Texas Scramble Allowances

[wjemather]

Two points.

1. Such a team on a brilliant day SHOULD be beatable by any other team if they also have a brilliant day. Both teams should theoretically be competitive. Whereas, I think we are seeing that a composition of low handicappers have next to zero chance. In fact, I would go as far as say a team of scratch golfers on an extremely good day have next to zero chance against a team of high handicappers on a reasonable day. I'd be interested to keep investigating, as there may be an advantage on having 1 low player in the team to score virtually all the scoring shots, then 3 high handicappers purely for their handicap and little to do with golf. If the low player has a good day, they are laughing.
2. Can an handicap system take these factors into account? Well, if it is bold enough to officially award handicaps in Scrambles, then absolutely yes. If it can't, then they should have stayed clear.

Based on the new handicap formats, my own feeling is Scramble has turned into one of the most fun formats to one that is not really worth paying an entry fee for. However, I always enjoy the discussion, watch this space indeed.

This isn't true in individual or pairs events, so why should it be true in scrambles? High handicappers will always have the potential to post a nett score out of reach of low handicappers. The greater the number of high handicappers, the more likely it will happen. A handicap system that stops this from happening is one that is biased against higher handicappers, substantially reducing their chances of being competitive.

 

[Swango1980]

This isn't true in individual or pairs events, so why should it be true in scrambles? High handicappers will always have the potential to post a nett score out of reach of low handicappers. The greater the number of high handicappers, the more likely it will happen. A handicap system that stops this from happening is one that is biased against higher handicappers, substantially reducing their chances of being competitive.

I get the argument, although in individual events this is why the Playing Handicap of 95% was brought in (which is still probably not enough to protect lower handicappers in large fields, given that one high handicapper is likely to have a brilliant day)

I think that a handicap system should allow any golfer of any ability to be competitive on their "brilliant" day. I think low handicappers should be protected even more in team events. Why? Well, in an individual event, at least the high handicapper should get some sort of reduction on their handicap to help balance the field for future events. In scrambles or any other team event, no such luck.

This is more of a side issue from my point of view though. As it seems like a team of high handicappers on a distinctly average to good day can beat, if not thrash a team of low handicappers on an outstanding day.

I found the results of the other Scramble my mate played in. The winning score was nett 46 on a par 68 course. The team was made up of 2 males (HCPS 6.5 and 26.1) and 2 females (28.9 and 37.5). Now, from one of my earlier points (which seems a long time ago), I think handicaps become even more nonsensical when you can have teams with players playing off advanced tees, and those players can put the ball in a position in which the longer hitters can capitalise on with the second shot. However, this team ultimately finished with a score of 5 under gross. Pretty decent no doubt, but nothing spectacular I'd have thought. Certainly nowhere near as spectacular as a team of scratch players shooting gross 46 (-22). The team with the lowest score shot a gross 55 (13 under) for a nett 52 and 6 shots behind the winners. They had a lady golfer as well, who happens to be a qualified PGA professional golfer.

 

[milkywayfernbat]

The golf rule is too hard for me.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Am I right in saying that the Scramble handicaps are rounded? We had a scramble recently and we ended up with handicaps to 1 decimal place.

Yes you are correct. We had a problem with this as the Club V1 software calculated team handicaps to 1 DP but this has now been rectified by a recent update.

 

[wjemather]

I get the argument, although in individual events this is why the Playing Handicap of 95% was brought in (which is still probably not enough to protect lower handicappers in large fields, given that one high handicapper is likely to have a brilliant day)

I think that a handicap system should allow any golfer of any ability to be competitive on their "brilliant" day. I think low handicappers should be protected even more in team events. Why? Well, in an individual event, at least the high handicapper should get some sort of reduction on their handicap to help balance the field for future events. In scrambles or any other team event, no such luck.

This is more of a side issue from my point of view though. As it seems like a team of high handicappers on a distinctly average to good day can beat, if not thrash a team of low handicappers on an outstanding day.

I found the results of the other Scramble my mate played in. The winning score was nett 46 on a par 68 course. The team was made up of 2 males (HCPS 6.5 and 26.1) and 2 females (28.9 and 37.5). Now, from one of my earlier points (which seems a long time ago), I think handicaps become even more nonsensical when you can have teams with players playing off advanced tees, and those players can put the ball in a position in which the longer hitters can capitalise on with the second shot. However, this team ultimately finished with a score of 5 under gross. Pretty decent no doubt, but nothing spectacular I'd have thought. Certainly nowhere near as spectacular as a team of scratch players shooting gross 46 (-22). The team with the lowest score shot a gross 55 (13 under) for a nett 52 and 6 shots behind the winners. They had a lady golfer as well, who happens to be a qualified PGA professional golfer.

