# CSS Farce



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

I know this has been done before but you can't search for "CSS" so we're doing it again rather than reviving an old thread.....

Why should high handicappers, cat 3 or 4, have an impact on the handicaps of better players by affecting CSS with scores in their rather large buffer zones?

Cat 1 and cat 4 players in particular are playing the game in very different ways to the extent that conditions can penalise one and benefit the other. For example, short hitters love firm fairways for the extra distance it affords them whereas it can bring an additional problem for better players dealing with hard bounces and the prospect of running out of fairway etc. Similarly the wind can be a big factor for better players to consider while higher handicaps find it little more than an annoyance since they don't launch the ball high at the best of times.

Yes it's a rant because I'm aggrieved after seemingly making my buffer by playing well in challenging conditions only to find CSS reduced by a posse of high handicappers scoring in their buffers.

I've benefited from CSS going up on days that I've played badly but I would have deserved +0.1 on those days and could have accepted it easily. Last night is a sore one and, on balance, I'd rather play to SSS every time and stand or fall on my own merits.


Pretty sure there must be a few paid up members of the "I hate CSS Club" on here....?


----------



## alexbrownmp (Aug 11, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			I know this has been done before but you can't search for "CSS" so we're doing it again rather than reviving an old thread.....

Why should high handicappers, cat 3 or 4, have an impact on the handicaps of better players by affecting CSS with scores in their rather large buffer zones?

Cat 1 and cat 4 players in particular are playing the game in very different ways to the extent that conditions can penalise one and benefit the other. For example, short hitters love firm fairways for the extra distance it affords them whereas it can bring an additional problem for better players dealing with hard bounces and the prospect of running out of fairway etc. Similarly the wind can be a big factor for better players to consider while higher handicaps find it little more than an annoyance since they don't launch the ball high at the best of times.

Yes it's a rant because I'm aggrieved after seemingly making my buffer by playing well in challenging conditions only to find CSS reduced by a posse of high handicappers scoring in their buffers.

I've benefited from CSS going up on days that I've played badly but I would have deserved +0.1 on those days and could have accepted it easily. Last night is a sore one and, on balance, I'd rather play to SSS every time and stand or fall on my own merits.


Pretty sure there must be a few paid up members of the "I hate CSS Club" on here....?
		
Click to expand...

I hear ya!

Our css comes down every week- I used to belong to a harder course and it went up at least 1 sometimes 2 everyweek which really helped low cappers. Currently unless I break par scratch I go up every week


----------



## bladeplayer (Aug 11, 2015)

Not sure Cat 4 players have any bearing on it yet 

But i hear what ur saying and agree wholeheartedly esp on the hard condition days and the css is the same as a perfect day 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cookelad (Aug 11, 2015)

Yes fully understand!

Our SSS is 1 under and occasionally CSS drops to 2, bearing in mind that there's already so little leeway between a good round and 0.1 increase taking 2 shots off us before we even start is a joke (I know CSS isn't calculated until the comp is closed). Been victim of the CSS a number of times when I've shot a shot or two under only to have the CSS reduced, damned thing never came up enough when I've had a stinker though!


----------



## Wabinez (Aug 11, 2015)

Cat 4 players are eliminated for men. Cat 5 are eliminated for women.

It's all done as percentages...so nn â€˜normalâ€™ playing conditions, for example, 37-68% of participating Category 1 players are expected to return Net scores to the SSS +2 or better.  In contrast, in the same conditions only 16-30% of Category 3 players are expected to return Net scores to SSS +2 or better. In competition situations when course conditions are more or less favourable than â€˜normalâ€™ these
percentages will increase or decrease respectively,


----------



## happyhacker (Aug 11, 2015)

Just reads as another bash on high handicappers and how they 'ruin it' for the low players.  As you said yourself, you've benefitted the other way. It is swings and roundabouts over a season and I'd have some faith that the system works (better people than you and I put it in place).


----------



## Backache (Aug 11, 2015)

I cannot comment on CSS but as a high handicapper who quite often plays with better golfers I can assure you that high handicappers get affected by the wind, generally more than Cat1 golfers.
We are slicers and hookers .


----------



## pbrown7582 (Aug 11, 2015)

it is what it is some you win some you lose. .........


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 11, 2015)

Cat 4 player have no effect on CSS for the time being, we do come January 2016.

I really feel for those better players who have to deal with less than perfect conditions, it's such a shame that a better player can't play darts on to soft greens and have to put up with baked ground and high bounces.

You play to the conditions and adapt to that, you're playing the course and if the course is being a bitch and biting back, suck it up and change the shot you'll play.

While CSS is based on several things, one being the scores coming in, there are many cat 1 golfers who regardless of what others are doing, fail to return a card and subsequently affect the CSS calculation as well, so blaming CSS purely on Cat 3 golfers is wrong.


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 11, 2015)

Khamelion said:



			Cat 4 player have no effect on CSS for the time being, we do come January 2016.

I really feel for those better players who have to deal with less than perfect conditions, it's such a shame that a better player can't play darts on to soft greens and have to put up with baked ground and high bounces.

You play to the conditions and adapt to that, you're playing the course and if the course is being a bitch and biting back, suck it up and change the shot you'll play.

While CSS is based on several things, one being the scores coming in, there are many cat 1 golfers who regardless of what others are doing, fail to return a card and subsequently affect the CSS calculation as well, so blaming CSS purely on Cat 3 golfers is wrong.
		
Click to expand...

But the issue here is that cat4s have a 4 shot buffer, if CSS gets reduced by 1 shot (all it can go down), they still have a 3 shot buffer + also most likely 1 or 2 clause 19 adjustments. 

if CSS goes down for a cat 1 golfer, they have effectively lost their buffer. 

the old saying 'if it aint broke, dont fix it' comes to mind


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

Thanks for all the "corrections" about cat 4. Remember I'm female so very much affected by cat 4 scores, thanks!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

happyhacker said:



			Just reads as another bash on high handicappers and how they 'ruin it' for the low players.  As you said yourself, you've benefitted the other way. It is swings and roundabouts over a season and I'd have some faith that the system works (better people than you and I put it in place).
		
Click to expand...

Definitely not intended to bash high handicappers, just the system. Yes it's swings and roundabouts but the point is it's wrong both ways - my handicap should be determined by how I play not how others play IMO.


----------



## Spear-Chucker (Aug 11, 2015)

I've mumbled into my beard* about this before but ultimately no system is perfect and it's easier on stress levels to just go along with it. I've studied the maths, looked at other systems and not found the perfect answer.

OP, I'm sure you know this but local area scratch events are a great way to reduce hcp (with good play of course) as the css invariably goes up one or two.

I'm not sure that higher hcp's can be blamed (we're all part of the system) although the occasional tugging of a forelock or offering of a sedan chair and ostrich feather cooling combo might ease the pain for cat 1's.

*Metaphorical beard as I'm just not that 'hip'


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

Backache said:



			I cannot comment on CSS but as a high handicapper who quite often plays with better golfers I can assure you that high handicappers get affected by the wind, generally more than Cat1 golfers.
We are slicers and hookers .
		
Click to expand...

Lots that I play with seem to play under the wind, but point taken.


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 11, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Thanks for all the "corrections" about cat 4. Remember I'm female so very much affected by cat 4 scores, thanks!
		
Click to expand...

I would also imagine (correct me if i am wrong), that participant numbers are lower than the mens meaning it takes less good rounds for the SSS to be affected? 

we have over 150ppl enter each of our events at the club, so it takes a lot of good/or bad golf for the SSS to move


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 11, 2015)

@Kamelion and Bladeplayer...Read Fairway Dodger's Signature!!

@Karen (to save the above some time!). The simple remedy is to ALWAYS consider CSS as 1 below SSS! That way you get the benefit when it stays the same or goes up, but don't have the disappointment when it does go down. And I'd suspect, because of small fields, that you are off SSS a bit more than you should be anyway. Oh, and as it's a 'relative' metric anyway, as long as the same is happening to  anyone you are competing against in the likes of Away comps, then it's actually of no real significance - statistically speaking! - so just accept it, like you might a shank or 3-putt !!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

MendieGK said:



			I would also imagine (correct me if i am wrong), that participant numbers are lower than the mens meaning it takes less good rounds for the SSS to be affected? 

we have over 150ppl enter each of our events at the club, so it takes a lot of good/or bad golf for the SSS to move
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. I feel when CSS changes it's less to do with conditions on the day and more down to pure chance as to how many players happened to have a good day or not.

I've actually seen CSS go down with only about two players in buffer - totally random!


Just to add, last night the conditions were pretty tough - I expected to struggle before we started and we'd all considered not bothering. Yet CSS went down. Previously I've played in perfect summer conditions, barely a breath of wind and seen CSS go "reductions only". 

By my understanding of what CSS is trying to achieve it fails miserably and just provides a random adjustment at the end of the day. :rant:


----------



## bladeplayer (Aug 11, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			@Kamelion and Bladeplayer...Read Fairway Dodger's Signature!!

@Karen (to save the above some time!). The simple remedy is to ALWAYS consider CSS as 1 below SSS! That way you get the benefit when it stays the same or goes up, but don't have the disappointment when it does go down. And I'd suspect, because of small fields, that you are off SSS a bit more than you should be anyway. Oh, and as it's a 'relative' metric anyway, as long as the same is happening to  anyone you are competing against in the likes of Away comps, then it's actually of no real significance - statistically speaking! - so just accept it, like you might a shank or 3-putt !!
		
Click to expand...

I know alota fellas that hit the ball like a girl or worse in some cases.. (especially in Karens case) 
Ta mate im aware Karen is a female , i was not however aware of the cat4 /5 status of the womens handicapping system 



FairwayDodger said:



			Thanks for all the "corrections" about cat 4. Remember I'm female so very much affected by cat 4 scores, thanks!
		
Click to expand...

Apologies , i have never had experience of the ladies handicapping system , i was'nt even aware there was such thing as Cat 5


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			@Karen (to save the above some time!). The simple remedy is to ALWAYS consider CSS as 1 below SSS! That way you get the benefit when it stays the same or goes up, but don't have the disappointment when it does go down.
		
Click to expand...

It's a good philosophy but with SSS at 1 under par I'm already playing catchup! Truth is I hadn't given it much thought - I don't add up my score but usually have an idea and I was pretty sure after 16 that I was 4 over so needed 2 pars for buffer. I did add it up before taking the par putt on 18 - didn't want to leave it short if it was for buffer and didn't want to race it past if it wasn't!!! 

Hence the disappointment this morning!


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 11, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			@Kamelion and Bladeplayer...Read Fairway Dodger's Signature!!
		
Click to expand...

From Fairwaydodger's signature it says "There is a reason why the Fairway Dodger hits it like a girl!", it doesn't say that FairwayDodger is male or female, the line could just be a flippant remark, just like the remark at the bottom of yours.

I was not aware that FD was female, I am aware now.

That written, I've still no sympathy for Cat1 golfers who feel hard done to, by higher category golfers affecting the CSS. Regardless of category, a golfers is still playing the course and if on any given day they are not good enough to beat the course, then they need to play better.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

Khamelion said:



			That written, I've still no sympathy for Cat1 golfers who feel hard done to, by higher category golfers affecting the CSS. Regardless of category, a golfers is still playing the course and if on any given day they are not good enough to beat the course, then they need to play better.
		
Click to expand...

Whoosh!


----------



## alexbrownmp (Aug 11, 2015)

Khamelion said:



			From Fairwaydodger's signature it says "There is a reason why the Fairway Dodger hits it like a girl!", it doesn't say that FairwayDodger is male or female, the line could just be a flippant remark, just like the remark at the bottom of yours.

*I was not aware that FD was female, I am aware now.*

That written, I've still no sympathy for Cat1 golfers who feel hard done to, by higher category golfers affecting the CSS. Regardless of category, a golfers is still playing the course and if on any given day they are not good enough to beat the course, then they need to play better.
		
Click to expand...

4 years here and you werent aware?

I am aware, but I do have an eye for the ladiesssssss *he twirls his moustache*


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

Khamelion said:



			That written, I've still no sympathy for Cat1 golfers who feel hard done to, by higher category golfers affecting the CSS. Regardless of category, a golfers is still playing the course and if on any given day they are not good enough to beat the course, then they need to play better.
		
Click to expand...




FairwayDodger said:



			Whoosh!



Click to expand...

Apologies, that's far too arsey a reply from me but you did annoy me a tad! 

What I should have said is that I think you have misunderstood the nature and point of this particular rant! :cheers:


----------



## delc (Aug 11, 2015)

I believe that including Cat-4 men and Cat-5 women in the CSS calculation as from next year will be a good thing, especially for competitions where there are a high percentage of such players in the field, such as seniors comps.  Otherwise the CSS can be based on the performances of a tiny number of lower handicap golfers, who may not be statistically representative of the whole field.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

delc said:



			I believe that including Cat-4 men and Cat-5 women in the CSS calculation as from next year will be a good thing, especially for competitions where there are a high percentage of such players in the field, such as seniors comps.  Otherwise the CSS can be based on the performances of a tiny number of lower handicap golfers, who may not be statistically representative of the whole field.
		
Click to expand...

While I agree that the more scores counting the better chance of CSS having some sort of statistical or scientific basis, I have to disagree that including such high handicaps will be a good thing.

I know it's not a universally popular view but the fact is that cat 1 and cat 5 players are playing the game in radically different ways and are positively/negatively impacted by different sorts of conditions. Including cat 5 women and cat 4 men will, IMO, only make a bad situation worse.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 11, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Apologies, that's far too arsey a reply from me but you did annoy me a tad! 

What I should have said is that I think you have misunderstood the nature and point of this particular rant! :cheers:
		
Click to expand...

No need to apologise.

I have understood your original post rant, your argument [rant] being that when you have played well in tough conditions and thought you have met buffer, the score of others have moved the CSS and instead of making buffer the change in CSS has meant you miss buffer and get a 0.1 rise. 

I appreciate that the lower category golfers have less margin for error then the higher category counterparts, but doesn't the difference in buffer reflect the ability of the golfer? And while a few Cat 3 and 4 golfers scores will affect the CSS calculation, there will be just as many who will miss buffer.

However, I still standby my comment about playing the course and I will add to that the conditions, especially as your comment below seems nothing more than sour grapes.



FairwayDodger said:



			Cat 1 and cat 4 players in particular are playing the game in very different ways to the extent that conditions can penalise one and benefit the other. For example, short hitters love firm fairways for the extra distance it affords them whereas it can bring an additional problem for better players dealing with hard bounces and the prospect of running out of fairway etc. Similarly the wind can be a big factor for better players to consider while higher handicaps find it little more than an annoyance since they don't launch the ball high at the best of times.
		
Click to expand...

As you write above, being a Cat 1 golfer you approach the game different to that of a Cat 4 golfer, us Cat 4 golfers just hack the ball around the course keeping our fingers crossed the ball is going to go where we were aiming, us Cat 4 golfers don't worry or take into consideration the course or weather conditions as we rarely hit a good shot and when we do it's more out of good luck than good management, but being a Cat 1 golfer you carefully consider the state of the course, the direction the wind is blowing and see problems for the shots you play e.g. the ground is to hard therefore the high ball into the green is going to roll past the hole, possibly off the green. Change your shot.

While you rant about Cat 4 golfers, the game we play to that of which you, a Cat 1 golfer plays, is no different, to me we play the same game, we are after the same results, that is to end with the best score possible, based on our individual ability and conditions for which we are presented on any given round. If that results in a cut, great we beat the course, if it results in a lift, it's a shame we didn't beat the course an we try harder next time.

While missing buffer by 1 for a Cat 1 golfers is annoying because of the CSS changing, it's just as annoying for a Cat4 golfer missing buffer by 1 stroke as well.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 11, 2015)

Personally I'd scrap CSS!

I'd be very happy to have a cut, or an increase, in handicap based on SSS. I don't see how many other players finding the course easy or tough affects my game on a given day and it brasses me off that I don't get the cut I was hoping for just because the weather is kind! I know I'll be in a minority of one on this view but so be it. At least our club has finally got par and SSS the same!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

Got to laugh, so you think I should play differently in high winds and hard ground conditions than I would normally? If only I'd thought of that I'd have shot a better score than my somewhat terrible 4 over par.... 

