Just to add to my earlier response, the reference to "fewer/more players than anticipated attained their expected score" suggests that players' scoring history is taken in to account. CSS only considered players' current handicaps.
Totally agree, and totally damning comments. Let's throw the whole handicap system into turmoil, but don't brainstorm the various issues that will arise.
It really isn't. There's literally no formula shown ion any of that
True but how useful would the full formula/algorithm be to players? How many golfing mathematicians would wish or be able to challenge it? If indeed it needed challenging.
No need, because you could verify it, indeed when it was first introduced you had to do it manually. That said I was often asked for eg "how come CSS didn't go up, there were no low scores", and repeatedly had to tell (often the same folks) that how low a score was was irrelevant, simply making the buffer or better was what was required. Now, I have nothing "it's a secret formula that nobody will explain so there ye go".
Nor in any medals or opens I have played in.
Is it? What analysis? Nobody knows, and yet you could usually have a pretty good guess at where a CSS would come out, now we have a system that nobody can explain, and that almost never changes whatever the conditions. Brilliant that eh?
No sir, it's an inadequate explanation, the authorities won't explain how it works, so what faith can you have in such a system? I like to *know* how things work if I can, there's literally no reason for not making this available, unless.....
What evidence have you got for such a statement?