Again, protecting low handicappers is just discriminating against higher handicappers because of their greater potential, and goes against the principles of an equitable handicap system. Reductions may be automatic for individual events, but players can get adjustments from any format of play should the handicap committee deem it appropriate after receiving a review request supported by evidence.

High handicappers are not challenging on an average day (unless their handicaps are wrong), as the bottom end of any results sheet will show.

Surely the onus is on the club/committee to have all their tees rated both all genders and set the competition tees for each gender appropriately? It is unfair to expect the handicapping system to account for bad competition management.

 

[Swango1980]

Again, protecting low handicappers is just discriminating against higher handicappers because of their greater potential, and goes against the principles of an equitable handicap system. Reductions may be automatic for individual events, but players can get adjustments from any format of play should the handicap committee deem it appropriate after receiving a review request supported by evidence.

High handicappers are not challenging on an average day (unless their handicaps are wrong), as the bottom end of any results sheet will show.

Surely the onus is on the club/committee to have all their tees rated both all genders and set the competition tees for each gender appropriately? It is unfair to expect the handicapping system to account for bad competition management.

The whole point of this discussion is that there is a perception that higher handicappers are at a huge advantage in a Texas Scramble format. If this is the case, it suggests anything but an equitable handicap system for Texas Scramble. One may even argue the system protects high handicappers and discriminates against low handicappers?

 

[williamalex1]

You also have to factor in the unpredictable nature of golf. There's the team of four bogey players who just all happen have their day in sun at the same time; the outrageous luck/bad luck that can come the way of a team; the players whose handicaps are high because their short game is dreadful but who can contribute above their weight tee to green (yup - looking in the mirror with that one). The stroke difference between the high handicapper's occasional brilliant day when everything for a change just goes right and his normal day is much greater than a low handicapper will vary by. There is a 10 stroke difference between my best score of the season and my usual. The difference for one of our top players (HCI+1.2) is 4 strokes.

A net 54 won our 3 man open T/scramble comp today.
The winning team's handicap was the maximum allowed 9 and hadn't been cut.
I made my feelings known verbally in no uncertain terms to some of the council members, re their last minute reduction of the maximum H/C allowed.
I was basically told we can do what ever we want, it's nothing to do with WHS, SG or Congu as it's a non qualifying comp .

Is there anyone to complain to ? would it be worth it ?

 

[AliMc]

A net 54 won our 3 man open T/scramble comp today.
The winning team's handicap was the maximum allowed 9 and hadn't been cut.
I made my feelings known verbally in no uncertain terms to some of the council members, re their last minute reduction of the maximum H/C allowed.
I was basically told we can do what ever we want, it's nothing to do with WHS, SG or Congu as it's a non qualifying comp .

Is there anyone to complain to ? would it be worth it ?

We shot 62 gross off 4 in our 4 man team Scramble at The Hirsel today, only one better than your winning team off 9, so to answer your 2 questions i would say doubt it and no !

 

[Colin L]

....... to answer your 2 questions i would say doubt it and no !

I was going to agree with that, but on second thoughts I'd go for no and no.

 

[williamalex1]

I was going to agree with that, but on second thoughts I'd go for no and no.

I knew that would be the reply, but it's sad that this happens, discrimination against high handicap players.
Why give players handicaps at all, if they're going to be adjusted because the lower handicap guys don't like it .
Our team handicap of 12 was cut by 25% to 9, but a team with a H/C of 9 or below weren't affected .
By all means put a 25% reduction on all the teams involved, not just the high handicap teams.
Previously it was max h/c of 28 and was 10% allowance for all teams, sometimes with a max team h/c of 6.

 

[williamalex1]

We shot 62 gross off 4 in our 4 man team Scramble at The Hirsel today, only one better than your winning team off 9, so to answer your 2 questions i would say doubt it and no !

