Texas scramble handicaps

[davemc71]

​​Got a tricky one, looking for some advice. The golf club is running a Texas scramble competition (4 man team), so 1/10th combined handicap is being used to calculate the team handicap.

A team have entered who are off +2, +4, 0 and +1 so total is +7, 1/10 is +0.7. I am not sure this is the correct way to calculate Plus handicap golfers for this type of competition, any advice?

 

[rosecott]

​​Got a tricky one, looking for some advice. The golf club is running a Texas scramble competition (4 man team), so 1/10th combined handicap is being used to calculate the team handicap.

A team have entered who are off +2, +4, 0 and +1 so total is +7, 1/10 is +0.7. I am not sure this is the correct way to calculate Plus handicap golfers for this type of competition, any advice?

Seems fine to me. Add 0.7 on to their gross score.

 

[patricks148]

Seems fine to me. Add 0.7 on to their gross score.

i seam to remember when i asked about + handicaps i was told the idea is to cut the diff in the lowest to the highest, so shouldn't t just be lower the +7?? (or higher)

 

[davemc71]

i seam to remember when i asked about + handicaps i was told the idea is to cut the diff in the lowest to the highest, so shouldn't t just be lower the +7?? (or higher)

Patrick thanks for coming back, not quite sure I understand your suggestion, could you expand?

Thanks

Dave

 

[patricks148]

Patrick thanks for coming back, not quite sure I understand your suggestion, could you expand?

Thanks

Dave

We have a comp thats half handicaps and all the scratch and lower guys all played off the same handicap. half of scratch in golf is still scratch and i think some actually gained a shot.

i was mentioned on here that some comps the lower and higher handicaps are equalized to make if fairer.

 

[fundy]

We have a comp thats half handicaps and all the scratch and lower guys all played off the same handicap. half of scratch in golf is still scratch and i think some actually gained a shot.

i was mentioned on here that some comps the lower and higher handicaps are equalized to make if fairer.

Yep someone off +2 would play off +1 in a half handicap comp, not sure why thats relevant here where its just 1/10th the combined. Add em up divide by 10 and you get the answer (ie +0.7)

 

[patricks148]

Yep someone off +2 would play off +1 in a half handicap comp, not sure why thats relevant here where its just 1/10th the combined. Add em up divide by 10 and you get the answer (ie +0.7)

yes you are probably right, not much relevance, its just anything to do with + handicaps confuses the hell put of me. Just as well i'll never get anywhere near that handcap

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

yes - the + handicap situation is curious. If you had a team of 4 each playing off +3 then 1/10th of the combined is 1.2 - but you can't just add 1.2 to their better ball gross as each individually would add 3 to his gross. The calc is the wrong way round. I suggest it should be 9/10ths combined added So 9/10th of 12 = 10.8. Now that feels a bit harsh - but it basically says that on 11 out of 18 holes you are expecting one of the 4 ball to get a birdie for the nett BB to be level par gross- and that's probably right.

Anyway - without searching there is no doubt an agreed 'allowance' for such teams

 

[Region3]

The only confusion when working out plus handicaps in reduced handicap comps, is hanging on to the mistaken belief that the reason for 'part-handicap' comps is to make it harder for everyone.

Just do the maths and there's your answer. No need to question yourself when you arrive at an answer that 'doesn't look right'.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

The only confusion when working out plus handicaps in reduced handicap comps, is hanging on to the mistaken belief that the reason for 'part-handicap' comps is to make it harder for everyone.

Just do the maths and there's your answer. No need to question yourself when you arrive at an answer that 'doesn't look right'.

I don't really understand that logic.

When the worst players in the comp are forced to play with fewer shots than they usally would, how is it consistent with the handicap system for the best players to get more shots than normal?

There might be cases where accepting the outcome of the calculation as correct is appropriate, but I don't see how it is equitable to do so here.

 

[Davey247]

I dont agree with the concept of + handicaps. In my opinion if you have the ability to be shooting under par to the course each week then fair play - why give shots backs to the course.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

I dont agree with the concept of + handicaps. In my opinion if you have the ability to be shooting under par to the course each week then fair play - why give shots backs to the course.

To be consistent with the whole point of the handicap system, which is to allow golfers of all abilities to compete with each other on an equitable basis.

I would have thought most golfers in a plus handicap position will be most focussed on scratch competitions so I doubt there'd be too much concern about having to give shots back to the course in the monthly stableford!

