CSS Calculation changes

[HawkeyeMS]

Just reading the new edition of GM and I see CONGU are changing the calculation of CSS. It's a shame they're not scrapping it but instead using the buffer instead of SSS+2 across the board. So it will now be the percentage of players who shoot within the buffer. This means Cat1 players shooting 2 over SSS will no longer be considered to have played "well" but cat 3 players shooting SSS+3 will be considered to have played well.

Given that there are normally more players in cat 3 than cat 1, it seems to me that this change will increase the number of players considered to have played "well" and therefore would mean CSS is more likely to go down. This can only make it harder for players to get cut.

I'm sure CONGU have looked into this in depth but that's my view. Any thoughts out there on the forum?

 

[Robobum]

It's all far too complicated for me.

All I do is play and see what score I put in. If things don't go my way because of CSS recalculations, I then adopt that good old British way of showing my disgust.........I tut and may even have a little sigh......that normally puts the wind up the bods @ CONGU!!!

 

[daymond]

Just got home. GM on the table. Will read article before commenting.

 

[wull]

it will be handy for gents opens or 36 hole comps that are only open to lower handicap players.

i played the 36 hole this year at crieff at the conditions were tough and the css went up +3.....

2mnths earlier when it was open to everyone the css stayed the same,i put this down to the fact that a lot of the players playing were higher handicap players and were imo more likely to shoot in and around their handicap.

 

[Marko77]

Just reading the new edition of GM and I see CONGU are changing the calculation of CSS. It's a shame they're not scrapping it but instead using the buffer instead of SSS+2 across the board. So it will now be the percentage of players who shoot within the buffer. This means Cat1 players shooting 2 over SSS will no longer be considered to have played "well" but cat 3 players shooting SSS+3 will be considered to have played well.

Given that there are normally more players in cat 3 than cat 1, it seems to me that this change will increase the number of players considered to have played "well" and therefore would mean CSS is more likely to go down. This can only make it harder for players to get cut.

I'm sure CONGU have looked into this in depth but that's my view. Any thoughts out there on the forum?

In a way I'm still trying to get my head around I think this might actually be a good thing and help keep CSS/SSS linked. By including more players as making the SSS+buffer it should reduce the percentage of those who have beaten the score and therefore lessen the chances of CSS reducing or have I totally missed the point?

 

[thecraw]

Its just another way of shafting the low man and making it easier for the higher handicap golfer.

I'm a firm believer of a separate CSS for each class.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Its just another way of shafting the low man and making it easier for the higher handicap golfer.

I'm a firm believer of a separate CSS for each class.

That was my initial thought but you put it far more succinctly

 

[wull]

Its just another way of shafting the low man and making it easier for the higher handicap golfer.

I'm a firm believer of a separate CSS for each class.

and what annoys me even more about this is the fact that the low man needs all the help he can get.only reducing by .1 and a 1 shot buffer zone.

 

[Fyldewhite]

From your description of the changes I don't think it will make much difference. There needs to be a significant swing in the percentage for the CSS to change from SSS at all. Although using the buffers instead of the notional SSS+2 may make a slight difference here and there I don't think this is really much of a change in practice.......given the theory of the UHS it's probably the way they should have done it from the start though.

 

[backwoodsman]

Seems to me to be a fairer thing all round - and not more shafting of anyone more than anyone else.

 

[viscount17]

I haven't had a chance to read the article but as reported here isn't this a move to separate CSS?
Which I have to say, as an HH, I also agree with.

 

[Imurg]

Just reading the new edition of GM and I see CONGU are changing the calculation of CSS. It's a shame they're not scrapping it but instead using the buffer instead of SSS+2 across the board. So it will now be the percentage of players who shoot within the buffer. This means Cat1 players shooting 2 over SSS will no longer be considered to have played "well" but cat 3 players shooting SSS+3 will be considered to have played well.

Given that there are normally more players in cat 3 than cat 1, it seems to me that this change will increase the number of players considered to have played "well" and therefore would mean CSS is more likely to go down. This can only make it harder for players to get cut.

I'm sure CONGU have looked into this in depth but that's my view. Any thoughts out there on the forum?

Yep
Scrap the whole thing and work from SSS instead. That way you know what's what and goalposts don't move.

 

[BTatHome]

Only time CSS has ever bothered me was when I do well and it ALWAYS seems to drop. I would be playing to one shot less if CSS had remained the same as SSS this year.

 

[JezzE]

Only time CSS has ever bothered me was when I do well and it ALWAYS seems to drop.

Maybe that's no coincidence as that would also mean a lot of other players have fared well too, perhaps suggesting the course is playing easier than normal - hence the need for CSS rather than just SSS.

