# Texas Scramble



## Rlburnside (May 25, 2022)

What handicaps are recommended for 2 man Texas Scramble.


----------



## rulefan (May 25, 2022)

35% low / 15% high.

It's in the manual Appendix C


----------



## Rlburnside (May 25, 2022)

Ok thanks we’re going for add together and divide by 4


----------



## rulefan (May 25, 2022)

Rlburnside said:



			Ok thanks we’re going for add together and divide by 4
		
Click to expand...

Why? What is wrong with the WHS recommendation?


----------



## Rlburnside (May 25, 2022)

I don’t know some of our committee are a law to themselves.


----------



## Rlburnside (May 25, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Why? What is wrong with the WHS recommendation?
		
Click to expand...

We played off our course h/c mine is 18 my pp is 11, think we played off 7.25, I’m not the best at maths what would have h/c been the recommended way ?


----------



## AliMc (May 25, 2022)

Rlburnside said:



			We played off our course h/c mine is 18 my pp is 11, think we played off 7.25, I’m not the best at maths what would have h/c been the recommended way ?
		
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head it would be around 6.5


----------



## AliMc (May 25, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Why? What is wrong with the WHS recommendation?
		
Click to expand...

Due to a lot of talk around entry numbers being down some clubs aro7nd here are going back to the pre whs calculation of 10% of combined (for teams of 4)


----------



## rulefan (May 25, 2022)

Rlburnside said:



			We played off our course h/c mine is 18 my pp is 11, think we played off 7.25, I’m not the best at maths what would have h/c been the recommended way ?
		
Click to expand...

6.6 (6.55)


----------



## rulefan (May 25, 2022)

AliMc said:



			Due to a lot of talk around entry numbers being down some clubs aro7nd here are going back to the pre whs calculation of 10% of combined (for teams of 4)
		
Click to expand...

What is the statistical justification?


----------



## AliMc (May 25, 2022)

rulefan said:



			What is the statistical justification?
		
Click to expand...

No idea and no interest really,  just what I've been hearing fron guys who used to play them regularly but haven't entered any this year


----------



## wjemather (May 25, 2022)

rulefan said:



			What is the statistical justification?
		
Click to expand...

Judging by comments in other threads, not everyone enters these things purely for the enjoyment. As such, I'd imagine that since everyone now has a more equitable chance of winning, low handicappers are no longer cleaning up everywhere and they aren't happy about it.


----------



## wjemather (May 25, 2022)

rulefan said:



			6.6 (6.55)
		
Click to expand...

Don't forget playing handicaps are always rounded to the nearest integer under WHS.


----------



## rulefan (May 25, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Don't forget playing handicaps are always rounded to the nearest integer under WHS.
		
Click to expand...

Just indicating the pre-rounded figure and how close AliMc was.


----------



## IanMcC (May 25, 2022)

I ran an open last year. (35% and 15%). The result seemed fair, and the spread of scores was relatively tight.
This week we had a 2 man scramble as our club comp. The result was perfect, with a mid handicap team winning, a low handicap second , and a high handicap third. (Team Handicaps were 6/2/8)
I believe the authorities have this allowance spot on, as opposed to a 4 player scramble, which now vastly favours the higher handicappers. It used to favour low handicappers, of course, but I believe they have over corrected with the percentages.


----------



## rulefan (May 26, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			I ran an open last year. (35% and 15%). The result seemed fair, and the spread of scores was relatively tight.
This week we had a 2 man scramble as our club comp. The result was perfect, with a mid handicap team winning, a low handicap second , and a high handicap third. (Team Handicaps were 6/2/8)
I believe the authorities have this allowance spot on, as opposed to a 4 player scramble, which now vastly favours the higher handicappers. It used to favour low handicappers, of course, but I believe they have over corrected with the percentages.
		
Click to expand...

We found that three 4 person scrambles produced nicely balanced and close results using the WHS recommendations.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 26, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Judging by comments in other threads, not everyone enters these things purely for the enjoyment. As such, I'd imagine that since everyone now has a more equitable chance of winning, low handicappers are no longer cleaning up everywhere and they aren't happy about it.
		
Click to expand...

You always seem to be very negative towards low handicappers - it’s as if it’s a crime that the better golfers are allowed to win things 


As for the scrambles 

Previously our scrambles were won by a mix of mid/low/ high handicappers - never dominated by one group 

Since using the recommended WHS all our scrambles are now won by the high handicap teams with other not getting near 

No doubt it will affect the entry and changes will occur


----------



## rulefan (May 26, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			As for the scrambles

Previously our scrambles were won by a mix of mid/low/ high handicappers - never dominated by one group

Since using the recommended WHS all our scrambles are now won by the high handicap teams with other not getting near

No doubt it will affect the entry and changes will occur
		
Click to expand...

This suggests that the teams pre select themselves into high or low handicap teams.
Under the 10% method a team of 4 30 cappers would play off 12 and a team of 10 cappers would play off 4. As opposed to 19 & 7 under WHS.
(If I have my arithmetic correct).


----------



## wjemather (May 26, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You always seem to be very negative towards low handicappers - it’s as if it’s a crime that the better golfers are allowed to win things


As for the scrambles

Previously our scrambles were won by a mix of mid/low/ high handicappers - never dominated by one group

Since using the recommended WHS all our scrambles are now won by the high handicap teams with other not getting near

No doubt it will affect the entry and changes will occur
		
Click to expand...

Not at all - I am one, and have still managed to win things (including the club handicap championship last year while playing off scratch). However, earlier handicap systems were intentionally biased towards low handicaps and predictably there have been complaints from this group now that their advantage has largely been eroded. The same happened every time allowances changed under the old system.

With regards to scrambles, as I have reported before, ours have seen a mix of handicaps at the top of the leaderboard with one comp being decided on countback between the lowest handicap team and one of the highest. However, scrambles tend work best when there is an even distribution of handicaps across teams - this has always been the case.


----------



## jim8flog (May 27, 2022)

rulefan said:



			What is the statistical justification?
		
Click to expand...

 The same as the statistical justification for CONGU to change the the calculation.


----------



## rulefan (May 27, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			The same as the statistical justification for CONGU to change the the calculation.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, he did the same amount of number crunching as the USGA and R&A.

