[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd just like to say that those who don't think the reverse scramble would be that difficult probably know nothing about golf. The pressure would be CRAZY. Imagine a shot that will go OB 20% of the time.. You've gotta hit it twice, its gonna go outta bounds 36% of the time.. (Assuming independence.) Now, if it goes OB, YOU'VE GOTTA DO IT AGAIN!!!! LOL. That's sick.

Anyway, I'd love to hear some people try this and report back with their scores.

One question, how is the "worst shot" determined? Is it from the opponent, or shot furthest from hole, or something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi. It is tough, but we were debating about waht a scratch golfer or even better (a +2 or +3) or even a Tiger Woods would be shooting. As such, you would not be seeing every 5th shot going out of bounds.

I think we are all acknowledging, though, that the relationship to your normal score is not linear.

Someone who normally shoots 75 might score 90 in a reverse scramble format, someone who shoots 85 might score 110, and someone who shoots 95 might shoot 130 (or worse). The more inconsistent you are the more penal it is.

I think anyone who shoots over 85 would probably go crazy playing this format. It would be demoralizing, unless you were just practicing to work on consistency, and were not worried about score.

Our friendly bantering back and forth here was about how the very good or even great players would fare, and there is debate on how well they could perform under the reverse-scramble position.

As to your question, if you were playing a serious game, your opponent would tell you which is your worst shot, and in many cases it won't be the one farthest from the hole. He'll just size up the most difficult shot you have and tell you to play that ball. In most cases it will be obvious though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beyond just their final score you would have to take into serious consideration the type of game the person plays. You take a 4 handicap that hits it a mile, makes lots of birdies, but is inconsistent and prone to big numbers and put him against a steady 4 handicapper who consistently makes pars with a few bogeys here and there and the steady 4 would likely wear out the inconsistent 4 in this format.

You take the old man shooting 90 from the senior tees because he can't hit it but 150 yards and he will likely were out most any 30 year old shooting 90 in this format.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats what i was thinking too. i was thinking that in a 1 man reverse scramble fred funk would kill phil mickelson.