Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

2 Man Scramble - match play style league rules questions


Note: This thread is 4681 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Guys I play in a golf league, and it is definetly a beer league. We have played the same format the last two years and we are looking to shore up some rules and procedures and I am looking to see what other people have done and get some ideas. We play a 2 man scramble that is match play style against another team and it is handicapped. This is a nine hole league. So basically you take your scramble team score against the other teams scramble score and you either win the hole or lose the hole. Each hole is worth 10 points, a tied hole each team gets 5 points. And the team who won the most holes gets an additonal 10 points, or that 10 can be split if the holes are split. So there is a total of 100 points available each match. We play double par is the worse you can get, but that seems to have issues with the handicapping system sometimes. We have some guys that will intentionally take a double par if they cannot win the hole. We also have issues with subs, or lack there of, and we run into the occasional issue where both players dont show and they dont find subs. So below are a list of issues we have, I would love to hear some feedback from you guys, especially if you have played in a league setup similar to this one. Thanks in advance.

1. Substitutes - We all know everyone cant make each week, but what would be a good policy if you or your partner cant make it and cant find subs? Also, how do you handicap the sub? We had an issue where a team brought a sub and the kid shot par or better and the guy he was subbing for is a 25 or higher handicap for 18 holes. Subs seem to be the big sticking point, we dont have a clear rule on this and I would like to come up with something for it. What is the penalty for not showing up at all? I like the idea of penalizing 100 points, but then another team gets 100 points for doing nothing.

2. Double par rule - Considering this is scramble, I think a double bogey is as much as we should go, thoughts?

3. Handicapping - The lowest you can have is a zero, should we change this to include negative handicaps? We use a 5 previous score rotation, and I can tell you I was a Zero or 1 all year, and when you play a 4 or 5 handicap it is tough to be giving a stroke on almost or over half of your holes in a 9 hole scramble.

4. Any other recommendations are greatly appreciated.

Thanks - Nate

Titleist 913 D3
Taylormade RBZ 3 Wood

Taylormade RBZ 3 Hybrid

Taylormade RBZ 4 Hybrid

MIzuno MP52 5-PW

MIzuno 52* MP-T10 Wedge

Mizuno 56* R Series Wedge

Mizuno 60* R Series Wedge
Scotty Cameron Select Newport 2 Notchback


Posted

Kill me now.

Why don't you just play a 4-ball, and play actual golf , rather than a damn scramble?!

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Here is an easy solution to your Scramble:

(1.) The handicap part seems to be the problem (Especially in a scramble format.).

(2.) The Sub can be taken care of easily by solving the first problem. So, lets start with #1.

for

(1.) Since you are playing a scramble there should not be handicaps applied. There should be equity for the level of play, therefore there should be a two putt limit for Greens in Regulation. That will give every team a chance to go for the one putt. If you both miss, pick it up and take the two putt max. (This will make it fair for the higher handicaps as you are not penalized for not lagging it close enough to make the second putt, and it gives you two chances to make the putt in one stroke.)

The two putt max equalizes the end of the hole. Now, lets equalize the beginning of the hole. (This will take care of the Sub issue.)

(2.) The lowest handicap of your team will determine where you tee off from. Your "Team Handicap" will be the lowest of the two handicaps.

You said you had a 0 to 1 handicap for the year. Your team handicap would be 1 or zero. Your team should tee off from the furthest (Back) tees. The high team handicap should tee off from the closest (Front) tee's. (You are an 18 handicap and your partner is a 20 handicap, your lowest high handicap is an 18.) That leaves the middle tees for teams that have mid handicaps as their lowest high handicap.

It would be something along the lines of: Back tees: 0-8 handicaps, Middle tees: 9-16 handicaps, and Front tees: 16+.

For all substitutions your team must play from the back tees, no matter the handicap of the lowest high handicap.

This should bring equity, lower scores and a faster pace of play for your Scramble.

Thanks!


Posted

Another rule you can change is maybe consider basing handicap only off of winning holes.

Something along this lines of the first round of the year is the round you play just as a team and you post your team score.  As your handicap adjusts as a player throughout the year, if you lose the hole, you have to post your score from the last time you won that hole, or your score from the first round of the year.  This should prevent players from sandbagging a botched hole to keep the handicap high.

I do like the ideas of tee boxing adjusting, but am not certain that I would like the subs to have to always play from the back.  The problem is that often times it is difficult to find Subs on short notice, and if they are not very good golfers they might not want to come back depending on how hard the course was playing from the tips.

In my bag:

some golf clubs

a few golf balls

a bag of tee's some already broken the rest soon to be

a snickers wrapper (if you have seen me play, you would know you are not going anywhere for a while)

and an empty bottle of water


Note: This thread is 4681 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.