Oops. But they didn't follow their recommendation.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 27, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Ah, he did the same amount of number crunching as the USGA and R&A.

Oops. But they didn't follow their recommendation. 

Click to expand...

What “number crunching” did the R&A do on texas scrambles when clubs didn’t send them the results ?


----------



## rulefan (May 27, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What “number crunching” did the R&A do on texas scrambles when clubs didn’t send them the results ?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps the USGA looked at the scores from Texas and Florida 

But they don't need actual scores.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 27, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Perhaps the USGA looked at the scores from Texas and Florida 

But they don't need actual scores.
		
Click to expand...

So how can they judge on handicap allowances from Texas Scrambles if they haven’t got any scores to use as a barometer 🤔


----------



## rulefan (May 28, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So how can they judge on handicap allowances from Texas Scrambles if they haven’t got any scores to use as a barometer 🤔
		
Click to expand...

There are things called computers and other things called algorithms.


----------



## wjemather (May 28, 2022)

rulefan said:



			There are things called computers and other things called algorithms. 

Click to expand...

...that perform statistical analysis and modelling, to produce pretty accurate results.


----------



## Jimaroid (May 28, 2022)

wjemather said:



			...that perform statistical analysis and modelling, to produce pretty accurate results.
		
Click to expand...

How do you know it’s accurate if there’s no real data to compare the results of the model against?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 28, 2022)

rulefan said:



			There are things called computers and other things called algorithms. 

Click to expand...

So theoretical results then as opposed to actual real results


----------



## rulefan (May 28, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So theoretical results then as opposed to actual real results
		
Click to expand...

More reliable than finger in the air 10%


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 28, 2022)

rulefan said:



			More reliable than finger in the air 10%
		
Click to expand...

It wasn’t “finger in the air” it was based on our clubs results 🤷‍♂️


----------



## rulefan (May 28, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It wasn’t “finger in the air” it was based on our clubs results 🤷‍♂️
		
Click to expand...

How many scrambles does your club play a year?


----------



## BiMGuy (May 28, 2022)

rulefan said:



			How many scrambles does your club play a year?
		
Click to expand...

If it’s more then one, then too many.

I honestly can’t believe people get worked up over such a terrible format.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 28, 2022)

rulefan said:



			How many scrambles does your club play a year?
		
Click to expand...

we play 4 a year and we used to be at 25% but it was changed after checking the results - no computer scenarios required


----------



## rulefan (May 28, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			we play 4 a year and we used to be at 25% but it was changed after checking the results - no computer scenarios required
		
Click to expand...

Changed to what?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 28, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Changed to what?
		
Click to expand...

We changed to 15% and four drives per person on two and 10% and 3 drives on the other two and it worked fine for years


----------



## wjemather (May 28, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It wasn’t “finger in the air” it was *based on our clubs results* 🤷‍♂️
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			we play 4 a year and we used to be at 25% but it was *changed after checking the results* - no computer scenarios required
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			We changed to 15% and four drives per person on two and 10% and 3 drives on the other two and *it worked fine for years*

Click to expand...

So completely arbitrary changes until you got the "right" winners.


----------



## wjemather (May 28, 2022)

Jimaroid said:



			How do you know it’s accurate if there’s *no real data* to compare the results of the model against?
		
Click to expand...

Vast quantities of data were collected and analysed before and during the development of WHS, which has continued since implementation.


----------



## jim8flog (May 28, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Vast quantities of data were collected and analysed before and during the development of WHS, which has continued since implementation.
		
Click to expand...

 and where do they collect the data for Texas Scrambles?

Where I play we used to do the results by hand.


----------



## Jimaroid (May 28, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Vast quantities of data were collected and analysed before and during the development of WHS, which has continued since implementation.
		
Click to expand...

Not with scrambles they weren’t. There isn’t even an accepted ruleset for them before we even consider the lack of record keeping.


----------



## doublebogey7 (May 29, 2022)

Jimaroid said:



			Not with scrambles they weren’t. There isn’t even an accepted ruleset for them before we even consider the lack of record keeping.
		
Click to expand...

What lack of record keeping,  ISV's have had the capacity to record Scramble scores for year's.


----------



## rulefan (May 29, 2022)

My understanding is that there was a massive amount of simulation using 'expected range' scores.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (May 29, 2022)

doublebogey7 said:



			What lack of record keeping,  ISV's have had the capacity to record Scramble scores for year's.
		
Click to expand...

I've played a lot of scrambles in the last decade, not seen one being put through the computer. I'd guess the number of scrambles in the system would be close to zero.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (May 29, 2022)

rulefan said:



			My understanding is that there was a massive amount of simulation using 'expected range' scores.
		
Click to expand...

And yet the changes they made to make mandatory handicap recomendations were immediately erroneous to those of us who actually play these things (or did, don't bother now that they're a farce)


----------



## doublebogey7 (May 29, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I've played a lot of scrambles in the last decade, not seen one being put through the computer. I'd guess the number of scrambles in the system would be close to zero.
		
Click to expand...

All our scrambles have gone through the ISV since I joined the club in 2016 and I doubt we are even in a minority let alone the only one.
Why would a club not put them through the ISV,  when it saves so much admin time.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (May 29, 2022)

doublebogey7 said:



			Certainly not zero, all our scrambles have gone through the ISV since I joined the club in 2016 and I doubt we are even in a minority let alone the only one.
		
Click to expand...

I'm talking about opens, many courses, not one gone through the computer. Your experience seems to consist of your own club, and guessing.


----------



## doublebogey7 (May 29, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I'm talking about opens, many courses, not one gone through the computer. Your experience seems to consist of your own club, and guessing.
		
Click to expand...

I play a lot of opens. never ever seen one advertised as a scramble and doubt I would ever choose to play one,  fine for the course you play many times a year rubbish for one you play rarely or as a one off. 
Not sure how it matters anyone in terms of this discussion and the ability of the authorities to test handicaps using data.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (May 29, 2022)

doublebogey7 said:



			I play a lot of opens. never ever seen one advertised as a scramble and doubt I would ever choose to play one,  fine for the course you play many times a year rubbish for one you play rarely or as a one off.
*Not sure how it matters anyone in terms of this discussion and the ability of the authorities to test handicaps using data*.
		
