Swango1980
Well-known member
Sorry, not read through all the comments, so this might have been mentioned.
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if a team won by 2 full shots. Especially if that team was made up of low handicappers? A team of low handicappers, in my opinion, would have a significant advantage over teams with higher handicappers in Scramble, when using 10% of total handicap. Why? Well, imagine a team of 4 scratch golfers against a team of 4 28 handicappers. The low handicap team play off 0, the high handicap team play off 11 (if it was teams of 3, they'd only play off 8). If I was a betting man, my money would be on the scratch team, as I can see them easily shooting well more than 11 shots better gross than 4 28 handicappers. Another way of looking at it, if you replaced one of the 4 scratch players with a 28 handicapper, the handicap would go from 0 to 3. If I wanted to do well, I'd rather have the ability of a scratch player, than the ability of a 28 handicapper with 3 extra shots. This becomes even more critical when considering limitations such as each player having to hit a certain number of drives.
In the past, at our club we used to just pick our own teams. The team I was in was made up of some of the lowest handicap players in the club. And, we pretty much won every single time, often by a country mile. I believe our best gross was 15 under (not bad, considering we're not scratch golfers, but ranged from 5-11, we're not a club with many cat 1 players). So, for last few years, we've changed the conditions, were teams are drawn randomly, with one low, one medium and one high handicapper (teams of 3). Since then, scores have often been very tight between nearly all teams in the field.
That being said, if the team in your case was not low handicappers, then it would be more unusual for them to win so well.
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if a team won by 2 full shots. Especially if that team was made up of low handicappers? A team of low handicappers, in my opinion, would have a significant advantage over teams with higher handicappers in Scramble, when using 10% of total handicap. Why? Well, imagine a team of 4 scratch golfers against a team of 4 28 handicappers. The low handicap team play off 0, the high handicap team play off 11 (if it was teams of 3, they'd only play off 8). If I was a betting man, my money would be on the scratch team, as I can see them easily shooting well more than 11 shots better gross than 4 28 handicappers. Another way of looking at it, if you replaced one of the 4 scratch players with a 28 handicapper, the handicap would go from 0 to 3. If I wanted to do well, I'd rather have the ability of a scratch player, than the ability of a 28 handicapper with 3 extra shots. This becomes even more critical when considering limitations such as each player having to hit a certain number of drives.
In the past, at our club we used to just pick our own teams. The team I was in was made up of some of the lowest handicap players in the club. And, we pretty much won every single time, often by a country mile. I believe our best gross was 15 under (not bad, considering we're not scratch golfers, but ranged from 5-11, we're not a club with many cat 1 players). So, for last few years, we've changed the conditions, were teams are drawn randomly, with one low, one medium and one high handicapper (teams of 3). Since then, scores have often been very tight between nearly all teams in the field.
That being said, if the team in your case was not low handicappers, then it would be more unusual for them to win so well.
