Texas Scramble

[rulefan]

My understanding is that there was a massive amount of simulation using 'expected range' scores.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

What lack of record keeping, ISV's have had the capacity to record Scramble scores for year's.

I've played a lot of scrambles in the last decade, not seen one being put through the computer. I'd guess the number of scrambles in the system would be close to zero.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

My understanding is that there was a massive amount of simulation using 'expected range' scores.

And yet the changes they made to make mandatory handicap recomendations were immediately erroneous to those of us who actually play these things (or did, don't bother now that they're a farce)

 

[doublebogey7]

I've played a lot of scrambles in the last decade, not seen one being put through the computer. I'd guess the number of scrambles in the system would be close to zero.

All our scrambles have gone through the ISV since I joined the club in 2016 and I doubt we are even in a minority let alone the only one.
Why would a club not put them through the ISV, when it saves so much admin time.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Certainly not zero, all our scrambles have gone through the ISV since I joined the club in 2016 and I doubt we are even in a minority let alone the only one.

I'm talking about opens, many courses, not one gone through the computer. Your experience seems to consist of your own club, and guessing.

 

[doublebogey7]

I'm talking about opens, many courses, not one gone through the computer. Your experience seems to consist of your own club, and guessing.

I play a lot of opens. never ever seen one advertised as a scramble and doubt I would ever choose to play one, fine for the course you play many times a year rubbish for one you play rarely or as a one off.
Not sure how it matters anyone in terms of this discussion and the ability of the authorities to test handicaps using data.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

I play a lot of opens. never ever seen one advertised as a scramble and doubt I would ever choose to play one, fine for the course you play many times a year rubbish for one you play rarely or as a one off.
Not sure how it matters anyone in terms of this discussion and the ability of the authorities to test handicaps using data.

Because they DON'T HAVE ANY DATA!

Here's 60 TS's for the rest of the year in what is basically just Aberdeenshire https://www.golfempire.co.uk/county/scotland-north-east-team.htm

 

[wjemather]

I'm talking about opens, many courses, not one gone through the computer. Your experience seems to consist of your own club, and guessing.

All our opens are also administered using the ISV, including scrambles. Seems ridiculous to do it any other way - when the technology is there, use it.

For once, please consider that just because something happens at your club, or even in your locality, (like creating unnecessary work by administering comps manually) doesn't mean it happens anywhere else.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

What lack of record keeping, ISV's have had the capacity to record Scramble scores for year's.

Scrambles have been done by ISV’s but the scores from those scrambles weren’t ever sent into England Golf etc - so the governing bodies didn’t get any data. It was the same with 4BBBs etc and indeed any team comp

 

[doublebogey7]

Scrambles have been done by ISV’s but the scores from those scrambles weren’t ever sent into England Golf etc - so the governing bodies didn’t get any data. It was the same with 4BBBs etc and indeed any team comp

Yes I know that, but the authorities could well have obtained the data from the ISV's never the less.

 

[wjemather]

Scrambles have been done by ISV’s but the scores from those scrambles weren’t ever sent into England Golf etc - so the governing bodies didn’t get any data. It was the same with 4BBBs etc and indeed any team comp

How can you be so certain that ISVs and/or clubs (globally, other than your own) did/do not share data with the WHS development team.

 

[Jimaroid]

How can you be so certain that ISVs and/or clubs (globally, other than your own) did/do not share data with the WHS development team.

Show us the evidence that they did.

 

[wjemather]

Show us the evidence that they did.

I suggest you contact the relevant authorities if you want specific details about the origins of their data.

 

[IanMcC]

Played in a 4 man scramble yesterday. Really enjoyed it, but I warned my team that we had absolutely no chance off of our handicap indices. (1.7, 6.7, 7.0 and 7.8). We shot 6 under par with no bogies. A sterling if unspectacular effort. Our 4 shots gave us a 10 under total of 59. We finished 39th out of 42 teams.
I am a big fan of WHS, but the percentages for 4 player scrambles are surely skewed too much in favour of higher handicappers now. The top 5 teams had 17, 15, 15, 8 and 7 shots, and the winning score was 50.
The allowances should be something like 15%, 10%, 10% and 5%.

 

[rulefan]

Played in a 4 man scramble yesterday. Really enjoyed it, but I warned my team that we had absolutely no chance off of our handicap indices. (1.7, 6.7, 7.0 and 7.8). We shot 6 under par with no bogies. A sterling if unspectacular effort. Our 4 shots gave us a 10 under total of 59. We finished 39th out of 42 teams.
I am a big fan of WHS, but the percentages for 4 player scrambles are surely skewed too much in favour of higher handicappers now. The top 5 teams had 17, 15, 15, 8 and 7 shots, and the winning score was 50.
The allowances should be something like 15%, 10%, 10% and 5%.

