Competition Standard Scratch

[GMAC88]

How is this calculated? At our course, from the the front tees, it is always 2under 67. Yet, some weeks there are only 4 players who have a score of 67 or less. Ocassionally from the back tees, it goes to 2 under 69 aswell, and again, only a handful of players are on or below!

Today I scored +5 74 from the the front tees, and am going up 0.1, and a little peeved to say the least. Does this mean my handicap is unofficially 4, or is our handicap convener taking the biscuit?

 

[jammydodger]

You need to clear up what your SSS is off each of the tees. one sentence you say 2 under 67 and the next 2 under 69 ??

CSS is based around cats 1,2 and 3 scores in the comp. It takes into account all those who make +2 over SSS nett or better with more weight given to the cat 1 golfers. You could have no-one beat sss and still the css could stay the same.

 

[GMAC88]

yellow tees par is 69, with normal css being 67

white tees par is 71, with css going as low as 69

which are both 2 under.

the line he continues to hit out with is that NRs dont count and thats why its so low as so many people NR.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

It's a calculation based on the percentage of each category excluding cat 4 who are in or better than the buffer. This is then used against tables supplied by CONGU

CSS can be a between 1 under and 3 over SSS, par is irrelevent. If your par is 70 and SSS is 69 then you have to play to 4 over par to play to your h'cap. If you shoot 5 over par as a 5 h'capper against a SSS of 69 and CSS of 68 then you would go up 0.1.

 

[GMAC88]

Cheers Hawkeye!

Still a little confusing, guess Ill just need to tel myself that from now on my handicap is 4.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Should have said, I personally think CSS is a nonsense.

 

[GMAC88]

Agreed!

Just got the update from HDID, a 58 net won, with a 59 a close 2nd!!!

 

[rosecott]

Should have said, I personally think CSS is a nonsense.

Why?

 

[Imurg]

Should have said, I personally think CSS is a nonsense.

Why?

The idea banded about is that it takes into account that scores will be worse in bad weather and good in good weather - completely disregarding the fact that, as handicap golfers, we are capable of putting in a good or bad score irrespective of the weather.
Every course has a SSS - this is used to allocate our handicaps in the first instance. It is then completely disregarded as CSS is used after that. Nobody has ever been able to put forward, as far as I'm concerned, a reason why CSS is required at all. It's akin to handicap protection.
Why is it a problem when, in good weather, everyone scores well and everyone gets cut; Then the week after, the weather is poor, everyone scores badly so everyone goes up .1.....???
CSS is not needed, it complicates further an already complicated system. PLay the course, if you beat SSS you get cut, if you buffer you stay the same, if you miss buffer you go up.
Simples.

 

[GMAC88]

Imurg,

could you write a letter to my handicap convener please?

 

[Imurg]

I'd be delighted but it wont make a scrap of difference I'm afraid.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Should have said, I personally think CSS is a nonsense.

Why?

The idea banded about is that it takes into account that scores will be worse in bad weather and good in good weather - completely disregarding the fact that, as handicap golfers, we are capable of putting in a good or bad score irrespective of the weather.
Every course has a SSS - this is used to allocate our handicaps in the first instance. It is then completely disregarded as CSS is used after that. Nobody has ever been able to put forward, as far as I'm concerned, a reason why CSS is required at all. It's akin to handicap protection.
Why is it a problem when, in good weather, everyone scores well and everyone gets cut; Then the week after, the weather is poor, everyone scores badly so everyone goes up .1.....???
CSS is not needed, it complicates further an already complicated system. PLay the course, if you beat SSS you get cut, if you buffer you stay the same, if you miss buffer you go up.
Simples.

Hmmmm, here we go again.

So, if we have a course with a SSS of 70..... You score a nett 70 and stay the same handicap. I score 68 and go down 2 x whatever depending on category. The conditions were average. Whatever the calculation is the required amount of Cat 1,2,3 scored SSS +2 or better and the CSS was the same as SSS.

A hundred miles down the road we have a similar course (SSS 70). It's raining. It's very windy. In fact it's pretty unpleasant and all the field play badly with only very few Cat 1,2,3 playing to SSS +2 or better. However, my identical twin matches my fantastic score of 68. By your reasoning we should both be assessed against SSS regardless of the conditions and end the day with the same handicap adjustment.

How can that possibly be a fair system? My twin brother has obviously played better than me and deserves a bigger cut.

I agree that within a club or on a single course it is irrelevant but for a universal system that has to be as fair as possible, CSS is essential.

 

[Imurg]

Should have said, I personally think CSS is a nonsense.

Why?

The idea banded about is that it takes into account that scores will be worse in bad weather and good in good weather - completely disregarding the fact that, as handicap golfers, we are capable of putting in a good or bad score irrespective of the weather.
Every course has a SSS - this is used to allocate our handicaps in the first instance. It is then completely disregarded as CSS is used after that. Nobody has ever been able to put forward, as far as I'm concerned, a reason why CSS is required at all. It's akin to handicap protection.
Why is it a problem when, in good weather, everyone scores well and everyone gets cut; Then the week after, the weather is poor, everyone scores badly so everyone goes up .1.....???
CSS is not needed, it complicates further an already complicated system. PLay the course, if you beat SSS you get cut, if you buffer you stay the same, if you miss buffer you go up.
Simples.

