CSS Farce

the smiling assassin said:
Yes, in exactly the same way there are big differences I'm the way some men and senior men play golf but there is no separate handicap for physically weaker senior male golfers...time to break down the barriers, another chance missed by the custodians of our sport. Flipside is I think the fact ladies having a separate system is actually quite demeaning. You're apparently not good or strong enough to have handicaps like us superior men...daft!
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I strongly disagree. You're coming from a very male-centric perspective. Why should women have handicaps on a scale on which only the very very best (touring pro level) would have any chance of reaching 0 on? Far from breaking down barriers it'd be another negative for female participation.

I'm actually a wee bit irked by the comparison between women and senior men - women get older as well, you know, and senior women face the same issues in relation to their younger counterparts as do the senior men. Old age happens to us all eventually but the effects vary and kick in at different ages. Gender differences, on the other hand, can be more easily applied.

So, I'd keep the separate handicapping thanks very much but do something about the random CSS factor!
 
Well folks....

I played an open competition today and once again made a strong finish (birdie/par/par) to scrape into my buffer. If CSS goes down today you might just hear the scream from Edinburgh.....
 
FairwayDodger said:
While I agree that the more scores counting the better chance of CSS having some sort of statistical or scientific basis, I have to disagree that including such high handicaps will be a good thing.

I know it's not a universally popular view but the fact is that cat 1 and cat 5 players are playing the game in radically different ways and are positively/negatively impacted by different sorts of conditions. Including cat 5 women and cat 4 men will, IMO, only make a bad situation worse.
Click to expand...

The Problem with cat4/5 players is that there's a lot of beginners in that categories that can improve quite quickly, plus it takes less to improve by a few shots if you're a high handicapper. It's easier to get from 26 to 16 than from 16 to 6...

So maybe cat4/5 players' scores shouldn't be used to calculate CSS, or at least only for increases, when the conditions are exceptionally tough.

Imurg said:
Isn't it true that, although CSS is in operation, many handicaps don't "travel" well anyway..?
A 10 handicapper from a tough, tree lined course is going to be better than a 10 handicapper from a wide open, very forgiving course, regardless of SSS or CSS...which are supposed to level the field...
Click to expand...

SSS/CSS should level the field based on the general difficulty of a course. However, every player has different strengths/weaknesses, so there isn't an universally valid tough/easy.

The handicap of the guy form the narrow course in your example will travel well to other narrow courses, but the guy from the wide open course may be at an advantage at other courses that are similar. Maybe the forgiving course has tougher greens, or he's more used to hitting short irons/wedges into the green since he's typically bombing his driver of the tee when the guy from the narrow course often plays 3W?


duncan mackie said:
Long and tight, with tough well protected greens, will travel extremely well to anywhere !
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Long and straight from the tee, highly accurate with irons/wedges, versatile and creative in the short game, and deadly precise with the putter is the formula to play well on any golf course you can find.

Only, most guys who have all of that typically carry tour cards instead of handicaps... ;)
 
MashieNiblick said:
Chris, this has been a great debate.

I'm interested in whether or not you think that conditions on the day should be a factor in handicap assessment. I support CSS because I think they do have an impact and that CSS although not perfect does provide a workable way to help level the playing field between rounds played in different conditions. SSS cannot do that alone and some courses are much more prone to the impact of weather than others (e.g. links).

My approach is based on my understanding that the purpose of my handicap is not to rate my golf in isolation but to allow me to compete on a reasonably even footing against any other golfer. SSS takes account of the fact we may play on different courses. CSS simply tries to take account of the fact that we may also play in different conditions.

How would you address that without CSS or do you simply think it should not be a factor?
Click to expand...

I just look at it simplicity, I can have really good and really bad days,and the weather often doesn't affect my scoring, nor does the scoring of others. I can shoot a good score that would get me a cut on SSS but, because of CSS, I don't get one. I understand the reason why CSS is used but feel if SSS was used it wouldn't much affect handicaps generally and I would be more likely to get down to the handicap I crave.

I know things won't change and my views are just opinion, but, several people on here seem to agree for other different reasons. Luckily, as I posted earlier, our SSS and CSS are now the same so it does help.
 
FairwayDodger said:
Well folks....

I played an open competition today and once again made a strong finish (birdie/par/par) to scrape into my buffer. If CSS goes down today you might just hear the scream from Edinburgh.....
Click to expand...

Good news for me was that CSS didn't go down. It actually went up by one which I think was maybe a fair representation of the conditions in this case. Was a decent sized field, though, around 75 I think.
 
