Texas Scramble Allowances

[Colin L]

It is not unreasonable to think that 4 scratch players would shoot significantly under course rating in a scramble. As such, it seems wholly unreasonable for a handicap system to give them an official handicap of zero. No idea what formula one could use to give them, or any team, a reasonable handicap. But it doesn't feel.right in any way what WHS does.

Any handicapping system in whatever sport has to have a base line, a standard from which you can in some way measure differences in ability

Handicapping in golf is based on what a golfer of a certain ability should score on a course depending on its measured difficulty. He/she is the standard and gets no strokes. In any handicapped sport there has to be a reference point, a baseline fixed by a notional competitor of a certain level of measured ability. In golf it's the "scratch player" who always plays on zero handicap strokes whatever the format, whatever the course. If, in a scramble, you decided to give scratch players some strokes, all you would be doing is to shift the baseline and you would have to give all other competitors more strokes in order to maintain the relative difference between their ability and that of the scratch player.

Anyway, because scratch players always play off zero handicap strokes, it doesn't matter to them what method you use of calculating team handicaps in a scramble. A team of 4 scratch players will get zero strokes whether you apply the 25/20/15/10% WHS allowances or revert to the previous percentage of the aggregate handicaps of the team. So if it doesn't feel right that the WHS method doesn't give scratch players a reasonable handicap, how did it "feel right" that they got the same handicap previously?

What the WHS allowances have changed is the weighting of the contribution made by team members of differing abilities with the result, it seems, that the initial perception is that the low handicappers are seriously disadvantaged where previously they were perceived to be seriously advantaged. Or something like that. Time will tell.

 

[DickInShorts]

You shouldn’t blame the handicaps for any advantage in a scramble ‘gained’ by having a lady in your team.
I’ve always blamed the course not being set properly for mixed scrambles and mixed Greensomes. Some holes we e had the ladies tee 150 yards closer than the men’s in Greensomes which makes the mans drive obsolete. Also had it where the ladies tee has been behind the men’s tee.

 

[Swango1980]

Any handicapping system in whatever sport has to have a base line, a standard from which you can in some way measure differences in ability

Handicapping in golf is based on what a golfer of a certain ability should score on a course depending on its measured difficulty. He/she is the standard and gets no strokes. In any handicapped sport there has to be a reference point, a baseline fixed by a notional competitor of a certain level of measured ability. In golf it's the "scratch player" who always plays on zero handicap strokes whatever the format, whatever the course. If, in a scramble, you decided to give scratch players some strokes, all you would be doing is to shift the baseline and you would have to give all other competitors more strokes in order to maintain the relative difference between their ability and that of the scratch player.

Anyway, because scratch players always play off zero handicap strokes, it doesn't matter to them what method you use of calculating team handicaps in a scramble. A team of 4 scratch players will get zero strokes whether you apply the 25/20/15/10% WHS allowances or revert to the previous percentage of the aggregate handicaps of the team. So if it doesn't feel right that the WHS method doesn't give scratch players a reasonable handicap, how did it "feel right" that they got the same handicap previously?

What the WHS allowances have changed is the weighting of the contribution made by team members of differing abilities with the result, it seems, that the initial perception is that the low handicappers are seriously disadvantaged where previously they were perceived to be seriously advantaged. Or something like that. Time will tell.

I so not disagree with any of the first part of your comment. My argument is WHS is doing a lousy job of providing equitable competition. Others have the same perception. A team of scratch players will easily shoot score well under par. So, the TEAM handicap for 4 such players should sensibly not be scratch. Fair enough, if you accept a "to handicapish" round in a scramble would be around, 15ish under course rating, then if all teams had an equal chance to score this, no real complaints. But, imagine 4 scratch players wanting to play an open. Are they likely going to want to play in a scramble knowing they need to shoot around 23 under par GROSS to stand a chance? That is to beat a team who simply needed to play 6 under gross, that included a 7 handicapper, a score that is not uncommon.

It is, to a degree, arrogant or naive to rigidly defend such a system. In fact, if there is any time it is likely to be problematic, it is in its early infancy. It is right to be critical, as it hopefully accelerates improvements if they need to be made.

