AliMc
Well-known member
Seems to be happening already, played in 2 recently where the hosting club have gone back to 10% of combined h'caps
Texas Scramble Allowances
- Thread starter bunkerblaster
- Start date
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
I’m not surprised- we thought that 10% favoured the low handicaps so went to 15% for one and 20% for another
AliMc
Well-known member
Sorry my mistake, one went for 10% the other 15%, one in East Lothian and the other in Edinburgh
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Not had any problems but we normally do drawn balanced teams through the software.
Where teams can sort themselves its easy to manipulate a Texas putting in a high high HC player.
Where teams can sort themselves its easy to manipulate a Texas putting in a high high HC player.
nickjdavis
Head Pro
We are having our very first scramble using the new allowances today. Will see what sort of scores come in. Previously any scramble involving four players who were all single digit handicaps....well....rest of the field might not have bothered turning up.
The old 1/10th allowance favoured low handicappers all the time.
Now the allowance (assuming four players of the same handicap) effectively works out at 1/5.7th (17.5%) which to my mind without seeing any results from my own club has probably swung the pendulum a little bit too far the other way. My historical gut feel was always that somewhere around 1/7th (14.3%) was about right for a 4 ball scramble.
The old 1/10th allowance favoured low handicappers all the time.
Now the allowance (assuming four players of the same handicap) effectively works out at 1/5.7th (17.5%) which to my mind without seeing any results from my own club has probably swung the pendulum a little bit too far the other way. My historical gut feel was always that somewhere around 1/7th (14.3%) was about right for a 4 ball scramble.
D-S
Well-known member
I’ve only played in one Open Scramble so far under the new allowances and our team with HI’s of 4.5, 11.4, 11.9 and 21 (I think) would have needed to shoot 19 under gross to win. If this is what we can expect, we will not entering any for a while.
Colin L
Tour Winner
What were the course handicaps?
D-S
Well-known member
Whose Course handicaps do you require ?(I could work out our course handicaps if you want) These are the details of the course and the winners - Chipping Sodbury GC,Open Texas Scramble, Green tees, par 73 CR 71.6, slope 129, 6342 yards. The handicap indexes of the winners were 12.3, 13.5, 16.5 and 18.0 - these were from the start sheet on entry so may have changed a bit, score gross 60 (13 under) net 47.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
We have had a team just come in with a gross 16 net 18 under 20th place ??
My previous experience of scrambles is that low handicap teams win time and time again. Your last paragraph was applicable to higher h/c players for many years, why I stopped playing in them.
It could well be that the pendulum has swung too far the other way but don't believe the previous system created a level playing field because it really didn't.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Hence why went for 15% and 20% allowances which allowed a mix of HCs to win
I wish more followed that lead if it worked. Scrambles are a really fun format but if you know from the very beginning that you don't stand an earthly then the fun goes from them and you stop entering.
AliMc
Well-known member
Seems about the correct place Phil, the last 4 we have played in have all been won with 20+ under, at one we shot 13 under gross 17 under net and weren't close to the top 10, I'm just playing this year as a reserve for a regular who has had a knee replacement, they have already said they won't be entering many next year, they usually play about one a week but just can't compete now so what's the point
Swango1980
Well-known member
Not sure I'll be playing in a scramble again in which there are mixed genders. Nothing sexist, but we hit some spanking drives, yet the 4 ladies behind us (getting on in years), were hitting it a long way past our drives from the very advanced red tees. Any team with a mixture of men and women could be at a huge advantage, not to mention a decent handicap advantage as well
Colin L
Tour Winner
The playing handicap of the winning team on these figures is 11 giving a net score of 49 from a gross of 60
The playing handicap of your team is 8. Your team would need to gross 57 to equal that net score.
That's only 3 strokes difference. What am I missing?
Colin L
Tour Winner
Are you taking into account that the women's course handicaps would have been worked out on the women's slope rating of the red course and that there would be an adjustment to be made should there be a difference between the course ratings of the courses the women and the men played?
Swango1980
Well-known member
How does that work when the tees on many of the holes are miles further forward, and the woman doesn't have to play the entire hole? Could have replaced any one of our team (highest handicap mid teens) with a woman in 20's handicap, and we would have been in much stronger position. For example, one hole is a par 5 for men, par 4 for ladies. We had 260 yards to go to green in 2. If we had a lady in team, we'd have had less than 200 yards to green. Nett 50 won the comp. At a scramble on Saturday, a team I know finished 12 under gross (9 handicap lowest, rest teens, so not scratch players) and were only mid leaderboard. That was a great score for them, and not a chance. Nett 45 won it, which was a mixture of men and women.
