Texas Scramble Allowances

[Colin L]

Colin, there were texas scrambles last year

Which was after the minute the allowances were announced.

But I’m really more interested in the facts and figures rather than in being a smart arse. You’ve been clear about your conclusions. But how did you get there? It could save me a heap of time!

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Which was after the minute the allowances were announced.

But I’m really more interested in the facts and figures rather than in being a smart arse. You’ve been clear about your conclusions. But how did you get there?

This can't be this hard for you? There were last years results, then you have a look at how they pan out if the new allowances had been used.

Our team generally played between 2.0 & 2.2, our best ever score was 15 under gross (out of the vouchers at Banchory), our second best 14 under gross (Montrose 1st). We're not good enough to score 18 under or better, which is what is now required at nearly every event, off the 4 strokes or so we'd be getting now.

 

[wjemather]

This can't be this hard for you? There were last years results, then you have a look at how they pan out if the new allowances had been used.

Our team generally played between 2.0 & 2.2, our best ever score was 15 under gross (out of the vouchers at Banchory), our second best 14 under gross (Montrose 1st). We're not good enough to score 18 under or better, which is what is now required at nearly every event, off the 4 strokes or so we'd be getting now.

Have you analysed the scores from the entire field for all of these scrambles and applied the different allowances, or only your own scores (and maybe one or two others)?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Have you analysed the scores from the entire field for all of these scrambles and applied the different allowances, or only your own scores (and maybe one or two others)?

Own scores, winning scores, you're right iwe'd drop even further down the field, but that's not the point, it was to see if these were worth entering, they're not. For eg. I only enter scratch events at away courses if I really want to play the course and have never played it, because 1. an open is cheap 2. I have no chance of winning. With a scramble you're not even getting to play the course, it's a pick it up and move it about cheaty cheaty bang bang game.

 

[bunkerblaster]

Its all over. 7 x teams of 3, 1 x team of 4. Two players did not stay overnight so we could not have 9 x teams of 3. Guess what, the team of 4 won by 0.7. We used the old divide by 10 and 6 method. Will re-calculate with new allowances.

 

[rulefan]

It can't be on actual results? How else would you do it?

I calculated our old/new allowances, looked at how it would affect higher handicapped teams, looked at old results and how they'd change, guess fit? What was the expected outcome this year is the actual outcome, as everyone keeps saying. How weird eh? It's pretty simple arithmetic

Did you really have access to hole by hole scores for each individual player? How do you know just what points each player scores or would have under WHS? How many scrambes did you analyse?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Did you really have access to hole by hole scores for each individual player? How do you know just what points each player scores or would have under WHS? How many scrambes did you analyse?

Points? Scrambles are net, and a team score, there's no individual scoring

 

[jim8flog]

Thanks for all the replies. Clearly a contentious issue. The answer to my question appears to be the official allowances table does not cover mixed three and four ball teams. So we are going to stick with our modified old system which meant that 3 ball teams, who previously never won against the majority of 4 ball teams did have the odd win. Four attempts at a breaking putt appears to give a far better chance of success than three. So its Team of 4 divide total handicap by 10, min 4 drives each, Team of 3 divide total handicap by 6, minimum 5 drives each maximum 7. This seems to work well, and our scores will not be going via the ISV or EG platform. We always have low medium and high handicap teams.

Thanks

For future reference and further to my post #5

Most of what you need is covered in the Guidance to the Rules of Handicapping Appendix I

 

[Colin L]

Our team generally played between 2.0 & 2.2, our best ever score was 15 under gross (out of the vouchers at Banchory), our second best 14 under gross (Montrose 1st). We're not good enough to score 18 under or better, which is what is now required at nearly every event, off the 4 strokes or so we'd be getting now.

Is that it? The WHS handicap allowances are rubbish on the basis of your reckoning that one side, bearing in mind that it is getting two more strokes than before, can't beat their previous best by one stroke?
I must be missing something.

 

[rulefan]

We're not good enough to score 18 under or better, which is what is now required at nearly every event, .

How many events is that?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Is that it? The WHS handicap allowances are rubbish on the basis of your reckoning that one side, bearing in mind that it is getting two more strokes than before, can't beat their previous best by one stroke?
I must be missing something.

I'm not sure how you're being so obtuse. So I think I'll leave you to it.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

How many events is that?