 

[Colin L]

If the team playing handicap of four scratch golfers should not be scratch, what percentage of their course handicaps would you suggest should be applied and should it be a percentage of the aggregate as before or a percentage of their individual course handicaps as it is now in the WHS?

By the way, I'm not arrogantly or naively defending the WHS allowances, but I do defend the need to reach judgments based on sound evidence.

 

[Swango1980]

I already said I do not have the answer to that in post 180, where I said "No idea what formula one could use to give them, or any team, a reasonable handicap. But it doesn't feel.right in any way what WHS does."

I would be arrogant myself if I had a definitive answer. I am simply saying that, from my own experience and from others, the scores that are being posted by some teams are crazy. Do our experiences count for nothing at present? If they do, how long before those opinions can be considered valid points? Another 6 months, 2 years, 10 years, etc?

If truly extensive research was actually possible based on historic scores, there could be enough information to say, for example, a team of 4 scratch players typically (on a reasonably good day) score 14 under CR, give them a +14 handicap. A team of 2 scratch players, 1 10 handicapper and 1 18 handicapper typically shoot 11 under, give them a +11 handicap. And so on and so forth. Those numbers have been plucked out of the air by me, but if you had a massive amount of scramble scores, and correlate those to the handicaps within the team, it must surely be possible to come up with something.

The above does not account for mixed tee scrambles however, I think that is too difficult to get anything fair, especially as women and men are essentially rated differently to each other.

 

[Old Skier]

WHS is doing a lousy job of providing equitable competition. Others have the same perception. A team of scratch players will easily shoot score well under par. So, the TEAM handicap for 4 such players should sensibly not be scratch. Fair enough, if you accept a "to handicapish" round in a scramble would be around, 15ish under course rating, then if all teams had an equal chance to score this, no real complaints. But, imagine 4 scratch players wanting to play an open. Are they likely going to want to play in a scramble knowing they need to shoot around 23 under par GROSS to stand a chance? That is to beat a team who simply needed to play 6 under gross, that included a 7 handicapper, a score that is not uncommon.

As you yourself suggest, it’s all based on “perceptions“. When proper analysis and information from clubs has been received by EG then possibly something may change.

Having heard the same old arguments under the old system I think some may have very short memories.

Scrambles are just fun comps with no real meaning in the real life of things, we luckily have not seen any decrease in entries for our scrambles but as I wrote earlier ours are mostly drawn and balanced. Perhaps Committee should look at how comps are run. I suspect there are more than a few on here that select a high handicap player in there team for one reason.

 

[Swango1980]

As you yourself suggest, it’s all based on “perceptions“. When proper analysis and information from clubs has been received by EG then possibly something may change.

Having heard the same old arguments under the old system I think some may have very short memories.

Scrambles are just fun comps with no real meaning in the real life of things, we luckily have not seen any decrease in entries for our scrambles but as I wrote earlier ours are mostly drawn and balanced. Perhaps Committee should look at how comps are run. I suspect there are more than a few on here that select a high handicap player in there team for one reason.

I agree that Texas Scrambles pre WHS were not perfect, and often favoured the lower handicappers more than it should. That seemed to be down to the fraction of the combined handicap often used, although this seemed to be down to the judgment of the organiser rather than any official guidance. Had there been extensive research, this may well have been resolved by advising suitable fractions depending on whether you had 2, 3 or 4 player teams. I suspect one tenth of the combined handicaps favoured low handicappers in 4 man teams, but may have been more appropriate for 3 man teams for example.

However, now WHS officially makes official recommendations, then any criticism or questions need to be directed to them, rather than individual competition secretaries. It is early days, so players may not have had a chance to see what the outcome of these new handicap guidelines result in. Many will still enter in the same good faith as pre WHS. However, once it becomes apparent to lower handicappers they need to shoot over 20 under par gross to stand a chance, I cannot see them being too keen to enter many scrambles in future. Sadly, it either means they need to purely select a team player for their handicap (which would imply the system is inherently unfair, given purely the handicap of one player is more important than the handicap of another player, assuming both players have a fair handicap), competition organisers will need to select teams with a balanced range of handicaps (no good for opens and selecting your own side) or ignoring WHS and doing their own thing (not sure if the ISVs are set up for that?)

