Handicap Allowance Texas Scramble

[Swango1980]

Played a scramble today in miserable conditions. One plus player, two 8.something and a 10.something, giving us a playing handicap of 5. Shot 10 under gross giving us a nett 56. Felt like one of the best Scrambles I've played in, definitely can't day we left any out there. Having a guy who can hit approach shots onto the green from over 250 yards away in rubbish weather was a nice bonus.

Not sure where we finished, but 3 shots away from the top 3 out of about 16 teams. Nett 19 under gross won it. I think to compete, the trick is to have one or 2 low handicappers to do the scoring, and 2 or 3 high handicappers to boost the shots on the team handicap. Ideally they can either still hit a decent ball to get 4 reasonable drives in (maybe less important on a short course), and perhaps contribute with the odd chip and putt. I still don't think a team of 4 very low handicappers realistically have a competitive chance, regardless of their range of skills as a team.

 

[rulefan]

I still don't think a team of 4 very low handicappers realistically have a competitive chance, regardless of their range of skills as a team.

IMO the limiting of the number of drives doesn't help a team of low handicappers. That is usually where their relative strength is. But I suspect the number crunching didn't make an allowance for that format. Similarly for the Florida format.

 

[AliMc]

IMO the limiting of the number of drives doesn't help a team of low handicappers. That is usually where their relative strength is. But I suspect the number crunching didn't make an allowance for that format. Similarly for the Florida format.

The Scramble that KenL mentioned above at Dunbar was won by 4 very low h'caps, can't remember exact but I think something like one + h'cap, 2 scratch and a 1 h'cap maybe, they shot 18 under gross and won by about 4 shots

 

[KenL]

Dragging up an old thread, sorry.

Recent members scramble at my club used 10% of the sum of the handicaps.

Women players all got an 2 extra strokes. Men played off medal tees and women off reds.

Off these tees:
Rating for men 72.3, slope 128
Women 72.7, slope 72.7.

Is giving women 2 extra shots each correct (if there is such a thing) in a 4 person scramble?

Thanks

The Scramble that KenL mentioned above at Dunbar was won by 4 very low h'caps, can't remember exact but I think something like one + h'cap, 2 scratch and a 1 h'cap maybe, they shot 18 under gross and won by about 4 shots

They did indeed. 2 pars, 14 birdies and 2 eagles..Great golf.

 

[rulefan]

Is giving women 2 extra shots each correct (if there is such a thing) in a 4 person scramble?

A player competing from a set of tees with a higher Course Rating must receive additional strokes for the round, equal to the difference between the Course Rating of the tees they are playing and the tees with the lowest Course Rating.

Gender is not a factor.

 

[KenL]

A player competing from a set of tees with a higher Course Rating must receive additional strokes for the round, equal to the difference between the Course Rating of the tees they are playing and the tees with the lowest Course Rating.

Gender is not a factor.

Thanks. That answers my query. They should not be getting two extra shots in the scenario I outlined.

 

[Colin L]

Dragging up an old thread, sorry.

Recent members scramble at my club used 10% of the sum of the handicaps.

Women players all got an 2 extra strokes. Men played off medal tees and women off reds.

Off these tees:
Rating for men 72.3, slope 128
Women 72.7, slope 72.7.

Is giving women 2 extra shots each correct (if there is such a thing) in a 4 person scramble?

No. The difference between the course ratings is only 0.3 0.4.

 

[rulefan]

No. The difference between the course ratings is only 0.3

0.4 I make it.

 

[SammmeBee]

A player competing from a set of tees with a higher Course Rating must receive additional strokes for the round, equal to the difference between the Course Rating of the tees they are playing and the tees with the lowest Course Rating.

Gender is not a factor.

Does Par get taken into account at all?

 

[rulefan]

Thanks. That answers my query. They should not be getting two extra shots in the scenario I outlined.

See my edit to post #38

The 0.4 (ie 72.7-72.3) is added to the decimal playing handicap of each of the players involved.
All the playing handicaps are added together and rounded conventionally to get the team handicap

 

[rulefan]

Does Par get taken into account at all?

No. The caption to clause 6.2b is confusing.

 

[SammmeBee]

So a men’s team shooting 64 (after all shots) on a par 72 beat a women’s team shooting 65 on their par 74?

 

[rulefan]

So a men’s team shooting 64 (after all shots) on a par 72 beat a women’s team shooting 65 on their par 74?

The lowest net wins.

However Stableford is slightly different.
Stableford formats
* For an 18-hole round: The number of points required for all players to ‘play to handicap’ must be calculated from each applicable set of tees.
o Those players requiring the highest number of points to ‘play to handicap’ receive no additional strokes to the standard calculation of their Playing Handicap.
o All players playing from a set of tees requiring a lower number of points to ‘play to handicap’ will receive additional strokes to their Playing Handicap equal to the difference between the number of points they require to ‘play to handicap’ and the highest number of points required by other players.

 

[SammmeBee]

But the women are 9 under and the men are only 8 under……?

 

[Swango1980]

But the women are 9 under and the men are only 8 under……?

But the handicaps used to get those nett scores do not care about par. The handicaps are adjusted based on differences in Course Ratings, not Par. Therefore Par is irrelevant when comparing the final nett scores. Likewise, if I was to play a lady in match play, off different tees, the lowest nett score on each hole is what matters. It doesn't matter if the par is different in any of those holes.

 

[rulefan]

But the women are 9 under and the men are only 8 under……?

This was no different under CONGU. In old terminology For the purposes of the competition, each player playing the course with the higher Standard Scratch Score must be awarded a Competition Handicap Allowance equivalent to his Playing Handicap increased by the difference in the two Standard Scratch Scores.

But are you thinking about a stableford competition? But of course that involves stableford points not net scores as in your case.

 

[Colin L]

0.4 I make it.

Is this just you being a pedantic smartarse?

0.1 added above.

 

[SammmeBee]

This was no different under CONGU. In old terminology For the purposes of the competition, each player playing the course with the higher Standard Scratch Score must be awarded a Competition Handicap Allowance equivalent to his Playing Handicap increased by the difference in the two Standard Scratch Scores.

But are you thinking about a stableford competition? But of course that involves stableford points not net scores as in your case.

Stableford is easy as 2 points is always 2 points….. thanks I’m not sure stroke play quite as straight forward…..

 

[rulefan]

Is this just you being a pedantic smartarse?

Of course. All students of rules are pedants. Smart is a different matter.

 

[rulefan]

Stableford is easy as 2 points is always 2 points….. thanks I’m not sure stroke play quite as straight forward…..

It is stableford that is complicated as the underlined words show when deciphered.