Texas Scramble Allowances

[3offTheTee]

There have been some meaningless threads on here but this is close to “taking the biscuit”!

In summary somebody does not like the allowance and will not accept the change. It has been explained by many people extremely well versed in rules but still it goes on.

These are the allowances, end of story, they have changed, and accept the change. If you don’t like them and your team do not like them enter another competition where you feel the allowances are more preferable for your handicap along with your team.

 

[rulefan]

1. Scramble scores aren't tracked
2. Until Nov 2020 they didn't even acknowledge them as a valid form of golf

Yet now we're supposed to believe they have data to back up their farcical handicap allowances? Aye right

So you are saying that they are lying to me or I am lying to you?

But you have avoided answering my questions.

The origins of WHS go back over 8 years. It is likely the major Handicapping authorities (not Rules authorities) decided they should look at the wider world where scrambles are actually played without any confirmation about whether 10% or any other figure made sense.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

So you are saying that they are lying to me or I am lying to you?

But you have avoided answering my questions.

The origins of WHS go back over 8 years. It is likely the major Handicapping authorities (not Rules authorities) decided they should look at the wider world where scrambles are actually played without any confirmation about whether 10% or any other figure made sense.

I've asked you for evidence before, then you clam up. Where's the statistical evidence to back this up?

Where in the world were these scrambles being tracked, when until the end of last year the golf authorities refused to acknowledge their existence? How did they track them, did they go around clubs picking up scorecards?

We both know that you're defending your line by claiming to be ITK here. There's no such data, no such data analysis been done.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

There have been some meaningless threads on here but this is close to “taking the biscuit”!

In summary somebody does not like the allowance and will not accept the change. It has been explained by many people extremely well versed in rules but still it goes on.

These are the allowances, end of story, they have changed, and accept the change. If you don’t like them and your team do not like them enter another competition where you feel the allowances are more preferable for your handicap along with your team.

Used to be 3/4 in matchplay. Used to be 3/4 in stableford. Used to be 3/4 in 4BBB

People complained, allowances were looked at and changed, some more than once.

 

[Swango1980]

1. Scramble scores aren't tracked
2. Until Nov 2020 they didn't even acknowledge them as a valid form of golf

Yet now we're supposed to believe they have data to back up their farcical handicap allowances? Aye right

What makes you think the authorities were unable to study this issue? You did after all, and undoubtedly they have more data than you

 

[Deleted member 15344]

What makes you think the authorities were unable to study this issue? You did after all, and undoubtedly they have more data than you

Sorry but how did they get the data to study when scores from team events don’t get sent to the Congu/EG etc etc

They may will have used the single scores people got and used algorithms just like with 4BBB and indeed all teams scores ( and that I know is the case )

The allowance is what it is - we have had two so far and both have favoured teams of high handicaps but we will see over the next couple if it spreads the winners ( our previous TS did )

But the governing bodies in the UK don’t get sent the scores from team events

 

[BiMGuy]

8 pages of discussion on scramble allowances ? wow.

 

[Colin L]

It's a damned sight more than what the golf authorities have done.

Sorry but how did they get the data to study when scores from team events don’t get sent to the Congu/EG etc etc
But the governing bodies in the UK don’t get sent the scores from team events

There is rather more to the golfing world than the UK. The WHS was developed by the R&A and the USGA in consultation with golfing authorities worldwide, not by the governing bodies of the UK. I don't know what data they used for any of the outcomes of the system, but I have just a little bit more confidence that the outcomes have been researched in a little more depth and subjected to rather more rigorous checking than any of us could dream of doing. The two major world golf authorities did not spend seven years developing a handicapping system by holding up a wetted finger to the wind and scribbling something down on the back of a fag packet.

That doesn't guarantee that they have got everything right, but I do tend to have a deal more confidence in the two major world golfing authorities than in the opinions of a guy up Deeside way based on around 9 months of the system going operational. And confidence is all it is as I have no access to the data nor the statistical savvy to make use of it.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

There is rather more to the golfing world than the UK. The WHS was developed by the R&A and the USGA in consultation with golfing authorities worldwide, not by the governing bodies of the UK. I don't know what data they used for any of the outcomes of the system, but I have just a little bit more confidence that the outcomes have been researched in a little more depth and subjected to rather more rigorous checking than any of us could dream of doing. The two major world golf authorities did not spend seven years developing a handicapping system by holding up a wetted finger to the wind and scribbling something down on the back of a fag packet.

That doesn't guarantee that they have got everything right, but I do tend to have a deal more confidence in the two major world golfing authorities than in the opinions of a guy up Deeside way based on around 9 months of the system going operational. And confidence is all it is as I have no access to the data nor the statistical savvy to make use of it.