 

[Deleted member 15344]

As you yourself suggest, it’s all based on “perceptions“. When proper analysis and information from clubs has been received by EG then possibly something may change.

Having heard the same old arguments under the old system I think some may have very short memories.

Scrambles are just fun comps with no real meaning in the real life of things, we luckily have not seen any decrease in entries for our scrambles but as I wrote earlier ours are mostly drawn and balanced. Perhaps Committee should look at how comps are run. I suspect there are more than a few on here that select a high handicap player in there team for one reason.

If they are fun comps with no real meaning in life why did WHS not just leave it up to the clubs to sort out the HC allowances ?

Our groups form because it’s a bunch of mates playing together - as with all the team events, people dont get picked because of their handicap

The way we previously did our allowances allowed multiple different groups to win - low , mid and high HCs

 

[Swango1980]

If they are fun comps with no real meaning in life why did WHS not just leave it up to the clubs to sort out the HC allowances ?

Our groups form because it’s a bunch of mates playing together - as with all the team events, people dont get picked because of their handicap

The way we previously did our allowances allowed multiple different groups to win - low , mid and high HCs

I tend to agree at this current time.

It would be nice if every team had an equitable chance to win irrespective of handicap. Depending on the allowance set in the competition previously, there is an arguement lower handicap teams had an advantage. But, not to an extent where too many players of higher handicaps stayed away. As a team, often the focus was on our gross score, how far under par we could go. If a team of lower handicappers ended up beating us by several shots, it was not overly demoralising. At end of day, they are good players, fair play to them. It never seemed to be a score that was impossibly out of reach, had our team played really really well.

WHS looks to have turned it on its head. As a 9 handicapper, if I played in a team with 3 higher handicappers, and finished 4 or 5 under gross, I'd be happy with that. However, if that score ended up winning a competition, beating 4 scratch players who went 20+ under gross, personally I'd be embarrassed about winning the event. Their 20+ under gross seems remarkable, whereas 4 or 5 under gross for us seems only a fair to good score based on our ability.

 

[nickjdavis]

I did some analysis on the scramble results from Monday last night....was quite interesting and seems to give some weight to the position that the new allowances have swung the balance in favour of the higher handicapper.

We've got another scramble in a couple of weeks time so will repeat the analysis to see if similar scoring patterns emerge and then I'll share.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

or ignoring WHS and doing their own thing (not sure if the ISVs are set up for that?)

They don't need to be, you just give teams a scorecard. Also don't know how the English Golf App is getting on, but the Scottish one is terrible at working out handicaps, 2 months after our internal club TS I've still had no response from SG on why half our teams had incorrect handicaps, and yet some were spot on.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I did some analysis on the scramble results from Monday last night....was quite interesting and seems to give some weight to the position that the new allowances have swung the balance in favour of the higher handicapper.

We've got another scramble in a couple of weeks time so will repeat the analysis to see if similar scoring patterns emerge and then I'll share.

Oh gawd, don't share that here, Colin L will rubbish anyone who actually bothers to look into this more fully and provide a view based on those stats. See page 1.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

If the team playing handicap of four scratch golfers should not be scratch, what percentage of their course handicaps would you suggest should be applied and should it be a percentage of the aggregate as before or a percentage of their individual course handicaps as it is now in the WHS?

By the way, I'm not arrogantly or naively defending the WHS allowances, but I do defend the need to reach judgments based on sound evidence.

Others are seeing now exactly what I was seeing at the beginning of this topic, sound evidence seems to mean to you something that backs your view. You are indeed arrogantly and naively defending the WHS allowances

 

[Colin L]

Others are seeing now exactly what I was seeing at the beginning of this topic, sound evidence seems to mean to you something that backs your view. You are indeed arrogantly and naively defending the WHS allowances

Interesting. I’m not aware of having expressed a “view”. It would be difficult to do so since I don’t have a view on how fair the new allowances are because I don’t know the stats behind them I do have a view on the need to base judgments on facts and figures and if that has come across as arrogant, that’s regrettable. It’s firmly held though!

