I like Bryce recommend a lot of booze 🙂

No strategy, just have fun. One big mistake I see is that often scrambles are played from shorter tee distances and groups take the ball closest to the green which can be an in between or part wedge shot of 50-80 yards, a shot that the majority of players have trouble with. Try and leave a common yardage that most folks play regularly 100-125 for the approach. Unless of course you can drive it within a few yards of the green . Also, I find that most high cappers like to play from the first cut of rough where the ball can be propped up vs a tight lie on a fw

Probably the biggest reason I don't enjoy scrambles (besides the obvious cheating that often goes on) is because golfers seem to struggle with the concept of picking the best shot that gives the highest percentage of success for every player involved. But for whatever reason - that 250-yard tee shot, dead-center of the fairway and in perfect position to get a ball reasonably close to the hole isn't considered over the 275-yard tee shot in the rough with an uneven lie. Why is it always about playing the longest tee shot, circumstances be damned?

Or how about this one... 325 yard par4, definitely a birdie hole with two good shots. The longest hitter takes a rip at it... hits it good, his usual 275 yards. Front pin, wind helping. Not much room between the front of the green and the pin, and the green slopes front-to-back.

That ball in the middle of the fairway about 50 yards further back is a full-swing for most people, usually a wedge, maybe a 9-iron for some players. Fairly simple shot, don't have to think about how hard you have to swing, don't have to think so much in terms of where you want the ball to land. It's a full swing, lots of loft, ball gets up in the air and lands softly on the green, somewhere within 10-15 feet of the hole ideally. Pretty simple shot really.

But it never fails - gotta play the shortest shot, even if two guys in the group suck at those 3/4 swings or long-range pitch shots. Even if the odds of nipping the ball perfectly and hitting it the exact distance needed still are very much dependent on the right bounce, the right amount of check on the ball, and the right amount of rollout.

Too many variables there.

    25? As in they shot a 40? Or did you mean you lost by just 15? (Even that would be ridiculous)

    Where did you play?

      kchacker 25? As in they shot a 40? Or did you mean you lost by just 15? (Even that would be ridiculous)

      Where did you play?

      Silverado Golf Course in Scottsdale. Par 70. They claimed a 40.

      The winning team had 2 members of the Arizona State men's golf team. The event was a big fund raiser for Teen Lifeline.

      http://teenlifeline.org/

      You could buy a mulligan for $15 or 2 for $20. You could also buy a package deal that included 2 mulligans, 2 ft of ribbon, and a pair of scissors. The ribbon was used to complete putts. If your putt came up 6" short you use 6" of ribbon to finish the putt and count that stroke. You then cut of the 6" from the ribbon and you have a ft and a half left.

          30 under par, is by far, the lowest score I have ever heard of in every scramble I have ever played in - and that is a lot of events over about 40 years. Un-fucking-believable. Let's see - that averages 2.22 strokes per hole. So I am guessing that this team eagled or double-eagled the par 5s, eagled most of the par 4s and at least birdied the par 3s. I'm guessing there was not a single par on the card.

          azgreg

          WTF was second place? It's possible for very good players to birdie every hole and eagle all of the par 5s. At Silverado, that's a 48. If they absolutely stuffed four other shots to 6" and used the ribbon, that's a 44. Where in the hell could four other strokes have possibly come from?

          It's certainly not a difficult course....but come on.

              azgreg

              I guess that's the point......plus you helped a good cause. For the record, I still think they cheated. 😉

                I guess it all depends on how many mulligans they allowed.
                As I read it, there was the option of at least 8 mulligans per team, maybe more plus the ribbon that helped.

                On a short relatively easy course, I'm sure good players were able to drive the odd green and make eagle on par 4, or chip in .

                I've been in an event where a team of average joes shoot -25 on a par 70 , so a net 45 when getting 8 mulligans allowed, one hand throw and a piece of random length string that could be used once . They did have 2 guys who were 60 so allowed play the forward tees which were very short. In the end it's for charity and fun, most events here don't give out great prizes for winners, maybe a free round at the course or a small Trophey, they just do a random draw for the prize table . In the ones that have big money on the line, they go out in 8 somes for 4-man and 4 somes for 2 man scrambles/ best balls.

                  PA-PLAYA agreed re what shot to pick, often is the shot that is closest to the hole with a dodgy lie and/or angle...IMO this is do to the level of golfer involved and simply not understanding and/or playing enough and what it means to get close to the hole...almost always from the fwy. The other thing I notice is players not understanding the ability to place the ball in an optimum spot, i.e. a good lie, vs dropping it o or haphazardly placing it where it's harder to get the club on the ball.

                    Weirfan

                    Mulligans don't matter if you're already making birdie on every par 4 and eagles on par 5s. I'm positive you could put Jason Day, Dustin Johnson, Jordan Spieth and Henrik Stenson in that format and they wouldn't shoot a 40.

                    I also don't buy any team of "average joes" shooting a legit 45 in any format.

