Texas Scramble

[Rlburnside]

What handicaps are recommended for 2 man Texas Scramble.

 

[rulefan]

35% low / 15% high.

It's in the manual Appendix C

 

[Rlburnside]

Ok thanks we’re going for add together and divide by 4

 

[rulefan]

Ok thanks we’re going for add together and divide by 4

Why? What is wrong with the WHS recommendation?

 

[Rlburnside]

I don’t know some of our committee are a law to themselves.

 

[Rlburnside]

Why? What is wrong with the WHS recommendation?

We played off our course h/c mine is 18 my pp is 11, think we played off 7.25, I’m not the best at maths what would have h/c been the recommended way ?

 

[AliMc]

We played off our course h/c mine is 18 my pp is 11, think we played off 7.25, I’m not the best at maths what would have h/c been the recommended way ?

Off the top of my head it would be around 6.5

 

[AliMc]

Why? What is wrong with the WHS recommendation?

Due to a lot of talk around entry numbers being down some clubs aro7nd here are going back to the pre whs calculation of 10% of combined (for teams of 4)

 

[rulefan]

We played off our course h/c mine is 18 my pp is 11, think we played off 7.25, I’m not the best at maths what would have h/c been the recommended way ?

6.6 (6.55)

 

[rulefan]

Due to a lot of talk around entry numbers being down some clubs aro7nd here are going back to the pre whs calculation of 10% of combined (for teams of 4)

What is the statistical justification?

 

[AliMc]

What is the statistical justification?

No idea and no interest really, just what I've been hearing fron guys who used to play them regularly but haven't entered any this year

 

[wjemather]

What is the statistical justification?

Judging by comments in other threads, not everyone enters these things purely for the enjoyment. As such, I'd imagine that since everyone now has a more equitable chance of winning, low handicappers are no longer cleaning up everywhere and they aren't happy about it.

 

[wjemather]

6.6 (6.55)

Don't forget playing handicaps are always rounded to the nearest integer under WHS.

 

[rulefan]

Don't forget playing handicaps are always rounded to the nearest integer under WHS.

Just indicating the pre-rounded figure and how close AliMc was.

 

[IanMcC]

I ran an open last year. (35% and 15%). The result seemed fair, and the spread of scores was relatively tight.
This week we had a 2 man scramble as our club comp. The result was perfect, with a mid handicap team winning, a low handicap second , and a high handicap third. (Team Handicaps were 6/2/8)
I believe the authorities have this allowance spot on, as opposed to a 4 player scramble, which now vastly favours the higher handicappers. It used to favour low handicappers, of course, but I believe they have over corrected with the percentages.

 

[rulefan]

I ran an open last year. (35% and 15%). The result seemed fair, and the spread of scores was relatively tight.
This week we had a 2 man scramble as our club comp. The result was perfect, with a mid handicap team winning, a low handicap second , and a high handicap third. (Team Handicaps were 6/2/8)
I believe the authorities have this allowance spot on, as opposed to a 4 player scramble, which now vastly favours the higher handicappers. It used to favour low handicappers, of course, but I believe they have over corrected with the percentages.

We found that three 4 person scrambles produced nicely balanced and close results using the WHS recommendations.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Judging by comments in other threads, not everyone enters these things purely for the enjoyment. As such, I'd imagine that since everyone now has a more equitable chance of winning, low handicappers are no longer cleaning up everywhere and they aren't happy about it.

You always seem to be very negative towards low handicappers - it’s as if it’s a crime that the better golfers are allowed to win things


As for the scrambles

Previously our scrambles were won by a mix of mid/low/ high handicappers - never dominated by one group

Since using the recommended WHS all our scrambles are now won by the high handicap teams with other not getting near

No doubt it will affect the entry and changes will occur

 

[rulefan]

As for the scrambles

Previously our scrambles were won by a mix of mid/low/ high handicappers - never dominated by one group

Since using the recommended WHS all our scrambles are now won by the high handicap teams with other not getting near

No doubt it will affect the entry and changes will occur

This suggests that the teams pre select themselves into high or low handicap teams.
Under the 10% method a team of 4 30 cappers would play off 12 and a team of 10 cappers would play off 4. As opposed to 19 & 7 under WHS.
(If I have my arithmetic correct).

 

[wjemather]

You always seem to be very negative towards low handicappers - it’s as if it’s a crime that the better golfers are allowed to win things


As for the scrambles

Previously our scrambles were won by a mix of mid/low/ high handicappers - never dominated by one group

Since using the recommended WHS all our scrambles are now won by the high handicap teams with other not getting near

No doubt it will affect the entry and changes will occur

Not at all - I am one, and have still managed to win things (including the club handicap championship last year while playing off scratch). However, earlier handicap systems were intentionally biased towards low handicaps and predictably there have been complaints from this group now that their advantage has largely been eroded. The same happened every time allowances changed under the old system.

With regards to scrambles, as I have reported before, ours have seen a mix of handicaps at the top of the leaderboard with one comp being decided on countback between the lowest handicap team and one of the highest. However, scrambles tend work best when there is an even distribution of handicaps across teams - this has always been the case.

 

[jim8flog]

What is the statistical justification?

The same as the statistical justification for CONGU to change the the calculation.