Click to expand...

Because they DON'T HAVE ANY DATA!

Here's 60 TS's for the rest of the year in what is basically just Aberdeenshire https://www.golfempire.co.uk/county/scotland-north-east-team.htm


----------



## wjemather (May 29, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I'm talking about opens, many courses, not one gone through the computer. Your experience seems to consist of your own club, and guessing.
		
Click to expand...

All our opens are also administered using the ISV, including scrambles. Seems ridiculous to do it any other way - when the technology is there, use it.

For once, please consider that just because something happens at your club, or even in your locality, (like creating unnecessary work by administering comps manually) doesn't mean it happens anywhere else.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 29, 2022)

doublebogey7 said:



			What lack of record keeping,  ISV's have had the capacity to record Scramble scores for year's.
		
Click to expand...

Scrambles have been done by ISV’s but the scores from those scrambles weren’t ever sent into England Golf etc - so the governing bodies didn’t get any data. It was the same with 4BBBs etc and indeed any team comp


----------



## doublebogey7 (May 29, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Scrambles have been done by ISV’s but the scores from those scrambles weren’t ever sent into England Golf etc - so the governing bodies didn’t get any data. It was the same with 4BBBs etc and indeed any team comp
		
Click to expand...

Yes I know that,  but the authorities could well have obtained the data from the ISV's never the less.


----------



## wjemather (May 29, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Scrambles have been done by ISV’s but the scores from those scrambles weren’t ever sent into England Golf etc - so the governing bodies didn’t get any data. It was the same with 4BBBs etc and indeed any team comp
		
Click to expand...

How can you be so certain that ISVs and/or clubs (globally, other than your own) did/do not share data with the WHS development team.


----------



## Jimaroid (May 29, 2022)

wjemather said:



			How can you be so certain that ISVs and/or clubs (globally, other than your own) did/do not share data with the WHS development team.
		
Click to expand...

Show us the evidence that they did.


----------



## wjemather (May 29, 2022)

Jimaroid said:



			Show us the evidence that they did.
		
Click to expand...

I suggest you contact the relevant authorities if you want specific details about the origins of their data.


----------



## IanMcC (Aug 7, 2022)

Played in a 4 man scramble yesterday. Really enjoyed it, but I warned my team that we had absolutely no chance off of our handicap indices. (1.7, 6.7, 7.0 and 7.8). We shot 6 under par with no bogies. A sterling if unspectacular effort. Our 4 shots gave us a 10 under total of 59. We finished 39th out of 42 teams.
I am a big fan of WHS, but the percentages for 4 player scrambles are surely skewed too much in favour of higher handicappers now. The top 5 teams had 17, 15, 15, 8 and 7 shots, and the winning score was 50.
The allowances should be something like 15%, 10%, 10% and 5%.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 7, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			Played in a 4 man scramble yesterday. Really enjoyed it, but I warned my team that we had absolutely no chance off of our handicap indices. (1.7, 6.7, 7.0 and 7.8). We shot 6 under par with no bogies. A sterling if unspectacular effort. Our 4 shots gave us a 10 under total of 59. We finished 39th out of 42 teams.
I am a big fan of WHS, but the percentages for 4 player scrambles are surely skewed too much in favour of higher handicappers now. The top 5 teams had 17, 15, 15, 8 and 7 shots, and the winning score was 50.
The allowances should be something like 15%, 10%, 10% and 5%.
		
Click to expand...

Apart from this example what data do you have to support a) the current recommendations are wrong and b) your suggestions are better? 
How did you arrive at 15, 10, 10, 5 ?


----------



## IanMcC (Aug 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Apart from this example what data do you have to support a) the current recommendations are wrong and b) your suggestions are better?
How did you arrive at 15, 10, 10, 5 ?
		
Click to expand...

rulefan, I really do respect your knowledge and speed of response on this site, but these queries are predictable in the extreme, and you obviously know the answers.
Of course I have no data to back this up, and even if I did, you would simply say that the USGA and R&A have more, so they must be right. (I would bet that you defended the 10% up to 6 shots on a scramble under UHS, even though it was an unrecognised format back then, and blatantly favoured the lower handicapper.)
The current recommendations are flawed, because everyone and their uncles can see that higher handicappers are performing better in almost every 4 player scramble now. Forums like this only back up what is glaringly obvious.
My percentage figures might be better, might make no difference, or might be worse. You or I certainly don't know. I arrived at these figures off the top of my head, of course, as you well know, but they may even out the obvious bias that exists at the moment.  Maybe there is no magic formula for a 4 player Texas, and whatever allowances are given will favour a specific set of Handicaps. Who knows. I only hope that the powers that be in WHS towers recognise the need for change, and act accordingly if required.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 7, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			rulefan, I really do respect your knowledge and speed of response on this site, but these queries are predictable in the extreme, and you obviously know the answers.
Of course I have no data to back this up, and even if I did, you would simply say that the USGA and R&A have more, so they must be right. (I would bet that you defended the 10% up to 6 shots on a scramble under UHS, even though it was an unrecognised format back then, and blatantly favoured the lower handicapper.)
The current recommendations are flawed, because everyone and their uncles can see that higher handicappers are performing better in almost every 4 player scramble now. Forums like this only back up what is glaringly obvious.
My percentage figures might be better, might make no difference, or might be worse. You or I certainly don't know. I arrived at these figures off the top of my head, of course, as you well know, but they may even out the obvious bias that exists at the moment.  Maybe there is no magic formula for a 4 player Texas, and whatever allowances are given will favour a specific set of Handicaps. Who knows. I only hope that the powers that be in WHS towers recognise the need for change, and act accordingly if required.
		
Click to expand...

I can't really believe that they just plucked numbers out of the air and guessed. Do you?


----------



## IanMcC (Aug 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I can't really believe that they just plucked numbers out of the air and guessed. Do you?
		
Click to expand...

I actually do. The data is questionable at best, as has been mentioned in previous posts in this thread.
For example, we are dealing with people here (DotGolf) who got a relatively simple formula wrong for a year and a half concerning 9 hole comps. Who is to say that the complex issues regarding allowances in a scramble have been exactly worked out at 25/20/15 and 10%? Those figures appear made up to me, or rounded off conveniently at the very least. (I know DotGolf dont run WHS, that was just an example how figures can go astray.)