Apart from this example what data do you have to support a) the current recommendations are wrong and b) your suggestions are better?
How did you arrive at 15, 10, 10, 5 ?

 

[IanMcC]

Apart from this example what data do you have to support a) the current recommendations are wrong and b) your suggestions are better?
How did you arrive at 15, 10, 10, 5 ?

rulefan, I really do respect your knowledge and speed of response on this site, but these queries are predictable in the extreme, and you obviously know the answers.
Of course I have no data to back this up, and even if I did, you would simply say that the USGA and R&A have more, so they must be right. (I would bet that you defended the 10% up to 6 shots on a scramble under UHS, even though it was an unrecognised format back then, and blatantly favoured the lower handicapper.)
The current recommendations are flawed, because everyone and their uncles can see that higher handicappers are performing better in almost every 4 player scramble now. Forums like this only back up what is glaringly obvious.
My percentage figures might be better, might make no difference, or might be worse. You or I certainly don't know. I arrived at these figures off the top of my head, of course, as you well know, but they may even out the obvious bias that exists at the moment. Maybe there is no magic formula for a 4 player Texas, and whatever allowances are given will favour a specific set of Handicaps. Who knows. I only hope that the powers that be in WHS towers recognise the need for change, and act accordingly if required.

 

[rulefan]

rulefan, I really do respect your knowledge and speed of response on this site, but these queries are predictable in the extreme, and you obviously know the answers.
Of course I have no data to back this up, and even if I did, you would simply say that the USGA and R&A have more, so they must be right. (I would bet that you defended the 10% up to 6 shots on a scramble under UHS, even though it was an unrecognised format back then, and blatantly favoured the lower handicapper.)
The current recommendations are flawed, because everyone and their uncles can see that higher handicappers are performing better in almost every 4 player scramble now. Forums like this only back up what is glaringly obvious.
My percentage figures might be better, might make no difference, or might be worse. You or I certainly don't know. I arrived at these figures off the top of my head, of course, as you well know, but they may even out the obvious bias that exists at the moment. Maybe there is no magic formula for a 4 player Texas, and whatever allowances are given will favour a specific set of Handicaps. Who knows. I only hope that the powers that be in WHS towers recognise the need for change, and act accordingly if required.

I can't really believe that they just plucked numbers out of the air and guessed. Do you?

 

[IanMcC]

I can't really believe that they just plucked numbers out of the air and guessed. Do you?

I actually do. The data is questionable at best, as has been mentioned in previous posts in this thread.
For example, we are dealing with people here (DotGolf) who got a relatively simple formula wrong for a year and a half concerning 9 hole comps. Who is to say that the complex issues regarding allowances in a scramble have been exactly worked out at 25/20/15 and 10%? Those figures appear made up to me, or rounded off conveniently at the very least. (I know DotGolf dont run WHS, that was just an example how figures can go astray.)

 

[rulefan]

I actually do. The data is questionable at best, as has been mentioned in previous posts in this thread.
For example, we are dealing with people here (DotGolf) who got a relatively simple formula wrong for a year and a half concerning 9 hole comps. Who is to say that the complex issues regarding allowances in a scramble have been exactly worked out at 25/20/15 and 10%? Those figures appear made up to me, or rounded off conveniently at the very least. (I know DotGolf dont run WHS, that was just an example how figures can go astray.)

So how should the allowance be determined. By you, by me, by Tashy by ?

 

[wjemather]

Played in a 4 man scramble yesterday. Really enjoyed it, but I warned my team that we had absolutely no chance off of our handicap indices. (1.7, 6.7, 7.0 and 7.8). We shot 6 under par with no bogies. A sterling if unspectacular effort. Our 4 shots gave us a 10 under total of 59. We finished 39th out of 42 teams.
I am a big fan of WHS, but the percentages for 4 player scrambles are surely skewed too much in favour of higher handicappers now. The top 5 teams had 17, 15, 15, 8 and 7 shots, and the winning score was 50.
The allowances should be something like 15%, 10%, 10% and 5%.

Assuming an average course, 6 under is not a good score for a team of 4 single figure golfers (one of whom is very low), and your finishing position is entirely expected.

There is no perfect allowance formula for scrambles, which is why it's always been recommended that handicaps be balanced across the field, however the WHS recommendation is far more equitable than 10% ever was.