God knows, probably played over 50 the last ten years

 

[rulefan]

God knows, probably played over 50 the last ten years

You said "We're not good enough to score 18 under or better, which is what is now required at nearly every event".
I took it that you have to score 18 or under to win an event now? Do you mean scrambles played under WHS allowances? How many events is that?
Do you now what the handicap allowance range was for the teams.
We have recently run two randomly drawn, mixed gender & tee scrambles. The WHS team handicaps were between 15 & 22. The best 3 net strokes were 60, 61 & 62. The worst 70.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

You said "We're not good enough to score 18 under or better, which is what is now required at nearly every event".
I took it that you have to score 18 or under to win an event now? Do you mean scrambles played under WHS allowances? How many events is that?
Do you now what the handicap allowance range was for the teams.
We have recently run two randomly drawn, mixed gender & tee scrambles. The WHS team handicaps were between 15 & 22. The best 3 net strokes were 60, 61 & 62. The worst 70.

Yes we'd have to score at least a gross 18 under to win scrambles now, which is something in the last ten years we've not come close to, indeed never close in the 25+ years since Dufftown were the first to hold such an event.

I'm pretty tired of explaining and re-explaining the same thing, the allowances are too high, I set out the differences, even with our extra 2 shots we'd now get, we'd still have to improve by 2 shots gross over the best scramble score we've ever shot in the 25 or so years that these have been going around the Open circuit, to *maybe* win some of the scrambles held this year. That isn't possible.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Y
We have recently run two randomly drawn, mixed gender & tee scrambles. The WHS team handicaps were between 15 & 22. The best 3 net strokes were 60, 61 & 62. The worst 70.

That's a 2 ball scramble, I've never played one, they're hens teeth, I've no idea how that compares to previous years. Net 60 on a what? Par 66, par 72, what? Good grief you want me to give figures and come out with that? What were the scores in previous years? How did you analyse this? How are scores at other clubs comparing?

 

[rulefan]

That's a 2 ball scramble, I've never played one, they're hens teeth, I've no idea how that compares to previous years. Net 60 on a what? Par 66, par 72, what? Good grief you want me to give figures and come out with that? What were the scores in previous years? How did you analyse this? How are scores at other clubs comparing?

4 person teams. Par different for men's and ladies' tees (but 72 & 74).

But you are the one querying the allowances and complaining you have to score 18 under. I have no issue with the numbers. Where do your stats come from?

 

[badgergm]

God knows, probably played over 50 the last ten years

I’m astonished that you play 5 events a year on a format you despise!
I’m also astonished at all these open scrambles. Maybe I’m looking in the wrong place but all the team events I’ve ever seen advertised in the north west are 4BBB or am-am type events.

only scramble we ever play is a captain’s drive in shotgun type of nonsense at the start of the year. Even thsts one too many IMO.

 

[wjemather]

Own scores, winning scores, you're right iwe'd drop even further down the field, but that's not the point, it was to see if these were worth entering, they're not. For eg. I only enter scratch events at away courses if I really want to play the course and have never played it, because 1. an open is cheap 2. I have no chance of winning. With a scramble you're not even getting to play the course, it's a pick it up and move it about cheaty cheaty bang bang game.

I'm pretty tired of explaining and re-explaining the same thing, the allowances are too high, I set out the differences, even with our extra 2 shots we'd now get, we'd still have to improve by 2 shots gross over the best scramble score we've ever shot in the 25 or so years that these have been going around the Open circuit, to *maybe* win some of the scrambles held this year. That isn't possible.

Just looking at your and one other score is entirely insufficient analysis to reach an evidence based conclusion. As such, you should not be surprised that your assertions are being questioned when you have no substantial evidence, particularly when others have seen more equitable results using the CONGU mandated WHS allowances than they did before.

 

[Colin L]

Y
I'm pretty tired of explaining and re-explaining the same thing, the allowances are too high, I set out the differences, even with our extra 2 shots we'd now get, we'd still have to improve by 2 shots gross over the best scramble score we've ever shot in the 25 or so years that these have been going around the Open circuit, to *maybe* win some of the scrambles held this year. That isn't possible.

The difficulty is that you have stated and restated the same thing but haven't explained or even pointed to any sort of broad-analysis which supports it.

In passing, it might be worth considering the possible effect of the changes in the handicapping system itself. You, the rest of your side and the rest of the field aren't playing off the same handicaps as before.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I’m astonished that you play 5 events a year on a format you despise!
I’m also astonished at all these open scrambles. Maybe I’m looking in the wrong place but all the team events I’ve ever seen advertised in the north west are 4BBB or am-am type events.

only scramble we ever play is a captain’s drive in shotgun type of nonsense at the start of the year. Even thsts one too many IMO.

Scotland is very different in terms of amateur opens to England.

For instance most of your individual opens are capped at 5 h'cap, ours mostly go to 28, 4BBB are very rare, am-ams are just starting to get going.

Yup I think scrambles are ***, but my golfing best mates are not members at the same club as I am, and while I play opens all year, they don't because their club is expensive, so we have a get together start and end of the year at a few scrambles. I've said above I'll be delighted if the new handicapping system sees their demise and replacement with am-ams and the return of 4BBB competitions