# css



## golfdub (Oct 3, 2012)

just reed the post about the cat 1 golfer and he confused me about the css can someone explain how the css gets worked out in simple terms ? as im simple 

thanks


----------



## bobmac (Oct 3, 2012)

The CSS will change according to the difficulty of the course on the day. That can be affected by weather, ground conditions, pin positions etc. Once all the cards are in, the computer will calculate the CSS from the scores submitted


----------



## pbrown7582 (Oct 3, 2012)

its not simple!!!
best left to the handicap sec computer, the CSS is calculated off the scores posted the is a full explanantion by someone who knows better than me 

http://www.handicapmaster.org/handicaps/Unified_Handicapping_System_Page2.php


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2012)

I must keep quiet
I must keep quiet.......:mmm:


----------



## bobmac (Oct 3, 2012)

Imurg said:



			I must keep quiet
I must keep quiet.......:mmm:
		
Click to expand...

The floor recognises I.Murg


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2012)

I must not bite
I must not bite


----------



## bobmac (Oct 3, 2012)

Imurg said:



			I must not bite
I must not bite
		
Click to expand...

The forum calls Imurg to the stand.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2012)

No
No
No


----------



## One Planer (Oct 3, 2012)

I'm with Ian on this.

The ultimate example of moving goal posts.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2012)

Gareth said:



			I'm with Ian on this.

The ultimate example of moving goal posts.
		
Click to expand...

Now, now Gareth - you're putting words in my mouth.......


----------



## One Planer (Oct 3, 2012)

Imurg said:



			Now, now Gareth - you're putting words in my mouth.......
		
Click to expand...

:ears:


----------



## pbrown7582 (Oct 3, 2012)

Imurg said:



			No
No
No
		
Click to expand...

Come on we're not quite sure where you stand on this issue please tell!


----------



## bobmac (Oct 3, 2012)

Imurg.
Do you promise to tell the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth?



Imurg said:



			No
No
No
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2012)

Mmm mmmm m mmmmm mmmmmm!!!


----------



## rosecott (Oct 3, 2012)

pbrown7582 said:



			its not simple!!!
best left to the handicap sec computer, the CSS is calculated off the scores posted the is a full explanantion by someone who knows better than me 

http://www.handicapmaster.org/handicaps/Unified_Handicapping_System_Page2.php

Click to expand...

The concept is pretty simple â€“ even Imurg would agree on that. The CSS will vary from SSS according to the performance of all players of handicap 20 and below. If more than 40% of them score into buffer or better, then that is taken as an indication of easy playing conditions â€“ for whatever reason â€“ and CSS is set at 1 less than SSS.. Between 20 and 39% is the norm for average conditions so CSS is the same as SSS. Below 20% leads to an increase of CSS over SSS â€“ an indication of difficult playing conditions with 4 points on the scale leading to CSS being SSS+1, SSS+2, SSS+3 and, finally SSS+3 Reductions Only.


----------



## golfdub (Oct 3, 2012)

rosecott said:



The concept is pretty simple â€“ even Imurg would agree on that. The CSS will vary from SSS according to the performance of all players of handicap 20 and below. If more than 40% of them score into buffer or better, then that is taken as an indication of easy playing conditions â€“ for whatever reason â€“ and CSS is set at 1 less than SSS.. Between 20 and 39% is the norm for average conditions so CSS is the same as SSS. Below 20% leads to an increase of CSS over SSS â€“ an indication of difficult playing conditions with 4 points on the scale leading to CSS being SSS+1, SSS+2, SSS+3 and, finally SSS+3 Reductions Only.

Click to expand...

Thank you that's makes sense


----------



## chrisd (Oct 3, 2012)

rosecott said:



The concept is pretty simple â€“ even Imurg would agree on that. The CSS will vary from SSS according to the performance of all players of handicap 20 and below. If more than 40% of them score into buffer or better, then that is taken as an indication of easy playing conditions â€“ for whatever reason â€“ and CSS is set at 1 less than SSS.. Between 20 and 39% is the norm for average conditions so CSS is the same as SSS. Below 20% leads to an increase of CSS over SSS â€“ an indication of difficult playing conditions with 4 points on the scale leading to CSS being SSS+1, SSS+2, SSS+3 and, finally SSS+3 Reductions Only.

Click to expand...



Silly me, thinking it was only there to stop my handicap from being cut enough, on the odd occasion when I stumble to a half decent score!


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2012)

Must resist...
Must resist.....


