Alterations to WHS?

[Voyager EMH]

Last Scramble I played in was three years ago.
Compulsory minimum four tee-shots each and one of those must be on a par 3.
On the last par-3, team-mate was under pressure, safe shot but just off the green, I chipped in.
We were 12-under par gross with no bogeys. No mistakes for the entire round. We walked off 18th green commending each other.
Nowhere near the prizes, because there was no lowest gross prize.
I'll play in one again, if asked to make up a four. But happy to ignore them otherwise.

 

[wjemather]

I think whining about scramble allowances has been done to death. To summarise...

Higher handicappers now have a chance (if they score really well), and low handicappers no longer win everything (without ever needing to score well) - boo hoo.

 

[Swango1980]

I think whining about scramble allowances has been done to death. To summarise...

Higher handicappers now have a chance (if they score really well), and low handicappers no longer win everything (without ever needing to score well) - boo hoo.

You mean higher handicappers (team) seem to win every time, lower handicappers (team) never win. Indeed, boo hoo justified

 

[wjemather]

You mean higher handicappers (team) seem to win every time, lower handicappers (team) never win. Indeed, boo hoo justified

No, I don't mean that at all, because that isn't what happens.

We've had 6 scrambles over the last 2 years. The lowest handicap team has been in the top 5 places of every one, winning once and missing out on countback in another. The highest handicap team has never been close to winning and (once we discount the short handed teams) finished dead last in 4 of them.

Low handicappers can no longer win just by turning up. That's a good thing. But I fully expect the whining to continue.

 

[Swango1980]

No, I don't mean that at all, because that isn't what happens.

We've had 6 scrambles over the last 2 years. The lowest handicap team has been in the top 5 places of every one, winning once and missing out on countback in another. The highest handicap team has never been close to winning and (once we discount the short handed teams) finished dead last in 4 of them.

Low handicappers can no longer win just by turning up. That's a good thing. But I fully expect the whining to continue.

It is funny how you dismiss other peoples experience as they don't have the volume of scores to determine anything meaningful, yet you have had 6 scrambles and suddenly you are convinced that WHS have it right. I've played in quite a few more scrambles that you, and my experience is quite the opposite. Not once has the low team been anywhere near the winning score, or even in the Top 3. Every single time, the high handicappers have been up there, and one of the highest handicap teams have ended up winning. And WHS has provided that not everything has been spot on from the start, including PCC for example.

Let me ask this, though, if you are so confident the research is accurate enough. You have a team of 0, 40, 40, 40 handicappers (Team Hcp 18) and a team of 0, 0, 0, 0 (Team HCP of 0). It is probably not unreasonable to think the high hcp team could go round in under par, whereas it'll probably be a struggle for the low handicap team to go round in better than 18 under par. And that is assuming the min drives is 4 per player. But even that restriction could have a huge impact. If there was no min drives per team, the high hcp team would be even better off, as the scratch player may well take virtually all the shots. How does WHS take this restriction into account?

And then what about the difference between a Texas Scramble and a Florida Scramble? A Florida Scramble essentially becomes a 3 ball scramble after the drives. That should also make a difference to handicap. Does WHS account for this?

If WHS told us exactly what sort of formal / rules we'd be expecting to play, and the make up of teams, then it might give us confidence in what they've actually researched. But, in my opinion, they've made a complete mess of it.

 

[srixon 1]

Played yesterday afternoon with a mate. No rain but windy as hell, not something I’m usually good at playing in. Only booked in for 9 holes in WHS as we thought we might not get all the way around due to getting dark. Any way, 2 under after 9 with a birdie on the 1st and the 9th and no dropped shots. 4 under after 12. Sort of gave up then as I knew we wouldn’t get all the way round. No comps yesterday and hardly any one out on the course because of the strong winds and the threat of an occasional tropical downpour. Looks at WHS this morning and the PCC was -1 . 1st time I’ve seen it move up or down at my club this year.

