handicaps are all about?

Making the game (ahem) a 50/50 match among a high skill level shooter and a lesser skilled opponent, be it from lack of experience, knowledge, skill, hand eye coordination, poor eye sight, or whatever else you can come up with.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Does there come a time when a Player's handicap should drop 1 or 2?
...

The rating system you are describing is inherently broken. It should have much smaller gradations. One league I play in has ratings from about 500 to 800.

Secondly, each player's rating should be adjusted after each match. If they win a match, the rating should go up a little. If they lose a match, the rating should go down a little. It is really simple and automatic. It's also very fair.

 

[desert1pocket]

The rating system you are describing is inherently broken. It should have much smaller gradations. One league I play in has ratings from about 500 to 800.

Secondly, each player's rating should be adjusted after each match. If they win a match, the rating should go up a little. If they lose a match, the rating should go down a little. It is really simple and automatic. It's also very fair.

I used to play chess competitively, and whatt you're describing is similar to the way chess ratings are done. It was set up on a sliding scale, so that if a high rated player beat a low rated player, neither rating would adjust much, but if there was an upset, the ratings would adjust quite a bit. I think something similar would be a great system for pool.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I used to play chess competitively, and whatt you're describing is similar to the way chess ratings are done. It was set up on a sliding scale, so that if a high rated player beat a low rated player, neither rating would adjust much, but if there was an upset, the ratings would adjust quite a bit. I think something similar would be a great system for pool.

In fact the NPL rating system was based on Arpad Elo's chess rating system. The difference in pool matches is that they are routinely handicapped, so matches can be close to 50-50. While it would be possible to implement, I don't think anyone has tried to do rating adjustment for pool matches played without handicaps.

 

[ScottW]

I like the idea of a wider-ranging handicap system, like Bob mentioned. For APA and the like, their handicap range works reasonably well, though for each handicap value, there *is* a fairly wide range of skill (i.e. the weak 4 vs. the strong 4).

And yes, I agree that sometimes, someone's established handicap should drop, if their skill/ability has dropped. But (at least with many folks) their *knowledge* hasn't waned - and that is a huge thing in pool - knowing what shot to take when, how to take it - even if your body has begun to betray you and you can't physically pull off those tougher shots like you used to, you still know that's the shot to take.

 

[Rod]

Younger players may not understand this, but I am sure all of the older or nearly older players will.

Does there come a time when a Player's handicap should drop 1 or 2?

Yes, we all would like to think we could compete on the same level well into our 80's, but the truth of the matter is, when we get so old, our bodies, eyes, and reflexes don't respond like they did when we were younger players.

You see this in your local Pool rooms and in Pros alike. No matter what level you achieved, it gets harder to maintain that as you age. It's very apparent in the Hall of Famers in the IPT. Earl hasn't won a major tournament in 5 years. Other pros have their problems too. Parica, 58, still can win 'AA' or 'AAA' tournaments, but doesn't win major tournaments anymore. Sigel is 49?, and even he can not perform like the Mike of yesterday.

When should a player be looked at? and decided if he should be reevaluated for a handicap, maybe going down 1 or 2?

And I am not talking about anyone, amateur or pro below 50 minimum, so keep your examples or illustrations to 50 or above.

I know some people do get consideration when they haven't played for years or have had a medical problem which prevents them from performing at their top level.

Well to make it short, yes they should go down. However not playing is not an excuse.

Rod

 

[catscradle]

I like the idea of a wider-ranging handicap system, like Bob mentioned. For APA and the like, their handicap range works reasonably well, though for each handicap value, there *is* a fairly wide range of skill (i.e. the weak 4 vs. the strong 4).

And yes, I agree that sometimes, someone's established handicap should drop, if their skill/ability has dropped. But (at least with many folks) their *knowledge* hasn't waned - and that is a huge thing in pool - knowing what shot to take when, how to take it - even if your body has begun to betray you and you can't physically pull off those tougher shots like you used to, you still know that's the shot to take.

I think a person's actual rating in the APA would be x.yy (I don't know how many digits after the '.'). All they publish is the 'x' because that is all that is required to determine "games on the wire". They could find tune it further in APA 9-ball because they could deal in single points, but in 8-ball they're stuck with whole games.

 

[mikepage]

In fact the NPL rating system was based on Arpad Elo's chess rating system. The difference in pool matches is that they are routinely handicapped, so matches can be close to 50-50. While it would be possible to implement, I don't think anyone has tried to do rating adjustment for pool matches played without handicaps.

For any match, handicapped or not, there is an "expected" score based on NPL ratings. If I play Efrem a race to 11, he is perhaps supposed to beat me 11 to 2.

If I actually get to 3 against him, then I've done better than expected and my rating should go up. But by how much?

For NPL ratings against an established opponent, my rating should go up (for each game I win or lose unexpectedly) by about

adjustment = 190/N,

where N is the total number of games that contribute to my rating.