----------



## AmandaJR (Oct 3, 2012)

The thing that I don't like about the CSS is that my potential cut is decided by the rest of the field to an extent. Our ladies medals tend to be on the SSS or 1 under and rarely 1 over. Par is 1 over the SSS to start with so a 2 under par score can mean no cut. Then there's the senior ladies medals in which the standard of player is reduced so the CSS usually above SSS. That's kind of ok but a couple of our decent ladies qualify for the seniors and play both comps so are somewhat advantaged in a quest to lower their handicap. I'm about to process a seniors medal from today and the winner is one such player (Cat 2) who is 2 under the SSS but looks like getting a 0.8 or even 1.0 cut for that...

Not sure what the answer is but why not base it on the SSS alone? Sure on bad days everyone will go up 0.1 but that would probably be offset by the cuts on good days.


----------



## USER1999 (Oct 3, 2012)

So why in an open, let's say sandy lodge, as an example, is CSS one shot higher for visitors than it is for members, playing in the same competition?


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 3, 2012)

AmandaJR said:



			Not sure what the answer is but why not base it on the SSS alone? Sure on bad days everyone will go up 0.1 but that would probably be offset by the cuts on good days.
		
Click to expand...

because people wouldn't necessarily play in both comps.....

taking the evidence of your post in isolation I would suggest that the handicap committee takes the appropriate action in relation to the relevant senior ladies handicaps at the annual review.....on everything I have seen there is a huge reticence to take any action!


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2012)

AmandaJR said:



			Not sure what the answer is but why not base it on the SSS alone? Sure on bad days everyone will go up 0.1 but that would probably be offset by the cuts on good days.
		
Click to expand...

That's been my argument for ages...

We get our handicaps based on SSS - why not continue to use it to adjust handicaps?
Why should my handicap be affected by how other people play?

The scenario that, to me, shows CSS to be inherently unfair is this...

As a Cat 1 golfer my buffer is 1 shot.
At APGC SSS is 69
Off 5 I have to shoot 75 to make buffer.
Standing on the last on a total score of 71, how do I know what score I need to make buffer if that number's going to possibly move?
With a tricky pin position, knowing I need a par 4 to make buffer, I would probably play for the centre of the green and 2 putt.
But then if, because *OTHER PEOPLE* have played well, CSS goes down to 68, all of a sudden I'm out of the buffer and back into Cat2.
If I knew I needed a birdie to make buffer then a shot at the pin would be the only play. But a tricky pin leaves the possibility of making 5.
So what do I do.....?

Go for the birdie and hope to get it right but possibly blow it altogether or play for the par knowing it might not be enough?

Answers on a postcard.........

And before anyone says "play better earlier in the round"   - :ears:


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2012)

Damn it - I wasn't going to get involved.....


----------



## AmandaJR (Oct 3, 2012)

murphthemog said:



			So why in an open, let's say sandy lodge, as an example, is CSS one shot higher for visitors than it is for members, playing in the same competition?
		
Click to expand...

I guess that visitors usually find the course more difficult as they don't know it and the average scores/CSS calcs come out 1 shot higher.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2012)

Supplementary cards have the same "clout" as Competition cards.....

Except they're based on SSS not CSS.

I can play with Fragger during the next comp. If I decide not to enter the comp but elect to put in a Supplementary, Fragger's handicap will be based around CSS but mine will be based around SSS.

It's logic, Jim, but not as we know it........


----------



## AmandaJR (Oct 3, 2012)

Imurg said:



			Supplementary cards have the same "clout" as Competition cards.....

Except they're based on SSS not CSS.

I can play with Fragger during the next comp. If I decide not to enter the comp but elect to put in a Supplementary, Fragger's handicap will be based around CSS but mine will be based around SSS.

It's logic, Jim, but not as we know it........
		
Click to expand...

In the case of our senior ladies the advantage is to be in the CSS not the SSS...

I'm almost looking forward to getting older!!


----------



## pbrown7582 (Oct 3, 2012)

murphthemog said:



			So why in an open, let's say sandy lodge, as an example, is CSS one shot higher for visitors than it is for members, playing in the same competition?
		
Click to expand...

Dependant on numbers separate CSS is worked out for visitors and home players, although I think away CSS can not be lower than home CSS.


----------



## chris661 (Oct 3, 2012)

pbrown7582 said:



			Dependant on numbers separate CSS is worked out for visitors and home players, although I think away CSS can not be lower than home CSS.
		
Click to expand...

You sure? At my place if there is a visitors css it is frequently lower.


----------



## AmandaJR (Oct 3, 2012)

Another thing - why is the CSS based on the SSS and not the par?? We don't have any Cat 1 players never mind scratch so why base the CSS on anything but the par?