My point is that I played pretty well, had a great score considering the conditions but the goalposts moved.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree but I will add that while it's more annoying when CSS goes down my argument is that it's also wrong when CSS goes up.

I understand what CSS is trying to achieve but when it goes down in tough conditions or up in benign ones it has failed and results in spurious handicap adjustments (for everyone, but cat 1 disproportionately so). My experience is that CSS is almost completely random and bears no relation to conditions except in the rare instances where it's so bad as to be practically unplayable.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Personally I'd scrap CSS!

I'd be very happy to have a cut, or an increase, in handicap based on SSS. I don't see how many other players finding the course easy or tough affects my game on a given day and it brasses me off that I don't get the cut I was hoping for just because the weather is kind! I know I'll be in a minority of one on this view but so be it. At least our club has finally got par and SSS the same!
		
Click to expand...

Definitely not a minority of one - I am with you Chris!


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 11, 2015)

lets just remove handicaps. wont be an issue then


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 11, 2015)

I fully sympathise with the OP 

Last year I played to my HC 4 times but went up .1 each time due to the CSS drifting to 69 ( par 71 ) - I was extremely frustrated. Also I shot a few 1 under HC and didn't get any cuts 

I was assured by county that they would look at the Cat 1 results and take it into account at their AR ( they didn't )

I don't know what a better system is but I would like SSS and CSS to be scrapped and all scars for HC to be matched against the Par of the course


----------



## pbrown7582 (Aug 11, 2015)

Scrap Css and buffer, you get cut under SSS up 0.1 over only time of no change is if you match SSS.


----------



## pbrown7582 (Aug 11, 2015)

Where's Imurg...... You know you want too......


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 11, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Got to laugh, so you think I should play differently in high winds and hard ground conditions than I would normally? If only I'd thought of that I'd have shot a better score than my somewhat terrible 4 over par.... 

Click to expand...

Well perhaps if you had played differently, that terrible 4 over par, could have been a glorious 2 over par and 0.1 cut.

Do you change you shot though? Being a better player the wind obviously affects you more than a poorer player, "seeing that higher handicaps don't launch the ball high."



FairwayDodger said:



			Similarly the wind can be a big factor for better players to consider while higher handicaps find it little more than an annoyance since they don't launch the ball high at the best of times.
		
Click to expand...

Okay the above may be a little harsh twisting you own words to suit and just for the purposes of argument, but what scheme would you propose? If CSS was scraped? Keep it on SSS for each individual course? Great if you only ever play your own course, but what about opens at other courses? Just because your courses SSS is 68 doesn't mean that my course also with a SSS of 68, will be equal to yours.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

Khamelion said:



			Well perhaps if you had played differently, that terrible 4 over par, could have been a glorious 2 over par and 0.1 cut.

Do you change you shot though? Being a better player the wind obviously affects you more than a poorer player, "seeing that higher handicaps don't launch the ball high."



Okay the above may be a little harsh twisting you own words to suit and just for the purposes of argument, but what scheme would you propose? If CSS was scraped? Keep it on SSS for each individual course? Great if you only ever play your own course, but what about opens at other courses? Just because your courses SSS is 68 doesn't mean that my course also with a SSS of 68, will be equal to yours.
		
Click to expand...

See now you're just being mean, of course I altered the way I played; I had to! I've played much worse than last night and walked away with a handicap cut. 4 over par in that wind was an achievement for me. And I'd have needed to shoot 1 over par for a handicap cut last night! 

I also think you're getting a bit unnecessarily touchy about my remarks about the ball flight of high handicap players - remember I'm talking about high handicap women. I accept 20-something handicap men can generally hit the ball high and hard and that accuracy is probably more their problem.

Yes, every course has a SSS so I'd just play all competitions off that. Why not? As I said, I don't see any correlation in the comps I play between CSS and difficulty of the course conditions on the day.


----------



## garyinderry (Aug 11, 2015)

I missed a small cut at the weekend because quite a few players managed good scores on firm sandy hollow tinned greens and a fair bit of wind. 

I didn't think it was that easy out there and certainly didn't expect the amount of good scores that came in.

I am in the 'it's completely random' camp.  


Although it may be hat time of the year where most people's games are beginning to click and good scores are to be expected along with a lower Css.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 11, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			See now you're just being mean, of course I altered the way I played; I had to! I've played much worse than last night and walked away with a handicap cut. 4 over par in that wind was an achievement for me. And I'd have needed to shoot 1 over par for a handicap cut last night! 

I also think you're getting a bit unnecessarily touchy about my remarks about the ball flight of high handicap players - remember I'm talking about high handicap women. I accept 20-something handicap men can generally hit the ball high and hard and that accuracy is probably more their problem.

Yes, every course has a SSS so I'd just play all competitions off that. Why not? As I said, I don't see any correlation in the comps I play between CSS and difficulty of the course conditions on the day.
		
Click to expand...

I know that was a little bit mean, but hell, if you're going to provide the ammunition, it'd be rude not to use it. As for the ball flight, everyone is different, doesn't matter who, men or women, there will be those regardless of HC, that will launch low and some high.

I do not think that using SSS would be a good option, the variables that go into calculation SSS are going to be different at each course, and just because the SSS comes out the same, doesn't mean the course plays equally.


----------



## Imurg (Aug 11, 2015)

pbrown7582 said:



			Where's Imurg...... You know you want too...... 

Click to expand...

Hello Boys.....and Girl.!

I detest the fact that my handicap is affected by how other people play.

No doubt the Pro CSS'ers will argue their case well but I'll never be convinced.

We use SSS for allocation of handicaps - we should use it to adjust them too.
Then you know what target you have at the start of the round.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Aug 11, 2015)

My views on CSS are well known and I don't see why we can't just use SSS and be done with it.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

Khamelion said:



			I do not think that using SSS would be a good option, the variables that go into calculation SSS are going to be different at each course, and just because the SSS comes out the same, doesn't mean the course plays equally.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not really too aware of how SSS is allocated but my understanding was that it represents the score a scratch player should shoot on a good day? And the whole point of it is precisely to provide a meaningful comparison of the difficulty of courses.

Naturally it doesn't mean that two courses with the same SSS provide the same challenge in detail, just the same overall level of difficulty. So one might be shorter than the other but requiring greater accuracy off the tee etc.


----------



## delc (Aug 11, 2015)

The Competition Scratch Score is intended to be an adjustment for the weather and course conditions. Provided most of the players in the field have correct handicaps to start with, then you would expect a greater percentage of the field to make buffer on a benign day than on a difficult windy day.  Scoring a nett 2 or 3 over SSS on a difficult day may be just as good as being 2 or 3 under on an easy day.  Cat-4 golfers are generally poorer than Cat-1s in terms of nett scores, but have a wider buffer zone.  Seems fair enough to me!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

delc said:



			The Competition Scratch Score is intended to be an adjustment for the weather and course conditions. Provided most of the players in the field have correct handicaps to start with, then you would expect a greater percentage of the field to make buffer on a benign day than on a difficult windy day.  Scoring a nett 2 or 3 over SSS on a difficult day may be just as good as being 2 or 3 under on an easy day.  Cat-4 golfers are generally poorer than Cat-1s in terms of nett scores, but have a wider buffer zone.  Seems fair enough to me!
		
Click to expand...

We all know what it's intended for. I'm ranting because it doesn't work - it singularly fails to do its job. CSS often goes up in easy conditions (regularly) and down in difficult ones (last night for example).

I've seen a CONGU statistical analysis that attempts to prove CSS works but it's all based on a quantitative analysis of the frequency in which CSS moves up or down or matches SSS. What is pointedly missing is a qualitative assessment about the playing conditions on the days that CSS moves. 

I stand by my anecdotal observation that CSS is almost totally random and direction of movement can only be reliably guessed on days where conditions are so bad as to be almost unplayable.


----------



## Backache (Aug 11, 2015)

Maybe it's different in women's medals with lower turnouts but my impression is it works reasonably well at my course.
I must admit I would be a bit pissed off if I was a member on a windy links course and get on getting my handicap put up when everyone is shooting high scores.
Probably like a lot of things in golf there is an element of rub of the green and the chances are if you play frequency your cuts and rises will even out and your handicap will reflect your play.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 11, 2015)

My understanding of SSS, is that it is the score a scratch golfer could get, but also SSS is calculated on course length, tightness of fairways, number of bunkers, playability out of those bunkers, rough (how high, how much), OOB, number of trees, contours of the green, plus a few others.

MY course may have an SSS of 68, calculated on length, a lot of trees, not many bunkers and fairly level greens, your courses SSS of 68, would again be on length, but you might not have as many trees or bunkers, but a lot of water and OOB with tight fairways and undulating greens, therefore while the SSS is the same the way you would play the courses is entirely different. I would find playing my course easy, but then I come to yours and it's a different ball game altogether.


----------



## USER1999 (Aug 11, 2015)

I'm with the op on this. It's just random. Take this Sunday for example. Beautiful day, next to no wind. Shorts out. Perfect.

I play garbage. Utter rubbish. Net 75, which should miss buffer by 1. However, it appears everyone else was rubbish too, so css goes up from 72 to 73 and I buffer. But the course conditions were perfect. It's daft.


----------



## Matty2803 (Aug 11, 2015)

Silly,  I hate the Css.

At my home course the SSS 3 under and the Css rarely changes,  4 under handicap for a 0.2 cut...

I know it should reflect the course's difficulty, and the playing conditions but its defo not 3 under difficult!!!


----------



## chrisd (Aug 11, 2015)

Blimey ! I'm not the only one to want the scrapping of CSS, I thought I'd get hammered for that one. I just want the full cut when I shoot under par and I'll take the .1 if I have to when I go, say, 2 over SSS


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 11, 2015)

Separate CSS for each class. 

Agree with opening poster all the way. I also think the current handicap system is poorly thought out. There has to be a fairer way and more accurate.


----------



## NWJocko (Aug 11, 2015)

Matty2803 said:



			Silly,  I hate the Css.

At my home course the SSS 3 under and the Css rarely changes,  4 under handicap for a 0.2 cut...

I know it should reflect the course's difficulty, and the playing conditions but its defo not 3 under difficult!!!
		
Click to expand...

Are you not making the mistake of comparing your handicap to par rather than SSS here?

I'm no expert but I thought for handicapping par is an irrelevance and all you're bothered about is SSS for initial allocation and CSS (essentially an adjusted SSS for conditions that day) thereafter?

4 under handicap would be 4 under SSS not par no?


----------



## chrisd (Aug 11, 2015)

NWJocko said:



			Are you not making the mistake of comparing your handicap to par rather than SSS here?

I'm no expert but I thought for handicapping par is an irrelevance and all you're bothered about is SSS for initial allocation and CSS (essentially an adjusted SSS for conditions that day) thereafter?

4 under handicap would be 4 under SSS not par no?
		
Click to expand...

At mine SSS is now the same as par for the course off the white comp tees .


----------



## USER1999 (Aug 11, 2015)

chrisd said:



			At mine SSS is now the same as par for the course off the white comp tees .
		
Click to expand...

Same for me. Par 72, sss 72. Just leave it alone.

Css is supposed to take inclement conditions into account, but that's cods too. The weather can change hugely during the day, so it's not a constant.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 11, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			Same for me. Par 72, sss 72. Just leave it alone.

Css is supposed to take inclement conditions into account, but that's cods too. The weather can change hugely during the day, so it's not a constant.
		
Click to expand...

A couple of weeks ago we had 3 juniors shoot stupid low in a midweek that I had 41 points, I guess that affected my cut?


----------



## Matty2803 (Aug 11, 2015)

NWJocko said:



			Are you not making the mistake of comparing your handicap to par rather than SSS here?

I'm no expert but I thought for handicapping par is an irrelevance and all you're bothered about is SSS for initial allocation and CSS (essentially an adjusted SSS for conditions that day) thereafter?

4 under handicap would be 4 under SSS not par no?
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, and four under my handicap (4 under nett par) gets a 0.2 cut because its 1 under the Css.

Par = 70

SSS = 67


----------



## duncan mackie (Aug 11, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			We all know what it's intended for. I'm ranting because it doesn't work - it singularly fails to do its job. CSS often goes up in easy conditions (regularly) and down in difficult ones (last night for example).

I've seen a CONGU statistical analysis that attempts to prove CSS works but it's all based on a quantitative analysis of the frequency in which CSS moves up or down or matches SSS. What is pointedly missing is a qualitative assessment about the playing conditions on the days that CSS moves. 

I stand by my anecdotal observation that CSS is almost totally random and direction of movement can only be reliably guessed on days where conditions are so bad as to be almost unplayable.
		
Click to expand...

How many cat 1 - 4 players were there in this comp Karen?

Part of the apparently random nature of CSS calculations for Ladies is that they frequently use the small field calculation - which is very different. 

Interestingly this was requested for and designed by the better Ladies and CSS ends up a function of the better score rather than buffer percentage. The reason it was requested  was to deal with the catch 22 of the higher players who couldn't play to their handicaps resulting in RO so they never went up!

As CSS can only go down 1, and the percentage of relevant players scoring buffer (without any stableford adjustments!) to create that is pushing half the field or more, it should, as you fairly recognise in your posts, be a good  (and safe) factor. I also accept fully the fact that on some courses what helps some offers little to others - rhis is a function of inclusive handicapping that covers such a wide range of course lengths and layouts. No rating system can - but its the biggest strength of the inclusion of the bogey index in the USGA one.

As to why we have a CSS - again it's primarily about elite amateurs. There is clear evidence that they are selective both on the courses and the conditions they play in the quest to lower their handicaps. CSS tries to make such decisions easier! 

Personally I think it's appropriate and we'll structured but completely accept that it's not perfect. I hope that from 2020 it disappears (but suspect that the Australian contribution to the multifaceted system implemented will be to include a factor for T (C, Q,  or whatever designation Tournament scores get).

Time will tell.

Good luck in your endeavours.


----------



## duncan mackie (Aug 11, 2015)

chrisd said:



			A couple of weeks ago we had 3 juniors shoot stupid low in a midweek that I had 41 points, I guess that affected my cut?
		
Click to expand...

No more than I'd they had just shot buffer.


----------



## mcbroon (Aug 11, 2015)

I'd keep CSS to take account of weather etc. but I don't agree with it going down. CSS being lower than SSS says to me that SSS is wrong.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			Same for me. Par 72, sss 72. Just leave it alone.

Css is supposed to take inclement conditions into account, but that's cods too. The weather can change hugely during the day, so it's not a constant.
		
Click to expand...

That was a big part of the issue. The wind increased through the day. It hadn't seemed too bad earlier on but was getting problematic when we started and very quickly became challenging.


----------



## pbrown7582 (Aug 11, 2015)

Matty2803 said:



			Silly,  I hate the Css.

At my home course the SSS 3 under and the Css rarely changes,  4 under handicap for a 0.2 cut...

I know it should reflect the course's difficulty, and the playing conditions but its defo not 3 under difficult!!!
		
Click to expand...

But the 3 under is taken into account when allocating handicaps as they are  calculated off SSS not par. So 3 under par is actually only playing to your handicap.
A couple of short par 5's or driveable par 4's by any chance?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

Thanks Duncan for the informative reply.

We had 32 players so using the normal CSS calculation. Not sure of the exact breakdown but only one cat 1 :smirk:

One thing I like about the small field calculation is that CSS never goes down but in the other direction its completely dependent on one player's score so a bit strange sometimes. My other club has so few females in medals that the small field calculation is always used and I find that means that, usually, if I don't play within three of my handicap it goes RO. Means that handicaps rarely go up there even though the course can be quite tricky.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 11, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			We all know what it's intended for. I'm ranting because it doesn't work - it singularly fails to do its job. CSS often goes up in easy conditions (regularly) and down in difficult ones (last night for example).

I've seen a CONGU statistical analysis that attempts to prove CSS works but it's all based on a quantitative analysis of the frequency in which CSS moves up or down or matches SSS. What is pointedly missing is a qualitative assessment about the playing conditions on the days that CSS moves. 