I played last night and put in a fairly good performance coming in -3 with SS showing at 69. 0.6 cut coming my way and with only one group to come in (playing in the dark) I was happy with the cut. By the time I got home it had come down to 68. It was windy and periods of rain last night and, even worse the wind changed direction on a hole by hole basis.

CSS never goes up at my course no matter the conditions and scores coming in and to be honest just seems randomly applied. What really gets me wound up is that almost 10% of the field did not return a card (presumably NR'd and didn't bother). There should be a stricter policy regarding non return of cards (even saying it is a 0.2 increase).

In my opinion SS should stay as it is, maybe only going to reduction only in extreme circumstances. This then means we all know what we are playing to.

What really gets me frustrated with the system is when I played in a medal and the heavens opened, rivers running through the course and greens, clubs slipping right out players hands and the entire field walked in. The entire field got a 0.1 increase.
 
At the end of the day CSS is worked out by what scores are entered not by the weather on the day
 
Liverpoolphil said:
At the end of the day CSS is worked out by what scores are entered not by the weather on the day
Click to expand...

I understand that but realistically that is to take in to account the conditions of the day. In the world of handicap golf where we are all inconsistent is that a fair way to reflect the conditions and playability of the course? I play with a 15 handicapper who is as likely to shoot 76 as he is to shoot 92. This is before the conditions affect him.
 
jamielaing said:
I understand that but realistically that is to take in to account the conditions of the day. In the world of handicap golf where we are all inconsistent is that a fair way to reflect the conditions and playability of the course? I play with a 15 handicapper who is as likely to shoot 76 as he is to shoot 92. This is before the conditions affect him.
Click to expand...

How can it take into account the conditions though ? It's a computer generated program
 
Liverpoolphil said:
How can it take into account the conditions though ? It's a computer generated program
Click to expand...

Surely the only reason that the performance of other golfers should affect my handicap is to take account of the conditions? As a rule of thumb if players play well CSS comes down. That would intimate that the course was in some way 'easier' due to the conditions. CSS would go up if players shot poorly suggesting the course is in some way 'harder' be that due to wind, rain etc.

CSS therefore takes the conditions on the day into account assuming they are directly affecting the scores. I see no justification in having CSS to affect my handicap unless it is to reflect on how the course is playing that day.
 
jamielaing said:
Surely the only reason that the performance of other golfers should affect my handicap is to take account of the conditions? As a rule of thumb if players play well CSS comes down. That would intimate that the course was in some way 'easier' due to the conditions. CSS would go up if players shot poorly suggesting the course is in some way 'harder' be that due to wind, rain etc.

CSS therefore takes the conditions on the day into account assuming they are directly affecting the scores. I see no justification in having CSS to affect my handicap unless it is to reflect on how the course is playing that day.
Click to expand...

But you could have players who at better in the wind etc

The only way to judge how the course is playing is by the scores the players enter regardless of conditions on the day
 
Liverpoolphil said:
But you could have players who at better in the wind etc

The only way to judge how the course is playing is by the scores the players enter regardless of conditions on the day
Click to expand...

Which brings me back to having SS with no CSS then players are not affected by a miracle round, great run, great morning conditions etc by someone else. Bring in a reduction only in extreme circumstances.
 
jamielaing said:
Which brings me back to having SS with no CSS then players are not affected by a miracle round, great run, great morning conditions etc by someone else. Bring in a reduction only in extreme circumstances.
Click to expand...

And how exactly - and by whom - would "extreme circumstances" be decided?

The current CSS system has 6 clearly defined boundaries - SSS-1, SSS, SSS+1, SSS+2, SSS+3, SSS+3(RO) - and these spring from the performance of the group of players as a whole in relation to buffer zones. That has to be better than an unscientific statement of "SSS is OK" or "Reductions Only". It would be ridiculous to have only one or the other as an option.
 
And.....
Once more I have been "under" cut because CSS came down because a few other people played well...
That's twice in the last month...
And I still can't remember when CSS moved in my favour,..
 
Imurg said:
And.....
Once more I have been "under" cut because CSS came down because a few other people played well...
That's twice in the last month...
And I still can't remember when CSS moved in my favour,..
Click to expand...

And I didn't get an ESR for the same reason, despite being -9 over the two rounds!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Hackmotion
Replies
5
Views
627
Mike_Tour_Striker
M
T
Suggestions for scramble and group handicaps please
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
timd77
T
J
Not knowing the very basics of rules in comps.
8 9 10
Replies
195
Views
9K
HomerJSimpson
HomerJSimpson
V
Club cup winners vs hcp
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
3K
Deleted member 30522
D
G
Alternative to handicaps
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
3K
sunshine
S
Top