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 3, 2012)

AmandaJR said:



			Another thing - why is the CSS based on the SSS and not the par?? We don't have any Cat 1 players never mind scratch so why base the CSS on anything but the par?
		
Click to expand...

because par is irrelevant and can be asigned at will by a club.

if your course was 6000 yds par 68 and another club was 5400 yds par 74 (both possible within length guidelines) and you played against them in a match - who do you think would win?

in the old days we were handicapped to par but then adjusted the handicap when 'travelling' in line with.....SSS (well it's equivilent). this is how the US system works today (an 12 is not a 12 is not a 12 - they could turn up at a comp and be playing off 11, 12 and 13 by the time the maths is done)


----------



## pbrown7582 (Oct 3, 2012)

AmandaJR said:



			Another thing - why is the CSS based on the SSS and not the par?? We don't have any Cat 1 players never mind scratch so why base the CSS on anything but the par?
		
Click to expand...

Because handicaps are based on SSS not par to try and even the the system out over all courses.


----------



## rosecott (Oct 3, 2012)

AmandaJR said:



			Another thing - why is the CSS based on the SSS and not the par?? We don't have any Cat 1 players never mind scratch so why base the CSS on anything but the par?
		
Click to expand...

Amanda, really! Are you suggesting that a par 4 of 180 yards (lowest of the range for ladies) is comparable to a par 4 of 430 yards (highest of the range for ladies)?


----------



## pbrown7582 (Oct 3, 2012)

chris661 said:



			You sure? At my place if there is a visitors css it is frequently lower.
		
Click to expand...

Yes am now just checked and if away CSS is lower than home a new CSS is supposed to be calculated for the whole field. Home players are supposed to statistically have a 1.5 shot advantage.


----------



## chris661 (Oct 3, 2012)

pbrown7582 said:



			Yes am now just checked and if away CSS is lower than home a new CSS is supposed to be calculated for the whole field. Home players are supposed to statistically have a 1.5 shot advantage.
		
Click to expand...

So a home player having a statistical 1.5 shot advantage is supposed to have the same css as a visitor


----------



## pbrown7582 (Oct 3, 2012)

chris661 said:



			So a home player having a statistical 1.5 shot advantage is supposed to have the same css as a visitor 

Click to expand...

My thoughts too I tried to paste link, but failed on my iPhone it's was a GUI guide as well.


----------



## AmandaJR (Oct 3, 2012)

rosecott said:



			Amanda, really! Are you suggesting that a par 4 of 180 yards (lowest of the range for ladies) is comparable to a par 4 of 430 yards (highest of the range for ladies)?
		
Click to expand...

Fair point. Wish we had a 180 yard par 4 



duncan mackie said:



			because par is irrelevant and can be asigned at will by a club.

if your course was 6000 yds par 68 and another club was 5400 yds par 74 (both possible within length guidelines) and you played against them in a match - who do you think would win?

in the old days we were handicapped to par but then adjusted the handicap when 'travelling' in line with.....SSS (well it's equivilent). this is how the US system works today (an 12 is not a 12 is not a 12 - they could turn up at a comp and be playing off 11, 12 and 13 by the time the maths is done)
		
Click to expand...

So that's the US Slope? Always seemed to make sense to me...


----------



## chris661 (Oct 3, 2012)

pbrown7582 said:



			My thoughts too I tried to paste link, but failed on my iPhone it's was a GUI guide as well.
		
Click to expand...

Well as I said if we have a visitor css it is usually lower and sometimes by two or three shots. Who knows it is the black arts after all


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 3, 2012)

It's not possible to judge a holes difficulty by it's yardage.  I prefer the 'Slope system' where a players handicap gets adjusted by the course severity (not weather conditions)


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 4, 2012)

There are anomalies/issues with both systems imo. And I've had experience of the Slope system too (and another that it replaced!)

We are 'stuck' with the UK system, so simpler to simply accept it - certainly better than trying to 'manipulate' it.

@Imurg. Your target should ALWAYS be SSS, +Hcap, MINUS 1 and enjoy the reduction that that brings if the CSS. has not been reduced. Now that you have achieved Cat 1, don't get defensive about staying there. 

As Handicap is a 'relative' term anyway - comparing you with other golfers - it seems reasonable to do the same in competition results too. The Supplementary Card is relatively new and there is the anomaly of using both CSS and SSS on the same day. I'd consider it reasonable that any day a CSS was calculated, then that should used rather than the SSS. Amanda's Seniors issues is actually down to proper maintenance by Handicap Committee imo.