I stand by my anecdotal observation that CSS is almost totally random and direction of movement can only be reliably guessed on days where conditions are so bad as to be almost unplayable.
		
Click to expand...

CSS is just a statistical correction factor to take account of certain patterns in a data set. As such, it operates according to the formula used, so it therefore works as well as the formula was designed to make adjustments.  It is not random at all, nor is it arbitrary, which is what I think you actually mean. It would be perfectly possible to amend the formula to make CSS increases or decreases more or less likely, or to take lesser account of certain handicap categories.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to have a CSS, and it isn't just to do with weather. At Bearwood Lakes, we have seen CSS go up on days when the greenskeeper has put every flag on the side of a slope and/or the greens are so slippery you need metal spikes to stay on them. Weather is a factor too, but whatever the reason, it is simply a way of adjusting relative scoreability.


----------



## Matty2803 (Aug 11, 2015)

pbrown7582 said:



			But the 3 under is taken into account when allocating handicaps as they are  calculated off SSS not par. So 3 under par is actually only playing to your handicap.
A couple of short par 5's or driveable par 4's by any chance?
		
Click to expand...

Ahh ok.  I was only 11 (14 now) when I got my first handicap of 37, so it would be great to be able to do 3 cards again! haha!

Par 5s and 480, 490 and 542.  Maybe two drivable 4s, but plenty trouble on them!


----------



## MashieNiblick (Aug 11, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Definitely not intended to bash high handicappers, just the system. Yes it's swings and roundabouts but the point is it's wrong both ways - my handicap should be determined by how I play not how others play IMO.
		
Click to expand...




Imurg said:



			Hello Boys.....and Girl.!

I detest the fact that my handicap is affected by how other people play.

No doubt the Pro CSS'ers will argue their case well but I'll never be convinced.

We use SSS for allocation of handicaps - we should use it to adjust them too.
Then you know what target you have at the start of the round.
		
Click to expand...

I used to feel the same way.

But then I thought what is the point of a handicap? It isn't to give me an _absolute _ stand alone definitive value to my golfing ability (or lack of) although sometimes we tend to treat it as such. It is not a merit award. It is an artificial  mechanism to allow me to compete against _other golfers_. Therefore I think it is inherently a _relative _measure and as such there is an element that is determined to some extent by how I perform relative to those other golfers. Their performance impacts  on my handicap because the true purpose of my handicap is toallow me to compete _against them_ and therefore my performance must to some extent be assessed  _relative to theirs_.  I therefore accept that to some degree the difference between my handicap and theirs should change depending on how well I perform against SSS _relative to them_.   

The best reason for CSS is that SSS is based on set attributes of the course in certain conditions. The difficulty of some courses is more subject to variations of weather, conditions etc than others, making SSS unrealistic as a true measure of difficulty on a given day. SSS is fixed but conditions are not. CSS changes with, and usually reflects, playing conditions on the day based on _actual _performance of players. No shoulds, coulds or oughts.  It is not perfect but how else do you factor in conditions on the day when they may be a really significant element in the relative difficulty of the course?

Remember SSS is only what somebody _thinks _a notional scratch player _should _score in normal summer conditions. Why is that any better as a benchmark than how real people actually perform on the day?


----------



## pbrown7582 (Aug 11, 2015)

@matty; 
That sort of explains it a bit with 480/490 par 5 a scratch player would be expected get on the green in 2 hence possible the reason why SSS is below par. Doesn't help trying to get a cut though as you need 40 points! Nephew plays a course similar and it's hard going but once you start thinking in terms of SSS instead of par it helps. Good luck.


----------



## NWJocko (Aug 11, 2015)

Matty2803 said:



			Yeah, and four under my handicap (4 under nett par) gets a 0.2 cut because its 1 under the Css.

Par = 70

SSS = 67
		
Click to expand...

But your handicap is never measured against par....

Therefore "4 under your handicap" would be net 63 against SSS.

Net 4 under par and net 4 under your handicap are different things.


----------



## rosecott (Aug 11, 2015)

mcbroon said:



			I'd keep CSS to take account of weather etc. but I don't agree with it going down. CSS being lower than SSS says to me that SSS is wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Why would it be wrong? I know you play in Scotland but you must have played on a day when the weather was still and balmy and the greenkeepers had been extraordinarily kind with pin placements. In that event there will most likely be a significantly higher number achieving scores close to or better than SSS. That doesn't make the SSS wrong as it will be back to normal when the weather reverts to normal along with the pin positions.


----------



## cookelad (Aug 11, 2015)

Matty2803 said:



			Yeah, and four under my handicap (4 under nett par) gets a 0.2 cut because its 1 under the Css.

Par = 70

SSS = 67
		
Click to expand...

Do you have many low-handicappers at that course?


----------



## Matty2803 (Aug 11, 2015)

cookelad said:



			Do you have many low-handicappers at that course?
		
Click to expand...

Nope.  Not too many!


----------



## chrisd (Aug 11, 2015)

rosecott said:



			Why would it be wrong? I know you play in Scotland but you must have played on a day when the weather was still and balmy and the greenkeepers had been extraordinarily kind with pin placements. In that event there will most likely be a significantly higher number achieving scores close to or better than SSS. That doesn't make the SSS wrong as it will be back to normal when the weather reverts to normal along with the pin positions.
		
Click to expand...

But the argument is that we can all play well on bad weather days and poorly on good ones and we don't care what others do on the day and how easy or difficult the course is for everyone else, we just want the full cut when we beat SSS and vice versa. 

Goodness me Rose, I have precious few good days!


----------



## louise_a (Aug 11, 2015)

I find that I am generally affected by CSS going the other way, I can only recall our CSS going down once and that was last year but it often goes up. Twice this year I have bigger cuts than expected as CSS as gone up, in fact I did a thread about it last month.


----------



## cookelad (Aug 11, 2015)

Matty2803 said:



			Nope.  Not too many!
		
Click to expand...

Figures that they would find it difficult to get cut and/or buffer if they've constantly got to be par or better


----------



## louise_a (Aug 11, 2015)

Just had a look at all my scores this season, I started on 11.9 and based on CSS I am now off 10.1, had SSS been used instead, I would now be playing off 12.1


----------



## IanG (Aug 11, 2015)

Css at our place rarely comes down for either men or women, but there is considerably more variation in the ladies CSS due to the (often) small numbers playing in the comp. On the gents side I'd say there is a reasonable correlation between the weather conditions and CSS. 

Maybe the minimum number of competitors needed to trigger a CSS shift should be increased ??


----------



## azazel (Aug 11, 2015)

MashieNiblick said:



			I used to feel the same way.

But then I thought what is the point of a handicap? It isn't to give me an _absolute _ stand alone definitive value to my golfing ability (or lack of) although sometimes we tend to treat it as such. It is not a merit award. It is an artificial  mechanism to allow me to compete against _other golfers_. Therefore I think it is inherently a _relative _measure and as such there is an element that is determined to some extent by how I perform relative to those other golfers. Their performance impacts  on my handicap because the true purpose of my handicap is toallow me to compete _against them_ and therefore my performance must to some extent be assessed  _relative to theirs_.  I therefore accept that to some degree the difference between my handicap and theirs should change depending on how well I perform against SSS _relative to them_.   

The best reason for CSS is that SSS is based on set attributes of the course in certain conditions. The difficulty of some courses is more subject to variations of weather, conditions etc than others, making SSS unrealistic as a true measure of difficulty on a given day. SSS is fixed but conditions are not. CSS changes with, and usually reflects, playing conditions on the day based on _actual _performance of players. No shoulds, coulds or oughts.  It is not perfect but how else do you factor in conditions on the day when they may be a really significant element in the relative difficulty of the course?

Remember SSS is only what somebody _thinks _a notional scratch player _should _score in normal summer conditions. Why is that any better as a benchmark than how real people actually perform on the day?
		
Click to expand...

No-one else has acknowledged this post but I think it's a great one and sums things up very well indeed :whoo:


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Aug 11, 2015)

MashieNiblick said:



			I used to feel the same way.

But then I thought what is the point of a handicap? It isn't to give me an _absolute _ stand alone definitive value to my golfing ability (or lack of) although sometimes we tend to treat it as such. It is not a merit award. It is an artificial  mechanism to allow me to compete against _other golfers_. Therefore I think it is inherently a _relative _measure and as such there is an element that is determined to some extent by how I perform relative to those other golfers. Their performance impacts  on my handicap because the true purpose of my handicap is toallow me to compete _against them_ and therefore my performance must to some extent be assessed  _relative to theirs_.  I therefore accept that to some degree the difference between my handicap and theirs should change depending on how well I perform against SSS _relative to them_.   

The best reason for CSS is that SSS is based on set attributes of the course in certain conditions. The difficulty of some courses is more subject to variations of weather, conditions etc than others, making SSS unrealistic as a true measure of difficulty on a given day. SSS is fixed but conditions are not. CSS changes with, and usually reflects, playing conditions on the day based on _actual _performance of players. No shoulds, coulds or oughts.  It is not perfect but how else do you factor in conditions on the day when they may be a really significant element in the relative difficulty of the course?

Remember SSS is only what somebody _thinks _a notional scratch player _should _score in normal summer conditions. Why is that any better as a benchmark than how real people actually perform on the day?
		
Click to expand...

Why does it matter if the course plays easier or more difficult on a given day? So a few more players go up 0.1 or get cut a little against SSS, big deal, as long as it's the same for everyone who cares?


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 11, 2015)

There's a particular windy day that I feel does make life difficult for the lower handicappers. For example, someone on a mid handicap might get 14 shots. The wind is a good breeze, and the par 4's that were 3 shoter's into the green on a gentle breeze are still 3 shoter's into a strong breeze. But the lower guys maybe didn't get a shot on those holes, but because of the weather they can't reach in two.

For me, these are the days when CSS gets screwed. It isn't fair across the board, when Cat 2 and the lower end of Cat 3 are still playing their version of regulation golf, i.e. playing 3 net 2 into the green irrespective of the wind but Cat 1's can no longer play their version of regulation golf.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 11, 2015)

HawkeyeMS said:



			Why does it matter if the course plays easier or more difficult on a given day? So a few more players go up 0.1 or get cut a little against SSS, big deal, as long as it's the same for everyone who cares?
		
Click to expand...


It's not the same for everyone though. Some get a buffer of 1, some get a buffer of 2 etc. Why should this be the case?


----------



## duncan mackie (Aug 11, 2015)

cookelad said:



			Figures that they would find it difficult to get cut and/or buffer if they've constantly got to be par or better
		
Click to expand...

Just to put that in perspective (because I disagree!) - we have 2 courses and whilst for one is SSS = par -1, +1 or +2 depending on the tee used (Q comps off all) on the other SSS = par - 3.

The easiest way for most to get cut is off the forward tees on the long one (par -1) or even easier the shorter course at par -3.

Given the choice between 18 x 430 yd holes at 73 or 18 x 280 yard holes at 65 many will find the latter to represent a better option despite the 8 shot difference over the round.

This is also consistent with the many posts suggesting that playing Q comps of the yellow tees is too easy and results in low handicaps that aren't 'right'!

In the context if this thread most better golfers would wish to play the shorter course when the ground is nice and soft as well - whilst others might appreciate being able to 4 putt most of the par 4s (counting thinned shots as long putts!)


----------



## garyinderry (Aug 11, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			For me, these are the days when CSS gets screwed. It isn't fair across the board, when Cat 2 and the lower end of Cat 3 are still playing their version of regulation golf, i.e. playing 3 net 2 into the green irrespective of the wind but Cat 1's can no longer play their version of regulation golf.
		
Click to expand...

Good point.


----------



## delc (Aug 12, 2015)

chrisd said:



			A couple of weeks ago we had 3 juniors shoot stupid low in a midweek that I had 41 points, I guess that affected my cut?
		
Click to expand...




murphthemog said:



			I'm with the op on this. It's just random. Take this Sunday for example. Beautiful day, next to no wind. Shorts out. Perfect.

I play garbage. Utter rubbish. Net 75, which should miss buffer by 1. However, it appears everyone else was rubbish too, so css goes up from 72 to 73 and I buffer. But the course conditions were perfect. It's daft.
		
Click to expand...

If everybody played 'rubbish', there must have been something difficult about the course that day, such as hard fast running greens or awkward pin positions, even if the weather was benign. We had one qualifier at our club that was like that earlier this summer. Provided you had a large enough field it is statistically unlikely that they all played badly in easy weather conditions, hence the CSS would be expected to go up.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Aug 12, 2015)

Jacko_G said:



			It's not the same for everyone though. Some get a buffer of 1, some get a buffer of 2 etc. Why should this be the case?
		
Click to expand...

We're not talking about buffer, we're talikng about SSS/CSS. When I said it's the same for everyone, I meant if you just used SSS then everyone knows what they have to shoot, on some days a dozen or so more people might get and extra cut vs using CSS and on other days they might get a 0.1 back, but why does it matter if a few more people get adjusted?

I can kind of see why you might need a +3 or +3(RO) CSS as that does usually mean conditions are bad but -1 or +1 aren't generally in my experience anything to do with conditions, they are just caused by how people play on the day.


----------



## Imurg (Aug 12, 2015)

delc said:



			If everybody played 'rubbish', there must have been something difficult about the course that day, such as hard fast running greens or awkward pin positions, even if the weather was benign. We had one qualifier at our club that was like that earlier this summer. Provided you had a large enough field it is statistically unlikely that they all played badly in easy weather conditions, hence the CSS would be expected to go up.
		
Click to expand...

CSS assumes that everyone is playing the same, relative to their handicap. If everyone played badly it is assumed that the course set up is tricky or the weather bad. Likewise if everyone plays well it is assumed to be good weather and/or an easy set up.
On any given day, any of us can play well, mediocre or badly - regardless of the weather, set up or how anyone else is playing.
My handicap is an indication of my ability to play against the course. It's only relative to anyone else if we all play to our handicaps - but we have good days, bad days and mediocre days.
Our initial handicaps have no relation to how anyone else plays. It is based on a fixed number, SSS. It could be a rank, rotton day with high winds but if that's the day you put your best of 3 cards in then that's the card that determines your handicap. Everyone else might NR or shoot a cricket score but that doesn't affect you.
If you put a Supplementary card in, SSS is used. If everyone playing a Comp didn't enter the Comp but entered a Supplementary then SSS would be used for each one.
If the 2 Guys I'm playing with enter the Comp but I put a Supplementary in, their handicap gets adjusted on the comp CSS and mine uses SSS and yet we've played at the same time, under the same conditions on the same course.......
If that doesn't make it a farce then there's no hope...


----------



## Ethan (Aug 12, 2015)

Imurg said:



			CSS assumes that everyone is playing the same, relative to their handicap. If everyone played badly it is assumed that the course set up is tricky or the weather bad. Likewise if everyone plays well it is assumed to be good weather and/or an easy set up.
On any given day, any of us can play well, mediocre or badly - regardless of the weather, set up or how anyone else is playing.
My handicap is an indication of my ability to play against the course. It's only relative to anyone else if we all play to our handicaps - but we have good days, bad days and mediocre days.
Our initial handicaps have no relation to how anyone else plays. It is based on a fixed number, SSS. It could be a rank, rotton day with high winds but if that's the day you put your best of 3 cards in then that's the card that determines your handicap. Everyone else might NR or shoot a cricket score but that doesn't affect you.
If you put a Supplementary card in, SSS is used. If everyone playing a Comp didn't enter the Comp but entered a Supplementary then SSS would be used for each one.
If the 2 Guys I'm playing with enter the Comp but I put a Supplementary in, their handicap gets adjusted on the comp CSS and mine uses SSS and yet we've played at the same time, under the same conditions on the same course.......
If that doesn't make it a farce then there's no hope...
		
Click to expand...

Well, it is assumed that with a large data set, more predictable patterns emerge. 