----------



## rulefan (Aug 8, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			I actually do. The data is questionable at best, as has been mentioned in previous posts in this thread.
For example, we are dealing with people here (DotGolf) who got a relatively simple formula wrong for a year and a half concerning 9 hole comps. Who is to say that the complex issues regarding allowances in a scramble have been exactly worked out at 25/20/15 and 10%? Those figures appear made up to me, or rounded off conveniently at the very least. (I know DotGolf dont run WHS, that was just an example how figures can go astray.)
		
Click to expand...

So how should the allowance be determined. By you, by me, by Tashy by ?


----------



## wjemather (Aug 8, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			Played in a 4 man scramble yesterday. Really enjoyed it, but I warned my team that we had absolutely no chance off of our handicap indices. (1.7, 6.7, 7.0 and 7.8). We shot 6 under par with no bogies. A sterling if unspectacular effort. Our 4 shots gave us a 10 under total of 59. We finished 39th out of 42 teams.
I am a big fan of WHS, but the percentages for 4 player scrambles are surely skewed too much in favour of higher handicappers now. The top 5 teams had 17, 15, 15, 8 and 7 shots, and the winning score was 50.
The allowances should be something like 15%, 10%, 10% and 5%.
		
Click to expand...

Assuming an average course, 6 under is not a good score for a team of 4 single figure golfers (one of whom is very low), and your finishing position is entirely expected.

There is no perfect allowance formula for scrambles, which is why it's always been recommended that handicaps be balanced across the field, however the WHS recommendation is far more equitable than 10% ever was.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 8, 2022)

I really do think there is a huge amount of arrogance from WHS supporters in regards to Texas Scramble handicaps. Of course, they can simply keep saying the line "WHS uses thousands of scores to provide a fair handicap", yet I'm pretty sure they have absolutely no idea exactly how ANY scores were used and processed to determine these values? It could have been one guy in a room, who as an after thought did some processing and came up with a formula. A few people checked it out, and say it looks reasonable enough, go with it. Then, in a few years after clubs actually use it, they may realise there was at least one, if not more huge oversights when coming up with the initial formula. We just don't know.

However, I must have played in maybe a dozen Scrambles, or more, since WHS began. Yes, not hundreds of thousands, just a dozen or so. However, every one has been won with high handicapped teams (see exception below). And, most of them all 4 were high handicappers.  Winning scores have often been better than 20 under par. They are scores that would be impossible for a scratch team to shoot, and basically impossible for most combinations of lowish handicappers. That is, pretty much every single scramble competition I've played, both on my home course and at other courses. And, most of the time (when I've known the winners), it isn't a question that they are bandits and keeping high handicaps purposely.  It just seems they get way too many shots in a format where you can have up to 3 terrible shots out of 4 and get away with it.

Exception: At my old club, we were able to get a much more competitive format by drawing teams that has a low seed handicapper, middle seeds and high seeds (i.e. balanced handicap teams). However, by doing that we virtually removed the handicap issue entirely, and most teams played off similar handicaps anyway.

I tend to find it gets even worse in Mixed Formats, where some teams have ladies. This can be course dependent, but at some courses there are many holes were the red tees are miles ahead of the whites. It means a lady can hit it a short distance off the tee, but put a man in the team at a significant advantage for the 2nd shot (compared to a team of 4 men hitting off whites, and even great drives struggling to get to where the lady could get to). I wonder how many millions of scores WHS evaluated to see what the impact of having mixed teams would have?

It seems many others are having similar experiences. Yet, despite the fact WHS is new and might not actually be perfect on the day of its release, there are people that seem to want to blindly, religiously defend it as if there could not possibly be any issue. That golfers who actually use it in practice are just lying, or don't know what they are talking about.

My above thoughts are on the 4-ball format. I've not played in 2-ball scramble so have no opinion on it.


----------



## IanMcC (Aug 8, 2022)

wjemather said:



*Assuming an average course, 6 under is not a good score for a team of 4 single figure golfers (one of whom is very low), and your finishing position is entirely expected.*

There is no perfect allowance formula for scrambles, which is why it's always been recommended that handicaps be balanced across the field, however the WHS recommendation is far more equitable than 10% ever was.
		
Click to expand...

If 10 under par nett deserves to be in 3rd last position then that fact alone says that something is wrong with the allowances, does it not?


----------



## chrisd (Aug 8, 2022)

When we first started playing Texas Scramble at my place any handicap level could win but a few games under their belt the single figure guys learnt the idiosyncrasies of the game and won almost every time. With the new handicaps it seems that teams with around a 10 handicap come in more often 

This is not scientific,  just my view at my club. At Littlestone last week we had about 9.8 combined hc and scored around 54, I think 51 was the winning score ( I stand to be corrected)


----------



## wjemather (Aug 8, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			If 10 under par nett deserves to be in 3rd last position then that fact alone says that something is wrong with the allowances, does it not?
		
Click to expand...

No. Not at all. The only thing that matters is equity; par is irrelevant.
However, if you do want to roughly compare your score against par, I suggest adding about 15 strokes.
Nett 10 under may have been above average scoring with 10% allowances, but it isn't any longer.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 8, 2022)

The WHS recommended allowances are pure guess work 

And it’s failed - our scrambles are won by high handicaps and any teams with low or mid don’t have a chance 

And that’s been seen on every scramble we have had


----------



## wjemather (Aug 8, 2022)

Basing any conclusion/judgment on the results of one club (out of thousands) is plainly ridiculous. Otherwise, why not just pick a different club...

Our two most recent scrambles saw low, mid and high handicap teams finishing up and down the field, with all handicaps clearly having a chance with winning scores of nett 16 and 18 under par.

three teams tied at the top: team handicaps 10, 14 (the joint highest handicap team) and 4 (the lowest handicap team); 2nd lowest handicap team was last, followed by the joint highest.
7 teams within 2 strokes: team handicaps 13, 9, 14, 12, 6 (=2nd lowest), 8, 6 (=2nd lowest); the two highest handicap teams (17) were dead last and next to last


----------



## rulefan (Aug 8, 2022)

I am told "_In developing the WHS, a significant amount of score analysis and statistical modelling identified that different allowances were required, _"
I suspect that the relatively small amount of data collected by some individual clubs does not satisfy the definition of 'substantial". Certainly the two scrambles (one Florida the other Texas) we have run have shown no bias. But two swallows etc .....


