CSS - Booooooo !!

[backwoodsman]

Played well at the weekend - scored 36 points compared to the SSS equivalent of 35 so was expecting a wee cut. Only point 3 mind but a cut's a cut. But CSS went down. Down? Down? It never goes down at ours. Ever! (Ok, I exaggerate but it's rare and you get my drift)

It was a modest sized entry (23 players). So question is, in general, could the size of field have any bearing on the outcome of the CSS calculation? Is CSS more likely to go up or down as the field gets smaller? Or neither?

I'm not questionning the actual result of the calculation - just curious as to what factors might make it go down when (to me) there wasn't anything particularly unusual. Scores weren't especially good or bad, H/C distribution not that unusual etc. Just that CSS at -1 really is not common for us.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Imurg will be along in a minute to commiserate and hold your hand 👍

 

[chrisd]

Imurg will be along in a minute to commiserate and hold your hand 👍

As will I

I hate the concept of CSS

 

[louise_a]

Small fields are classed as under 10 players.
CSS would normally go down if a large percentage of players score in their buffer zone.
Otherwise it can go down if length of the course was reduced.

 

[rosecott]

Played well at the weekend - scored 36 points compared to the SSS equivalent of 35 so was expecting a wee cut. Only point 3 mind but a cut's a cut. But CSS went down. Down? Down? It never goes down at ours. Ever! (Ok, I exaggerate but it's rare and you get my drift)

It was a modest sized entry (23 players). So question is, in general, could the size of field have any bearing on the outcome of the CSS calculation? Is CSS more likely to go up or down as the field gets smaller? Or neither?

I'm not questionning the actual result of the calculation - just curious as to what factors might make it go down when (to me) there wasn't anything particularly unusual. Scores weren't especially good or bad, H/C distribution not that unusual etc. Just that CSS at -1 really is not common for us.

It's quite simple really. If more than 46% of players achieve buffer or better, then CSS is SSS -1. So, if around half or more of the field play well enough to buffer, the system reckons that it's much easier than normal to score well, whatever the reason for that - benign conditions, easy pin positions, receptive greens etc. etc..

 

[dufferman]

It's a horrible concept. I shot 40 points on the weekend in the stableford.... 40 points. Got a .6 cut. Whoopee do.

I shot nett 69 in the medal early Nov... got no cut at all.

I've had a few 38 pointers at my club this year with no cut.

Looks like I've gotta be putting a card in 5 or 6 under my handicap to get a good cut! Ridiculous!

 

[patricks148]

Played well at the weekend - scored 36 points compared to the SSS equivalent of 35 so was expecting a wee cut. Only point 3 mind but a cut's a cut. But CSS went down. Down? Down? It never goes down at ours. Ever! (Ok, I exaggerate but it's rare and you get my drift)

It was a modest sized entry (23 players). So question is, in general, could the size of field have any bearing on the outcome of the CSS calculation? Is CSS more likely to go up or down as the field gets smaller? Or neither?

I'm not questionning the actual result of the calculation - just curious as to what factors might make it go down when (to me) there wasn't anything particularly unusual. Scores weren't especially good or bad, H/C distribution not that unusual etc. Just that CSS at -1 really is not common for us.

course playing easier and more people making buffer, its as simple as that

 

[MendieGK]

I don't see why people think it's a horrible concept. It's likely your playing off tees further forward and the scoring clearly suggests it's easier than normal. More often than not the CSS will help you rather than hinder you.

 

[patricks148]

I don't see why people think it's a horrible concept. It's likely your playing off tees further forward and the scoring clearly suggests it's easier than normal. More often than not the CSS will help you rather than hinder you.

very true, people have to forget about what par is TBH, and score mentioned as the SSS or CSS must be lower than par

 

[Val]

It's a horrible concept. I shot 40 points on the weekend in the stableford.... 40 points. Got a .6 cut. Whoopee do.

I shot nett 69 in the medal early Nov... got no cut at all.

I've had a few 38 pointers at my club this year with no cut.

Looks like I've gotta be putting a card in 5 or 6 under my handicap to get a good cut! Ridiculous!

Without any more information it's difficult to say if this is ridiculous or not and the chances are its not. As has been said on here man many times handicaps are based on SSS/CSS not the par of the course.