The reason for SSS to be used for supplementaries is that there is usually no large group on whom to base a CSS. The problem you describe is that players are allowed to play a supplementary within a comp; leading to an anomaly. Perhaps playing a sup on a comp day shouldn't be allowed. It doesn't undermine the idea of adjusting SSS based on varying scoreability, though.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 12, 2015)

Ethan said:



			It doesn't undermine the idea of adjusting SSS based on varying scoreability, though.
		
Click to expand...

But it is precisely this that we are against.


----------



## Backache (Aug 12, 2015)

Not sure if it has been posted before as I have not been a reader long but the SGU shows some of the research that has been done around handicaps and why the current system although not perfect is probably a lot less imperfect than some suggest.

http://www.scottishgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/Myths-and-Misconceptions1.pdf


----------



## Ethan (Aug 12, 2015)

chrisd said:



			But it is precisely this that we are against.
		
Click to expand...

And you are entitled to be against it, but the use of SSS for supplementaries compared to CSS for comps is not a very good argument against CSS. it is an excellent argument about not allowing supplementaries on comp days, though, or using CSS for supplementaries played on comp days. 

The whole point of handicaps is to allow comparability between players within one club and between players at different clubs. In order to achieve this, you need to benchmark as many variables as possible, and weather and course set up are two important variable aspects and CSS tries to deal with those. Baseline cause difficulty is obviously another, and the base SSS takes some account of that. Without CSS you would have players who choose to play only on good days with benign scoring conditions becoming separated from those who play any day and their handicaps would start to become incomparable. CSS is one way of reducing this separation. It isn't perfect, but it is better than nothing.


----------



## rosecott (Aug 12, 2015)

The bottom line is surely that the derivation of the current SSS/CSS system is based on a wealth of actual data and not on the personal ideas/opinions of individual players.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

Backache said:



			Not sure if it has been posted before as I have not been a reader long but the SGU shows some of the research that has been done around handicaps and why the current system although not perfect is probably a lot less imperfect than some suggest.

http://www.scottishgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/Myths-and-Misconceptions1.pdf

Click to expand...

Much like the CONGU report I read, this is a numerical analysis that does not discuss the playing conditions on dates when CSS moves. It makes a sweeping assumption that conditions are "better" during the summer months to conveniently explain a higher proportion of CSS-1 comps. That is flawed for a number of reasons, for example I'd expect people to score better because most members are playing and practising more at that time of year.

Their other analysis evens shows that cat 3 scores are slightly more likely to contribute to CSS-1. Of course this is golf so the analysis has been based entirely on male stats so cat 4 has not been included.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

rosecott said:



			The bottom line is surely that the derivation of the current SSS/CSS system is based on a wealth of actual data and not on the personal ideas/opinions of individual players.
		
Click to expand...

Numerical analysis only that ignores playing conditions on the day. I'm often bemused by the CSS when it bears no relation to difficulty on the day. Plenty of others seem to share my opinion.

The other problem with stats is you need a decent sample size to have any chance of them being meaningful. I'd contend that in women's club golf, in particular, it's pretty unusual to get a large enough field to remove the randomness. 32 people is not the biggest entry we get but it was certainly pretty good, above average I'd say.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Well, it is assumed that with a large data set, more predictable patterns emerge.
		
Click to expand...

But CSS does not require a large data set. Just 7 or more players, I believe, so of no statistical worth whatsoever at that end if the scale.

The calculation of smaller fields than that is even more arbitrary but for a reasonable reason (to reduce the number of RO comps) and at least does not allow CSS-1.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Aug 12, 2015)

rosecott said:



			The bottom line is surely that the derivation of the current SSS/CSS system is based on a wealth of actual data and not on the personal ideas/opinions of individual players.
		
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that it is based on a lot of statistics, I just don't see the point of it.

One of our comps a couple of weeks ago the CSS went up to 71. A quick look at the scores tells me that if we had used SSS about 5 fewer people would have been cut and 8 more would have gone up 0.1 out of about 130 entries - so what's the point?


----------



## Backache (Aug 12, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Much like the CONGU report I read, this is a numerical analysis that does not discuss the playing conditions on dates when CSS moves. It makes a sweeping assumption that conditions are "better" during the summer months to conveniently explain a higher proportion of CSS-1 comps. That is flawed for a number of reasons, for example I'd expect people to score better because most members are playing and practising more at that time of year.

Their other analysis evens shows that cat 3 scores are slightly more likely to contribute to CSS-1. Of course this is golf so the analysis has been based entirely on male stats so cat 4 has not been included.
		
Click to expand...

The scores peaked in the summer and although people are probably more practised in the summer than in the spring that is not true compared with the autumn when scores also went up.
They are not making a detailed analysis of every competition but showing trends and to make handicaps equitable it is probably better to have a CSS than a SSS on average, this will not be the case every time but over time it should average.

Your comments about it being an analysis ony up to category three are fair enough , but in order to say it is different for category four you would have to show that worsening weather conditions tend to narrow the returns as lesser golfers are less affected by them. My own limited experience of womens category 4  gofers suggests this is not the case.


----------



## rosecott (Aug 12, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Numerical analysis only that ignores playing conditions on the day. I'm often bemused by the CSS when it bears no relation to difficulty on the day. Plenty of others seem to share my opinion.

The other problem with stats is you need a decent sample size to have any chance of them being meaningful. I'd contend that in women's club golf, in particular, it's pretty unusual to get a large enough field to remove the randomness. 32 people is not the biggest entry we get but it was certainly pretty good, above average I'd say.
		
Click to expand...

I would certainly agree that small fields are a problem and that this is something that is particularly problematic in the women's game.

I would, however, be more inclined to rely on the stats of the day rather than opinions on how easy/difficult it was to score well/badly. I know that I am often bemused when I score poorly but a significant number of others score well - and vice versa.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

rosecott said:



			I would certainly agree that small fields are a problem and that this is something that is particularly problematic in the women's game.

I would, however, be more inclined to rely on the stats of the day rather than opinions on how easy/difficult it was to score well/badly. I know that I am often bemused when I score poorly but a significant number of others score well - and vice versa.
		
Click to expand...

As a woman, all my experience of CSS is from women's competitions and my anecdotal comment is that CSS is almost completely unpredictable based on the playing conditions on any particular day.

Our monthly medals are played over two days. Each day gets a separate CSS. Pin positions are the same and, often, weather conditions are comparable. If CSS was accurate and meaningful and successful in its objectives the CSS calculation should give the same number both days (on the occasions when the weather is the same). It often isn't, because it depends on too many random human factors of people playing well or badly just because, well....golf!!

Anecdotally again, I have observed the situation where we've had good weather conditions one of the days and foul weather the other and yet CSS has gone up in the good conditions and down in the nasty ones. Random.

Undoubtedly bigger fields smooth it out but how many players do you need to eliminate the impact of a freak group of scores?


----------



## Backache (Aug 12, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			As a woman, all my experience of CSS is from women's competitions and my anecdotal comment is that CSS is almost completely unpredictable based on the playing conditions on any particular day.

Our monthly medals are played over two days. Each day gets a separate CSS. Pin positions are the same and, often, weather conditions are comparable. If CSS was accurate and meaningful and successful in its objectives the CSS calculation should give the same number both days (on the occasions when the weather is the same). It often isn't, because it depends on too many random human factors of people playing well or badly just because, well....golf!!

Undoubtedly bigger fields smooth it out but how many players do you need to eliminate the impact of a freak group of scores?
		
Click to expand...

In statistics the answer is never a given number, it is a number to give an x% chance to be within y% of the mean or something like that.
In golf you get bad breaks the alternative problem is that if you do not have a CSS people who wish to protect their handicap don't play in bad weather and you get biased handicaps that way.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there are no vagaries in the handicapping system, just that alternative methods suggested tend to result in bigger vagaries.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 12, 2015)

HawkeyeMS said:



			I don't dispute that it is based on a lot of statistics, I just don't see the point of it.

One of our comps a couple of weeks ago the CSS went up to 71. A quick look at the scores tells me that if we had used SSS about 5 fewer people would have been cut and 8 more would have gone up 0.1 out of about 130 entries - *so what's the point*?
		
Click to expand...

13 people (10% of the field) would leave the club with higher handicaps.

5 people who perhaps might have been working hard on their game would be denied the reward of a cut.

8 potential sandbaggers would have moved another 0.1 closer to a higher handicap in readiness for that "big open comp that's coming up in a couple of months".


----------



## chrisd (Aug 12, 2015)

Tattoo



nickjdavis said:



			13 people (10% of the field) would leave the club with higher handicaps.

5 people who perhaps might have been working hard on their game would be denied the reward of a cut.

8 potential sandbaggers would have moved another 0.1 closer to a higher handicap in readiness for that "big open comp that's coming up in a couple of months".
		
Click to expand...

But only as a result of that competition, next weeks could have very different results


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

Backache said:



			In statistics the answer is never a given number, it is a number to give an x% chance to be within y% of the mean or something like that.
In golf you get bad breaks the alternative problem is that if you do not have a CSS people who wish to protect their handicap don't play in bad weather and you get biased handicaps that way.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there are no vagaries in the handicapping system, just that alternative methods suggested tend to result in bigger vagaries.
		
Click to expand...

Hard to see anything producing a bigger vagary than a system that makes an arbitrary adjustment to your handicap based on how well other people played!

I realise one reason in support of CSS is to encourage people to play in bad conditions but in many ways that's a separate issue. If individuals self-select to only play in good weather that's up to them and plenty choose that option anyway, with CSS and handicaps the least of their worries.

Those who do it to protect their handicap are only hurting themselves when they are forced to play some competition in bad weather and they are not accustomed to it.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 12, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Tattoo

But only as a result of that competition, next weeks could have very different results
		
Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make a right.

At the end of the day the handicapping system is what it is... its not perfect, but its not a system that was plucked out of thin air by some old buffoon who never plays golf... there is some logic and structure behind it.

If CSS varies from SSS on a regular basis....I hear some folks, not just here but at other clubs, tell of it varying almost weekly, then Id suggest that there is something amiss with the handicaps at that club. There are statistical models that accurately represent the scoring patterns expected of a field of golfers... sure a group of high handicappers will have a much more varied scoring distribution than a similarly sized group of Cat1 golfers but it should be a rare occurrence where a large proportion of them shoot the lights out in the same competition. 

It will be interesting to see what 2016 brings in terms of how the Cat 4 scores will affect CSS...but one thing I am certain of is that the "lookup tables" used to determine the CSS will have been tweaked to take account of the scoring variability of this group.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

nickjdavis said:



			Two wrongs don't make a right.

At the end of the day the handicapping system is what it is... its not perfect, but its not a system that was plucked out of thin air by some old buffoon who never plays golf... there is some logic and structure behind it.
		
Click to expand...

And a lot of flawed assumptions.



nickjdavis said:



			If CSS varies from SSS on a regular basis....I hear some folks, not just here but at other clubs, tell of it varying almost weekly, then Id suggest that there is something amiss with the handicaps at that club. There are statistical models that accurately represent the scoring patterns expected of a field of golfers... sure a group of high handicappers will have a much more varied scoring distribution than a similarly sized group of Cat1 golfers but it should be a rare occurrence where a large proportion of them shoot the lights out in the same competition.
		
Click to expand...

Not necessarily the handicaps, might just be that the average field size is too small to eliminate natural variance in players' performance. Somebody smarter than me would have to determine the minimum field size needed to compensate for that but it's obviously much higher than we tend to get. 

Remember, you don't need to shoot the lights out to affect CSS - just play in your buffer. 



nickjdavis said:



			It will be interesting to see what 2016 brings in terms of how the Cat 4 scores will affect CSS...but one thing I am certain of is that the "lookup tables" used to determine the CSS will have been tweaked to take account of the scoring variability of this group.
		
Click to expand...

That should already be known since cat 4 players are already used in calculating the CSS for women's comps. I suspect you'll find men's CSS will start to become more volatile. As for us, if Cat 5 handicaps are going to count, I dread to think!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

It occurred to me that we have a few days on which both men's and women's competitions take place so a comparison of each CSS might be informative. If CSS was a fair and accurate representation of difficulty then surely the difference between SSS and CSS for both men and women would tend to match?

From the results still accessible to me on the website, there were 8 such days in the last year. This image shows the analysis, I haven't drawn any conclusions from it but it seems things worked out the same only 3 times out of the 8. Interesting but fairly inconclusive without a much larger sample set, I think.


----------



## Backache (Aug 12, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			It occurred to me that we have a few days on which both men's and women's competitions take place so a comparison of each CSS might be informative. If CSS was a fair and accurate representation of difficulty then surely the difference between SSS and CSS for both men and women would tend to match?

From the results still accessible to me on the website, there were 8 such days in the last year. This image shows the analysis, I haven't drawn any conclusions from it but it seems things worked out the same only 3 times out of the 8. Interesting but fairly inconclusive without a much larger sample set, I think.






Click to expand...

Hmm In no cases did it move in an opposite direction and in no cases was the womens CSS adjusted downwards which you seem to be worried about.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

Backache said:



			Hmm In no cases did it move in an opposite direction and in no cases was the womens CSS adjusted downwards which you seem to be worried about.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, although it's a three shot difference as often as it stays the same. Not enough comps for a serious comparison though.

Obviously the OP was because I was peeved at what happened on Monday and it's more annoying when it goes down than up but I think the discussion has moved into a more interesting debate about the accuracy or otherwise of CSS.

I thought there might be more of an an obvious correlation between CSS change and number of entries but there doesn't seem to be. The most interesting result is the day where almost the same number of players played in the men's and women's comps but one CSS didn't move and the other went reductions only.


----------



## Backache (Aug 12, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Indeed, although it's a three shot difference as often as it stays the same.
		
Click to expand...

To be pedantic it was the same three times , a three shot difference (for reductions only otherwise the same twice), a two shot difference twice, and a one shot difference once.
At no point would you have been disadvantaged by the CSS for playing better than SSS by the CSS.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

Backache said:



			To be pedantic it was the same three times , a three shot difference (for reductions only otherwise the same twice), a two shot difference twice, and a one shot difference once.
At no point would you have been disadvantaged by the CSS for playing better than SSS by the CSS.
		
Click to expand...

You are correct although I didn't put those figures up to argue about them, just to try and give a comparison of how CSS can produce different results under the same conditions where the only variable factor is the human one - different players performing differently.

Remember - this is only 8 comps played over a period of a year, a small subset. And don't get too hung up on whether CSS goes up or down, I've got over Monday's disappointment and am only debating the accuracy or otherwise of the calculation.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

I've been reading up on the CSS calculation a bit and have learned a couple of things.

1) It's not playing to buffer, but rather to within 2 shots of SSS, so that mitigates the impact of cat 3 and 4 variability slightly.
2) At my club the relative lack of cat 1 and cat 2 players means that the chance of CSS going down is much larger (if I'm reading the CSS table correctly) and, as the only cat 1 player my presence is usually ignored (cat 1s rounded to 0% of the field) for that lookup.

The more we discuss this, and the more I read, the more convinced I become that the process just doesn't meet its objective.


----------



## Backache (Aug 12, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			You are correct although I didn't put those figures up to argue about them, just to try and give a comparison of how CSS can produce different results under the same conditions where the only variable factor is the human one - different players performing differently.

Remember - this is only a 8 comps played over a period of a year, a small subset. And don't get too hung up on whether CSS goes up or down, I've got over Monday's disappointment and am only debating the accuracy or otherwise of the calculation.
		
Click to expand...

This is golf apparently identical shots can produce very different outcomes dependant on a fraction of  a difference of where a ball lands. If you play enough qualifiers the vagaries should even out. The important question is, should we attempt to make allowances for conditions when calculating handicaps? I believe it is sensible and CSS is about as objective as it comes, though imperfect and on any one individual day will be subject to inconsistencies.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

Backache said:



			This is golf apparently identical shots can produce very different outcomes dependant on a fraction of  a difference of where a ball lands. If you play enough qualifiers the vagaries should even out. The important question is, should we attempt to make allowances for conditions when calculating handicaps? I believe it is sensible and CSS is about as objective as it comes, though imperfect and on any one individual day will be subject to inconsistencies.
		
Click to expand...

Which is where we disagree - I think CSS is a lottery and have so far seen nothing to convince me otherwise.