I suspect that in the end, we have to accept that trying to adapt a handicapping system devised for “normal” golf formats to a format based on a team getting four goes at perfecting every shot is as daft as the format itself. Maybe we’re taking it all far too seriously and should just be asking what the best fudge is.

Another actual view is that we have what we have been given and that it’s better to cooperate in making it work and offer constructive suggestion to improve it. Instant dismissal and reversion to what has been replaced isn’t constructive.

So, lot’s of views but one missing. I haven’t a clue yet whether the new allowances are fair and an improvement on the old. And that’s mainly because I haven’t seen enough evidence. It’s a pity if that hasn’t been clear.

 

[ger147]

Oh gawd, don't share that here, Colin L will rubbish anyone who actually bothers to look into this more fully and provide a view based on those stats. See page 1.

Others are seeing now exactly what I was seeing at the beginning of this topic, sound evidence seems to mean to you something that backs your view. You are indeed arrogantly and naively defending the WHS allowances

No offence intended but the rest of the forum is full of threads which descend into petty squabbling and personal attacks etc. The Rules forum has always been relatively free of those sorts of posts so it would be good to keep it that way.

So by all means disagree and debate but it would be good to keep it sensible and adult and not descend to childish attacks etc.

 

[rulie]

Is the "complaint" against the recommendations of the WHS based solely on the low scores being achieved or that the recommendations favour certain handicap groups, or ?

 

[ger147]

Personally I've no idea why anyone plays who in scrambles worries about team handicaps being "fair". When we started back after lockdown last year, the first 2 scrambles we played at our club, I told my whatsapp golf group on the Wednesday what team was gonna win the scramble on the Saturday and was correct with my prediction and one of my regular golf buddies told everyone on the Tuesday what team was gonna win that Saturday in the second scramble and again his prediction was correct, and the issue in these 2 cases has nothing to do with WHS handicap allowances...

If that happens within clubs I can only imagine what goes on in open scrambles.

 

[Swango1980]

Is the "complaint" against the recommendations of the WHS based solely on the low scores being achieved or that the recommendations favour certain handicap groups, or ?

Primarily, that the allowances so far (based on experiences of some) seem to favour certain handicap groups.

The lower scores achieved are just a secondary issue. Not really an issue if every team can equally achieve those low scores on a good day (pre WHS scores were also very low). However, one of my earlier thoughts would have been, if a handicap system was truly trying to provide fair and official handicaps for Scramble formats, then realistically most (if not all teams) would have PLUS handicaps. For example, a team of 4 20 handicappers may have a handicap of +2, a team of 4 scratch players may have a handicap of +12 (plucking numbers out of the air)

 

[Colin L]

Personally I've no idea why anyone plays who in scrambles worries about team handicaps being "fair". When we started back after lockdown last year, the first 2 scrambles we played at our club, I told my whatsapp golf group on the Wednesday what team was gonna win the scramble on the Saturday and was correct with my prediction and one of my regular golf buddies told everyone on the Tuesday what team was gonna win that Saturday in the second scramble and again his prediction was correct, and the issue in these 2 cases has nothing to do with WHS handicap allowances...

If that happens within clubs I can only imagine what goes on in open scrambles.

We've just held an open scramble but I haven't had time to analyse the outcomes. I think its well understood that there are teams which "do the circuit" of open scrambles and do rather well out of it. One of my friends refers to them disparagingly as "the professionals" but I don't quite get that. It seems to me if a group of folk want to get together and compete successfully around the place, good on them if they succeed. The answer to that situation , if an answer is needed, could be to make scramble prizes less attractive and concentrate more on creating a fun day out.

Given the "quality" of my own golf, a fun day out is all it can ever be anyway. But it is fun, so that's ok.

 

[D-S]

If it is just a fun day out, ‘not really golf’ and impossible to handicap fairly and by the look of this thread quite divisive, why on earth do CONGU make the allowances mandatory, why not just a recommendation or a guide?