 

[wjemather]

It is funny how you dismiss other peoples experience as they don't have the volume of scores to determine anything meaningful, yet you have had 6 scrambles and suddenly you are convinced that WHS have it right. I've played in quite a few more scrambles that you, and my experience is quite the opposite. Not once has the low team been anywhere near the winning score, or even in the Top 3. Every single time, the high handicappers have been up there, and one of the highest handicap teams have ended up winning. And WHS has provided that not everything has been spot on from the start, including PCC for example.

No, I simply don't put much faith in the anecdotal evidence of people who haven't looked beyond the winning score of a handful of comps, base their analysis on imagination and assumption, and (especially) very obviously just make stuff up and contradict their earlier statements when challenged.
And I still don't expect the whining to stop.

 

[clubchamp98]

It is funny how you dismiss other peoples experience as they don't have the volume of scores to determine anything meaningful, yet you have had 6 scrambles and suddenly you are convinced that WHS have it right. I've played in quite a few more scrambles that you, and my experience is quite the opposite. Not once has the low team been anywhere near the winning score, or even in the Top 3. Every single time, the high handicappers have been up there, and one of the highest handicap teams have ended up winning. And WHS has provided that not everything has been spot on from the start, including PCC for example.

Let me ask this, though, if you are so confident the research is accurate enough. You have a team of 0, 40, 40, 40 handicappers (Team Hcp 18) and a team of 0, 0, 0, 0 (Team HCP of 0). It is probably not unreasonable to think the high hcp team could go round in under par, whereas it'll probably be a struggle for the low handicap team to go round in better than 18 under par. And that is assuming the min drives is 4 per player. But even that restriction could have a huge impact. If there was no min drives per team, the high hcp team would be even better off, as the scratch player may well take virtually all the shots. How does WHS take this restriction into account?

And then what about the difference between a Texas Scramble and a Florida Scramble? A Florida Scramble essentially becomes a 3 ball scramble after the drives. That should also make a difference to handicap. Does WHS account for this?

If WHS told us exactly what sort of formal / rules we'd be expecting to play, and the make up of teams, then it might give us confidence in what they've actually researched. But, in my opinion, they've made a complete mess of it.

I agree with all you say!
Texas Scramble imo is a Mickey Mouse format.
Not really governed by the rules of golf or handicap system as it’s so alien to “proper golf”

I think most low players treat it as just a knock! ( but can be fun).
Unless you restrict it to one low ,one mid and one high + another it’s always going to be tough on a low team of four!

A lowest gross prize would just encourage four low men to play together, that imo is not the aim of the format.

Having said this it’s probably why lots of clubs ( inc mine ) don’t have any.

 

[Swango1980]

No, I simply don't put much faith in the anecdotal evidence of people who haven't looked beyond the winning score of a handful of comps, base their analysis on imagination and assumption, and (especially) very obviously just make stuff up and contradict their earlier statements when challenged.
And I still don't expect the whining to stop.

In other words, you have no answer to logical questions. Instead you prefer to bury your head in the sand and assume WHS has just got it right, and use your own anecdotal evidence of 6 competitions when it suits? Nice one.

In summary, there is no point in anybody critiquing anything in the future based on their experienced. You'll just refer to it as whining to try and take the moral high ground. I suppose when people moaned about PCC you would have referenced that as whining, or when people wanted the inclusion of CR-Par you might have called that as whining. Thankfully, there are people in authority out there that might actually listen to such whining, investigate further and sometimes realise that they didn't have perfection the first time around.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Are your scrambles drop out ones? That's the only fair way.

If scrambles aren't drop out, all you need to do is get a team together with one tiger and three hackers.

Drop out?

 

[2blue]

Drop out?

I'm guessing, but I think it may be that the person who's shot is 'chosen' doesn't play the next shot, but Drops out?

 

[wjemather]

In other words, you have no answer to logical questions. Instead you prefer to bury your head in the sand and assume WHS has just got it right, and use your own anecdotal evidence of 6 competitions when it suits? Nice one.