----------



## chrisd (Oct 4, 2012)

I played last week in horrendous conditions in a stableford that, because of the rain, only attracted 4 entries. I scored 37 points which was 1 under par (nett). So, as its a small field, the CSS becomes the SSS and I dont get a cut in a situation where I was the only player to get anywhere near my handicap let alone better and, on the basis that CSS gives, or takes back, according to how the course plays on the day, it is a nonsense to me that I didn't get a small (.2) cut .


----------



## Imurg (Oct 4, 2012)

Imurg said:



			T

As a Cat 1 golfer my buffer is 1 shot.
At APGC SSS is 69
Off 5 I have to shoot 75 to make buffer.
Standing on the last on a total score of 71, how do I know what score I need to make buffer if that number's going to possibly move?
With a tricky pin position, knowing I need a par 4 to make buffer, I would probably play for the centre of the green and 2 putt.
But then if, because *OTHER PEOPLE* have played well, CSS goes down to 68, all of a sudden I'm out of the buffer and back into Cat2.
If I knew I needed a birdie to make buffer then a shot at the pin would be the only play. But a tricky pin leaves the possibility of making 5.
So what do I do.....?

Go for the birdie and hope to get it right but possibly blow it altogether or play for the par knowing it might not be enough?
		
Click to expand...




Foxholer said:



			@Imurg. Your target should ALWAYS be SSS, +Hcap, MINUS 1 and enjoy the reduction that that brings if the CSS. has not been reduced. Now that you have achieved Cat 1, don't get defensive about staying there.
		
Click to expand...

In my example, making a birdie isn't going to get me a cut. It'll mean I shoot SSS. OK if CSS goes up then I get a cut but that's not the issue.
Why risk making a 5 and missing buffer when a relatively straight forward par gets me in? I've no chance of a cut so making buffer is the next target. But if I make a 4  - and make buffer - if enough others make buffer or better then my "target" gets moved and my par isn't enough - that's my point.
In a situation where 1 shot either way means buffer or 0.1 back I have no means of knowing what to do. As a Cat1 player I am capable of going for the birdie but wouldn't consider it the safe play with a tricky pin.
The point about me going up to Cat2 was a by-the-by, if I go up I go up. But if I'd prefer to stay there!
And I'd prefer to stay there because of my play and not the scoring of others..


----------



## bobmac (Oct 4, 2012)

Ian, try this on for size.......

If you want to get your handicap down, you have to get better.
So, on an average day, your scores have to come down.

If you went and played an easier course, you would expect a lower score, not because you are playing better but because the course is easier. It therefor has to have a lower SSS to reflect how easy it is.

If you play a medal at your own course and 1 person has a "special day" but the rest of the scores are normal, the CSS wouldn't change. If however lots of people handed in good scores, that would suggest the course is playing easier so if you have a lower score it's not because you're getting better, it's because the course is playing easier than normal, a fact backed up by the amount of other golfers who also scored well.

That's why your handicap won't change. Not because of how others played, because how easy the course played. The fact that others scored well just tells the computer it was an "easy day"

Also...

If you want to stay at Cat I, you'll have to stop thinking like a Cat II player


----------



## jammydodger (Oct 4, 2012)

bobmac said:



			If you want to stay at Cat I, you'll have to stop thinking like a Cat II player
		
Click to expand...

Harsh but true Bob , it is a state of mind and takes a little getting used to at first. One shot buffers and all that.


----------



## Twire (Oct 4, 2012)

Ian, this 'system' got you to the handicap your at now. So your handicap is only relative to the CONGU system, so I'm failing to see what your problem is.


----------



## chrisd (Oct 4, 2012)

Twire said:



			Ian, this 'system' got you to the handicap your at now. So your handicap is only relative to the CONGU system, so I'm failing to see what your problem is.
		
Click to expand...



Or did he get there despite the system?


----------



## Imurg (Oct 4, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Ian, try this on for size.......

If you want to get your handicap down, you have to get better.
So, on an average day, your scores have to come down.

If you went and played an easier course, you would expect a lower score, not because you are playing better but because the course is easier. It therefor has to have a lower SSS to reflect how easy it is.

If you play a medal at your own course and 1 person has a "special day" but the rest of the scores are normal, the CSS wouldn't change. If however lots of people handed in good scores, that would suggest the course is playing easier so if you have a lower score it's not because you're getting better, it's because the course is playing easier than normal, a fact backed up by the amount of other golfers who also scored well.

That's why your handicap won't change. Not because of how others played, because how easy the course played. The fact that others scored well just tells the computer it was an "easy day"

Also...