----------



## Backache (Aug 12, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Which is where we disagree - I think CSS is a lottery and have so far seen nothing to convince me otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

The problem is when things are subject to random variation people tend to remember the things that work against them or at least support a certain hypothesis. The actual figures published both by yourself and Congu suggests that though there is random variation it is not a lottery and CSS generally goes up in difficult conditions and comes down in easier conditions though the exceptions are more memorable and stick in the mind.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

Backache said:



			The problem is when things are subject to random variation people tend to remember the things that work against them or at least support a certain hypothesis. The actual figures published both by yourself and Congu suggests that though there is random variation it is not a lottery and CSS generally goes up in difficult conditions and comes down in easier conditions though the exceptions are more memorable and stick in the mind.
		
Click to expand...

Well, you can claim CONGU's figures prove your hypothesis if you like, I know they make that claim. But I've already highlighted the fundamental flaws in these which are that they are only based on men's competitions (so no cat 4 and quite probably a different split of players across handicap categories) and make no reference to what the actual conditions were.

My own figures are just the only ones I have available for the comparison I was trying to make. I'm making no great claims that they prove my case but they absolutely do not show what you purport they do. Sadly I didn't play in all those comps and couldn't accurately remember the conditions even if I did.

Even if there was some trend towards CSS going up in difficult conditions and down in easy ones it would still be the anomalous results that should trigger further refinements in the algorithm. 

What I would really like to see is a longer term analysis of men's and women's comps on the same course on the same day with the breakdown of #players in each handicap category and a description of ground, green and weather conditions and difficulty of pin placements on the day.


----------



## DCB (Aug 12, 2015)

Got to empathise with Fairwaydodger here. My wife has similar concerns at times when the CSS seems unrealistic given the scores returned. It can be a lottery depending on when you play in a Ladies monthly medal. Often the main medal day can have a CSS 1 or 2 higher than the Alt medal day, purely down to the make up of the field and the scores they return. No easy answer to it though.
Some of the better events are held on a single day, no Alt day. This then gives a larger field and appears to be a more realistic CSS that is calculated as a result. If you look at the high handicap ladies scores though it can be really scary !


----------



## duncan mackie (Aug 12, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			I've been reading up on the CSS calculation a bit and have learned a couple of things.

1) It's not playing to buffer, but rather to within 2 shots of SSS, so that mitigates the impact of cat 3 and 4 variability slightly.
2) At my club the relative lack of cat 1 and cat 2 players means that the chance of CSS going down is much larger (if I'm reading the CSS table correctly) and, as the only cat 1 player my presence is usually ignored (cat 1s rounded to 0% of the field) for that lookup.

The more we discuss this, and the more I read, the more convinced I become that the process just doesn't meet its objective.
		
Click to expand...

1. Where is this set out?
2. You wouldn't be ignored! It's actually a safety situation for exactly what you have presented. The matrix tightens the parameters as the proportion of lower handicaps in the field increases. If the majority of the field is Cat 4 with a lone cat 1 it wouldn't be appropriate to have the parameters for cat 1 and give increased significance to scores. In a field of 16 eligible players you will get fully (over) represented at 10%.

edit - here's the relevant section to your point 1 from the SGU CONGU manual 2012-2015

Enter in Box E the number of such competitors in Categories 1 , 2, 3 [and 4] who have returned
nett scores, including those corrected under the provision of Clause 17.1 (c), in their Handicap
Category Buffer Zone and better before the application of Clause 19.

17.1c deals with dq and eligible scores for handicapping. 19 with stableford adjustments.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

duncan mackie said:



			1. Where is this set out?
2. You wouldn't be ignored! It's actually a safety situation for exactly what you have presented. The matrix tightens the parameters as the proportion of lower handicaps in the field increases. If the majority of the field is Cat 4 with a lone cat 1 it wouldn't be appropriate to have the parameters for cat 1 and give increased significance to scores. In a field of 16 eligible players you will get fully (over) represented at 10%.
		
Click to expand...

1. Based on this link, Duncan, maybe I made the mistake of going for a simplified description rather than CONGU. Is it wrong?

http://www.dallingtongolf.com/pdf/calculation-of-css.pdf

2. Yes and agreed, but in a field of more than 20 (as most are) I'm not represented at all at 0%. 

I think it's the problem of trying to make a statistical process that sort of (maybe) works for men's competitions stretch to a completely different demographic that plays in women's competitions.

I wonder if CSS in women's comps has been subjected to the same level of scrutiny as it has in the men's game?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

duncan mackie said:



			edit - here's the relevant section to your point 1 from the SGU CONGU manual 2012-2015

Enter in Box E the number of such competitors in Categories 1 , 2, 3 [and 4] who have returned
nett scores, including those corrected under the provision of Clause 17.1 (c), in their Handicap
Category Buffer Zone and better before the application of Clause 19.

17.1c deals with dq and eligible scores for handicapping. 19 with stableford adjustments.
		
Click to expand...

Just saw your edit and that backs up the way I originally thought it works, so much for my attempt at being conciliatory!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

Can I just reiterate that this isn't sour grapes, I'm genuinely interested in understanding why this does or doesn't work.

I don't need to go through my old scores, as Louise did, to know that my handicap would be a fair bit higher if all my comps had been measured to SSS but I still think that would be fairer.

I do like the concept of allowing some leeway for slightly higher scores in poor conditions and I don't know how you would achieve that in a non-subjective manner without reference to other players performance or adding a huge level of complexity such as by referring out to Met Office data, for example. 

What I don't like is that there's just too much human variability in the current system. Especially in smaller fields with a high proportion of cat 3 and 4 players.

All in my opinion, of course!


----------



## Matty2803 (Aug 12, 2015)

Just a quick question - How is the SSS  created/calculated?


----------



## DCB (Aug 12, 2015)

Matty2803 said:



			Just a quick question - How is the SSS  created/calculated?
		
Click to expand...

SSS is created when the course is rated by the local Union. If the course changes significantly this may well change the SSS at the next rating. It isn't a once and for all rating.


----------



## duncan mackie (Aug 12, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			1. Based on this link, Duncan, maybe I made the mistake of going for a simplified description rather than CONGU. Is it wrong?

http://www.dallingtongolf.com/pdf/calculation-of-css.pdf

2. Yes and agreed, but in a field of more than 20 (as most are) I'm not represented at all at 0%. 

I think it's the problem of trying to make a statistical process that sort of (maybe) works for men's competitions stretch to a completely different demographic that plays in women's competitions.

I wonder if CSS in women's comps has been subjected to the same level of scrutiny as it has in the men's game?
		
Click to expand...

1. It's a simplification of an out of date version of the system (including the table which has changed)

2. You are no more ignored than anyone else - you would be added to cat 2 numbers and, if that total still didn't make 10%, added to the next etc. I tried to explain why that was the safer route than any percentage being rounded to 10% in my previous post. I  practice it might increase the lower parameter by 1 and the upper by 2 ie 18-36 is the 0/30/70 range for CSS=SSS whilst 19-38 is the 10/20/70 (assume 70 represents cat 3+4).

Statistically it makes sense - the main issue is that sometimes it's impossible to reconcile the apparent difficulty of the course and conditions with the performance of a field (and you make some good points about the difference in impact of certain elements on different handicaps).

As to how much thought went into the consideration of the ladies relevant to the men - I think the various changes and enhancements implemented clearly show that it is a lot - some might even suggest it's disproportionate in favour of the ladies but I believe every section should have the necessary effort expended rather than any arbitrary, or other, distribution of labour!


----------



## Matty2803 (Aug 12, 2015)

DCB said:



			SSS is created when the course is rated by the local Union. If the course changes significantly this may well change the SSS at the next rating. It isn't a once and for all rating.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks. How do the local unions rate the courses?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

duncan mackie said:



			2. You are no more ignored than anyone else - you would be added to cat 2 numbers and, if that total still didn't make 10%, added to the next etc. I tried to explain why that was the safer route than any percentage being rounded to 10% in my previous post. I  practice it might increase the lower parameter by 1 and the upper by 2 ie 18-36 is the 0/30/70 range for CSS=SSS whilst 19-38 is the 10/20/70 (assume 70 represents cat 3+4).
		
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for that, I'd missed that I'd get added to the cat 2 %age and that makes sense.

Looks like I'll need to bite the bullet and read CONGU if I want to get into the nitty-gritty but I'm still of the opinion that it doesn't work very well, especially for women's competitions at club level. 

Of course, I reserve the right to be completely wrong and come back with a new opinion in the future!


----------



## duncan mackie (Aug 12, 2015)

Matty2803 said:



			Thanks. How do the local unions rate the courses?
		
Click to expand...

They use rating manuals and sheets.

Factors include length, hazards, fairway size, nature of rough , size and slopes and speeds of the greens etc etc

He USGA rating system is now being used and all courses are being re rated over the next 5 years if they haven't been recently rated to it. The manual is online in the handicapping section of the USGA website.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

Matty2803 said:



			Thanks. How do the local unions rate the courses?
		
Click to expand...

They have trained assessors who visit the courses in their area.


----------



## duncan mackie (Aug 12, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Ah, thanks for that, I'd missed that I'd get added to the cat 2 %age and that makes sense.

Looks like I'll need to bite the bullet and read CONGU if I want to get into the nitty-gritty but I'm still of the opinion that it doesn't work very well, especially for women's competitions at club level. 

Of course, I reserve the right to be completely wrong and come back with a new opinion in the future! 

Click to expand...

I think you have made some excellent points in this thread,  and provoked others to clarify theirs as well. Personally I'm already gearing up for the discussions post 2020 - and any CSS elements will be an extremely small part of those (if at all)! People are already getting wound up about 90% BB allowance in matches next year - especially the low handicap seniors who have become used to the current advantage they have (whilst bleating about giving loads of shots) and cannot believe it!!!!!! They can get quite aggressive when I don't support their arguments.


----------



## Matty2803 (Aug 12, 2015)

duncan mackie said:



			They use rating manuals and sheets.

Factors include length, hazards, fairway size, nature of rough , size and slopes and speeds of the greens etc etc

He USGA rating system is now being used and all courses are being re rated over the next 5 years if they haven't been recently rated to it. The manual is online in the handicapping section of the USGA website.
		
Click to expand...

Cool- thanks!


----------



## patricks148 (Aug 12, 2015)

sort of agree with you about conditions Kaz.

we had a comp about a month ago where all the morning players went out in 40mph wind and lashing rain. When i put my score in the CSS was 77+ (sss73) there were a few guys playing after 2.30 when the rain stopped and the wind disappeared. all shot ok scores and the CSS went down again to 73. One of my mates shot 72 gross is terrible conditions in the morning and another guy who went out last also had gross 72.

who played better?


----------



## Backache (Aug 12, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Well, you can claim CONGU's figures prove your hypothesis if you like, I know they make that claim.
		
Click to expand...

I am not trying to claim that any figures prove anything the data set is far to limited I do think that they tend to support the hypothesis that the adjustments tend to be reasonable. 
I believe your figures show the same thing as all movements were in the same direction.
I do not believe that the movements will always be 'right', but on the evidence presented on average the movements will tend to be 'right'


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

duncan mackie said:



			I think you have made some excellent points in this thread,  and provoked others to clarify theirs as well. Personally I'm already gearing up for the discussions post 2020 - and any CSS elements will be an extremely small part of those (if at all)! People are already getting wound up about 90% BB allowance in matches next year - especially the low handicap seniors who have become used to the current advantage they have (whilst bleating about giving loads of shots) and cannot believe it!!!!!! They can get quite aggressive when I don't support their arguments.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks Duncan, I appreciate that, as well as your rational and well-informed posts. I never seem to play BB so not losing much sleep over that one at least!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

Backache said:



			I am not trying to claim that any figures prove anything the data set is far to limited I do think that they tend to support the hypothesis that the adjustments tend to be reasonable. 
I believe your figures show the same thing as all movements were in the same direction.
I do not believe that the movements will always be 'right', but on the evidence presented on average the movements will tend to be 'right'
		
Click to expand...

This is the subtlety, I guess. The difference between accuracy and "tending towards accuracy". 

I do, however, disagree with your assessment of my own figures. Of the seven times that one of the CSS figures moved, only three times did both move in the same direction and in one case the difference was significant despite being in the same direction.

I know that in this data set they never moved in the opposite direction but I don't doubt that would be observed if I could go back further.

As I said, I only posted these for interest and really don't want to argue about them. The big thing about statistics is they can often be manipulated to support different cases.


----------



## Backache (Aug 12, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			This is the subtlety, I guess. The difference between accuracy and "tending towards accuracy". 

I do, however, disagree with your assessment of my own figures. Of the seven times that one of the CSS figures moved, only three times did both move in the same direction and in one case the difference was significant despite being in the same direction.

I know that in this data set they never moved in the opposite direction but I don't doubt that would be observed if I could go back further.

As I said, I only posted these for interest and really don't want to argue about them. The big thing about statistics is they can often be manipulated to support different cases.
		
Click to expand...

I guess I prefer tending towards accuracy than tending towards innacuracy. I would certainly agree that it is not precise all the time. 
My main point about your figures is that they do suggest that CSS going up in the womens golf as a result of Cat 4's is not a frequent problem as if it is not represented in a random sample of 8 points it probably has a frequency of less than 30%.

Still I wish I had your problem, my admiration of someone who has attained a category 1 handicap is boundless.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

Backache said:



			I guess I prefer tending towards accuracy than tending towards innacuracy. I would certainly agree that it is not precise all the time. 
My main point about your figures is that they do suggest that CSS going up in the womens golf as a result of Cat 4's is not a frequent problem as if it is not represented in a random sample of 8 points it probably has a frequency of less than 30%.

Still I wish I had your problem, my admiration of someone who has attained a category 1 handicap is boundless.
		
Click to expand...

Really don't read too much into those 8 comps, most of which are the main monthly medal with a relatively high turnout. 

Thanks though.... ironically I probably wouldn't be cat 1 if it wasn't for CSS!


----------



## rosecott (Aug 12, 2015)

Matty2803 said:



			Thanks. How do the local unions rate the courses?
		
Click to expand...




duncan mackie said:



			They use rating manuals and sheets.

Factors include length, hazards, fairway size, nature of rough , size and slopes and speeds of the greens etc etc

He USGA rating system is now being used and all courses are being re rated over the next 5 years if they haven't been recently rated to it. The manual is online in the handicapping section of the USGA website.
		
Click to expand...

As Duncan says, but the starting point and the one that carries by far the most weight is the measured length of the course. The shorter the course, the lower the starting point of SSS before the other factors are taken into account


----------



## rosecott (Aug 12, 2015)

patricks148 said:



			sort of agree with you about conditions Kaz.

we had a comp about a month ago where all the morning players went out in 40mph wind and lashing rain. When i put my score in the CSS was 77+ (sss73) there were a few guys playing after 2.30 when the rain stopped and the wind disappeared. all shot ok scores and the CSS went down again to 73. One of my mates shot 72 gross is terrible conditions in the morning and another guy who went out last also had gross 72.

who played better?
		
Click to expand...

Stop exaggerating Patrick. You know that SSS 73 can only rise to CSS 76 - then on to 76 RO as a maximum. .


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

patricks148 said:



			sort of agree with you about conditions Kaz.

we had a comp about a month ago where all the morning players went out in 40mph wind and lashing rain. When i put my score in the CSS was 77+ (sss73) there were a few guys playing after 2.30 when the rain stopped and the wind disappeared. all shot ok scores and the CSS went down again to 73. One of my mates shot 72 gross is terrible conditions in the morning and another guy who went out last also had gross 72.

who played better?
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that really is tough luck. Much like pros who end up on the "wrong" side of the draw when weather is changeable.

I'm pretty sure that's what happened to us on Monday - playing in tougher conditions than the non-workers who were out during the day before the wind got up.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 12, 2015)

I've been looking a bit more at the demographics of this and noticed a couple of things. I wonder if Duncan or anyone can comment on the likely impact on CSS.

First, in the comp that triggered this rant I have noticed that not only am I the only cat 1 playing but there were no cat 2 players at all.