The scores are ridiculous. But it also makes me wonder, are handicaps not just an absolute mockery in scramble, made worse by WHS guidelines. Surely the point in a handicap is to give shots to those that need them. But, most teams in scramble usually finish gross UNDER par. Surely scramble teams should have PLUS handicaps?
D-S
Well-known member
Sincere apologies as you see below we scored gross 69 (4 below par) giving a net 60. In order to win we would have needed net 46 gross 55 a mere 18 under par not 19 as I previously quoted (sorry) - still doesn’t make entering scrambles an enticing prospect does it?
https://chippingsodbury.intelligentgolf.co.uk/viewround.php?roundid=130108
This is the winning team’s score
https://chippingsodbury.intelligentgolf.co.uk/viewround.php?roundid=130124
Colin L
Tour Winner
Scramble scores only seem "ridiculous" if you think you can compare what four players can score given the choice of outcome of four attempts at every single shot in a round with the score of a single player in a medal. The idea is ridiculous in itself.
The winning net score in our Open Scramble last week was 52 on a course with a CR of 70 and a slope of 126. Is a gross 52 an unrealistic target for a team of low handicappers? How unreasonable is it to say that four scratch players, each expected to be able to go round individually in 70 could sometimes match that? Is it wholly unreasonable to say that four scratch players should, on that day in the sun, be able to knock a stroke a hole off their individual norm? Four goes at every shot, remember!
I'm keeping an open mind about the new allowances because I have seen any statistical evidence on which to base any conclusions. What one group managed to do on one occasion compared with what another group did on the same occasion doesn't amount to statistical evidence.
Forget about par. It's not an accurate measure in the first place but along with course ratings, totally meaningless when it comes to a scramble. We don't have a measure of how many strokes 4 scratch players should take on a particular hole given 4 shots a time to choose from, but in time we'll get an idea for what is a winning scramble score and be able to relate to that. Give the new allowances a chance. There's an unseemly gallop to drawing premature conclusions going on.
Swango1980
Well-known member
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.Scramble scores only seem "ridiculous" if you think you can compare what four players can score given the choice of outcome of four attempts at every single shot in a round with the score of a single player in a medal. The idea is ridiculous in itself.
The winning net score in our Open Scramble last week was 52 on a course with a CR of 70 and a slope of 126. Is a gross 52 an unrealistic target for a team of low handicappers? How unreasonable is it to say that four scratch players, each expected to be able to go round individually in 70 could sometimes match that? Is it wholly unreasonable to say that four scratch players should, on that day in the sun, be able to knock a stroke a hole off their individual norm? Four goes at every shot, remember!
I'm keeping an open mind about the new allowances because I have seen any statistical evidence on which to base any conclusions. What one group managed to do on one occasion compared with what another group did on the same occasion doesn't amount to statistical evidence.
Forget about par. It's not an accurate measure in the first place but along with course ratings, totally meaningless when it comes to a scramble. We don't have a measure of how many strokes 4 scratch players should take on a particular hole given 4 shots a time to choose from, but in time we'll get an idea for what is a winning scramble score and be able to relate to that. Give the new allowances a chance. There's an unseemly gallop to drawing premature conclusions going on.
It is correct we only have limited tournaments to.see what is going on at the moment. At my old club, it was difficult to.tell, as teams where picked on a balanced draw, one low, one medium and one high handicapper. All men. So one would expect a competitive event.
However, when any handicapper can be in any team, winning scores suddenly become absurdly impossible for other teams to beat. Yesterday, our team would have had to.shoot 15 under gross to win (lowest handicap 9, highest 17ish). A team of 4 scratch players would have had to shoot 23 under par gross. That has got to be a tall order.
Stick a lady in your team, suddenly you'd be taking your 2nd shot 50 yards closer to the hole compared to taking DeChambeaus drive off the back tees on some holes.
So, despite it being early days, I am happy to be critical based on early experiences. In my own individual experience, WHS has sucked the fun out of scramble. The fun being competing as a team and cheering when one of us makes a putt. Now it just feels, who cares if it goes in or not, we'll never get anywhere near the prizes. I suspect the tactics in scramble will to try and get big juicy handicappers in your team, maybe one low handicapper to do the scoring.
Similar threads