If you want to stay at Cat I, you'll have to stop thinking like a Cat II player
		
Click to expand...

So in my example I should just Gung-Ho and go for the birdie regardless of the outcome?
What happened to Course Management?
If I can't get cut then buffer has to be the next target - to preserve your handicap whatever it is...
If I go for the birdie, with a tough pin position, and take 5 then I'm going up. If I play conservatively and take 4 then, assuming the goalposts don't move, I've made buffer - which is the smarter play?

I know how the system works.
Just because a number of good score are posted doesn't automatically mean that the course is playing easier. All it proves is that a number of people have been playing well. Good scores are still posted in bad weather. Bad scores on a nice day.
And they don't have to be good scores either - enough at nett SSS and CSS goes down. Shooting SSS isn't anything special.

In my example, standing on the difficult last needing a par to make buffer, knowing that par actually may not be enough if CSS goes down but knowing that a birdie doesn't result in a cut but making a 5 trying for the birdie means 0.1 back - what would you do?


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 4, 2012)

Imurg said:



			The point about me going up to Cat2 was a by-the-by, if I go up I go up. But if I'd prefer to stay there!
And I'd prefer to stay there because of my play and not the scoring of others..
		
Click to expand...

It's not about 1 hole, it's about 18; so your 'Don't say 'play better on the earlier holes' actually asks us to avoid the bleedin' obvious. In truth, I've been pretty good at assessing whether CSS will reduce from course set-up and conditions, so would decide which approach to take from that - and it's only with a following wind and forward tee that I would consider going for the green in 2 anyway; much easier, for me, to get a birdie/3-pointer with the pitch/chip than getting on in 2 (and one of the courses is a Par 4!).

Bob's right (surprise!). You are still thinking like a Cat 2-er and it'll take a while before you change - apparently!   

The odds for an aggressive play in your situation have changed - from 2:1 to evens (in this country.. Evens to 3:2) so value for the aggressive play is reduced. Play conservatively - hoping to sink the putt!


----------



## Imurg (Oct 4, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			In truth, I've been pretty good at assessing whether CSS will reduce from course set-up and conditions,
		
Click to expand...

Then you're a better judge than most.
I'd say it's virtually impossible.
Good scores come in on bad days, bad scores on good days
It's more to do with how well people are playing than the conditions they're playing in.
How can you know how well others are playing?


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 4, 2012)

Twire said:



			Ian, this 'system' got you to the handicap your at now. So your handicap is only relative to the CONGU system, so I'm failing to see what your problem is.
		
Click to expand...

if my memory serves me right did't Imurg get cut buy supp cards at the end of last season and not competition play?


----------



## Imurg (Oct 4, 2012)

Same meat different gravy, Patrick.:thup:
Yes it was a series of supplementaries.
The difference being that you know what your target is before you start......


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 4, 2012)

Imurg said:



			Same meat different gravy, Patrick.:thup:
Yes it was a series of supplementaries.
The difference being that you know what your target is before you start......
		
Click to expand...

but didn't you just stick a load of good cards in and not pre notify before any of them as i remember, so these would only have taken in the sss for the day so if those days were easy days like the other posts mention then you got an additional cut per score that you may not have got in a comp?

Theres a course around the corner from where i live that is and easy course par 69 css is always 67 no cat 1 golfers there anymore.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 4, 2012)

Imurg said:



			Then you're a better judge than most.
I'd say it's virtually impossible.
Good scores come in on bad days, bad scores on good days
It's more to do with how well people are playing than the conditions they're playing in.
How can you know how well others are playing?
		
Click to expand...

The bunch I played with, on the links course I played, used to estimate CSS - that seemed to be the standard conversation up the 4th/down the 5th so I got into that habit. And, with sufficient participants, it really does tend to be about course conditions. Probability is pretty consistently reliable too.

And as I posted, though you may have skipped over, if you always play as if the CSS is SSS-1, you are consistent. Then work out whether it's ever worth playing the last aggressively and adjust accordingly.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 4, 2012)

Obviously not thinking like a Cat1 player, I'd still like to know what Cat1 players would do in my example...

Seems I need to put a Supplementary in tomorrow to try and get a 0.1 back and retake my rightful place in Cat2.....


----------



## bobmac (Oct 4, 2012)

Imurg said:



			Obviously not thinking like a Cat1 player, I'd still like to know what Cat1 players would do in my example...
		
Click to expand...

You have to assess each shot on it's own merit.
Easy/tough pin
wind/lie 
etc 
*irrespective of your score.
*Ideally, you won't even know your score.