 

[Imurg]

Maybe that's no coincidence as that would also mean a lot of other players have fared well too, perhaps suggesting the course is playing easier than normal - hence the need for CSS rather than just SSS.

But why not just cut everyone instead? Next week, when it's playing tricky - everyone goes up. Where's the problem...?
Our handicaps are decided against SSS so why not simply base all handicapping using it?
Assuming your best handicap card was posted during a comp. SSS=70, CSS for that comp=69. Your handicap would be judged against SSS not CSS so why should it not be judged against that week in-week out..?

Uh oh... another CSS moan alert:ears:

 

[JezzE]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one Ian!

I would say the people on here with the biggest gripes against CSS are generally lower handicappers in the 3 to 9 range - i.e. people who are very good at golf but destined never to reach the elite echelons. My suspicion is that when their handicaps finally plateau and further downwards progress is either impossible or extremely difficult, it is perhaps understandable that they should look to the system rather than their ability as the reason why they're not better than they are. We all want to be as low as possible, don't we? I've certainly been striving for that all my golfing life. But is the reason I'm off 5 rather than 3 down to CSS coming down one rather too often for my liking? No - it's because I'm a 5-handicapper with the vaguest of chances of perhaps getting down to 4 with a 'helping wind', but not a cat's chance in hell of ever getting down to and playing off 3 without a dramatic change in circumstances or the miraculous gift of a considerably better golf swing.

And one other thing - how many times have you ever heard a golfer - especially a low handicapper - say, "Damn it! CSS has gone up three today so I'm going to get cut by an unfair amount."

Only my opinion of course...

 

[Imurg]

I think you're right Jezz - good debating material though...

My opposition to it is more down to the movable aspect of CSS rather than anything else.
If CSS goes up (up to 3 shots higher than SSS) then I', going to be cut more than I "should" if I score below that number. But if CSS goes down then I don't get cut as much as I "should".
Coming down the last - as a single figure player or a 28'er - knowing that to score "X" would bring you inside the buffer, you may adopt the "all or nothing" approach and try to make that score to get inside the buffer. Lets assume you make it and you're sitting right on the buffer.
The next groups are all playing well - like sometimes people do - and as a result CSS goes down a shot. Now you're outside the buffer and going up .1...
If my handicap was originally determined using SSS as the benchmark it is completely illogical to suddenly start using a number, so complicated, that it takes a computer to work it out.
As I pointed out in my "rant" in the Mag a couple of months back, imagine a scenario where SSS is 69. The best score posted is nett 69. Nobody beats SSS yet CSS drops by a shot to 68.

This is the one aspect of Golf that annoys me the most.
Let me play, give me a target to aim for - don't move that target because other people are scoring better or worse than me. I can't do anything about their score. I can only score as well as I can on a given day.
Give me a target.
A fixed target.
Is it too much to ask...?

And you mentioned the word "unfair" in your post. Unfair that someone gets cut by more than they should if CSS rises - is it not also unfair to go up 0.1 when it falls...?

 

[SharkAttack]

Congu would not be here if it were not for the overly complicated handicapping system, so it is in their interest to change the system in the name of fairness, but really in self interest. I can't see why a handicapping system has to be so complicated, as long as it is used by everyone then handicaps will level out and a simple system would be just as good as a complicated one.

Shark

 

[thecraw]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one Ian!

I would say the people on here with the biggest gripes against CSS are generally lower handicappers in the 3 to 9 range - i.e. people who are very good at golf but destined never to reach the elite echelons. My suspicion is that when their handicaps finally plateau and further downwards progress is either impossible or extremely difficult, it is perhaps understandable that they should look to the system rather than their ability as the reason why they're not better than they are. We all want to be as low as possible, don't we? I've certainly been striving for that all my golfing life. But is the reason I'm off 5 rather than 3 down to CSS coming down one rather too often for my liking? No - it's because I'm a 5-handicapper with the vaguest of chances of perhaps getting down to 4 with a 'helping wind', but not a cat's chance in hell of ever getting down to and playing off 3 without a dramatic change in circumstances or the miraculous gift of a considerably better golf swing.

And one other thing - how many times have you ever heard a golfer - especially a low handicapper - say, "Damn it! CSS has gone up three today so I'm going to get cut by an unfair amount."

Only my opinion of course...

Dam you Jezz Ellwood!

That's me not getting down to four again this year! And you've blown my excuse!

 

[HawkeyeMS]

I don't think anyone would be surprised to here that I'm with Imurg on this. I have benefitted from CSS going up this year but also lost out when it went down. The nett result is my h'cap is the same as it would be with no CSS.

Like Imurg I see no problem cutting everyone against SSS if they play well or going up 0.1 if they don't. If I'm 2 over h'cap playing the last I want to know if I need par or birdie to make the buffer, I don't see that that is too much to ask.