                        kchacker

                        I can't verify that they did , but they won with that score . I can say that my group shot an honest 50 in the same event with 4 average joes ( 2 guys that were 7 cappers and two that there in the teens) remember there were 2 mulligans per player ( that could be used on any shot) , a hand throw by each player and a group piece of string that could be used to move the ball once the length of string/distance anywhere on the course. Mulligans can matter on short par 4's, we had a guy who hit it long and he could drive some of the par 4's . When DC 300 , Bigdaddy and Hackingnewbie and I won the scramble in Rochester 2 years back DC was regularly driving green's for us, and we were on every par 5 in 2 iirc...
                        My group that shot the -20 in the mulligan fest also shot a -18 in an event that same summer with no mulligans.

                        I seem to recall a -23 ( net 49) at Bryant's ( Lowpro) charity event in North Carolina One year, 4 guys that tour around and play scrambles all the time . the best we ever did with RangerX, Coachsb Eguller and I was -16.

                            Weirfan I can't verify that they did , but they won with that score . I can say that my group shot an honest 50 in the same event with 4 average joes ( 2 guys that were 7 cappers and two that there in the teens) remember there were 2 mulligans per player ( that could be used on any shot) , a hand throw by each player and a group piece of string that could be used to move the ball once the length of string/distance anywhere on the course.
                            We also shot a -18 in an event that same summer with no mulligans.

                            I seem to recall a -23 ( net 49) at Bryant's ( Lowpro) charity event in North Carolina One year, 4 guys that tour around and play scrambles all the time . the best we ever did with RangerX, Coachsb Eguller and I was -16.

                            Those numbers I've seen, or at least can envision. -23 is getting down there, but if there are a couple of drivable par 4s, I can at least see how it's possible from ridiculously good golfers who are on fire. But where would 7-10 more strokes come from? They just aren't there. If you're putting it to two feet from 60 yards, mulligans don't help and that's if it happens on EVERY hole. Even with a mulligan it's still a birdie unless you jar it.

                            Birdies aren't good enough, to get to 40 one would have to make one albatross, 10 eagles and 7 birdies. Throw in mulligans and string......still total BS. I guess it could have been two albatrosses (albatrossi? ), 8 eagles and 8 birdies. Or 12 eagles and 6 birdies.

                            TWELVE EAGLES. Those are the kinds of numbers we're talking about.

                                kchacker

                                In our 50 (-20) we eagled the 2 par 5's , a 1 putt eagle putt on a 299 yard par 4 when i drove it to 2 and 1/2 feet, a greenside bunker chip in ( actually was using one of the throw the ball ) made 12 birdies and 2 pars. We realistically could have shot -22 or 48. So I can see golfers better than us
                                Realistically shooting 45. If they lucked out with getting a 20-30 foot piece of string and drove a green, could be an automatic eagle.
                                In our -18 with no mulligans we eagled all 4 par 5's .

                                  azgreg My group played better than anticipated. We shot a 65.

                                  Lost by just 25 shots.

                                  HAHAHA! If you're gonna cheat go big or go home I guess.

                                    Playing from 5700 yards and two of the guys are on the local college team I would think they could go really low. Still (12 eagles and 6 birdies) is 30 under that is pretty difficult to manage. That would mean driving many of the par 4's and making the putts. Then on in two and and making all the putts on the par 5's. We all have heard horror stories like this in a scramble format. The only reason I ever play in a scramble is if the money is for a worthwhile charity and then
                                    we just play and have fun and forget about winning anything.

                                    A friend and I have been putting together plans over the past few months to start our own fundraising event (hopefully) next summer, benefitting one of the local charities. We've decided that the format won't be a scramble, but a 2-man best ball. Verifiable handicaps will be required. We're hoping to drum up enough local support to afford some nice prizes for the first three (net) places... and we'll also award a top prize for low-gross.

                                    We'll also throw in an optional skins game ($20/team) that will be paid out to each team winning a skin. And we won't shame the skins winners into donating the money back to the charity... we will encourage them to keep it.

                                    The way I see it - if you run a good tournament, if you can host it at a reasonably nice course, and you can get golfers who enjoy competing in a fair and competitive event that offers something real in return for playing well - you stand a very good chance of having good turnout the next event you host. But finding volunteers to help and establishing a committee has been more difficult than we anticipated. But we're still trying.

                                    Unfortunately there is a negative stigma attached to most run-of-the-mill charity fundraisers at the local level, and even more unfortunate is the fact that most of the time the stigma is well-deserved. Some of the most enjoyable fundraisers I've ever played in were hosted at nice venues, were well managed, offered nice prizes and decent food afterward. We're not talking steak dinners, but beer, burgers and dogs and a BBQ grill. Trying to make money off of food is a major pitfall imo. I've never made a decision to play in a tournament because of what was on the menu, but I have made a decision based on how much the entry fees cost. Quite frankly, I'd rather have baked beans, burgers and dogs than some of the crap I've eaten at these events over the years. Keeping the food expenses reasonable is an important part of the overall deal imo.

                                    It's an enormous amount of work, but it's no less necessary. It doesn't hurt that a good friend of ours is very much involved in local business circles, and is acquainted with some of the local sports celebrities in Philly and NY. He very much believes we can get at least a couple of groups of former NFL/NBA players to play, which could be extremely helpful as far as turnout goes.

                                    We have a blueprint, we know what we want, we know what needs to be done. And a lot of what needs to be done needs to happen over the next few months, so it will be a time-sensitive endeavor to be sure. But I think the proceeds could be significant and could certainly help the local charity we're involved with, which makes it worth the time and effort.