Texas Scramble question

[Freddie68]

Hi, we recently had a texas scramble at our club festival week, under the new handicapping system of (4 players) 25%/20%/15%/10% from lowest to highest handicap.
2 teams recorded the same score, (one team had 17 shots, the other 5 shots) and the question I wanted answered was how is the winner decided please?
I hope someone could tell me the answer please.
Regards

 

[rulie]

Hi, we recently had a texas scramble at our club festival week, under the new handicapping system of (4 players) 25%/20%/15%/10% from lowest to highest handicap.
2 teams recorded the same score, (one team had 17 shots, the other 5 shots) and the question I wanted answered was how is the winner decided please?
I hope someone could tell me the answer please.
Regards

However the Committee in charge of the competition declared (beforehand) how ties would be broken.

 

[Freddie68]

many thanks for the reply, i'll try and get clarification on that from the club

 

[chrisd]

Likely to be countback on last 9 ?

 

[jim8flog]

Previously we kept the decimal points of the handicap allowance and used that. Not sure how it works when using the new allowances but I reckon it should be pretty much the same.

 

[D-S]

Previously we kept the decimal points of the handicap allowance and used that. Not sure how it works when using the new allowances but I reckon it should be pretty much the same.

Now the ISVs round up to full shots, so I believe they are set up to use a count back system.

 

[IanMcC]

We have a 2 ball texas scramble this weekend. I have made up conversion charts to one decimal place, because using integers in a texas is plain silly. I know I will be shot down in flames for this by all the refs on here, but, hey ho!

 

[Old Skier]

We have a 2 ball texas scramble this weekend. I have made up conversion charts to one decimal place, because using integers in a texas is plain silly. I know I will be shot down in flames for this by all the refs on here, but, hey ho!

Don’t fancy the MANDATORY requirements then.

 

[rulefan]

Hi, we recently had a texas scramble at our club festival week, under the new handicapping system of (4 players) 25%/20%/15%/10% from lowest to highest handicap.
2 teams recorded the same score, (one team had 17 shots, the other 5 shots) and the question I wanted answered was how is the winner decided please?
I hope someone could tell me the answer please.
Regards

Standard conventional countback.

 

[SammmeBee]

Don’t fancy the MANDATORY requirements then.

No……those that bang on about WHS seem to just do what they like……!!!!

 

[IanMcC]

Don’t fancy the MANDATORY requirements then.

??????

 

[IanMcC]

Just reporting back on our Texas Scramble, using the 'illegal' decimal places. I thought the spread of scores was perfect. We had 72 entries. Winning score was 60.5, which is 11.5 under. Not the stupid scores I have heard lately in 'legal' 4 player scrambles. (One 18 under and one 20 under!)
Only 5 teams were over par, and 58 of the teams had a score in the 60's. If I had not used fractions there would have been multiple complex countbacks. If you feel the need to host a scramble, then 2 player 35/15 % using the decimals to one place is the way ahead.

 

[rulefan]

Just reporting back on our Texas Scramble, using the 'illegal' decimal places. I thought the spread of scores was perfect. We had 72 entries. Winning score was 60.5, which is 11.5 under. Not the stupid scores I have heard lately in 'legal' 4 player scrambles. (One 18 under and one 20 under!)
Only 5 teams were over par, and 58 of the teams had a score in the 60's. If I had not used fractions there would have been multiple complex countbacks. If you feel the need to host a scramble, then 2 player 35/15 % using the decimals to one place is the way ahead.

Have you reassessed fully using the WHS %ages?

 

[IanMcC]

Have you reassessed fully using the WHS %ages?

I must admit I haven't, but with 58 scores in the 60's and only 10 integers its pretty obvious that countbacks would be required in many instances. (It might have helped me personally, however, as my wife took the place of one of my injured mates in our 4 ball, and they beat us by 0.3 shots!! And yes, before you ask, there was full allowance for the dual tee comp.)

 

[Colin L]

I must admit I haven't, but with 58 scores in the 60's and only 10 integers its pretty obvious that countbacks would be required in many instances. (It might have helped me personally, however, as my wife took the place of one of my injured mates in our 4 ball, and they beat us by 0.3 shots!! And yes, before you ask, there was full allowance for the dual tee comp.)

Why do you feel the need to separate every single side in your results? Is there a problem in having tied scores but separating the top 3 winners or whatever by count back? Even if you want more than just the top three to be separated, your competition software may well deal with that. It does in Clubv1.

I just can't grasp the concept of a fraction of a stroke in golf.