----------



## rulefan (Aug 9, 2022)

I have had confirmation to the effect "_All the allowances were researched and tested by the USGA/R&A. 
EG doesn't have the details of this research as it was never issued to them._"
I believe this is true of other national authorities.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 9, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I have had confirmation to the effect "_All the allowances were researched and tested by the USGA/R&A. 
EG doesn't have the details of this research as it was never issued to them._"
I believe this is true of other national authorities.
		
Click to expand...

So that’s speak for “computer simulation”


----------



## rulefan (Aug 9, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So that’s speak for “computer simulation”
		
Click to expand...

Possibly. Perhaps you have more information. But I have only passed on what I have found. But what's wrong with computer simulation these days anyway? That's why billionaires don't only make millions and why very few planes crash. The absence led to many companies going bust. Simulation can and does answer many 'What if' questions.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 9, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Possibly. Perhaps you have more information. But I have only passed on what I have found. But what's wrong with computer simulation these days anyway? That's why billionaires don't only make millions and why very few planes crash. The absence led to many companies going bust. Simulation can and does answer many 'What if' questions.
		
Click to expand...

I work in computer modelling. It can also give drastically incorrect results, whether that be down to mistakes, bad assumptions or oversight.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 10, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I work in computer modelling. It can also give drastically incorrect results, whether that be down to mistakes, bad assumptions or oversight.
		
Click to expand...

But that is down to people not the computer. But this would be a fairly straightforward bit of number crunching.


----------



## Jimaroid (Aug 10, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I work in computer modelling. It can also give drastically incorrect results, whether that be down to mistakes, bad assumptions or oversight.
		
Click to expand...

I’ve already made the same points earlier in the thread - there doesn’t appear to be any comparison of the model output to real data. And no amount of enquiry is available. 

Smells like bad computer science.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			But that is down to people not the computer. But this would be a fairly straightforward bit of number crunching.
		
Click to expand...

That is true. But, it is people that run the computer. The computer didn't just wake up one morning and tell itself it fancied finding a formula for Texas Scramble handicaps.


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Possibly. Perhaps you have more information. But I have only passed on what I have found. But what's wrong with computer simulation these days anyway? That's why billionaires don't only make millions and why very few planes crash. The absence led to many companies going bust. Simulation can and does answer many 'What if' questions.
		
Click to expand...

There is a very simple statement when it comes to computer programmes

Garbage in garbage out rubbish in rubbish out

and the famous

There are lies , damn lies and then there are statistics.

I would agree that scramble allowances needed looking at but even under the old system I have seen the extremes with groups of handicaps all in the late teens winning by 5 or or so shots and groups of all single figures doing the same.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 10, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			There is a very simple statement when it comes to computer programmes

Garbage in garbage out rubbish in rubbish out

and the famous

There are lies , damn lies and then there are statistics.

I would agree that scramble allowances needed looking at but even under the old system I have seen the extremes with groups of handicaps all in the late teens winning by 5 or or so shots and groups of all single figures doing the same.
		
Click to expand...

But I am still happier with a study which has a massive data source rather than a few anecdotal examples where '_my team was stuffed_'.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			But I am still happier with a study which has a massive data source rather than a few anecdotal examples where '_my team was stuffed_'.
		
Click to expand...

I guess some people are only too happy to conveniently ignore experiences in the real world, and hide behind stats. Even though stats can be very misleading.

I'd be interested to know though. Were these Texas Scramble handicap calculations determined by thousands of mathematical / computer / golfing experts, and they all came to the same conclusion? Or was it one guy, or a small team of people, that came up with a methodology. If so, that methodology could be extremely flawed, and not backed up by thousands of other people reviewing it. It really is irrelevant how many scores they used. You could give us all access to all the published scores for the last 20 years to, and I'm sure we'd all come up with something different. Some of us will make huge errors, while others may come up with something that looks logical on paper, yet gives very different results to someone else that comes up with something that seems logical.

Was their much work into the impact on handicaps if each player must take 2, 3 or 4 drives each? Taking 4 drives each often feels tougher, especially with a high handicapper(s) in the team, where you struggle to get everyone's in by 16 holes.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 10, 2022)

I am told that separate USGA, R&A and Golf Australia teams worked on all handicap allowances. I don't know their methodology. 

I wonder why the old 10% rule produced many 'real world' anecdotal complaints. That was certainly never explored. It was just thought to be a reasonable idea at the time.
Of course the numbers are only recommendations, they are not mandated. But I await with interest to see if anyone produces a 'better' answer. 
Answers welcome with justification


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			But I am still happier with a study which has a massive data source rather than a few anecdotal examples where '_my team was stuffed_'.
		
Click to expand...

 My point really is that the data is probably made up data to suit the program rather than actual data from recorded scores from clubs. 
 To get massive data from clubs would astound me. Where I play we have one or two a year and I know we have never been asked to submit the scores to any authority.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I wonder why the old 10% rule produced many 'real world' anecdotal complaints. That was certainly never explored. It was just thought to be a reasonable idea.
Of course the numbers are only recommendations, they are not mandated. But I await with interest to see if anyone produces a 'better' answer. 
Answers welcome with justification 

Click to expand...

Are you sure it didn't? At my old club, some admitted there would be no point in entering a scramble if there was a team of very low handicappers. It is why our club, about 5 or so years ago, decided to draw balanced teams, rather than allowing members to pick their own team. That worked well then, and after WHS.

I also don't think anyone on here is necessarily saying the 10% idea was perfect. In fact, people have acknowledged it favoured low handicappers. Did it cause as many complaints as now? I do not know. If it didn't, maybe that, although it made things difficult for high handicappers, there was also a subconscious feeling that the better golf was being rewarded and therefore less of an issue in people's heads, generally.

I also seem to remember people on here, near the start of WHS, saying they would do their own thing regarding handicaps in Scramble. I seem to remember strong WHS supporters criticising this, and that the WHS guidelines should be considered mandatory for affiliated clubs. They almost suggested clubs could risk their affiliation for just doing their own thing.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 10, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			My point really is that the data is probably made up data to suit the program rather than actual data from recorded scores from clubs.
		