Our 3 man 9 h/c team scored a net 62, should've been net 59 but heigh-ho, there you go. We played a 4 man Scramble 2 weeks ago at same club with no maximum handicap ,

 

[Old Skier]

The whole point of this discussion is that there is a perception that higher handicappers are at a huge advantage in a Texas Scramble format. If this is the case, it suggests anything but an equitable handicap system for Texas Scramble. One may even argue the system protects high handicappers and discriminates against low handicappers?

So am I getting this correctly, you feel it is a “perception “ but not based on fact. In my experience as a HC Sec this “perception “ of HCs being unfair has been a case for many years and no matter what the format and is an equal “perception “ amongst high and low HC players.

 

[3offTheTee]

Have not read all the post but wonder whether anybody can remember what the original post was about? Apart from post number 5 and 2 like many threads many go off topic very quickly.

PS. Sure a few more have gone back now to read what was said initially

 

[Swango1980]

So am I getting this correctly, you feel it is a “perception “ but not based on fact. In my experience as a HC Sec this “perception “ of HCs being unfair has been a case for many years and no matter what the format and is an equal “perception “ amongst high and low HC players.

I'm being very careful NOT to use the word fact when WHS is in its infancy. But if it appears low handicap player teams need to shoot 20+ under gross to stand a chance, on what appears to be a frequent basis, then I do not think it is untoward to raise suspicion that the system may be far from ideal.

I've no idea how well researched this issue was, or how much data they had. But, it may well have been one mathematician, in a room, who has come up with a formula, said there you go and it has been implemented. It looks lovely. It doesnt mean the person(s) who came up with it got it right. I suspect it is not something that has been as rigorously tested as the handicap calculations for individuals.

 

[rulie]

I'm being very careful NOT to use the word fact when WHS is in its infancy. But if it appears low handicap player teams need to shoot 20+ under gross to stand a chance, on what appears to be a frequent basis, then I do not think it is untoward to raise suspicion that the system may be far from ideal.

I've no idea how well researched this issue was, or how much data they had. But, it may well have been one mathematician, in a room, who has come up with a formula, said there you go and it has been implemented. It looks lovely. It doesnt mean the person(s) who came up with it got it right. I suspect it is not something that has been as rigorously tested as the handicap calculations for individuals.

Imo, the WHS, as a "system", is a very sound way of representing a player's ability and transferring that to a course handicap. Let's leave that "system" alone. However, the same may not be true about handicap allowance recommendations in the Handicapping Rules. Again, imo, the handicapping system is great, but the handicap allowance recommendations may need some fine tuning.
My point is to separate the handicapping system from the recommendations for handicap allowances (recommendations which some national organizations have, perhaps foolishly, made mandatory).

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Sorry, but wrong again. For example, and as described previously, our teams have ranged from all <4 handicap to all >24 handicap with everything in between. In one event, the lowest and second highest handicap teams finished within a stroke at the top; another was won by a team in the middle with a mix of teams within a couple of strokes. And it's still high handicap teams propping up the field.

You criticise those of us who've collated many scores from many venues, yet post a vaguish response from 2 internal events? How many teams were there, and what were their scores?

 

[Colin L]

I've no idea how well researched this issue was, or how much data they had. But, it may well have been one mathematician, in a room, who has come up with a formula, said there you go and it has been implemented.

I thought I was the one that was supposed to be naive.

No matter, here's what Dean Knuth, the experts' expert (otherwise known as the Pope of Slope),has to say about scramble handicaps. I thought to summarise it but it's probably better just to quote most of it. I find these matters particularly interesting:

• the analysis of the various ways by which several golfers end up with the same handicap and how that compounds the difficulty of arriving at an equitable way of handicapping a scramble;
• the need to mitigate the effect of the low handicapper;
• controlling the composition of teams;
• adopting the percentages allowances we now have.

And it's all in the context of just how difficult it is to get a system for a scramble that is fair and equitable.

Here's what he says in answer to the question, "How would you recommend handicapping a scramble tournament so every team would have an equal chance to win?"

You have asked one of the toughest questions in handicapping and achieving equity in a scramble format is hard to accomplish.

First off, in any scramble format, the teams with the best golfers always will have a big advantage. A single digit handicap player hits better drives, approach shots and putts than beginner golfers. Rarely does every team have one good player and usually there is a big difference in the skill level of the best (A-class) player on each team. The team that happens to have a near-scratch golfer has a big advantage over other teams that is hard to overcome......