Second, currently we only have one cat 1 player and 7 cat 2s in the club so most of our comps will be dominated by cat 3, 4 and 5 players.


----------



## drdel (Aug 12, 2015)

As time goes on the various committees in the R&A, CONGU etc. will keep on thinking and tinkering - mostly to occupy their time and to ensure they are seen to have done 'stuff'. Just look how many pages the Rules of Golf and the CONGU handbook now require to explain a simple game involving getting a ball from point A to a hole at point B !!

The CSS is a system dreamt up by committee, enacted by committees and falls foul of the "Law of Unintended Consequences". 

Those characters who like to feel important and join committees will love it because they can treat the rest of us like children.

I just enjoy my golf, play fairly and honestly against my handicap while trying to tune out the noise; but its getting harder.


----------



## rosecott (Aug 12, 2015)

drdel said:



			As time goes on the various committees in the R&A, CONGU etc. will keep on thinking and tinkering - mostly to occupy their time and to ensure they are seen to have done 'stuff'. Just look how many pages the Rules of Golf and the CONGU handbook now require to explain a simple game involving getting a ball from point A to a hole at point B !!

The CSS is a system dreamt up by committee, enacted by committees and falls foul of the "Law of Unintended Consequences". 

Those characters who like to feel important and join committees will love it because they can treat the rest of us like children.

I just enjoy my golf, play fairly and honestly against my handicap while trying to tune out the noise; but its getting harder.
		
Click to expand...

You don't know what you're talking about. Until a couple of years ago James Crampton was running England Golf's department that dealt with the CONGU system but has moved further up the chain. As I remember, James was off plus 6.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Aug 12, 2015)

drdel said:



			As time goes on the various committees in the R&A, CONGU etc. will keep on thinking and tinkering - mostly to occupy their time and to ensure they are seen to have done 'stuff'. Just look how many pages the Rules of Golf and the CONGU handbook now require to explain a simple game involving getting a ball from point A to a hole at point B !!

The CSS is a system dreamt up by committee, enacted by committees and falls foul of the "Law of Unintended Consequences". 

Those characters who like to feel important and join committees will love it because they can treat the rest of us like children.

I just enjoy my golf, play fairly and honestly against my handicap while trying to tune out the noise; but its getting harder.
		
Click to expand...

I have my issues with CSS, but this is just nonsense


----------



## delc (Aug 13, 2015)

We played a Seniors Stableford competition in less than ideal conditions this morning. Our course is par 72, SSS 71, equivalent to 37 points. Enough players, including myself, made buffer to keep the CSS at 71, but the winning score was only 37 points, so nobody got a handicap cut. I would argue that since the winner had beaten 35 other players in the conditions, from a statistical point of view he should have been cut. Maybe basing the CSS on, say the average nett score of the top 20% of the field, would have allowed this.


----------



## duncan mackie (Aug 13, 2015)

delc said:



			We played a Seniors Stableford competition in less than ideal conditions this morning. Our course is par 72, SSS 71, equivalent to 37 points. Enough players, including myself, made buffer to keep the CSS at 71, but the winning score was only 37 points, so nobody got a handicap cut. I would argue that since the winner had beaten 35 other players in the conditions, from a statistical point of view he should have been cut. Maybe basing the CSS on, say the average nett score of the top 20% of the field, would have allowed this.
		
Click to expand...

As the key structure of this thread is that handicapping should be based on performance relative to the course and not the performance of other players on the day it doesn't seem to have much merit in the eyes of either those with that view, or those  believing that the system is inherently right.

What would you do if 10 players tied scoring SSS - cut the one who won on countback?


----------



## delc (Aug 13, 2015)

duncan mackie said:



			As the key structure of this thread is that handicapping should be based on performance relative to the course and not the performance of other players on the day it doesn't seem to have much merit in the eyes of either those with that view, or those  believing that the system is inherently right.

What would you do if 10 players tied scoring SSS - cut the one who won on countback?
		
Click to expand...

Fairly unlikely, but cut all of them if that where to happen.


----------



## Imurg (Aug 14, 2015)

delc said:



			We played a Seniors Stableford competition in less than ideal conditions this morning. Our course is par 72, SSS 71, equivalent to 37 points. Enough players, including myself, made buffer to keep the CSS at 71, but the winning score was only 37 points, so nobody got a handicap cut. I would argue that since the winner had beaten 35 other players in the conditions, from a statistical point of view he should have been cut. Maybe basing the CSS on, say the average nett score of the top 20% of the field, would have allowed this.
		
Click to expand...

But the winner hasn't beaten the course....
CSS can go down if enough people make buffer - nobody has to beat it for it to move.
That doesn't seem to make much sense.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Aug 14, 2015)

delc said:



			We played a Seniors Stableford competition in less than ideal conditions this morning. Our course is par 72, SSS 71, equivalent to 37 points. Enough players, including myself, made buffer to keep the CSS at 71, but the winning score was only 37 points, so nobody got a handicap cut. I would argue that since the winner had beaten 35 other players in the conditions, from a statistical point of view he should have been cut. Maybe basing the CSS on, say the average nett score of the top 20% of the field, would have allowed this.
		
Click to expand...

The competition and handicap adjustments are two separate things. The competition is your score against others, your handicap is against the course. You don't have to have cuts in a competition and winning one doesn't give you the right to a cut if in doing so you failed to beat the course or your handicap.

In fact, in a medal, it is quite possible with roundings to nett double, that the winner can be in the buffer and not get cut and 2nd place not win but get cut after adjustments.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

I think that we all pretty much understand CSS and why it's done, but, my view is that the SSS at mine is 72 ( as is par) and I would just like my handicap to get the full cut if I better that score! I understand the arguments the other way but on the 30% of comps where I play around my handicap I would like to think that my handicap will be reduced on that magical day when I better the SSS

I understand the why's and wherefore's but when I go out in a comp I'm only trying to break par (plus my handicap) and no argument will convince me that if I come in 2 under (nett) that I should not get a cut because the course played easier that day. If CSS was scrapped I still believe the handicap system would survive!


----------



## doublebogey7 (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			if I come in 2 under (nett) that I should not get a cut because the course played easier that day. If CSS was scrapped I still believe the handicap system would survive!
		
Click to expand...

At 2 under handicap you would get cut.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

doublebogey7 said:



			At 2 under handicap you would get cut.
		
Click to expand...

Not necessarily as much if the CSS went down.


----------



## delc (Aug 14, 2015)

Under the USGA handicapping system, playing in difficult conditions will probably just result in a poor score that will be disregarded. In the CONGU system only qualifiers and supplementary cards count towards your handicap. Our club runs mostly drawn competitions, and we get enough drop outs as it is if there is a poor weather forecast. If only SSS was to be used for handicapping purposes, I would suggest that we would get a lot more!  At least an adjustable CSS gives you more chance of making buffer or getting a cut in such conditions. I also note that most supplementary cards are put in on very easy days!


----------



## MashieNiblick (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I think that we all pretty much understand CSS and why it's done, but, my view is that the SSS at mine is 72 ( as is par) and I would just like my handicap to get the full cut if I better that score! I understand the arguments the other way but on the 30% of comps where I play around my handicap I would like to think that my handicap will be reduced on that magical day when I better the SSS

I understand the why's and wherefore's but when I go out in a comp I'm only trying to break par (plus my handicap) and no argument will convince me that if I come in 2 under (nett) that I should not get a cut because the course played easier that day. If CSS was scrapped I still believe the handicap system would survive!
		
Click to expand...

But  if I play the next day when conditions are harder and as a result I don't score as well, the extra benefit you already had from playing when conditions were easier is magnified. How fair is that?

Your handicap isn't just a measure of your ability it has to relate to the ability of everyone else, not just at your club, not just on that day, but for all players at all clubs all the time.

If you only play when conditions are good, and I play a lot when they are bad, would our handicaps reflect our relative abilty better or worse without CSS?

If your course is playing really easy and mine is playing really hard, would your 1 under SSS represent better golf than my 3 over?  Your CSS might  = -1 and mine = +2. No h/cap change for either of us. That might actually on balance be the fairer result. 

CSS only makes a marginal difference but it helps in making the playing field on which we are measured a bit more level. Especially as we all play on different fields .

I'd need to see a good argument to convince me that there should be no allowance for conditions on the course on the day in calculating handicaps, they are a big factor in golf.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 14, 2015)

MashieNiblick said:



			I'd need to see a good argument to convince me that there should be no allowance for conditions on the course on the day in calculating handicaps, they are a big factor in golf.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I'm arguing for that as I can see the rationale for doing so. My big problem is that CSS, as it currently operates in the club competitions I play in, just does not seem to work. I am completely unable to guess based on conditions whether CSS will go up, down or stay the same.

Faced with a choice between a fixed scratch score or a seemingly-randomly adjusted one, I'd take the former. With a more accurate calculation method, I'm persuadable. Problem is I'm not sure what changes to achieve that would be practical.

Maybe, as a starting point, I'd say that CSS cannot go down unless there are enough players to make it significant. I'm no statistician but maybe 100 players? Certainly a lot more than the current 7 or whatever it is.


----------



## MashieNiblick (Aug 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			I'm not sure that I'm arguing for that as I can see the rationale for doing so. My big problem is that CSS, as it currently operates in the club competitions I play in, just does not seem to work. I am completely unable to guess based on conditions whether CSS will go up, down or stay the same.

Faced with a choice between a fixed scratch score or a seemingly-randomly adjusted one, I'd take the former. With a more accurate calculation method, I'm persuadable. Problem is I'm not sure what changes to achieve that would be practical.

Maybe, as a starting point, I'd say that CSS cannot go down unless there are enough players to make it significant. I'm no statistician but maybe 100 players? Certainly a lot more than the current 7 or whatever it is.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I do think the specific issues you have are understandable and valid. Small fields with uneven handicap spreads does undermine the validity of CSS as a method of factoring in conditions on the day.  As you say a higher minimum field or some other method may be better. I suppose if the whole system is going to be changed soon anyway (I'm not fully up to speed on this) it may be that it stops being a problem.


----------



## delc (Aug 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			I'm not sure that I'm arguing for that as I can see the rationale for doing so. My big problem is that CSS, as it currently operates in the club competitions I play in, just does not seem to work. I am completely unable to guess based on conditions whether CSS will go up, down or stay the same.

Faced with a choice between a fixed scratch score or a seemingly-randomly adjusted one, I'd take the former. With a more accurate calculation method, I'm persuadable. Problem is I'm not sure what changes to achieve that would be practical.

Maybe, as a starting point, I'd say that CSS cannot go down unless there are enough players to make it significant. I'm no statistician but maybe 100 players? Certainly a lot more than the current 7 or whatever it is.
		
Click to expand...

Our men's comps generally attract 60 or more players, which is more than enough to be statistically significant for calculating a CSS, even though a percentage of those will be cat-4 players who do not count at present. The fields in our ladies comps do tend to be somewhat smaller though. Can I applaud CONGU for including cat-4 men and cat-5 ladies in the CSS calculation as from next year, as this should further increase the degree of certainty in the CSS.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 14, 2015)

delc said:



			Our men's comps generally attract 60 or more players, which is more than enough to be statistically significant for calculating a CSS, even though a percentage of those will be cat-4 players who do not count at present. The fields in our ladies comps do tend to be somewhat smaller though. Can I applaud CONGU for including cat-4 men and cat-5 ladies in the CSS calculation as from next year, as this should further increase the degree of certainty in the CSS.
		
Click to expand...

Well, I have no idea what the number should be 100, 60, 50 whatever but certainly more than 7!!!

Including cat 4 men and cat 5 women means including players on the maximum handicap, some of whom play to buffer once in a blue moon. So it's hard to see how that's going to help the calculation!


----------



## delc (Aug 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Well, I have no idea what the number should be 100, 60, 50 whatever but certainly more than 7!!!

Including cat 4 men and cat 5 women means including players on the maximum handicap, some of whom play to buffer once in a blue moon. So it's hard to see how that's going to help the calculation!
		
Click to expand...

Yes but you also get some cat 4 and 5's who are rapid improvers, or at least perfectly capable of playing to their handicaps, so this should balance this out. Remember it is only the percentage that make buffer that counts, so the odd complete 28+ duffer will make little difference. I can only think of 2 or 3 members at our club who are in this category anyway. Maybe you should exclude players who have an exact handicap greater than 27.9?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 14, 2015)

delc said:



			Yes but you also get some cat 4 and 5's who are rapid improvers, or at least perfectly capable of playing to their handicaps, so this should balance this out. Remember it is only the percentage that make buffer that counts, so the odd complete 28+ duffer will make little difference.
		
Click to expand...

It's only a small percentage if you have a big enough field. I expect this change will exacerbate the issue I have observed.


----------



## delc (Aug 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			It's only a small percentage if you have a big enough field. I expect this change will exacerbate the issue I have observed.
		
Click to expand...

In our Seniors mens comps, about 40% of the field may be Cat-4's, so the relative performance of a small number of cat 2 and cat 3 players can make a difference to the CSS. We only have one cat-1 senior and he rarely plays in senior comps.


----------



## BTatHome (Aug 14, 2015)

At present how to people outside of Cat4 actually play at golf clubs? Do they have an allocated h/cap of 28 even when they can't play to it? When the new rules come in will they have to hand in 3 cards?


----------



## duncan mackie (Aug 14, 2015)

BTatHome said:



			At present how to people outside of Cat4 actually play at golf clubs? Do they have an allocated h/cap of 28 even when they can't play to it? When the new rules come in will they have to hand in 3 cards?
		
Click to expand...

Handicap committees are encourage to use significant latitude when allocating initial handicaps to those who show promise rather than being able to illustrate the capabilities of a 28 straight away.

This is partially because the initial calculation of a 28 is stronger than a 28 (stableford adjustment based on gross), partially because new golfers are expected to improve and do so faster with a handicap - easy to play competitive golf) and there's a flip side of players who are going back up and are stuck at 28.0 despite being 36 or so!


----------



## doublebogey7 (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Not necessarily as much if the CSS went down.
		
Click to expand...

CSS  can only ever be 1 under SSS


----------



## delc (Aug 14, 2015)

doublebogey7 said:



			CSS  can only ever be 1 under SSS
		
Click to expand...

But it can be 3 over in unfavourable conditions, which helps those who choose to play in them. Otherwise you will only get fair weather players!


----------



## duncan mackie (Aug 14, 2015)

delc said:



			But it can be 3 over in unfavourable conditions, which helps those who choose to play in them. Otherwise you will only get fair weather players!
		
Click to expand...

It only really helps those that can handle these unfavourable conditions - quite rightly


----------



## NWJocko (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I think that we all pretty much understand CSS and why it's done, but, my view is that the SSS at mine is 72 ( as is par) and I would just like my handicap to get the full cut if I better that score! I understand the arguments the other way but on the 30% of comps where I play around my handicap I would like to think that my handicap will be reduced on that magical day when I better the SSS

I understand the why's and wherefore's but when I go out in a comp I'm only trying to break par (plus my handicap) and no argument will convince me that if I come in 2 under (nett) that I should not get a cut because the course played easier that day. If CSS was scrapped I still believe the handicap system would survive!
		
Click to expand...

At the risk of repeating myself.....

The problem here is you associating your handicap to par rather than SSS/CSS!  Shooting under par and under your handicap are 2 different things.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

NWJocko said:



			At the risk of repeating myself.....

The problem here is you associating your handicap to par rather than SSS/CSS!  Shooting under par and under your handicap are 2 different things.
		
Click to expand...

Par and SSS are the same at mine and initially my handicap was allocated based on SSS


----------



## delc (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Par and SSS are the same at mine and initially my handicap was allocated based on SSS
		
Click to expand...

Yes it would have been if you submitted 3 cards outside qualifying comps, because there were no other players to compare your scores to! Do you not understand that the course varies in difficulty from day to day due to weather conditions and/or course set up, which the CSS is designed to correct for? However to estimate this you need a statistically significant number of scores from other players on the day, which you should get in a formal qualifying competition.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

delc said:



			Yes it would have been if you submitted 3 cards outside qualifying comps, because there were no other players to compare your scores to! Do you not understand that the course varies in difficulty from day to day due to weather conditions and/or course set up, which the CSS is designed to correct for? However to estimate this you need a significant number of scores from other players, which you should get in a formal qualifying competition.
		