As I said - the allowances are what they are and i have no doubt they have used some sort of algorithm but I also expect some changes over the years as the actual evidence occurs - we have seen it in the past with changes to over HC allowances

As for confidence in the bodies - seen enough issues in the past to understand that I’ll don’t see ever having full confidence in them

As for “worldwide” - the fact is the WHS is anything but “worldwide”

 

[Banchory Buddha]

What makes you think the authorities were unable to study this issue? You did after all, and undoubtedly they have more data than you

I did it by trawling through facebook pages where clubs were posting their scores, looking at the handicaps, and adjusting to this years allowances, and indeed vice versa.

Do you think that's what the R&A were doing? Because these scores don't get reported anywhere else.

 

[doublebogey7]

I did it by trawling through facebook pages where clubs were posting their scores, looking at the handicaps, and adjusting to this years allowances, and indeed vice versa.

Do you think that's what the R&A were doing? Because these scores don't get reported anywhere else.

That is not actually true though is it, clubs who use Club V1 have been able to enter scramble scores onto the database for some years. So it cannot be beyond the realms of possibilities that CONGU, or whoever as done the analysis, could have requested the information from the ISV's.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

That is not actually true though is it, clubs who use Club V1 have been able to enter scramble scores onto the database for some years. So it cannot be beyond the realms of possibilities that CONGU, or whoever as done the analysis, could have requested the information from the ISV's.

Never seen one do that, so yes it is true.

 

[rulefan]

Sorry but how did they get the data to study when scores from team events don’t get sent to the Congu/EG etc etc

But the governing bodies in the UK don’t get sent the scores from team events

I have repeatedly said that CONGU/EG did not and do not collect such data. Other bodies did I am told.

I've asked you for evidence before, then you clam up. Where's the statistical evidence to back this up?

Where in the world were these scrambles being tracked, when until the end of last year the golf authorities refused to acknowledge their existence? How did they track them, did they go around clubs picking up scorecards?

We both know that you're defending your line by claiming to be ITK here. There's no such data, no such data analysis been done.

I have not claimed to be ITK but I have contact with people who are. So you are saying I or 'they' are lying?

The 'authorities' have not refused to acknowledge the existence of scrambles. Specifically, the R&A were not previously involved in handicapping at all and didn't write any relevant Rule of Golf. There still isn't a RoG (and I suspect that is because it would involve too many exceptions). I don't know when or how Handicapping authorities started collecting data but they have had at least 8 years to do it.

But why aren't you also challenging the other allowances? Do you know how that data was collected, the volume of data, the algorithms involved?

 

[rulefan]

Never seen one do that, so yes it is true.

So something is true even when you have no knowledge of it?

 

[Colin L]

There's no such data, no such data analysis been done.

On what basis can you state that over the last seven or more years the R&A/USGA has not analysed any data? The more you make unsubstantiated and unsustainable statements like this, the less anyone will pay attention to what you say and the greater the likelihood that anything you might have to say that is worth paying attention to will go unnoticed.

A thread which could have been an interesting and useful discussion of scramble allowances has been subverted into a pointless spat. That's a pity.

 

[badgergm]

On what basis can you state that over the last seven or more years the R&A/USGA has not analysed any data? The more you make unsubstantiated and unsustainable statements like this, the less anyone will pay attention to what you say and the greater the likelihood that anything you might have to say that is worth paying attention to will go unnoticed.

A thread which could have been an interesting and useful discussion of scramble allowances has been subverted into a pointless spat. That's a pity.

There’s an easy answer though - publish the data, or a summary of it. Same with PCC algorithm for example. Why not?

 

[Colin L]

There’s an easy answer though - publish the data, or a summary of it. Same with PCC algorithm for example. Why not?

I don't know. Write to the R&A and ask.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Well another Texas scramble today

We went round in 10 under - take away our 6 shots to finish 16 under

Two teams in within 22 and 21 under - 1 team started with 18 shots and the other 17 shots ?????

Won’t take long until the HC allowances are sacked off and going back to the old format

 

[Colin L]

Well another Texas scramble today

We went round in 10 under - take away our 6 shots to finish 16 under

Two teams in within 22 and 21 under - 1 team started with 18 shots and the other 17 shots ?????

Won’t take long until the HC allowances are sacked off and going back to the old format

Why so? Because you didn’t win?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Why so? Because you didn’t win?

I have never won a scramble regardless of what format

Because for the 4 scramble in a row now it’s going to be won by high handicappers and low handicappers have zero chance of even getting near a chance of winning

Our previous HC allowances allowed for a mix of winners.

If people know there is no chance of them competing in the comp then people will just stop entering . The allowances they have chosen do not provide any balance