The term "playing ability" is hard to define in a scramble because USGA Handicap Indexes are based on total hole scores covering 18 holes. There are lots of different ways to develop a 17.0 Handicap Index, for example. You might be a "Wild Willy", who hits the long ball, but without much accuracy and not much finesse in the short game. This is a player who can help his team off the tee, but may not be much use for the rest of the way to the hole. You might be a "Steady Eddy" who hits short, but straight shots and stays out of trouble most of the time, unless there is a long carry over water on a hole. Steady Eddy is a great player to have on a team--after the tee shot has been selected. Most of us might fit better in the category of "Average Andy". We hit some good shots and some bad shots and some of our shots might get used by the team. Whichever category that a player fits into, the USGA Handicap Index is not a great way to determine "playing ability" in a scramble, just because handicaps are based on total scores and not how you got those scores. A scramble is based on the individual components of playing a hole--Driving ability, approach shot ability, and getting up and down, which includes chipping, bunker play and putting.

There is no answer to the question that will give you perfect equity, but this is what I think you should try:

• Assign players to four levels, A, B, C, D based on the handicaps of the entered field.
• Form four-person teams (as best you can) with an A-player, B, C and D-player on each team. Use a "reverse wrap-around" method of assigning players. That is to say, the best A-player should get the worst B-player on his team. DO NOT ALLOW PLAYERS TO FORM THEIR OWN TEAMS. You need to break up the "ringers" if you want to create any sort of equity. Besides, Scrambles are a great way to meet new people and this should be encouraged.
• Handicap each team as follows: 20% of the A-player's handicap, plus 15% of the B, 10% of the C and 5% of the D. Add the results, round off the total to a whole number and that is the team's handicap.
• Subtract the team handicap from the team's scramble score to determine the team net score. This will sometimes produce some extremely low net scores, but it does not matter. The net scores will "compress" the results and make for a closer and more fair competition.
• If you want to even the results out even further, make each player use three of their drives/tee-offs in the team competition. Don't allow the same person to use two of their shots in a row on the same hole.--In other words, after a person's shot is selected, allow only the other three players on a team to hit the next shot. The first rule adds a lot of interesting strategy to the event and the second rule helps to prevent one hot player from carrying the team.

I recently played in a scramble format as suggested in the last bullet point (it was called a Mexican Scramble although I've also seen it called a Florida Scramble). The player whose ball is selected doesn't play the next shot, a restriction that affected quite a few decisions in a new way and although the team I was in didn't have any low handicapper in it, you could see how it limited the impact of our best player.

 

[tobybarker]

Sounds like the new allowances are working well.

It's a shame that some people seem to think that higher handicappers winning anything (or even being in contention) is definitive proof that the system is wrong.

At our club it's the fact that higher handicappers are winning by such large margins that's the problem

 

[Colin L]

Imo, the WHS, as a "system", is a very sound way of representing a player's ability and transferring that to a course handicap. Let's leave that "system" alone. However, the same may not be true about handicap allowance recommendations in the Handicapping Rules. Again, imo, the handicapping system is great, but the handicap allowance recommendations may need some fine tuning.
My point is to separate the handicapping system from the recommendations for handicap allowances (recommendations which some national organizations have, perhaps foolishly, made mandatory).

What you say is particularly pertinent to scramble handicap allowances and the difficulties of trying to apply a system designed for "normal" formats to a form of golf that is so wildly different from the norm, as Dean Knuth points out.

There's more than just a hint in Knuth's comments and in some of the posts in this thread that maybe we can't rely just on the allowances to help with the difficulties thrown up by this daft but popular format. I'm certainly thinking that perhaps we have to manipulate the composition of teams and the scramble rules to help even things out. In my club's scrambles we already use the rule about the number of tee shots of each player that must be chosen, each player also having to have a Par 3 tee shot chosen. I think there is value in this Mexican/Floridean format for avoiding one top player dominating. "Seeding" teams has organisational complications but could be worth looking into.

No point, however, in agonising over solutions before establishing that there is actually a problem with these scramble allowances. And here's a thought: over here we are talking of something new to us, but just how new are these allowances? Have they already been in use elsewhere in the world, with plenty of evidence of how well or badly they work? US, Australia, Canada, the rest of Europe .....?

 

[wjemather]

You criticise those of us who've collated many scores from many venues, yet post a vaguish response from 2 internal events? How many teams were there, and what were their scores?

Not criticising, just making corrections when earlier comments have been misquoted/misremembered or embellished with falsehoods.