 

[dufferman]

Without any more information it's difficult to say if this is ridiculous or not and the chances are its not. As has been said on here man many times handicaps are based on SSS/CSS not the par of the course.

You tell that to the person who brings out the old "bandit" argument when you tell them you've shot nett 69 & 40 points in the last 2 comps you've played and only got a .6 cut...

 

[rosecott]

You tell that to the person who brings out the old "bandit" argument when you tell them you've shot nett 69 & 40 points in the last 2 comps you've played and only got a .6 cut...

So, if you explain to him that you have to score 38 points to play to handicap on your course then perhaps he might pass that information on to others.

Our course is undergoing major changes in two stages. The first stage changed the course from par72/SSS72 to par70/SSS68 in February this year and we still have regular players who cannot get their head around the fact that 38 points are needed to play to handicap rather than the 36 points they were used to.

On a brighter note, if you continue to score 38 points very regularly you will find your name in lights come the Annual Review.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Without any more information it's difficult to say if this is ridiculous or not and the chances are its not. As has been said on here man many times handicaps are based on SSS/CSS not the par of the course.

The problem lies with so many thinking that they are "trainee pro's".

In pro' and elite tournaments scores are often measured against par (although it may be irrelevant as lowest score wins) in club comps it is again the lowest score that wins but handicaps are measured against CSS.

It would be interesting to know if the people who are currently complaining are also unhappy when CSS rises and they, therefore, buffer or even get a cut despite their net score being over par.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's a horrible concept. I shot 40 points on the weekend in the stableford.... 40 points. Got a .6 cut. Whoopee do.

I shot nett 69 in the medal early Nov... got no cut at all.

I've had a few 38 pointers at my club this year with no cut.

Looks like I've gotta be putting a card in 5 or 6 under my handicap to get a good cut! Ridiculous!

A few things would be needed to clarify the issue a bit

1. Par of the course

2. The SSS

Remembering that CSS only drops one below SSS as a maximum

So going by what you have posted

Your par will be 71 ?

SSS will be 70

If the CSS is regualry going to 69 or 38 points as such then the course plays easier than the par and indeed SSS

If that's the case then your committee need to look at ways to rectify that

But none of it is the fault of CSS

 

[duncan mackie]

You tell that to the person who brings out the old "bandit" argument when you tell them you've shot nett 69 & 40 points in the last 2 comps you've played and only got a .6 cut...

It's about language...if you told them the best you have managed recently is 2 under, so got a 0.6 cut for it, why on earth would they bring any argument to the table?

But I guess it doesn't have the ring of a nett 69s and 40 points...

 

[Foxholer]

Also remember that you are not 'playing against the course'. You are playing against all the other competitors! So 'measuring how well you played' should be a comparison against how well everybody else played too!

 

[dufferman]

A few things would be needed to clarify the issue a bit

1. Par of the course

2. The SSS

Remembering that CSS only drops one below SSS as a maximum

So going by what you have posted

Your par will be 71 ?

SSS will be 70

If the CSS is regualry going to 69 or 38 points as such then the course plays easier than the par and indeed SSS

If that's the case then your committee need to look at ways to rectify that

But none of it is the fault of CSS

You got it in one. Although white tees, they are off the yellow blocks so SSS is 71. Medal was CSS of 69, Stableford was 70. I understand it's not the fault of the CSS, but it can be a little bit of let down to shoot nett 69 and not get a little cut!

 

[dufferman]

So, if you explain to him that you have to score 38 points to play to handicap on your course then perhaps he might pass that information on to others.

It's about language...if you told them the best you have managed recently is 2 under, so got a 0.6 cut for it, why on earth would they bring any argument to the table?

But I guess it doesn't have the ring of a nett 69s and 40 points...

We all know people don't take CSS or SSS into consideration when they hear "40 points" or "nett 69". They just think "That guy needs a good cut!"

 

[FairwayDodger]

CSS tends to get a bit farcical in small fields but 23 should be adequate to avoid anomalies.

 

[rosecott]

You got it in one. Although white tees, they are off the yellow blocks so SSS is 71. Medal was CSS of 69, Stableford was 70. I understand it's not the fault of the CSS, but it can be a little bit of let down to shoot nett 69 and not get a little cut!

Something a bit fishy there. SSS71 cannot become CSS69.