CSS calculation doesn't work

[Maninblack4612]

We had a bogey competition last week when it was blowing a gale. The winner was +2, there was a couple of +1 scores & the majority of scores were minuses. CSS came out a plus 1. Is that really supposed to reflect how much harder the course is, compared with ideal conditions? One shot! A mate of mine, trying g to maintain his Cat. 1 status, will not play in club competitions unless conditions are ideal. He says that, in low handicap scratch events, the CSS is usually a realistic reflection of the conditions because it isn't influenced by the scores of high handicappers. He recently got pulled .5 in a Scottish scratch open, where CSS was +3 & +4 for the two rounds he played. Had it been a club competition he would have probably received a lift.

In theory, you could run two competitions in parallel on the same course & come out with two different CSS scores.

Surely there is something wrong with the formula.

 

[hovis]

i shot my handicap in a big national competition at work. i took a 8 on a par 4 so i expected to get 0.6 cut. the css was +6. so i got cut about 2.4 shots.

the course wasn't playing difficult. 99% of the field got smashed the night before and hacked it round

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The css is calculated using the scores that are entered - it doesn't know what the wind is blowing like

You also didn't say how many hit buffer as that will also affect CSS and also what the SSS is as CSS is also based against that. In my experience CSS on the whole does show a pretty good picture of the way the course course plays on that day

 

[fundy]

Got my popcorn, just need Imurg to pop along now

 

[fundy]

i shot my handicap in a big national competition at work. i took a 8 on a par 4 so i expected to get 0.6 cut. the css was +6. so i got cut about 2.4 shots.

the course wasn't playing difficult. 99% of the field got smashed the night before and hacked it round

36 holes?

 

[Three]

We had a bogey competition last week when it was blowing a gale. The winner was +2, there was a couple of +1 scores & the majority of scores were minuses. CSS came out a plus 1. Is that really supposed to reflect how much harder the course is, compared with ideal conditions? One shot! A mate of mine, trying g to maintain his Cat. 1 status, will not play in club competitions unless conditions are ideal. He says that, in low handicap scratch events, the CSS is usually a realistic reflection of the conditions because it isn't influenced by the scores of high handicappers. He recently got pulled .5 in a Scottish scratch open, where CSS was +3 & +4 for the two rounds he played. Had it been a club competition he would have probably received a lift.

In theory, you could run two competitions in parallel on the same course & come out with two different CSS scores.

Surely there is something wrong with the formula.

Fact, it's a lot easier for very low handicappers to keep their hcp low in scratch tournaments consisting of only low handicappers. As you say, the CSS is often much higher than it would be in a normal club comp.
See the scores in the Lytham Trophy thread.

 

[hovis]

36 holes?

just the 18 that was handicap qualifying. the other rounds was a little like ryder cup format

 

[fundy]

just the one that was handicap qualifying. the other rounds was a little like ryder cup format

how does css go to +6 in one round then?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

i shot my handicap in a big national competition at work. i took a 8 on a par 4 so i expected to get 0.6 cut. the css was +6. so i got cut about 2.4 shots.

the course wasn't playing difficult. 99% of the field got smashed the night before and hacked it round

A 2.4 cut for playing to HC ?!

And CSS can't go to +6 for just one round

 

[hovis]

how does css go to +6 in one round then?

I'm not sure. i know only 3 out of 160 of us played to handicap or better. is +3 the maximum?

 

[fundy]

I'm not sure. i know only 3 out of 160 of us played to handicap or better. is +3 the maximum?

yep goes to a max of +3 and then +3 reductions only

 

[hovis]

yep goes to a max of +3 and then +3 reductions only

i queried it at the time and it definitely wasn't a esr. I'll try and dig out the competition result

 

[Maninblack4612]

The css is calculated using the scores that are entered - it doesn't know what the wind is blowing like

You also didn't say how many hit buffer as that will also affect CSS and also what the SSS is as CSS is also based against that. In my experience CSS on the whole does show a pretty good picture of the way the course course plays on that day

In the words of Basil Fawlty "Specialist subject the bleedin' obvious" Your first line is correct x2. The point I was making is that the CSS shouldn't be different depending of how the competitors handicaps are composed. This I clearly not the case.