In summary, there is no point in anybody critiquing anything in the future based on their experienced. You'll just refer to it as whining to try and take the moral high ground. I suppose when people moaned about PCC you would have referenced that as whining, or when people wanted the inclusion of CR-Par you might have called that as whining. Thankfully, there are people in authority out there that might actually listen to such whining, investigate further and sometimes realise that they didn't have perfection the first time around.

You said "lower handicappers never win". You were evidently wrong, but choose to ignore it because you are utterly convinced your perception is true.

Also, you don't have to suppose what I've said (although in reality you're just making stuff up to try and discredit me) - you can search for it in these forums. To save you the effort, nothing handicapping related can ever be perfect. However, WHS (and it's allowances) is indisputably more equitable than what went before, including for scrambles.

 

[wjemather]

I'm guessing, but I think it may be that the person who's shot is 'chosen' doesn't play the next shot, but Drops out?

That would be a Florida Scramble.

 

[rulefan]

We have run 2 or 3 Captains' Choice scrambles (Texas or Florida) a year for many years. I have been responsible most of that time for sorting out the results. Since switching from 10% to WHS h'cap allocations I have not seen any trend in winning or losing scores by high or low h'cap teams. Under 10%, lower capping teams tended to be at the top end.
Just my experience but probably not statistically significant but members are happier.

 

[Swango1980]

You said "lower handicappers never win". You were evidently wrong, but choose to ignore it because you are utterly convinced your perception is true.

Also, you don't have to suppose what I've said (although in reality you're just making stuff up to try and discredit me) - you can search for it in these forums. To save you the effort, nothing handicapping related can ever be perfect. However, WHS (and it's allowances) is indisputably more equitable than what went before, including for scrambles.

I thought you might have had enough sense to realise that when I said "lower handicappers never win (team)", you might have at least understood the point I was making, instead of thinking that I was saying in the Hundreds of Thousands of scrambles played in the last few years, not one low handicap team has ever won. I am perfectly happy to concede that on maybe one or 2 occasions over those thousands of competitions, a lower handicap team might have come out on top. Doesn't change the obvious point I was making.

If you look at the formats in the Handicap Allowance table, I believe you can pretty much define the format in every other one of them. And some of them obviously will have millions of scores to analyse to come up with an allowance (e.g. singles strokeplay). However, if I asked you to define the format of Scramble, you couldn't. There are clearly several formats that can be played, with or without significant restrictions. So, it seems crazy that an official handicap can be given to a format that can't even be defined. Not to mention what scores they've actually used in their research, is that widely known?

 

[wjemather]

In case you were wondering, this is where I stopped reading:

I thought you might have had enough sense...

 

[Swango1980]

In case you were wondering, this is where I stopped reading:

Makes sense. Why read the entire of someone's point when having a debate with them.

You've clearly come on to troll this thread. You've no interest to discuss it, but simply to pass off an opposing view as whining. Your contribution in post 362 was completely pointless other than to troll the thread.

 

[wjemather]

Makes sense. Why read the entire of someone's point when having a debate with them.

I'm not prepared to waste my time reading the comments of someone who (repeatedly) cannot communicate without making rude and insulting personal remarks. That isn't up for debate.

 

[Swango1980]

I'm not prepared to waste my time reading the comments of someone who cannot communicate without making rude and insulting personal remarks. That isn't up for debate.

From a guy who opened up with:

"I think whining about scramble allowances has been done to death. To summarise...

Higher handicappers now have a chance (if they score really well), and low handicappers no longer win everything (without ever needing to score well) - boo hoo."

Yeah, very constructive, well done. A very valuable and respectful contribution to a thread others have taken time to discuss.

 

[cliveb]

I'm guessing, but I think it may be that the person who's shot is 'chosen' doesn't play the next shot, but Drops out?

Yes, exactly that. Stops a team loading itself with 3 high handicappers and have a scratch player shooting close to level par gross.

That would be a Florida Scramble.

Ah right. I didn't realise it had a different name. In this case Florida is better than Texas