Click to expand...

Surprisingly I do understand the system Del, I just happen to think that comps should be handicapped on SSS.


----------



## delc (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Surprisingly I do understand the system Del, I just happen to think that comps should be handicapped on SSS.
		
Click to expand...

If you did that, I suspect you wouldn't get too many players entering a comp on a difficult day, unless they were bandits who were trying to get their handicaps up!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

delc said:



			If you did that, I suspect you wouldn't get too many players entering a comp on a difficult day, unless they were bandits who were trying to get their handicaps up!
		
Click to expand...

How do you know it's going to be a difficult day until on the course - the CSS can't be judged until all the scores are in


----------



## delc (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How do you know it's going to be a difficult day until on the course - the CSS can't be judged until all the scores are in
		
Click to expand...

If it's blowing a hoolie, then you might expect it to be difficult! One of the problems we get at our club is a large number of players dropping out of drawn competitions on the strength of a poor weather forecast.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

delc said:



			If it's blowing a hoolie, then you might expect it to be difficult! One of the problems we get at our club is a large number of players dropping out of drawn competitions on the strength of a poor weather forecast.
		
Click to expand...

But until someone is at the course you never know how it's going to be 

If people pull out because it's a poor weather forecast then that's on their conscience 

Even someone could still go out and score well


----------



## the smiling assassin (Aug 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			It occurred to me that we have a few days on which both men's and women's competitions take place so a comparison of each CSS might be informative. If CSS was a fair and accurate representation of difficulty then surely the difference between SSS and CSS for both men and women would tend to match?

From the results still accessible to me on the website, there were 8 such days in the last year. This image shows the analysis, I haven't drawn any conclusions from it but it seems things worked out the same only 3 times out of the 8. Interesting but fairly inconclusive without a much larger sample set, I think.

View attachment 16452

Click to expand...

This happens every comp for us. Men's Css makes more or less perfect sense every week. Ladies is pretty random as it's based on such a small number of competitors. 
Css is essential and the handicap system would be majorly flawed without it. SSS rating is just a benchmark.


----------



## the smiling assassin (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Surprisingly I do understand the system Del, I just happen to think that comps should be handicapped on SSS.
		
Click to expand...

They are... SSS+/-...


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Aug 15, 2015)

delc said:



			Yes it would have been if you submitted 3 cards outside qualifying comps, because there were no other players to compare your scores to! Do you not understand that the course varies in difficulty from day to day due to weather conditions and/or course set up, which the CSS is designed to correct for? However to estimate this you need a statistically significant number of scores from other players on the day, which you should get in a formal qualifying competition.
		
Click to expand...

Your initial handicap should be allocated against SSS regardless of whether you did the cards during a qualifying comp. CSS has no bearing on it.


----------



## the smiling assassin (Aug 15, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			I'm not sure that I'm arguing for that as I can see the rationale for doing so. My big problem is that CSS, as it currently operates in the club competitions I play in, just does not seem to work. I am completely unable to guess based on conditions whether CSS will go up, down or stay the same.

Faced with a choice between a fixed scratch score or a seemingly-randomly adjusted one, I'd take the former. With a more accurate calculation method, I'm persuadable. Problem is I'm not sure what changes to achieve that would be practical.

Maybe, as a starting point, I'd say that CSS cannot go down unless there are enough players to make it significant. I'm no statistician but maybe 100 players? Certainly a lot more than the current 7 or whatever it is.
		
Click to expand...

Css dropping is a bit unnecessary in my opinion. Few people play enough handicap qualifiers per year to get an appropriate handicap as it is, Congu should be increasing the possibility for handicap chops at all opportunities. SSS-1 occurring regularly is more an indication that the SSS rating is borderline to high, and that the club ought to adjust the course set up to justify it's rating.

Personally I think having a separate system for ladies handicaps in the first place is a far greater pharse, this being one of the issues it creates - inconsistent handicapping. Scrap it for a universal, unisex handicap system. There are plenty of senior men golfers, for example, who suffer similar issues to perceived issues faced by female golfers. 

Once the universal system is brought in, simply play a balance of competitions from the whites/ yellows/ reds open to all of the membership. No boundaries between men and ladies sections. Truly inclusive with everyone playing under a single system.

It will never happen, because all the elite ladies golfers would kick up a massive stink when their plus handicaps suddenly became higher cat 1or even cat 2 handicaps. A great shame as it would really help break down barriers at clubs and assist equality as the norm.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 15, 2015)

the smiling assassin said:



			This happens every comp for us. Men's Css makes more or less perfect sense every week. Ladies is pretty random as it's based on such a small number of competitors. 
Css is essential and the handicap system would be majorly flawed without it. SSS rating is just a benchmark.
		
Click to expand...

Surely if CSS is "pretty random" then the handicap system is already majorly flawed?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 15, 2015)

the smiling assassin said:



			Personally I think having a separate system for ladies handicaps in the first place is a far greater pharse, this being one of the issues it creates - inconsistent handicapping. Scrap it for a universal, unisex handicap system. There are plenty of senior men golfers, for example, who suffer similar issues to perceived issues faced by female golfers. 

Once the universal system is brought in, simply play a balance of competitions from the whites/ yellows/ reds open to all of the membership. No boundaries between men and ladies sections. Truly inclusive with everyone playing under a single system.

It will never happen, because all the elite ladies golfers would kick up a massive stink when their plus handicaps suddenly became higher cat 1or even cat 2 handicaps. A great shame as it would really help break down barriers at clubs and assist equality as the norm.
		
Click to expand...

I'm a big advocate of mixed comps like that but you don't need to merge handicaps like that, just have both a men's and women's SSS measured from each set of tees.

Big differences in the way men and women play golf based on physical strength so it would be wholly inappropriate (and demoralising) to handicap us in the same way, IMO.


----------



## the smiling assassin (Aug 15, 2015)

Yes, in exactly the same way there are big differences I'm the way some men and senior men play golf but there is no separate handicap for physically weaker senior male golfers...time to break down the barriers, another chance missed by the custodians of our sport. Flipside  is I think the fact ladies having a separate system is actually quite demeaning. You're apparently not good or strong enough to have handicaps like us superior men...daft!


----------



## chrisd (Aug 15, 2015)

the smiling assassin said:



			They are... SSS+/-...
		
Click to expand...

The +/- bit says they are not !


----------



## delc (Aug 15, 2015)

the smiling assassin said:



			Yes, in exactly the same way there are big differences I'm the way some men and senior men play golf but there is no separate handicap for physically weaker senior male golfers...time to break down the barriers, another chance missed by the custodians of our sport. Flipside  is I think the fact ladies having a separate system is actually quite demeaning. You're apparently not good or strong enough to have handicaps like us superior men...daft!
		
Click to expand...

One of the problems that affects both women and senior men is that as things stand, many of them have handicaps that are too low for historical reasons. This tends to make nett scores too high, which forces the CSS up, often to Reductions Only so that no handicap increases occur! A classic Catch 22 situation where because the handicaps are too low, one of the mechanisms for increasing them is blocked!


----------



## MashieNiblick (Aug 15, 2015)

chrisd said:



			The +/- bit says they are not !
		
Click to expand...

Chris, this has been a great debate. 

I'm interested in whether or not you think that conditions on the day should be a factor in handicap assessment. I support CSS because I think they do have an impact and that CSS although not perfect does provide a workable way to help level the playing field between rounds played in different conditions. SSS cannot do that alone and some courses are much more prone to the impact of weather than others (e.g. links).

My approach is based on my understanding that the purpose of my handicap is not to rate my golf in isolation but to allow me to compete on a reasonably even footing against any other golfer. SSS takes account of the fact we may play on different courses. CSS simply tries to take account of the fact that we may also play in different conditions.

How would you address that without CSS or do you simply think it should not be a factor?


----------



## Imurg (Aug 15, 2015)

Isn't it true that, although CSS is in operation, many handicaps don't "travel" well anyway..?
A 10 handicapper from a tough, tree lined course is going to be better than a 10 handicapper from a wide open, very forgiving course, regardless of SSS or CSS...which are supposed to level the field...


----------



## delc (Aug 15, 2015)

Imurg said:



			Isn't it true that, although CSS is in operation, many handicaps don't "travel" well anyway..?
A 10 handicapper from a tough, tree lined course is going to be better than a 10 handicapper from a wide open, very forgiving course, regardless of SSS or CSS...which are supposed to level the field...
		
Click to expand...

In theory at least, the tough course should have a higher SSS than the wide open, easy one.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Aug 15, 2015)

Yes, an interesting debate. I sympathise with Chris' view regarding getting bigger cuts but believe that without CSS the handicap system overall would be a poorer system. I'd also add that if the CSS is going down from SSS more than a handful of times in a season then the SSS is probably incorrectly assessed........Chris, if this happens often, would you be happier if the SSS was re-assessed to 71?  I doubt it, but it probably should be.  SSS should be based on normal conditions. It's much less often that conditions improve significantly whereas they can deteriorate much more from the same benchmark.


----------



## duncan mackie (Aug 15, 2015)

Imurg said:



			Isn't it true that, although CSS is in operation, many handicaps don't "travel" well anyway..?
A 10 handicapper from a tough, tree lined course is going to be better than a 10 handicapper from a wide open, very forgiving course, regardless of SSS or CSS...which are supposed to level the field...
		
Click to expand...

there's a bit of yes and no in a full response to this!

whilst both the USGA and CONGU rating systems, resultant handicapping and allowances do a good job at enabling competitive golf between players who predominantly have their handicaps based at different courses it is impossible to effectively achieve this for all playing characteristics.

as a more detailed example - 5600 course v 7200 yard course. All other things being equal you would expect a difference of 8 between their SSS (68/76 probably). However, at this extreme difference in hole averages you wouldn't need many hazards at all on the longer course to see that many players who are able to hit 180/140 could handle the former with it's shot average below 160 but 8 additional shots wouldn't be enough to get them round the course with a 200 shot average - it's a rough and ready way of looking at it but it is fundamentally valid.

that shorter courses tend to have more hazards and are tighter and tree lined, may be true for some but isn't universally valid. It does provide an element of balance in some situations but not for all golfers - there are those who play on longer courses who can actually hit it straight too!

you don't even have to look across different courses to see this in practice; we have players who score well in the summer months when there's roll, but cannot handle the additional length required at other times of the year; these same players enjoy the yellow tee competitions but simply can't handle the white, despite being given an additional 2 shots - for their playing capabilities they need more like 10 shots more! Some courses take this to extremes - West Hill is a good example. There are carries from nearly every tee; from the whites it's about 190. If you can only carry 170 you have no way to play it (other than play from the yellow or green tees of course!)

Long and tight, with tough well protected greens, will travel extremely well to anywhere !


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 15, 2015)

the smiling assassin said:



			Yes, in exactly the same way there are big differences I'm the way some men and senior men play golf but there is no separate handicap for physically weaker senior male golfers...time to break down the barriers, another chance missed by the custodians of our sport. Flipside  is I think the fact ladies having a separate system is actually quite demeaning. You're apparently not good or strong enough to have handicaps like us superior men...daft!
		
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I strongly disagree. You're coming from a very male-centric perspective. Why should women have handicaps on a scale on which only the very very best (touring pro level) would have any chance of reaching 0 on? Far from breaking down barriers it'd be another negative for female participation.

I'm actually a wee bit irked by the comparison between women and senior men - women get older as well, you know, and senior women face the same issues in relation to their younger counterparts as do the senior men. Old age happens to us all eventually but the effects vary and kick in at different ages. Gender differences, on the other hand, can be more easily applied.

So, I'd keep the separate handicapping thanks very much but do something about the random CSS factor!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 15, 2015)

Well folks....

I played an open competition today and once again made a strong finish (birdie/par/par) to scrape into my buffer. If CSS goes down today you might just hear the scream from Edinburgh.....


----------



## ruff-driver (Aug 15, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Well folks....

I played an open competition today and once again made a strong finish (birdie/par/par) to scrape into my buffer. If CSS goes down today you might just hear the scream from Edinburgh.....
		
Click to expand...








:rofl:


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 15, 2015)

lol

5 over par, including a stupid two shot penalty.... It'll be a sore one if the handicap goes up today!


----------



## UlyssesSky (Aug 15, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			While I agree that the more scores counting the better chance of CSS having some sort of statistical or scientific basis, I have to disagree that including such high handicaps will be a good thing.

I know it's not a universally popular view but the fact is that cat 1 and cat 5 players are playing the game in radically different ways and are positively/negatively impacted by different sorts of conditions. Including cat 5 women and cat 4 men will, IMO, only make a bad situation worse.
		
Click to expand...

The Problem with cat4/5 players is that there's a lot of beginners in that categories that can improve quite quickly, plus it takes less to improve by a few shots if you're a high handicapper. It's easier to get from 26 to 16 than from 16 to 6...

So maybe cat4/5 players' scores shouldn't be used to calculate CSS, or at least only for increases, when the conditions are exceptionally tough.



Imurg said:



			Isn't it true that, although CSS is in operation, many handicaps don't "travel" well anyway..?
A 10 handicapper from a tough, tree lined course is going to be better than a 10 handicapper from a wide open, very forgiving course, regardless of SSS or CSS...which are supposed to level the field...
		
Click to expand...

SSS/CSS should level the field based on the general difficulty of a course. However, every player has different strengths/weaknesses, so there isn't an universally valid tough/easy. 

The handicap of the guy form the narrow course in your example will travel well to other narrow courses, but the guy from the wide open course may be at an advantage at other courses that are similar. Maybe the forgiving course has tougher greens, or he's more used to hitting short irons/wedges into the green since he's typically bombing his driver of the tee when the guy from the narrow course often plays 3W?




duncan mackie said:



			Long and tight, with tough well protected greens, will travel extremely well to anywhere !
		
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Long and straight from the tee, highly accurate with irons/wedges, versatile and creative in the short game, and deadly precise with the putter is the formula to play well on any golf course you can find.

Only, most guys who have all of that typically carry tour cards instead of handicaps...


----------



## chrisd (Aug 15, 2015)

MashieNiblick said:



			Chris, this has been a great debate. 

I'm interested in whether or not you think that conditions on the day should be a factor in handicap assessment. I support CSS because I think they do have an impact and that CSS although not perfect does provide a workable way to help level the playing field between rounds played in different conditions. SSS cannot do that alone and some courses are much more prone to the impact of weather than others (e.g. links).

My approach is based on my understanding that the purpose of my handicap is not to rate my golf in isolation but to allow me to compete on a reasonably even footing against any other golfer. SSS takes account of the fact we may play on different courses. CSS simply tries to take account of the fact that we may also play in different conditions.

How would you address that without CSS or do you simply think it should not be a factor?
		
Click to expand...

I just look at it simplicity, I can have really good and really bad days,and the weather often doesn't affect my scoring, nor does the scoring of others. I can shoot a good score that would get me a cut on SSS but, because of CSS, I don't get one. I understand the reason why CSS is used but feel if SSS was used it wouldn't much affect handicaps generally and I would be more likely to get down to the handicap I crave. 

I know things won't change and my views are just opinion, but, several people on here seem to agree for other different reasons. Luckily, as I posted earlier, our SSS and CSS are now the same so it does help.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 16, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Well folks....

I played an open competition today and once again made a strong finish (birdie/par/par) to scrape into my buffer. If CSS goes down today you might just hear the scream from Edinburgh.....
		
Click to expand...

Good news for me was that CSS didn't go down. It actually went up by one which I think was maybe a fair representation of the conditions in this case. Was a decent sized field, though, around 75 I think.


----------



## jamielaing (Aug 20, 2015)

I played last night and put in a fairly good performance coming in -3 with SS showing at 69. 0.6 cut coming my way and with only one group to come in (playing in the dark) I was happy with the cut. By the time I got home it had come down to 68. It was windy and periods of rain last night and, even worse the wind changed direction on a hole by hole basis.