Dont think about playing the hole and how it will affect your h/cap/buffer or whatever.
Play it the best you can.
If you think it's a sucker pin, leave it alone
If you have a good line in, go for it.

As a cat 1 golfer you should be thinking about getting pars or birdies on every hole you can and getting close to and under par every time you play.
If you stand over your second shot on the 18th worrying what the CSS will be, *you've already lost*.
Forget the h/cap. 
Handicaps are only for those golfers who need help. You dont.
And if the CSS changes, there's nothing you can do about that.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 4, 2012)

To be fair Bob, that's the way I've always played and the way I'll always play.
And it's getting a little off my main issue with CSS, which is my handicap being adjusted on the basis of others scores.
I can shoot buffer, 75 gross, and Fragger could be the last player to finish the comp.
If he holes his putt then he shoots buffer +2. If he misses then it's buffer +3.
He holes it, CSS goes down as a result and I go up. If he misses CSS stays the same and I don't.
That is my handicap being directly affected by someone else's play.
Is that fair on me?


----------



## Bomber69 (Oct 4, 2012)

patricks148 said:



			but didn't you just stick a load of good cards in and not pre notify before any of them as i remember, so these would only have taken in the sss for the day so if those days were easy days like the other posts mention then you got an additional cut per score that you may not have got in a comp?

Theres a course around the corner from where i live that is and easy course par 69 css is always 67 no cat 1 golfers there anymore.
		
Click to expand...

Surley not, you cant tell me that he just handed in "good" cards after a few bounce games in order to get his handicap down, you need to register prior to playing a suplimentery round, if we all did it the way you said he did then we could all have our handicaps where we want them, I find this bizzar if true.

Rick Garg has been trying all year to get to Cat 1 and has finaly done it the hard way, well done Rick by the way:thup:


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 4, 2012)

We have a strange situation at my club.....

Ladies medals are played on both Friday and Saturday - you choose which day you play. I noticed last year that the CSS on a Friday is almost always higher than on a Saturday. Without wishing to offend anyone, I put that down to the younger (I use the term loosely) women - those with jobs - play on Saturday while the older ones play on Friday. Conditions are irrelevant - this even happens on weekends where the Friday saw perfect conditions and the Saturday was awful - the standard of golf played by the "Saturday Girls" is usually higher.


----------



## rosecott (Oct 4, 2012)

Imurg said:



			If I knew I needed a birdie to make buffer then a shot at the pin would be the only play. But a tricky pin leaves the possibility of making 5.
So what do I do.....?

Go for the birdie and hope to get it right but possibly blow it altogether or play for the par knowing it might not be enough?

Answers on a postcard
		
Click to expand...

Don't have a postcard handy but here's a direct quote from the CONGU handbook:

"The UHS is based on the following fundamental premises:
Every player will endeavour to make the best score he can at each hole in every qualifying round he plays."


----------



## bobmac (Oct 4, 2012)

I put that down to the younger (I use the term loosely) women - those  with jobs - play on Saturday while the older ones play on Friday.
		
Click to expand...

Tempting....but I must resist


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 4, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Tempting....but I mustn't 

Click to expand...

Grrrr!


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 4, 2012)

FairwayDodger said:



			We have a strange situation at my club.....

Ladies medals are played on both Friday and Saturday - you choose which day you play. I noticed last year that the CSS on a Friday is almost always higher than on a Saturday. Without wishing to offend anyone, I put that down to the younger (I use the term loosely) women - those with jobs - play on Saturday while the older ones play on Friday. Conditions are irrelevant - this even happens on weekends where the Friday saw perfect conditions and the Saturday was awful - the standard of golf played by the "Saturday Girls" is usually higher.
		
Click to expand...

it's not strange at all - it happens all over and I posted earlier in this thread as to the cause....


----------



## bobmac (Oct 4, 2012)

FairwayDodger said:



			Grrrr!



Click to expand...

:ears:


----------



## rosecott (Oct 4, 2012)

Imurg said:



			To be fair Bob, that's the way I've always played and the way I'll always play.
And it's getting a little off my main issue with CSS, which is my handicap being adjusted on the basis of others scores.
I can shoot buffer, 75 gross, and Fragger could be the last player to finish the comp.
If he holes his putt then he shoots buffer +2. If he misses then it's buffer +3.
He holes it, CSS goes down as a result and I go up. If he misses CSS stays the same and I don't.
That is my handicap being directly affected by someone else's play.
Is that fair on me?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, because you cannot "lay the blame" on the last player in because it's not what he may or may not do, its what the whole group of players have already done and their overall performance is governed by how they, as an entity, have played in the conditions presented - weather, tough rough, awkward pinpositions etc. etc..