 

[IanMcC]

Why do you feel the need to separate every single side in your results? Is there a problem in having tied scores but separating the top 3 winners or whatever by count back? Even if you want more than just the top three to be separated, your competition software may well deal with that. It does in Clubv1.

I just can't grasp the concept of a fraction of a stroke in golf.

If you follow that reasoning, you probably cant grasp 35% or 15% of a Course Handicap either. Rounding up or down is integral to handicapping, whatever method you adopt. A Texas Scramble is a fun event. I think people quite like the concept of fractions of shots. Sure, I could have had a multiple countback, but why bother with that when using decimal places does it for me? Conceivably, the winners under fractional handicapping could have finished 4th with a poor back 9. I don't see that as fairer. Do you?

 

[wjemather]

If you follow that reasoning, you probably cant grasp 35% or 15% of a Course Handicap either. Rounding up or down is integral to handicapping, whatever method you adopt. A Texas Scramble is a fun event. I think people quite like the concept of fractions of shots. Sure, I could have had a multiple countback, but why bother with that when using decimal places does it for me? Conceivably, the winners under fractional handicapping could have finished 4th with a poor back 9. I don't see that as fairer. Do you?

In this case, countback is subject to fewer rounding errors than the exact decimal.

 

[wjemather]

Just reporting back on our Texas Scramble, using the 'illegal' decimal places. I thought the spread of scores was perfect. We had 72 entries. Winning score was 60.5, which is 11.5 under. Not the stupid scores I have heard lately in 'legal' 4 player scrambles. (One 18 under and one 20 under!)
Only 5 teams were over par, and 58 of the teams had a score in the 60's. If I had not used fractions there would have been multiple complex countbacks. If you feel the need to host a scramble, then 2 player 35/15 % using the decimals to one place is the way ahead.

If I'm following you correctly, you ran a two person scramble using the CONGU mandated WHS allowances but chose to use decimals as the tie-breaker rather than countback?

If so, I'm not aware of anything in the rules (of golf or handicapping) mandating a specific tie-break procedure, so there is nothing "illegal" in what you have done. Additionally, you aren't going to get super-low scores in a two person scramble.

 

[Colin L]

If you follow that reasoning, you probably cant grasp 35% or 15% of a Course Handicap either. Rounding up or down is integral to handicapping, whatever method you adopt. A Texas Scramble is a fun event. I think people quite like the concept of fractions of shots. Sure, I could have had a multiple countback, but why bother with that when using decimal places does it for me? Conceivably, the winners under fractional handicapping could have finished 4th with a poor back 9. I don't see that as fairer. Do you?

I think I've got a rather good grasp of handicapping, but that's irrelevant. You get a laugh out of beating or losing to someone by or winning by 0.3 of a stroke and find that people like the method. Obviously it's right to go with that. I managed to play 0.3 of a stroke yesterday: sclaffed a 6 iron a third of the distance it was supposed to go. There must be an infinite number of ways of manufacturing fractional shots, a challenge to inventiveness which I rise to often.

Methods of sorting out winners amongst players who go round a golf course in the same number of strokes and who are thus really equal in their achievement are pretty arbitrary and it would be hard to argue a pure fairness in any of them other than a play-off. But that's a matter for serious competitions and you're right to remind me that a scramble is a fun event. Whatever contributes to the general daftness and fun of a scramble is good. Just one practical question, though. Does your competition system handle the decimal fractions or do you have to calculate scores manually? ClubV1 runs a scramble on whole strokes but I haven't looked to see if you can set it to deal in fractions.

 

[IanMcC]

You cannot run fractions through ClubV1 for a Scramble. I create a conversion chart in Excel, taking into account the allowances for dual tees, and leave a copy with the pro. When players check in they use the chart to determine Playing Handicap.
To be honest, for our club, it would have been too much hassle anyway to set up the teams in ClubV1. Historically, we have not insisted on CDH numbers when booking through Golf Empire. I don't know if this was a conscious decision, or they just didn't select the correct radio button on BRS in the past, but we have had no issue with 'nomads' using an Open to play our course cheaply, just so long as they know they cannot win a prize. Our new Director of Golf wants to change this for future Opens, however, and CDH numbers will be required. This weekend, for example, saw one chap book 6 tee times (24 people) just in his name. He filled them all, and we took CDH numbers when they arrived. Doing all this on the spot to create teams on ClubV1 would have been too time consuming. Maybe in the future, when we can create the teams before the day, we will use ClubV1 fully.