Click to expand...

I would guess it is similar to the PCC process of using the 'expected range' of scores of different cohorts of handicap ranges. The population would be based on the bell curve of the known handicaps of players registered with the various authorities..




			maybe that, although it made things difficult for high handicappers, there was also a subconscious feeling that the better golf was being rewarded and therefore less of an issue in people's heads, generally.
		
Click to expand...

A good point. That was always the issue with matchplay. And still is.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 10, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			They almost suggested clubs could risk their affiliation for just doing their own thing.
		
Click to expand...

Unlikely as scrambles are not recognised by the RoG


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Unlikely as scrambles are not recognised by the RoG 

Click to expand...

That was one of the arguments against this crazy claim


----------



## doublebogey7 (Aug 10, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			My point really is that the data is probably made up data to suit the program rather than actual data from recorded scores from clubs. 
 To get massive data from clubs would astound me. Where I play we have one or two a year and I know we have never been asked to submit the scores to any authority.
		
Click to expand...

Why would they ask the clubs,  when the ISV's have the required scores from multiple clubs.  In fact I suspect the relevant authorit owns the ISV's data.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 10, 2022)

doublebogey7 said:



			Who would they ask the clubs,  when the ISV's have the required scores from multiple clubs.  In fact I suspect the relevant authority owns the ISV's data.
		
Click to expand...

Where are they getting this texas scramble data from? Scrambles aren;t generally fed through a back end, certainly not before Covid, and not seen one since either


----------



## doublebogey7 (Aug 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Where are they getting this texas scramble data from? Scrambles aren;t generally fed through a back end, certainly not before Covid, and not seen one since either
		
Click to expand...

They have for a long which at my current and previous clubs. We won't be the only ones,  should be plenty of data to go on.


----------



## fundy (Aug 10, 2022)

Now there are set handicap allocations for Texas Scrambles are there set rules too? Does the players whose shot is selected get to play the next shot (and does the handicap allowances differ on the two options?)


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 10, 2022)

doublebogey7 said:



			They have for a long which at my current and previous clubs. We won't be the only ones,  should be plenty of data to go on.
		
Click to expand...

There are an awful lot of scrambles in Scotland, never seen one not just be done on scorecards and a scorebaord, not one.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 10, 2022)

fundy said:



			Now there are set handicap allocations for Texas Scrambles are there set rules too? Does the players whose shot is selected get to play the next shot (and does the handicap allowances differ on the two options?)
		
Click to expand...

Nope, R&A/USGA have simultaeously decried that TS are not a valid form of golf, while imposing handicap allocations


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I am told that separate USGA, R&A and Golf Australia teams worked on all handicap allowances. I don't know their methodology.

I wonder why the old 10% rule produced many 'real world' anecdotal complaints. That was certainly never explored. It was just thought to be a reasonable idea at the time.
*Of course the numbers are only recommendations*, they are not mandated. But I await with interest to see if anyone produces a 'better' answer. 
Answers welcome with justification 

Click to expand...

Just following on from this. The Guidance on the WHS Rules of Handicapping as Applied within GB&I states:

"The National Associations within CONGU® have determined that allowances set out in the table in Appendix C are *mandatory*."

So, is it fair to officially say they are only recommended and not mandated, despite the fact the authorities quite specifically say they are mandatory? In fact, they even highlighted the word mandatory in bold.


----------



## doublebogey7 (Aug 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			There are an awful lot of scrambles in Scotland, never seen one not just be done on scorecards and a scorebaord, not one.
		
Click to expand...

That's as maybe,  but Scotland is not the whole world you know.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 10, 2022)

fundy said:



			Now there are set handicap allocations for Texas Scrambles are there set rules too? Does the players whose shot is selected get to play the next shot (and does the handicap allowances differ on the two options?)
		
Click to expand...

There are no rules in the Rules of Golf
The allowances are not set. They are simply a recommendation.


Banchory Buddha said:



			Nope, R&A/USGA have simultaeously decried that TS are not a valid form of golf, while imposing handicap allocations
		
Click to expand...

The R&A/USGA have simply said they are not recognised in the RoG. Nothing about validity. 
The authority is your National Association. The allowances have not been imposed by the R&A or USGA. See Appx C.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 10, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Just following on from this. The Guidance on the WHS Rules of Handicapping as Applied within GB&I states:

"The National Associations within CONGU® have determined that allowances set out in the table in Appendix C are *mandatory*."

So, is it fair to officially say they are only recommended and not mandated, despite the fact the authorities quite specifically say they are mandatory? In fact, they even highlighted the word mandatory in bold.
		
Click to expand...

CONGU may have mandated them but that has nothing to do with the R&A/USGA. who suggested them. The NA is responsible.

However, I seriously doubt CONGU will get excited about any form of scramble.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			CONGU may have mandated them but that has nothing to do with the R&A/USGA. who suggested them. The NA is responsible.
		
Click to expand...

Would it then be fair to suggest the 95% Playing Handicap for singles stroke play is only a recommendation, regardless of what CONGU say?


----------



## rulefan (Aug 10, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Would it then be fair to suggest the 95% Playing Handicap for singles stroke play is only a recommendation, regardless of what CONGU say?
		
Click to expand...

I can't answer for CONGU but I wouldn't be prepared to try it on with a serious competition.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I can't answer for CONGU but I wouldn't be prepared to try it on with a serious competition.
		
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that is because of the statements made by CONGU. 

In terms of handicapping and official documents go, the only information I can find about what handicaps should be used are within the WHS manual, and the CONGU advice as to how it should be applied in our area. 

As I read it, the official advice seems pretty clear that the handicaps described in WHS are mandatory. I am unaware any other official advice that claims any of these are only recommended? But would be useful to know where that is. It means that if any competition organiser decides to apply their own handicapping rules, at the very least they cannot be accused of not applying "mandatory" handicaps, and can instead point to the fact they are only recommended. I suppose if there is a statement that Scramble handicaps are only recommended, it might suggest there is a little more doubt as to their feasibility, thus allowing competition organisers to be flexible.


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 10, 2022)

doublebogey7 said:



			Why would they ask the clubs,  when the ISV's have the required scores from multiple clubs.  In fact I suspect the relevant authorit owns the ISV's data.
		