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 4, 2012)

duncan mackie said:



			it's not strange at all - it happens all over and I posted earlier in this thread as to the cause....
		
Click to expand...

Strange as in weird/annoying rather than unusual then!

So (looking back in the thread) you're saying the older ladies handicaps are too low and should be adjusted upwards?


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 4, 2012)

AmandaJR said:



			So that's the US Slope? Always seemed to make sense to me...
		
Click to expand...

no it's not - and Socketrocket's post is also consistent with this misunderstanding.

in terms of the course rating process the US and CONGU's SSS calculations are almost identical ie the assessments would produce the same ratings. there are 2 fundamental differences that follow that though.

1. the US play to par, but adjust the handicap for difficulty ie an 12 handicap for a lower rated course will not be at the same level as a 12 handicap player from a high rated course. Within their club events it doesn't matter - when they go somewhere else they adjust the handicap to that courses rating before play. CONGU handicaps to the rating so a 12 is a 12 is a 12, and when they travel they play of........12 

2. the other difference, which is really the crux of 'slope' for handicap golfers, is that they rate their courses 2 ways. One as above and a second rating for an average 18 handicapper. this is designed to recognise (rightly to me) that certain factors affect an 18 handicap player but wouldn't have the slightest impact on a scratch golfer - water carries are a simple example, green side bunkers are another. in practice the two ratings are combined and applied proportionally to the various handicap players to produce their playing handicap at that course. this step would have no impact on a scratch golfers handicapping/course ratings but can have a significant one on a higher handicap player (there are courses where it has none). it is most effective for ladies and seniors where player's strengths and weaknesses are a little more predictable than the average male 18 handicap player (ie there is no such thing - some are short consistent some long wild)

Hope this helps


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 4, 2012)

FairwayDodger said:



			Strange as in weird/annoying rather than unusual then!

So (looking back in the thread) you're saying the older ladies handicaps are too low and should be adjusted upwards?
		
Click to expand...

I might suggest that despite significant evidence there is a reticence to increase handicaps at the annual review.......... you have the evidence, do you believe otherwise? Arguably it is you, in your post, that is saying that they are too low!

From a system perspective it's a bit of a catch 22, as raised often, because they play together and their failure to play to handicap delivers RO results. However, someone has to look at 12 failures to play to buffer in such events and draw a conclusion.

A question to you, and Amanda, how many handicaps were increased at last years review?


----------



## Ethan (Oct 4, 2012)

duncan mackie said:



			in terms of the course rating process the US and CONGU's SSS calculations are almost identical ie the assessments would produce the same ratings. there are 2 fundamental differences that follow that though.
		
Click to expand...

I agree the '95% of best 10 of 20 scores' element in the USGA handicap produces much the same effect as our CSS and 0.x increment method, but I think that course ratings tend to run higher in the US than we would have for SSS here. There are plenty of courses in the US with course ratings of 74 or more, but there are very few courses around there that have a base SSS as high as that. As a result, I think US player handicaps run a bit lower (maybe 1 or 2 points) than the same players would have here.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 4, 2012)

rosecott said:



			Yes, because you cannot "lay the blame" on the last player in because it's not what he may or may not do, its what the whole group of players have already done and their overall performance is governed by how they, as an entity, have played in the conditions presented - weather, tough rough, awkward pinpositions etc. etc..
		
Click to expand...

So at a club where you enter your scores into a computer when you come in, the first 99 competitors have put their scores in and CSS is unchanged. 
Fragger is the 100th player. He makes a putt at the last to score buffer +2. He puts his score in and he completes the "x" % needed to reduce CSS.
If he'd missed he would have been buffer +3 and CSS would remain static.
Not blaming anyone but the fact is that his score could tip the CSS one way or the other.
Therefore my handicap is directly influenced by Fraggers final putt.


----------



## Ethan (Oct 4, 2012)

Imurg said:



			So at a club where you enter your scores into a computer when you come in, the first 99 competitors have put their scores in and CSS is unchanged. 
Fragger is the 100th player. He makes a putt at the last to score buffer +2. He puts his score in and he completes the "x" % needed to reduce CSS.
If he'd missed he would have been buffer +3 and CSS would remain static.
Not blaming anyone but the fact is that his score could tip the CSS one way or the other.
Therefore my handicap is directly influenced by Fraggers final putt.
		
Click to expand...

We need CONGU to accept a change to handicapping that Fragger's score will never be allowed to affect CSS.


