Need advice on correctly setting up 4 team 2 man scramble.

[I'_rather_be_golfing]

Trying to set up an 4 team 2 man scramble tourney straight up, no strokes given for the weekend. But my friends can’t seem to agree on team pairing. I based the pairing by handicap. The handicap are as followed from lowest to highest. 
 

player 1 4 handicap 

player 2 6 handicap

player 3 8 handicap

player 4 11 handicap

player 5 11 handicap

player 6 14 handicap

player 7 21 handicap 

player 8 23 handicap

I paired player 1 and player 8

player 2 and player 7

player 3 and player 6

player 4 and player 5

 

Now player 1 and player 8 want 3 strokes. 

 

Player 2 and player 7 also want 3 strokes. 

3 strokes is a lot to give in a scramble in my opinion. 
 

Players 3, 4, 5, and 6 say no strokes. 
 

Im player 6. And I don’t want to give strokes to any team. My reasonings for not giving anyone strokes is. We are playing a course none of us has ever played at. So it’s neutral grounds.  And the other reason for not giving strokes is each of the high handicap players are great at irons and putting. But lack driving and short game. 
 

The other guys feel the same way as I do. 

What does the golfwrx community think?

Do you think my pairings is fair with zero strokes given? 

 

Should strokes be given?

Its $100 a person and winner takes all. 

[dmecca2]

No strokes, if you lose, play better. 3 strokes is a ton in a scramble 

[Soloman1]

Teams playing together will negotiate anyway. One team gets the win and the other gets a bigger share of the purse they split. One team will shoot 30 under and the other 29 under.

 

"Really. We counted all strokes. We made a lot of putts and were very lucky today!"

[zdtallan]

Agreed.  If this were better ball, then give the high caps the strokes they want, it would be negligible anyways.  In a scramble though, tell the high handicaps to do their job and carry their partner on the harder holes. 

[davep043]

Have you considered the WHS recommendation for this type of competition?  Check Appendix C in the Handicap Rules.  If I remember right, you would take 35% of the low handicapper, and 15% of the high.  You could then at least compare to see if things look extremely out of whack.

[I'_rather_be_golfing]

46 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Have you considered the WHS recommendation for this type of competition?  Check Appendix C in the Handicap Rules.  If I remember right, you would take 35% of the low handicapper, and 15% of the high.  You could then at least compare to see if things look extremely out of whack.

I have not. But I will now. Thank you for the info. 

[davep043]

38 minutes ago, I'_rather_be_golfing said:

I have not. But I will now. Thank you for the info. 

I was lazy earlier, but I just ran the numbers.  The unrounded handicaps run from 4.8 to 5.5.  I don't think it should be a problem playing all even, and you can point to the Handicap Rules for justification.

[Dpavs]

The problem that I perceive is with the range of handicaps... you'd be better with two 4 man teams but that is obviously not what you want 🙂

 

So that said, to try to make everyone happy, if you are not too objectionable to it and they are receptive to it,  you could do mulligans in lieu of strokes. But in a scramble... zero strokes given in my book.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Dpavs

[I'_rather_be_golfing]

21 minutes ago, Dpavs said:

The problem that I perceive is with the range of handicaps... you'd be better with two 4 man teams but that is obviously not what you want 🙂

 

So that said, to try to make everyone happy, if you are not too objectionable to it and they are receptive to it,  you could do mulligans in lieu of strokes. But in a scramble... zero strokes given in my book.

I didn’t honk of doing mulligans. I’ll bring that up to the group. Apparently they still can’t come to an agreement. 

[2bGood]

Wow - a scramble with mulligans, I am glad this was not posted in the rules forum.😀 maybe you should give some of the teams a free toss and some sting for putts.

 

I would just use the WHS table that shows the caps would all be with in one stroke and move on.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by 2bGood

[Moonlightgrm]

Let players 7 and 8 play forward one set of tees. On most courses, that’s approximately 15 yards. Hopefully, that puts an end to any whining.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Moonlightgrm
Typo

[I'_rather_be_golfing]

12 minutes ago, Moonlightgrm said:

Let players 7 and 8 play forward one set of tees. On most courses, that’s approximately 15 yards. Hopefully, that puts an end to any whining.

That’s a great idea. 

[Dpavs]

6 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Wow - a scramble with mulligans, I am glad this was not posted in the rules forum.😀 maybe you should give some of the teams a free toss and some sting for putts.

 

I would just use the WHS table that shows the caps would all be with in one stroke and move on.

 

 

 

 

 

My thought was that since they aren't playing at Bushwood this year... why don't we just relax the pomp under the circumstances and let them have fun.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Dpavs

[2bGood]

5 minutes ago, Dpavs said:

 

My thought was that since they aren't playing at Bushwood this year... why don't we just relax the pomp under the circumstances and let them have fun.

 I think they are passed that point given there are arguing about strokes and have a $1600 cash purse ($800 per guy on the winning team). Cleary some of their groups seems to think winning the event has some value, thus the point of the thread. 

 

Now if the OP asked advice on how to make sure the event was the most fun, rather than handicap allocations that would make the event fair, then I would I have a different response.

