Texas Scramble

[rulefan]

My point really is that the data is probably made up data to suit the program rather than actual data from recorded scores from clubs.

I would guess it is similar to the PCC process of using the 'expected range' of scores of different cohorts of handicap ranges. The population would be based on the bell curve of the known handicaps of players registered with the various authorities..

maybe that, although it made things difficult for high handicappers, there was also a subconscious feeling that the better golf was being rewarded and therefore less of an issue in people's heads, generally.

A good point. That was always the issue with matchplay. And still is.

 

[rulefan]

They almost suggested clubs could risk their affiliation for just doing their own thing.

Unlikely as scrambles are not recognised by the RoG

 

[Swango1980]

Unlikely as scrambles are not recognised by the RoG

That was one of the arguments against this crazy claim

 

[doublebogey7]

My point really is that the data is probably made up data to suit the program rather than actual data from recorded scores from clubs.
To get massive data from clubs would astound me. Where I play we have one or two a year and I know we have never been asked to submit the scores to any authority.

Why would they ask the clubs, when the ISV's have the required scores from multiple clubs. In fact I suspect the relevant authorit owns the ISV's data.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Who would they ask the clubs, when the ISV's have the required scores from multiple clubs. In fact I suspect the relevant authority owns the ISV's data.

Where are they getting this texas scramble data from? Scrambles aren;t generally fed through a back end, certainly not before Covid, and not seen one since either

 

[doublebogey7]

Where are they getting this texas scramble data from? Scrambles aren;t generally fed through a back end, certainly not before Covid, and not seen one since either

They have for a long which at my current and previous clubs. We won't be the only ones, should be plenty of data to go on.

 

[fundy]

Now there are set handicap allocations for Texas Scrambles are there set rules too? Does the players whose shot is selected get to play the next shot (and does the handicap allowances differ on the two options?)

 

[Deleted member 30522]

They have for a long which at my current and previous clubs. We won't be the only ones, should be plenty of data to go on.

There are an awful lot of scrambles in Scotland, never seen one not just be done on scorecards and a scorebaord, not one.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Now there are set handicap allocations for Texas Scrambles are there set rules too? Does the players whose shot is selected get to play the next shot (and does the handicap allowances differ on the two options?)

Nope, R&A/USGA have simultaeously decried that TS are not a valid form of golf, while imposing handicap allocations

 

[Swango1980]

I am told that separate USGA, R&A and Golf Australia teams worked on all handicap allowances. I don't know their methodology.

I wonder why the old 10% rule produced many 'real world' anecdotal complaints. That was certainly never explored. It was just thought to be a reasonable idea at the time.
Of course the numbers are only recommendations, they are not mandated. But I await with interest to see if anyone produces a 'better' answer.
Answers welcome with justification

Just following on from this. The Guidance on the WHS Rules of Handicapping as Applied within GB&I states:

"The National Associations within CONGU® have determined that allowances set out in the table in Appendix C are mandatory."

So, is it fair to officially say they are only recommended and not mandated, despite the fact the authorities quite specifically say they are mandatory? In fact, they even highlighted the word mandatory in bold.

 

[doublebogey7]

There are an awful lot of scrambles in Scotland, never seen one not just be done on scorecards and a scorebaord, not one.

That's as maybe, but Scotland is not the whole world you know.

 

[rulefan]

Now there are set handicap allocations for Texas Scrambles are there set rules too? Does the players whose shot is selected get to play the next shot (and does the handicap allowances differ on the two options?)

There are no rules in the Rules of Golf
The allowances are not set. They are simply a recommendation.

Nope, R&A/USGA have simultaeously decried that TS are not a valid form of golf, while imposing handicap allocations

The R&A/USGA have simply said they are not recognised in the RoG. Nothing about validity.
The authority is your National Association. The allowances have not been imposed by the R&A or USGA. See Appx C.

 

[rulefan]

Just following on from this. The Guidance on the WHS Rules of Handicapping as Applied within GB&I states:

"The National Associations within CONGU® have determined that allowances set out in the table in Appendix C are mandatory."

So, is it fair to officially say they are only recommended and not mandated, despite the fact the authorities quite specifically say they are mandatory? In fact, they even highlighted the word mandatory in bold.

CONGU may have mandated them but that has nothing to do with the R&A/USGA. who suggested them. The NA is responsible.

However, I seriously doubt CONGU will get excited about any form of scramble.

 

[Swango1980]

CONGU may have mandated them but that has nothing to do with the R&A/USGA. who suggested them. The NA is responsible.

Would it then be fair to suggest the 95% Playing Handicap for singles stroke play is only a recommendation, regardless of what CONGU say?

 

[rulefan]

Would it then be fair to suggest the 95% Playing Handicap for singles stroke play is only a recommendation, regardless of what CONGU say?

I can't answer for CONGU but I wouldn't be prepared to try it on with a serious competition.

 

[Swango1980]

I can't answer for CONGU but I wouldn't be prepared to try it on with a serious competition.

I'm guessing that is because of the statements made by CONGU.

In terms of handicapping and official documents go, the only information I can find about what handicaps should be used are within the WHS manual, and the CONGU advice as to how it should be applied in our area.

As I read it, the official advice seems pretty clear that the handicaps described in WHS are mandatory. I am unaware any other official advice that claims any of these are only recommended? But would be useful to know where that is. It means that if any competition organiser decides to apply their own handicapping rules, at the very least they cannot be accused of not applying "mandatory" handicaps, and can instead point to the fact they are only recommended. I suppose if there is a statement that Scramble handicaps are only recommended, it might suggest there is a little more doubt as to their feasibility, thus allowing competition organisers to be flexible.

 

[jim8flog]

Why would they ask the clubs, when the ISV's have the required scores from multiple clubs. In fact I suspect the relevant authorit owns the ISV's data.

Our Texas scrambles were dealt with manually before the new rules were published.

 

[rulefan]

I'm guessing that is because of the statements made by CONGU.

I may be of interest but CONGU has not changed its stance since the UHS
"Affiliated Clubs must use the following handicap allowances for the undernoted forms of competition when played as handicap events...."
Admittedly it didn't include scrambles but the principle of a mandate still stands

 

[Swango1980]

I may be of interest but CONGU has not changed its stance since the UHS
"Affiliated Clubs must use the following handicap allowances for the undernoted forms of competition when played as handicap events...."
Admittedly it didn't include scrambles but the principle of a mandate still stands

So, it is mandatory then

 

[tobybarker]

The sense I pick up from chatter is that in ALL forms of the game the higher HCP players are doing better now in comparison to before the whs came along