 

[IanG]

The purpose of these reduced handicap allowance is to reduce the difference between the handicap allowance between the teams. Whether this is a achieved by reducing the number of strokes a 'minus' handicapper received or reducing the number of strokes a plus handicapper has to add to his score the outcome is the same. If you think about the arithmetic for a minute

4 +1 handicappers in a team = +0.4 team handicap
4 -2 handicappers in a team = -0.8 team handicap

4 10 handicappers in a team = -4 team handicap
4 13 handicappers in a team = -5.2 team handicap

You'll see the differential between the two pairs of teams remains 1.2 in both cases - i.e. the system is equitable.

 

[Region3]

I don't really understand that logic.

When the worst players in the comp are forced to play with fewer shots than they usally would, how is it consistent with the handicap system for the best players to get more shots than normal?

There might be cases where accepting the outcome of the calculation as correct is appropriate, but I don't see how it is equitable to do so here.

I wasn't trying to say whether I agree with it or not, just that it's the right way to do it regardless of the fact it looks a bit odd and might not seem logical.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

The purpose of these reduced handicap allowance is to reduce the difference between the handicap allowance between the teams. Whether this is a achieved by reducing the number of strokes a 'minus' handicapper received or reducing the number of strokes a plus handicapper has to add to his score the outcome is the same. If you think about the arithmetic for a minute

4 +1 handicappers in a team = +0.4 team handicap
4 -2 handicappers in a team = -0.8 team handicap

4 10 handicappers in a team = -4 team handicap
4 13 handicappers in a team = -5.2 team handicap

You'll see the differential between the two pairs of teams remains 1.2 in both cases - i.e. the system is equitable.

Makes sense, there's always 1/10th of the difference in total handicaps between any two teams.

When thinking about it earlier, I was thinking that it was unfair as if everyone played to their handicap in each team (take a team of 28 handicappers and a team of +4 handicappers) then the revised handicaps would lead to the plus handicappers winning without playing any better relative to their ability.

However, that's not really the right way of looking at it. High handicap players, say a 24, don't have 12 bogies and 6 doubles, but more likely a smattering of pars, bogies, doubles and the rest! So the texas scramble format actually puts the high handicapper team at a big advantage as a result of the format of the competition - those very damaging shots which lead to the 8's, 9's etc. are eliminated.

I'm happy with how that works now, thank you.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

I wasn't trying to say whether I agree with it or not, just that it's the right way to do it regardless of the fact it looks a bit odd and might not seem logical.

Having thought about it more, in particular the peculiarities of the Texas Scramble format, and in the context of IanG's explanation, this all makes sense to me now.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

So the texas scramble format actually puts the high handicapper team at a big advantage as a result of the format of the competition - those very damaging shots which lead to the 8's, 9's etc. are eliminated.

I have to disagree there. My old club used to play a lot of Texas Scrambles. Low handicappers won time and time again. Their ability to create and make birdies more often than high h/c far outweighed the shots given to high h/c. We played it for fun but we pretty much knew which teams would be competing to win and we were rarely wrong.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I think a team of four low single figure guys won a texas scramble last year with 16 birdies, an eagle and a par (gross). Skooted the comp.

 

[Foxholer]

The only confusion when working out plus handicaps in reduced handicap comps, is hanging on to the mistaken belief that the reason for 'part-handicap' comps is to make it harder for everyone.

Just do the maths and there's your answer. No need to question yourself when you arrive at an answer that 'doesn't look right'.

I don't really understand that logic.

When the worst players in the comp are forced to play with fewer shots than they usally would, how is it consistent with the handicap system for the best players to get more shots than normal?

There might be cases where accepting the outcome of the calculation as correct is appropriate, but I don't see how it is equitable to do so here.

There is another way, though it's a tad more complicated to conceive!

Move the 'zero/scratch' value to that of the lowest handicapper - probably the +4 in this case. In effect, give every other team an additional 1.6 handicap (4*0.4), while giving this team 0.9 (.2+.4+.3)!

Oh gee, what a surprise! The effect is exactly the same! It's as if the Plus Handicap team are playing off +0.7!!! :rofl:

 

[Canary_Yellow]

There is another way, though it's a tad more complicated to conceive!

Move the 'zero/scratch' value to that of the lowest handicapper - probably the +4 in this case. In effect, give every other team an additional 1.6 handicap (4*0.4), while giving this team 0.9 (.2+.4+.3)!

Oh gee, what a surprise! The effect is exactly the same! It's as if the Plus Handicap team are playing off +0.7!!! :rofl:

IanG made the point 6 hours ago.

It still seems slightly perverse to me that the best players get more shots than normal but the worst players get far fewer.

But it's Texas scramble so I guess the expectation is as I set out above - the format will be of greater benefit to high handicappers than low - although sounds like it's not always the case.