 

[Dpavs]

11 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 I think they are passed that point given there are arguing about strokes and have a $1600 cash purse ($800 per guy on the winning team). Cleary some of their groups seems to think winning the event has some value, thus the point of the thread. 

 

Now if the OP asked advice on how to make sure the event was the most fun, rather than handicap allocations that would make the event fair, then I would I have a different response.

 

 

I can understand your perspective I suppose but I think your math is off. The way I read it is is $100 per person x 8 = $800. Winning team takes all for $400 per man.

 

Truthfully, IMO, if as you feel, that they are that uptight about winning for the sake of the purse they shouldn't bother making it for money at all. If you can't afford to lose $100 bucks and laugh about it... you shouldn't be betting $100 on anything.

[nsxguy]

FWIW, when I was in SE Asia we ran this tournament and the results were expressed in tenths. We used the USGA recommendations as dave posted.

 

Pair up the players. I'd do 1-8, 2-7, etc unless players insist on playing with certain partners.

 

So, a team could finish 68.5 and beat a team that finished 68.8.

 

I was surprised but it actually worked out pretty well, a very close match.

[2bGood]

24 minutes ago, Dpavs said:

 

I can understand your perspective I suppose but I think your math is off. The way I read it is is $100 per person x 8 = $800. Winning team takes all for $400 per man.

 

Truthfully, IMO, if as you feel, that they are that uptight about winning for the sake of the purse they shouldn't bother making it for money at all. If you can't afford to lose $100 bucks and laugh about it... you shouldn't be betting $100 on anything.

Yes you are correct, not sure why I had 16 players in my head. 

 

Not sure I totally agree with you, by your logic you should never wager any amount of money that you would take seriously. Just because you can afford to lose $100 and not worry about it should not mean that you can't take the competition seriously and want it to be fairly run. I am the kind of guy who rather lose $100 fairly then be cheated out $5. 

 

I enjoy playing for some 'good' money in a fair match. It adds an extra dimension to the game. I know it is not for everyone. 

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by 2bGood

[Dpavs]

11 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Yes you are correct, not sure why I had 16 players in my head. 

 

Not sure I totally agree with you, by your logic you should never wager any amount of money that you would take seriously. Just because you can afford to lose $100 and not worry about it should not mean that you can't take the competition seriously and want it to be fairly run. I am the kind of guy who rather lose $100 fairly then be cheated out $5. 

 

I enjoy playing for some 'good' money in a fair match. It adds an extra dimension to the game. I know it is not for everyone. 

 

 

 

"... by your logic you should never wager any amount of money that you would take seriously."

 

This is perhaps an incorrect conclusion based on the false premise that caring about the money at risk = taking the competition seriously?  Logically, one thing does not necessarily follow the other.

 

What I had stated was that-

"If you can't afford to lose $100 bucks and laugh about it... you shouldn't be betting $100 on anything."

 

This is purely a statement regarding financial wearwithal and has nothing to do in any manner whatsoever about taking the competition seriously or not. I feel quite simply that if you have to worry that much about losing $100 then you cannot afford to be risking $100 over something as inconsequential as a weekend round with your friends.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Dpavs

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, Dpavs said:

 

 

"... by your logic you should never wager any amount of money that you would take seriously."

 

This is perhaps an incorrect conclusion based on the false premise that caring about the money at risk = taking the competition seriously?  Logically, one thing does not necessarily follow the other.

 

What I had stated was that-

"If you can't afford to lose $100 bucks and laugh about it... you shouldn't be betting $100 on anything."

 

This is purely a statement regarding financial wearwithal and has nothing to do in any manner whatsoever about taking the competition seriously or not. I feel quite simply that if you have to worry that much about losing $100 then you cannot afford to be risking $100 over something as inconsequential as a weekend round with your friends.

 Okay, but if even I take you meaning to mean you only laugh about the money but not the competition, I would say there still a segment of us that want to play for uncomfortable stakes as a way of testing ourselves, and not just play 'inconsequential' rounds of golf. 

 

 

[I'_rather_be_golfing]

This friendly scramble has gotten so serious. The others in the group aren’t gonna drink a drop beer. But I’m still gonna go to pound town. 

[Dpavs]

4 hours ago, 2bGood said:

 Okay, but if even I take you meaning to mean you only laugh about the money but not the competition, I would say there still a segment of us that want to play for uncomfortable stakes as a way of testing ourselves, and not just play 'inconsequential' rounds of golf. 

 

 

 

Fair enough!

 

[Mudguard]

This format sounds a bit tough. I mean basically the first two groups are essentially going to play their own ball with maybe the odd putt or chip thrown in from the high player. 

 

I don't see the reluctance to use handicaps. Traditionally for our ambrose or scrambles of four players. We take the total course handicaps and divide by eight, by six for three players and four for two. And use the decimals. 

The only think I can think of like this is a game I play with mostly cricket mates. The golfers are paired with the non golfers ranked by handicap and perceived ability. But both players have to hit nine tee shots. Still means the low markers wind up having the bulk of their shots taken, they just have to take some rough tee shots. 

Edited October 11, 2020 by Mudguard