CSS never goes up at my course no matter the conditions and scores coming in and to be honest just seems randomly applied. What really gets me wound up is that almost 10% of the field did not return a card (presumably NR'd and didn't bother). There should be a stricter policy regarding non return of cards (even saying it is a 0.2 increase).

In my opinion SS should stay as it is, maybe only going to reduction only in extreme circumstances. This then means we all know what we are playing to.

What really gets me frustrated with the system is when I played in a medal and the heavens opened, rivers running through the course and greens, clubs slipping right out players hands and the entire field walked in. The entire field got a 0.1 increase.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 20, 2015)

At the end of the day CSS is worked out by what scores are entered not by the weather on the day


----------



## jamielaing (Aug 20, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			At the end of the day CSS is worked out by what scores are entered not by the weather on the day
		
Click to expand...

I understand that but realistically that is to take in to account the conditions of the day. In the world of handicap golf where we are all inconsistent is that a fair way to reflect the conditions and playability of the course? I play with a 15 handicapper who is as likely to shoot 76 as he is to shoot 92. This is before the conditions affect him.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 20, 2015)

jamielaing said:



			I understand that but realistically that is to take in to account the conditions of the day. In the world of handicap golf where we are all inconsistent is that a fair way to reflect the conditions and playability of the course? I play with a 15 handicapper who is as likely to shoot 76 as he is to shoot 92. This is before the conditions affect him.
		
Click to expand...

How can it take into account the conditions though ? It's a computer generated program


----------



## jamielaing (Aug 20, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How can it take into account the conditions though ? It's a computer generated program
		
Click to expand...

Surely the only reason that the performance of other golfers should affect my handicap is to take account of the conditions? As a rule of thumb if players play well CSS comes down. That would intimate that the course was in some way 'easier' due to the conditions. CSS would go up if players shot poorly suggesting the course is in some way 'harder' be that due to wind, rain etc.

CSS therefore takes the conditions on the day into account assuming they are directly affecting the scores. I see no justification in having CSS to affect my handicap unless it is to reflect on how the course is playing that day.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 20, 2015)

jamielaing said:



			Surely the only reason that the performance of other golfers should affect my handicap is to take account of the conditions? As a rule of thumb if players play well CSS comes down. That would intimate that the course was in some way 'easier' due to the conditions. CSS would go up if players shot poorly suggesting the course is in some way 'harder' be that due to wind, rain etc.

CSS therefore takes the conditions on the day into account assuming they are directly affecting the scores. I see no justification in having CSS to affect my handicap unless it is to reflect on how the course is playing that day.
		
Click to expand...

But you could have players who at better in the wind etc 

The only way to judge how the course is playing is by the scores the players enter regardless of conditions on the day


----------



## jamielaing (Aug 20, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But you could have players who at better in the wind etc 

The only way to judge how the course is playing is by the scores the players enter regardless of conditions on the day
		
Click to expand...

Which brings me back to having SS with no CSS then players are not affected by a miracle round, great run, great morning conditions etc by someone else. Bring in a reduction only in extreme circumstances.


----------



## rosecott (Aug 20, 2015)

jamielaing said:



			Which brings me back to having SS with no CSS then players are not affected by a miracle round, great run, great morning conditions etc by someone else. Bring in a reduction only in extreme circumstances.
		
Click to expand...

And how exactly - and by whom - would "extreme circumstances" be decided?

The current CSS system has 6 clearly defined boundaries - SSS-1, SSS, SSS+1, SSS+2, SSS+3, SSS+3(RO) - and these spring from the performance of the group of players as a whole in relation to buffer zones. That has to be better than an unscientific statement of "SSS is OK" or "Reductions Only". It would be ridiculous to have only one or the other as an option.


----------



## Imurg (Aug 20, 2015)

And.....
Once more I have been "under" cut because CSS came down because a few other people played well...
That's twice in the last month...
And I still can't remember when CSS moved in my favour,..


----------



## chrisd (Aug 20, 2015)

Imurg said:



			And.....
Once more I have been "under" cut because CSS came down because a few other people played well...
That's twice in the last month...
And I still can't remember when CSS moved in my favour,..
		
Click to expand...

And I didn't get an ESR for the same reason, despite being -9 over the two rounds!


----------



## rosecott (Aug 20, 2015)

chrisd said:



			And I didn't get an ESR for the same reason, despite being -9 over the two rounds!
		
Click to expand...

-9? Have you forgotten that one of the rounds was off yellows?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Aug 20, 2015)

chrisd said:



			And I didn't get an ESR for the same reason, despite being -9 over the two rounds!
		
Click to expand...

That's what you get for playing when the course is playing easier


----------



## chrisd (Aug 20, 2015)

rosecott said:



			-9? Have you forgotten that one of the rounds was off yellows?
		
Click to expand...

No Jim, but the whites and yellows are 245 yards different = a reasonable drive!


----------



## rosecott (Aug 20, 2015)

chrisd said:



			No Jim, but the whites and yellows are 245 yards different = a reasonable drive!
		
Click to expand...

Surely you mean a 5-iron for forummers.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 20, 2015)

rosecott said:



			Surely you mean a 5-iron for forummers.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't like to exaggerate as you've seen my feeble attempts with the bats!


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 20, 2015)

Imurg said:



			And.....
Once more I have been "under" cut because CSS came down because a few other people played well...
That's_* twice in the last month*_...
_*And I still can't remember when CSS moved in my favour*_,..
		
Click to expand...

This I find amazing.

The inference I'm getting from this (and I'm not meaning to pick on you Imurg...I'm just quoting your post for reference) and the other posts I've read is that CSS is *regularly* lower than SSS, and rarely does it go up.

I've just looked at my own clubs comps for the last year and see the following spread of CSS...

SSS -1 :  9.5%
SSS     :42.9%
SSS +1: 33.3%
SSS +2: 9.5%
SSS +3: 4.8%

This is pretty much what I would expect and seems to be at odds with what many posters here experience.


----------



## Imurg (Aug 21, 2015)

What I mean by " moving in my favour" is that when CSS does move, it moves in a direction that doesn't benefit me. For example, when I make buffer, according to SSS, but CSS goes down so I miss out or, like this week, when I shoot 2 under SSS and CSS goes down so I get a smaller cut.
Without checking closely, I would say that CSS mostly stays put or goes down unless the comp is a Seniors Roll up qualifier when it regularly goes up as so few of them make buffer most of the time.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 21, 2015)

Imurg said:



			What I mean by " moving in my favour" is that when CSS does move, it moves in a direction that doesn't benefit me. For example, when I make buffer, according to SSS, but CSS goes down so I miss out or, like this week, when I shoot 2 under SSS and CSS goes down so I get a smaller cut.
Without checking closely, I would say that CSS mostly stays put or goes down unless the comp is a Seniors Roll up qualifier when it regularly goes up as so few of them make buffer most of the time.
		
Click to expand...

Yep, I understood what you meant...I was commenting upon the frequency with which CSS goes down... and it seems to be something that others here suffer from as well. I was curious because I'd never perceived a similar thing happening at my club, so I dug through some past comp stats to see how often and by how much CSS deviated from SSS.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Aug 22, 2015)

nickjdavis said:



			Yep, I understood what you meant...I was commenting upon the frequency with which CSS goes down... and it seems to be something that others here suffer from as well. I was curious because I'd never perceived a similar thing happening at my club, so I dug through some past comp stats to see how often and by how much CSS deviated from SSS.
		
Click to expand...

There does seem to be a lot of CSS-1 about doesn't there? Surely this just means that SSS is too high? I've not seen CSS go down in a weekend comp all year at Blackmoor and rarely at RAGC off the white tees but can understand Imurg's frustration if it is happening regularly at his place.


----------



## MashieNiblick (Aug 22, 2015)

CSS goes up at our place more often that it goes down. I'm not at all surprised that the same is true of Blackmoor. It is a difficult course and even in slightly less than perfect conditions could become significantly more tricky. It is exactly this that CSS attempts to address

Courses where CSS goes down more than it goes up may would appear to indicate that scoring at that course is less affected when conditions are less favourable than one where CSS goes up more than down. Not all courses are the same. We accept SSS as a means of factoring that in but SSS is based on playing in average course and weather conditions. Not all courses are equally affected by weather, or indeed changes in tee or pin positions.  However, handicaps at one course have to be comparable to handicaps at all other courses in all conditions. That is one of the fundamental principles of the system. SSS alone can't accommodate these variables.  

Some courses may become much harder when conditions are unfavourable. E.g on a course with 4 short par 5's scoring may not be as adversely affected by windy or soft conditions compared to one which has 2 long 5's and 2 long par 4s instead. Slightly better than average conditions may equally make that first course much easier than the second course by bringing those short par 5s in range for more people. One course may have relatively flat greens with no really tough pins another may have wicked slopes where depending on the hole location a 3 putt may be a good result. When greens are quick the scores at the second course will be more affected than at the first course. Whilst all these courses may play about the same in "average" conditions, or with maybe a slight difference in SSS, any differences are likely to be magnified even by slight changes in conditions.  Is my  SSS -1 in superb conditions in July round my 6300 yard parkland course worth more than another player's SSS +2 round Carnoustie on a windy day in November? CSS might say "no" and I'd be inclined to agree.

I am interested in how this can properly be factored in without CSS, which at least is calculated the same way for every course and tries to introduce some degree of objective measurement into the impact of conditions on the day.


----------



## duncan mackie (Aug 22, 2015)

nickjdavis said:



			This I find amazing.

The inference I'm getting from this (and I'm not meaning to pick on you Imurg...I'm just quoting your post for reference) and the other posts I've read is that CSS is *regularly* lower than SSS, and rarely does it go up.

I've just looked at my own clubs comps for the last year and see the following spread of CSS...

SSS -1 :  9.5%
SSS     :42.9%
SSS +1: 33.3%
SSS +2: 9.5%
Uk SSS +3: 4.8%

This is pretty much what I would expect and seems to be at odds with what many posters here experience.
		
Click to expand...

Because of the nature of statistically driven adjustments this will be what the vast majority do experience - but the perception will always be different! 

Rhere's also the significant factor that many uk courses will vary significantly with conditions (they are more au naturel). As has been recognised what's good for some isn't necessarily good for all; although I would suggest that strong winds are tough for all - whilst they may deliver a relative advantage to a golfer who has the capability to handle them better.


----------



## bladeplayer (Aug 24, 2015)

We had rain most of the day on Sunday.. just a constant steady drizzle . CSS 39pts  (ok its normally 38 par 72 SSS 70) but it was constant rain .. 

45 (16) 42 (13) 41 (14) were 1st /2nd/3rd .. no gross prize as too many people pulled out (??)  

9 people out of 53 returned 38 pts or better .. 

Cat 1 player got .1 for 37pts .. 

No cat prize , no gross prize , i dunno why low handicappers would bother 

I played rubbish by the way wouldnt have been near prizes & .1 all the way , so not a personal mona just a general 1


----------



## delc (Aug 24, 2015)

bladeplayer said:



			We had rain most of the day on Sunday.. just a constant steady drizzle . CSS 39pts  (ok its normally 38 par 72 SSS 70) but it was constant rain .. 

45 (16) 42 (13) 41 (14) were 1st /2nd/3rd .. no gross prize as too many people pulled out (??)  

9 people out of 53 returned 38 pts or better .. 

Cat 1 player got .1 for 37pts .. 

No cat prize , no gross prize , i dunno why low handicappers would bother 

I played rubbish by the way wouldnt have been near prizes & .1 all the way , so not a personal mona just a general 1
		
Click to expand...

Sounds as though the course was playing easy, despite the rain. Often easier to play target golf in damp conditions as the ball will stop on the greens.  When we recently had a long dry spell and the course got scorched, the ball was bouncing off the greens like ping pong balls and the scores went up accordingly, as most holes included a chip back from behind the green. Even in light winds we were getting CSS's that were 2 or 3 over the SSS. How many of the 9 people who scored 38 points or more were Cat-4's?


----------



## bladeplayer (Aug 24, 2015)

delc said:



			Sounds as though the course was playing easy, despite the rain. Often easier to play target golf in damp conditions as the ball will stop on the greens.  When we recently had a long dry spell and the course got scorched, the ball was bouncing off the greens like ping pong balls and the scores went up accordingly, as most holes included a chip back from behind the green. Even in light winds we were getting CSS's that were 2 or 3 over the SSS. How many of the 9 people who scored 38 points or more were Cat-4's?
		
Click to expand...

None , all Cat 3 & Cat 2 mate 

I know how it works & as i say i wasnt affected as i played dirt anyhow 

Just a moan really


----------



## pbrown7582 (Aug 24, 2015)

bladeplayer said:



			None , all Cat 3 & Cat mate 

I know how it works & as i say i wasnt affected as i played dirt anyhow 

Just a moan really
		
Click to expand...


I would hazard a guess that you don't have a lot if low players with SSS -2 it is not an attractive course for a low h/cap?


----------



## bladeplayer (Aug 24, 2015)

pbrown7582 said:



			I would hazard a guess that you don't have a lot if low players with SSS -2 it is not an attractive course for a low h/cap?
		
Click to expand...

Was chatting with 2 of our cat 1 players . (well 1 now coz 1 of the guys got .1 for 37pts and is gone back to 5.5) they plan on moving next year , they are getting most if not all their cuts in away opens/scratch cups etc 

Not attractive at all


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 24, 2015)

bladeplayer said:



			None , all Cat 3 & Cat 2 mate 

I know how it works & as i say i wasnt affected as i played dirt anyhow 

Just a moan really
		
Click to expand...

Don't want to rub salt in the wounds, but the CSS in the mens open i played in this week (par 72) was 77 & 78 - went up both days. i shot +10 off 4 both days and got cut each round (the joys of stableford adjustments).


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 24, 2015)

bladeplayer said:



			Was chatting with 2 of our cat 1 players . (well 1 now coz 1 of the guys got .1 for 37pts and is gone back to 5.5) they plan on moving next year , they are getting most if not all their cuts in away opens/scratch cups etc 

Not attractive at all
		
Click to expand...

I've left/not joined courses before when SSS has been under par. losing 25% of your handicap is crazy.


----------



## pbrown7582 (Aug 24, 2015)

MendieGK said:



			Don't want to rub salt in the wounds, but the CSS in the mens open i played in this week (par 72) was 77 & 78 - went up both days. i shot +10 off 4 both days and got cut each round (the joys of stableford adjustments).
		
Click to expand...


I thought CSS was maxed out at  up +3, then +3 and reduction only?


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 24, 2015)

pbrown7582 said:



			I thought CSS was maxed out at  up +3, then +3 and reduction only?
		
Click to expand...

SSS is 76.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Aug 24, 2015)

MendieGK said:



			I've left/not joined courses before when SSS has been under par. losing 25% of your handicap is crazy.
		
Click to expand...

Usually means your handicap travels well!

My home track is par 72,  sss70. Always seem to get more cuts at away courses as you can afford to make an occasionally bogie.

Stableford adjustment saved me yesterday at my away club, treble on a par 3 meant I sneaked into buffer with CSS going up in a strong wind which was coming from the opposite direction to normal making the back 9 horrendously tough.


----------



## duncan mackie (Aug 24, 2015)

MendieGK said:



			I've left/not joined courses before when SSS has been under par. losing 25% of your handicap is crazy.
		
Click to expand...

We run comps from both 72/73 and 72/71 tees and all the players, inc the lowest, find the latter easier to score relative to SSS. We also use 72/74 a few times a year and that's even harder  (relative to SSS).

You aren't giving anything away when the SSS is under par - just change the designation of the shortest par 5 to a par 4 and any such issue disappears!


----------



## Craigg (Aug 24, 2015)

duncan mackie said:



			We run comps from both 72/73 and 72/71 tees and all the players, inc the lowest, find the latter easier to score relative to SSS. We also use 72/74 a few times a year and that's even harder  (relative to SSS).

You aren't giving anything away when the SSS is under par - just change the designation of the shortest par 5 to a par 4 and any such issue disappears!
		
Click to expand...

Our shortest par 5 is 465yds with the approach severely up hill, which if you dont carry, it rolls back down the hill. I ain't getting on there in 2 in this life or any other!


----------