 

[Hosel Fade]

Fact, it's a lot easier for very low handicappers to keep their hcp low in scratch tournaments consisting of only low handicappers. As you say, the CSS is often much higher than it would be in a normal club comp.
See the scores in the Lytham Trophy thread.

Exactly, elite players play very very few club events and why would they, they need to protect their entry criteria for the big county/national scratch events.

 

[Imurg]

Got my popcorn, just need Imurg to pop along now

What have I missed...🤔😂

 

[Three]

In the words of Basil Fawlty "Specialist subject the bleedin' obvious" Your first line is correct x2. The point I was making is that the CSS shouldn't be different depending of how the competitors handicaps are composed. This I clearly not the case.

Well spotted, it's true.

 

[rosecott]

We had a bogey competition last week when it was blowing a gale. The winner was +2, there was a couple of +1 scores & the majority of scores were minuses. CSS came out a plus 1. Is that really supposed to reflect how much harder the course is, compared with ideal conditions? One shot! A mate of mine, trying g to maintain his Cat. 1 status, will not play in club competitions unless conditions are ideal. He says that, in low handicap scratch events, the CSS is usually a realistic reflection of the conditions because it isn't influenced by the scores of high handicappers. He recently got pulled .5 in a Scottish scratch open, where CSS was +3 & +4 for the two rounds he played. Had it been a club competition he would have probably received a lift.

In theory, you could run two competitions in parallel on the same course & come out with two different CSS scores.

Surely there is something wrong with the formula.

I fail to see your point. The unspecified number of minus scores are, of course relevant to the CSS calculation. Together with the plus scores and any all square scores, there were obviously a sufficient number in buffer (-1 for Cat 1, -2 for Cat 2, -3 for Cat 3, -4 for Cat 4, assuming Par=CSS) or better to make CSS only SSS+1. I can see nothing amiss with the formula - it's tried and tested. There is little point in highlighting only a few scores without looking at the overall picture.

 

[Maninblack4612]

I fail to see your point. The unspecified number of minus scores are, of course relevant to the CSS calculation. Together with the plus scores and any all square scores, there were obviously a sufficient number in buffer (-1 for Cat 1, -2 for Cat 2, -3 for Cat 3, -4 for Cat 4, assuming Par=CSS) or better to make CSS only SSS+1. I can see nothing amiss with the formula - it's tried and tested. There is little point in highlighting only a few scores without looking at the overall picture.

If it's tried & tested why is it, then, that category 1 players & anyone else wanting to maintain their handicap, me included, avoid harsh conditions like the plague. If the CSS calculation worked correctly everyone would have the same chance of improving on their handicap irrespective o the conditions. This is clearly not the case.

I would say that the fault is in the fact that the buffer zones for higher handicaps are too wide. Bad conditions, for a lot of high handicappers, probably don't affect their scores any more than a cat. 1 player.

 

[rosecott]

If it's tried & tested why is it, then, that category 1 players & anyone else wanting to maintain their handicap, me included, avoid harsh conditions like the plague. If the CSS calculation worked correctly everyone would have the same chance of improving on their handicap irrespective o the conditions. This is clearly not the case.

I would say that the fault is in the fact that the buffer zones for higher handicaps are too wide. Bad conditions, for a lot of high handicappers, probably don't affect their scores any more than a cat. 1 player.

I don't understand why you are laying the blame for everything that happens on high handicappers. I have the different view that the higher handicapper does not have the skill and ability to cope with bad conditions. I would be interested to see an analysis of the handicaps of the 20% or so who buffered or better.

 

[Imurg]

In theory, you could run two competitions in parallel on the same course & come out with two different CSS scores.

Correct
Because CSS has nothing ,directly, to do with weather conditions or "how hard the course is playing", it is solely down to how well or badly people play on the day - which may, or may not, be attributable to the weather/course conditions.