Click to expand...

Our Texas scrambles were dealt with manually before the new rules were published.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 10, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I'm guessing that is because of the statements made by CONGU.
		
Click to expand...

I may be of interest but CONGU has not changed its stance since the UHS
_"Affiliated Clubs must use the following handicap allowances for the undernoted forms of competition when played as handicap events...."_
Admittedly it didn't include scrambles but the principle of a mandate still stands


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I may be of interest but CONGU has not changed its stance since the UHS
_"Affiliated Clubs must use the following handicap allowances for the undernoted forms of competition when played as handicap events...."_
Admittedly it didn't include scrambles but the principle of a mandate still stands
		
Click to expand...

So, it is mandatory then


----------



## tobybarker (Aug 10, 2022)

The sense I pick up from chatter is that in ALL forms of the game the higher HCP players are doing better now in comparison to before the whs came along


----------



## IanMcC (Aug 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Where are they getting this texas scramble data from? Scrambles aren;t generally fed through a back end, certainly not before Covid, and not seen one since either
		
Click to expand...

I am staggered to hear that scrambles are not scored via the software anywhere. Apart from the 25/20/15/10 percentages, with the different tees being used by different sexes (0.35 allowance for each lady on our course, whites v reds), I would find it really hard to accurately allocate allowances without the software.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 10, 2022)

doublebogey7 said:



			That's as maybe,  but Scotland is not the whole world you know.
		
Click to expand...

I see, yet your experience at TWO clubs would say otherwise? Rightyo then


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 10, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			I am staggered to hear that scrambles are not scored via the software anywhere. Apart from the 25/20/15/10 percentages, with the different tees being used by different sexes (0.35 allowance for each lady on our course, whites v reds), I would find it really hard to accurately allocate allowances without the software.
		
Click to expand...

I am refering to the supposed (LOL) collection of data prior to WHS that allowed CONGU to come up with these farcical handicap allowances. 

I haven't played a scramble since, knowing full well scoring would be a farce, and that's how it's turned out, so we don't play them anymore. No idea if clubs are doing this manually or via computer, but as Scottish Golf's VMS system can't cope with mixed tee scrambles - we tried it last year, had to go and work out the allowances manually anyway as only teams that were all male worked correctly - I doubt it. Quite laughable ineptitude.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 10, 2022)

tobybarker said:



			The sense I pick up from chatter is that in ALL forms of the game the higher HCP players are doing better now in comparison to before the whs came along
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's balancing up.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Scottish Golf's VMS system can't cope with mixed tee scrambles -.
		
Click to expand...

There is a *Mixed-Tee-Calculator-WHS-v1.9.xlsx* on (I think) one or more of the CONGU or National websites. It works for all forms and genders I can think of. We've used it on many scrambles (Mixed gender, tees, 2, 3 or 4 players)

Edit: Try here for v1.10
https://www.my-golf.uk/whs-mixed-tee-handicap-calculator/

Google: whs-mixed-tee-handicap-calculator


----------



## D-S (Aug 11, 2022)

I must admit that I was surprised that with WHS in the UK they decided to weigh in for the first time with *mandatory* allowances for scrambles.
There aren’t any agreed rules for this format of golf so how can you start setting allowances for it without getting into such contentious issues?
Surely this is just hit and giggle golf, if you have mandatory allowances for this why not other forms of fun golf- there are plenty.
Just as surprisingly, on the chart at least, they do not show allowances for 3 ball team formats (1 out of 3, 2 out of 3) which, at least around here are far more common Open and Club competitions governed by the ROG.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 11, 2022)

rulefan said:



			There is a *Mixed-Tee-Calculator-WHS-v1.9.xlsx* on (I think) one or more of the CONGU or National websites. It works for all forms and genders I can think of. We've used it on many scrambles (Mixed gender, tees, 2, 3 or 4 players)

Edit: Try here for v1.10
https://www.my-golf.uk/whs-mixed-tee-handicap-calculator/

Google: whs-mixed-tee-handicap-calculator

Click to expand...

Rulie, _*WE*_ had no problems doing this manually, VMS (Scottish golf's back end) can't do it, when I eventually got a reply to why it was wrong after a year of repeated requests - "scrambles are generally not mixed and VMS can't work out a mixed scramble". If you had to use VMS, you wouldn't be surprised at this.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 11, 2022)

D-S said:



			I must admit that I was surprised that with WHS in the UK they decided to weigh in for the first time with *mandatory* allowances for scrambles.
There aren’t any agreed rules for this format of golf so how can you start setting allowances for it without getting into such contentious issues?
Surely this is just hit and giggle golf, if you have mandatory allowances for this why not other forms of fun golf- there are plenty.
Just as surprisingly, on the chart at least, they do not show allowances for 3 ball team formats (1 out of 3, 2 out of 3) which, at least around here are far more common Open and Club competitions governed by the ROG.
		
Click to expand...

Apparently it is because they reviewed thousands and thousands of scores, they couldn't possibly be wrong. I am sure they carefully checked the rules enforced in each of those scores (min no. of drives) and team make up (single sex or mixed) and difference between men and lady tees.

I am sure they will also soon provide mandatory handicaps for Mulligan and 3 Club competitions. Those scores were put on ISVs so might as well


----------



## doublebogey7 (Aug 11, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			Our Texas scrambles were dealt with manually before the new rules were published.
		
Click to expand...

As I have many times,  both my current club and my last club used the software in the ISVs to record scrambles,  before WHS.  They cannot be the only clubs so there will be more than sufficient data for the R&A/USGA to work on.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 11, 2022)

doublebogey7 said:



			As I have many times,  both my current club and my last club used the software in the ISVs to record scrambles,  before WHS.  They cannot be the only clubs so there will be more than sufficient data for the R&A/USGA to work on.
		
Click to expand...

Yes you've already said you have a sample size of 2. 

All I can say really is your handicap secretaries must really like extra work if they went to all that hassle.


----------



## doublebogey7 (Aug 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Yes you've already said you have a sample size of 2. 

All I can say really is your handicap secretaries must really like extra work if they went to all that hassle.
		
Click to expand...