Hmmmm, here we go again.

So, if we have a course with a SSS of 70..... You score a nett 70 and stay the same handicap. I score 68 and go down 2 x whatever depending on category. The conditions were average. Whatever the calculation is the required amount of Cat 1,2,3 scored SSS +2 or better and the CSS was the same as SSS.

A hundred miles down the road we have a similar course (SSS 70). It's raining. It's very windy. In fact it's pretty unpleasant and all the field play badly with only very few Cat 1,2,3 playing to SSS +2 or better. However, my identical twin matches my fantastic score of 68. By your reasoning we should both be assessed against SSS regardless of the conditions and end the day with the same handicap adjustment. Er Yes - So the reason I don't get cut/go up .1 is becasue it's raining in Manchester - again???

How can that possibly be a fair system? My twin brother has obviously played better than me and deserves a bigger cut.
And if he keeps playing like that he will.

You and your identical twin - if you're capable of scoring 68's, are more than capable of doing it regardless of the weather.
In what other sports are the goalposts moved to take into account of a breeze or some rain - apart from Cricket's D/L method?
Chelsea don't get an extra point because they beat Arsenal in the wind and rain when ManU beat City on a beautiful day.

Are you honestly suggesting that SSS totally evens up the playing field? I know courses with SSS of 69 that are streets apart in difficulty.

I understand the reasoning behind it and realise it'll never change - I still think it's unnecessary and complicates things - if you're struggling and trying your best to make buffer, if you have no idea what CSS is going to be then you don't know whether to try for birdies or play safe. You have no idea how anyone else is doing except your playing partners, your target could be anywhere in a 4 shot window - how is that fair? You have no idea what you're aiming for, you may think that parring the last 3 will make buffer when in reality you need a birdie in there - but you can't know that - how is that fair?

 

[GMAC88]

Two very valid arguments.

Our H/C convener also mentions the number of cat.1 players who play in comps being too low, however, with the SS being 2 under par regularly, its extremely difficult to get to cat.1.

A course about a 5 minute drive from us, which is shorter, and somewhat easier always has a CSS of par or above. I know of a few cat.1 guys who have moved, and their H/C have halved this season.

 

[MashieNiblick]

I'm not a great fan of CSS for the reasons outlined above by others. I hate walking in thinking I've buffered and finding out on Monday I'm up 0.1. And why shouldn't we all enjoy the nice sunny days when the wind isn't blowing, the fairways are running and the greens are fast and true, and get cut if we beat SSS. The bad days will even things out.

However one comment above made me think. 2 courses both sss 69 but streets apart in difficulty. Putting aside the weather argument, won't CSS level the playing field there as the CSS for the easier course will usually be lower than that of the harder course and that would make h/caps at the 2 courses more comparable?

Just a thought. Almost made me think CSS might have some merit.

 

[bobmac]

It isn't just the weather that changes CSS.
Think of the flag positions.
One day easy, the next week tucked away behind bunkers, cut on slopes, hidden in trees etc

If I could explain how the CSS works, I'd also have a go at explaining why 42 is the answer to the meaning of life

 

[Imurg]

If I could explain how the CSS works, I'd also have a go at explaining why 42 is the answer to the meaning of life

Ah now that's something I do agree with...............

 

[bobmac]

However one comment above made me think. 2 courses both sss 69 but streets apart in difficulty. Putting aside the weather argument, won't CSS level the playing field there as the CSS for the easier course will usually be lower than that of the harder course and that would make h/caps at the 2 courses more comparable?

In this case, I would assume the SSS would be different, ie lower for the easier course

 

[MashieNiblick]

However one comment above made me think. 2 courses both sss 69 but streets apart in difficulty. Putting aside the weather argument, won't CSS level the playing field there as the CSS for the easier course will usually be lower than that of the harder course and that would make h/caps at the 2 courses more comparable?

In this case, I would assume the SSS would be different, ie lower for the easier course

Yes generally the SSS would be different but I'm sure most of us have played courses that have the same SSS but where one seems much easier that the other. That is where CSS might even things up.

 

[Imurg]

However one comment above made me think. 2 courses both sss 69 but streets apart in difficulty. Putting aside the weather argument, won't CSS level the playing field there as the CSS for the easier course will usually be lower than that of the harder course and that would make h/caps at the 2 courses more comparable?

In this case, I would assume the SSS would be different, ie lower for the easier course

Yes generally the SSS would be different but I'm sure most of us have played courses that have the same SSS but where one seems much easier that the other. That is where CSS might even things up.

On the assumption that scores on the "easy" course are better than the scores on the "hard" course - not a given bearing in mind our consistency.