Texas Scramble Allowances

[Deleted member 30522]

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.

Mate, above rulefan was asking how many points folks were scoring, and how I knew what each player scored on individual holes. Christ on a bike

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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.

Secondly, winning *scores* , you know, 1st, 2nd, etc......what's needed to get in the frame.

I've not seen this evidence, one guy has posted about a 2 ball scramble at his own club, something I've never seen and is in no way comparative.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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.

As I said, keep posting the same thing. Where's one bit of evidence from CONGU or WHS that they researched these figures? Go on, post it?

And I've addressed the changes our team has as well, despite that you still told me we were looking to score one shot better (than our best ever) to be beating the field. I spelled it out for you why that wasn't the case. If you're not bothering to read my posts, don't critique them

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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?

Wow, that's appallingly bad scoring. My scores are from opens this year, and looking at ones from last year.

Our club Scramble which was held a couple weeks back (not an open) only had 8 teams, also par 72/74, winning score was 50.4, last was 64.something, I'd have to go check and I canna be arsed.

 

[rulefan]

Sorry you are disappointed with the scores but these were just Sunday Socials.

 

[rulefan]

As I said, keep posting the same thing. Where's one bit of evidence from CONGU or WHS that they researched these figures? Go on, post it?

I have already posted to the effect the EG did not have any direct input to the the data. Just what Scotland had I don't know. However I have indicated that the technical department of the WHS organisation did have a lot of data from, I believe, Australia and the US in particular and did significant number crunching. I'm afraid you'll have to trust that I have genuine sources in most of the involved bodies but am not permitted to quote verbatim nor name my contacts. I am comfortable that the information I have put out is accurate and reliable. I can't add any more.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Sorry you are disappointed with the scores but these were just Sunday Socials.

Well why post them, totally irrelevant. You seemed to be trying to make a point that scores aren't now ridiculous, they clearly are.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I have already posted to the effect the EG did not have any direct input to the the data. Just what Scotland had I don't know. However I have indicated that the technical department of the WHS organisation did have a lot of data from, I believe, Australia and the US in particular and did significant number crunching. I'm afraid you'll have to trust that I have genuine sources in most of the involved bodies but am not permitted to quote verbatim nor name my contacts. I am comfortable that the information I have put out is accurate and reliable. I can't add any more.

How did they get this data when TS were not an approved form of golf? How did they collect this data?

They've clearly got it wrong, I expected a set of results to occur, and they are occurring exactly as expected, so someone at Australia golf or the PGA doesn't know what they're doing. (a bit like bringing in the drop for a lost ball or OOB, how's that going again?)

 

[rulefan]

You seem to be very confused. The PGA has nothing to do with handicaps.
But exactly what method and algorithm would you have developed? Why is 10% better than 7.3% or 5%?

 

[Colin L]

Well why post them, totally irrelevant. You seemed to be trying to make a point that scores aren't now ridiculous, they clearly are.

I expect I’ve asked this before. What are you comparing them with? Not normal medal play obviously. Against what measure are you judging them to be ridiculous? Give it all a chance to settle in.

Scramble scores are going to be lower than before because every side gets a higher handicap than before. The question which has to be asked of this as of every format is whether it equalises adequately such that each side has a chance of winning. Checking that has the complication that not every handicap index necessarily reflects a player’s current ability and that the WHS system is less than a year old for us. Too soon to have enough on which to base judgments.

 

[DickInShorts]

Anecdotally all the ones I’ve looked were won by low handicap teams with higher handicap teams just there for a day out.
If the new allowances give everybody a chance of winning then it must be an improvement- surely?

 

[doublebogey7]

Anecdotally all the ones I’ve looked were won by low handicap teams with higher handicap teams just there for a day out.
If the new allowances give everybody a chance of winning then it must be an improvement- surely?

Not for those with a low handicap?

 

[rulefan]

Anecdotally all the ones I’ve looked were won by low handicap teams with higher handicap teams just there for a day out.

Can I assume you mean pre WHS allowances?

 

[D-S]

Not sure about the rights and wrongs (was there much of a furore about the previous allowances being unfair? - I can’t remember it if there was).
However, played in a local Open scramble yesterday and it was won by a team receiving 13 shots, (so reasonably high‘ish handicappers) on a par 73 course with a net 47, 13 under gross.
My team with 4.5, 10.6, 11.4 and I think 20.0 had 8 shots. We would have needed to shoot 19 under gross to win, also needed to take 4 drives each.
Honestly no point in entering, we could never in a million years have scored that. Is it the allowances?, is it the new handicap indexes? is it good old fashioned banditry? No idea but we won’t be playing this format in an Open anytime soon.

 

[Old Skier]

You do know it is possible for things to be wrong - Maybe it’s another case of people making judgments from incorrect research or people doing the research not playing the game but either way the HC allowance for texas scramble wasn’t from going through clubs Texas scramble results - it was from looking at years of results from singles competitions .

Clubs will do whatever they want with Texas Scrambles at the end of the day - not really a recognised format

Having had our county EG rep on our latest county meeting yesterday, it was stated in no uncertain terms that clubs that are affiliated to EG MUST use the MANDATORY ALLOWANCE as laid down.

Clubs that don’t wish to be affiliated I assume can do what they want.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Having had our county EG rep on our latest county meeting yesterday, it was stated in no uncertain terms that clubs that are affiliated to EG MUST use the MANDATORY ALLOWANCE as laid down.

Clubs that don’t wish to be affiliated I assume can do what they want.

Did the county rep state how they will know that clubs will be following the Texas Scramble allowance ? And what it is the would happen if a club held scrambles using a different allowance?

Or is the answer - they will have not the first clue if a club held any scrambles of different allowances

And nothing would happen to a club if they used different allowances

 

[Old Skier]

Did the county rep state how they will know that clubs will be following the Texas Scramble allowance ? And what it is the would happen if a club held scrambles using a different allowance?

Or is the answer - they will have not the first clue if a club held any scrambles of different allowances

And nothing would happen to a club if they used different allowances

Im only passing on the message. EG wouldn’t have a clue what allowances are used until someone says something and as an ex Committee member you know like I there is always someone in a club who will fire of an email to EG because your not “following the rules”.

Not sure how you know nothing would happen to a club not following mandatory rules or are we in the realms of just following the rules that a club agrees with and bin the rest.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Im only passing on the message. EG wouldn’t have a clue what allowances are used until someone says something and as an ex Committee member you know like I there is always someone in a club who will fire of an email to EG because your not “following the rules”.

Even if someone was that snidey to send off an email - EG would do nothing at the end of the day.

 

[Old Skier]

Even if someone was that snidey to send off an email - EG would do nothing at the end of the day.

Glad you have the inside track, that wasn’t the impression given.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Glad you have the inside track, that wasn’t the impression given.

What would they do ?A strongly worded telling off ? They aren’t going to remove a clubs affiliation - can’t impose any levels of financial fines.