I note you are in Scotland so may not have access to the software we have in England,  but as a former (recent) handicap secretary I can assure you it is very much less time consuming to use the ISV software than it is to do the whole thing manually.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 12, 2022)

doublebogey7 said:



			I note you are in Scotland so may not have access to the software we have in England,  but as a former (recent) handicap secretary I can assure you it is very much less time consuming to use the ISV software than it is to do the whole thing manually.
		
Click to expand...

LOL, no it isn't. As a current handicap secretary I can assure you, simply handing out a card and informing the team of their handicap is far easier.


----------



## IanMcC (Aug 12, 2022)

doublebogey7 said:



			I note you are in Scotland so may not have access to the software we have in England,  but as a former (recent) handicap secretary I can assure you it is very much less time consuming to use the ISV software than it is to do the whole thing manually.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I thought BB's statement was a bit mad. 😆


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 12, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			Totally agree. I thought BB's statement was a bit mad. 😆
		
Click to expand...

I refer yu to #112 and my specific reply to you #103


----------



## IanMcC (Aug 12, 2022)

OK, lets break this down then.



Pre tournament using software – People log in. Payment is taken automatically. The software recognizes if it is a member or not, and charges accordingly. The software knows all handicap Indexes, and knows the allowance to give for dual tee usage. The software also recognizes any overnight Index changes. On the day of the comp the labels can be printed and attached to cards, ready for competitors to pick up.



Pre tournament manually – People will have to pay on the day. No doubt the same person collecting the money will be inundated by questions regarding handicap allowances and dual tee allowances. Either this same person, or each individual team, will have to write out their scorecards. A conservative estimate is that at least a quarter will get their total allowance wrong if doing their own calculations.



Post tournament using software – the golfers upload their scores into the PSI after their round, and the software works out the winners. The M&H secretary checks the top 3 or 4 cards for errors and drives per player, and dishes out the prizes.



Post tournament manually – the golfers give their cards to the M&H Secretary, who then has to check every card for correct allowance and scores, hoping to spot the 25% or so that have the wrong allowance in the process. If it was a shotgun event, half of the winners will have left the building before any sort of result is reached.



I know which one gives me less hassle as a M&H secretary, as we are in fact running a Texas Shotgun this weekend. I submit that it would be almost impossible to do it manually.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 12, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			OK, lets break this down then.



Pre tournament using software – People log in. Payment is taken automatically. The software recognizes if it is a member or not, and charges accordingly. The software knows all handicap Indexes, and knows the allowance to give for dual tee usage. The software also recognizes any overnight Index changes. On the day of the comp the labels can be printed and attached to cards, ready for competitors to pick up.



Pre tournament manually – People will have to pay on the day. No doubt the same person collecting the money will be inundated by questions regarding handicap allowances and dual tee allowances. Either this same person, or each individual team, will have to write out their scorecards. A conservative estimate is that at least a quarter will get their total allowance wrong if doing their own calculations.



Post tournament using software – the golfers upload their scores into the PSI after their round, and the software works out the winners. The M&H secretary checks the top 3 or 4 cards for errors and drives per player, and dishes out the prizes.



Post tournament manually – the golfers give their cards to the M&H Secretary, who then has to check every card for correct allowance and scores, hoping to spot the 25% or so that have the wrong allowance in the process. If it was a shotgun event, half of the winners will have left the building before any sort of result is reached.



I know which one gives me less hassle as a M&H secretary, as we are in fact running a Texas Shotgun this weekend. I submit that it would be almost impossible to do it manually.
		
Click to expand...

Lovely, except VMS doesn't do that for a scramble, so you have to do it manually anyway.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 12, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Lovely, except VMS doesn't do that for a scramble, so you have to do it manually anyway.
		
Click to expand...

Not entirely, if you use the link I posted


----------



## doublebogey7 (Aug 12, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			LOL, no it isn't. As a current handicap secretary I can assure you, simply handing out a card and informing the team of their handicap is far easier.
		
Click to expand...

Erm,  start sheet? Calculating handicap? Sorting and checking scorecards ? Posting results etc.  Unless of course you only have half a dozen teams entering,  we'll have anything up to 40.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 12, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Not entirely, if you use the link I posted
		
Click to expand...

OK, fair doos, and that's actually very handy, but we're still doing the scoring manually because clubs using VMS have no option.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 12, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			OK, fair doos, and that's actually very handy, but we're still doing the scoring manually because clubs using VMS have no option.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough


----------



## Beezerk (Aug 16, 2022)

Morning, it’s a long thread so I’m not reading it all.
Our society has a pairs Texas scramble this coming Saturday, handicaps are 35% lowest handicap + 15% highest handicap?
I bloody hope so as that’s how I’ve worked it out lol.


----------



## D-S (Aug 16, 2022)

It should be 25% low/ 15% high

Sorry.


----------



## IanMcC (Aug 16, 2022)

D-S said:



			It should be 25% low/ 15% high

Sorry.
		
Click to expand...

No. 35% and 15% is correct, and I believe 2 player scramble allowances produce more potential winning teams, being fairer all round.


----------



## D-S (Aug 16, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			No. 35% and 15% is correct, and I believe 2 player scramble allowances produce more potential winning teams, being fairer all round.
		
Click to expand...

Playing-Handicap-Allowances-Table-Resource.pdf
See Scramble 2 Players


----------



## IanMcC (Aug 16, 2022)

Go to here:

https://www.wpga.org/hdp/whs/Rules of Handicapping_USGA_Final.pdf

and look at page 91. This link is live, so i assume is the latest document. It says 35 and 15%


----------



## wjemather (Aug 16, 2022)

D-S said:



Playing-Handicap-Allowances-Table-Resource.pdf
See Scramble 2 Players
		
Click to expand...

That is an unfortunate error. It's 35/15 everywhere else, including in the rules (pg. 93) and guidance (pg. 45).


----------



## IanMcC (Aug 16, 2022)

Also, at least if you use Club Systems, this is a screenshot of the handicapping page for a 2 player scramble.


----------



## D-S (Aug 17, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			Also, at least if you use Club Systems, this is a screenshot of the handicapping page for a 2 player scramble.
		
Click to expand...

Apologies to Beezerk and IanMcC, the EG document that I have is inexplicably wrong and also is the first one you get if you google it. 35/15 is of course correct.😔


----------