----------



## rosecott (Oct 4, 2012)

Imurg said:



			So at a club where you enter your scores into a computer when you come in, the first 99 competitors have put their scores in and CSS is unchanged. 
Fragger is the 100th player. He makes a putt at the last to score buffer +2. He puts his score in and he completes the "x" % needed to reduce CSS.
If he'd missed he would have been buffer +3 and CSS would remain static.
Not blaming anyone but the fact is that his score could tip the CSS one way or the other.
Therefore my handicap is directly influenced by Fraggers final putt.
		
Click to expand...

And a butterfly fluttering in Beijing.


----------



## Bomber69 (Oct 4, 2012)

A lot of tosh getting talked about here, seems someone will use any excuse not to play in competitions maybe that's why he prefers to submit bounce games in for handicap when he plays well....lol.


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 4, 2012)

Ethan said:



			I agree the '95% of best 10 of 20 scores' element in the USGA handicap produces much the same effect as our CSS and 0.x increment method, but I think that course ratings tend to run higher in the US than we would have for SSS here. There are plenty of courses in the US with course ratings of 74 or more, but there are very few courses around there that have a base SSS as high as that. As a result, I think US player handicaps run a bit lower (maybe 1 or 2 points) than the same players would have here.
		
Click to expand...

I think the main difference in this context is that the US has many more courses with Black tees (as well as many more measured tees per course for general play). We have few courses here that get close to the distances and hazard structure - although in recent years some are starting to appear! Of the *old* established courses I can only think of Hoylake.

However, I agree that (esp at the lower end - 2 though + handicaps) they're between 1 and 2 shots weaker, but more for the handicap calc in cat 1. The calc's run v close through cat 2 and 3 though.


----------



## AmandaJR (Oct 5, 2012)

duncan mackie said:



			I might suggest that despite significant evidence there is a reticence to increase handicaps at the annual review.......... you have the evidence, do you believe otherwise? Arguably it is you, in your post, that is saying that they are too low!

From a system perspective it's a bit of a catch 22, as raised often, because they play together and their failure to play to handicap delivers RO results. However, someone has to look at 12 failures to play to buffer in such events and draw a conclusion.

A question to you, and Amanda, how many handicaps were increased at last years review?
		
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer Duncan as new to the handicap secretary role this year. I do know the Congu changes have meant hardly any R/O at our club and in fact just 2 where only 2 players took part (don't ask!). I have suggested 2 handicap increases this year thanks to some input from Jim and only 1 player accepted the offer. When I run the annual review report I'll be strongly pushing that they are accepted. My gut feel is that our senior section does have players whose handicaps are too low but perhaps indicative of lots of comps played, 2 days in the sun for a decent cut and then way outside buffer for all the rest but not enough to make up for the cuts...


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 5, 2012)

duncan mackie said:



			I might suggest that despite significant evidence there is a reticence to increase handicaps at the annual review.......... you have the evidence, do you believe otherwise? Arguably it is you, in your post, that is saying that they are too low!

From a system perspective it's a bit of a catch 22, as raised often, because they play together and their failure to play to handicap delivers RO results. However, someone has to look at 12 failures to play to buffer in such events and draw a conclusion.

A question to you, and Amanda, how many handicaps were increased at last years review?
		
Click to expand...

Can't say for sure but I don't know of anyone who was increased. A handful were given cuts - some of them weren't happy about it!

Testing the Friday CSS theory today; I've sneakily played on Friday instead of Saturday. Shot 76, net 69 - 1 over SSS. Lets see what the CSS does today!


----------



## bobmac (Oct 5, 2012)

I've sneakily played on Friday instead of Saturday
		
Click to expand...

You've got a busy afternoon ahead then.
Washing, ironing, shopping, cooking, gardening, dusting and hoovering, all before HID gets home


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 5, 2012)

bobmac said:



			You've got a busy afternoon ahead then.
Washing, ironing, shopping, cooking, gardening, dusting and hoovering, all before HID gets home 

Click to expand...

I went to the supermarket and got stuff in for dinner. Completely forgetting we're eating out tonight! D'oh!


----------



## bobmac (Oct 5, 2012)

FairwayDodger said:



			I went to the supermarket and got stuff in for dinner. Completely forgetting we're eating out tonight! D'oh!
		
Click to expand...

Fish suppers?
I haven't had one for AGES


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 5, 2012)

bobmac said:



			Fish suppers?
I haven't had one for AGES 

Click to expand...

Thai.

Hmm.... would prefer a fish supper now you mention it!


----------

