CSS Farce

[FairwayDodger]

That written, I've still no sympathy for Cat1 golfers who feel hard done to, by higher category golfers affecting the CSS. Regardless of category, a golfers is still playing the course and if on any given day they are not good enough to beat the course, then they need to play better.

Whoosh!

 

[alexbrownmp]

From Fairwaydodger's signature it says "There is a reason why the Fairway Dodger hits it like a girl!", it doesn't say that FairwayDodger is male or female, the line could just be a flippant remark, just like the remark at the bottom of yours.

I was not aware that FD was female, I am aware now.

That written, I've still no sympathy for Cat1 golfers who feel hard done to, by higher category golfers affecting the CSS. Regardless of category, a golfers is still playing the course and if on any given day they are not good enough to beat the course, then they need to play better.

4 years here and you werent aware?

I am aware, but I do have an eye for the ladiesssssss *he twirls his moustache*

 

[FairwayDodger]

That written, I've still no sympathy for Cat1 golfers who feel hard done to, by higher category golfers affecting the CSS. Regardless of category, a golfers is still playing the course and if on any given day they are not good enough to beat the course, then they need to play better.

Whoosh!

Apologies, that's far too arsey a reply from me but you did annoy me a tad!

What I should have said is that I think you have misunderstood the nature and point of this particular rant! :cheers:

 

[delc]

I believe that including Cat-4 men and Cat-5 women in the CSS calculation as from next year will be a good thing, especially for competitions where there are a high percentage of such players in the field, such as seniors comps. Otherwise the CSS can be based on the performances of a tiny number of lower handicap golfers, who may not be statistically representative of the whole field.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I believe that including Cat-4 men and Cat-5 women in the CSS calculation as from next year will be a good thing, especially for competitions where there are a high percentage of such players in the field, such as seniors comps. Otherwise the CSS can be based on the performances of a tiny number of lower handicap golfers, who may not be statistically representative of the whole field.

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.

 

[Khamelion]

Apologies, that's far too arsey a reply from me but you did annoy me a tad!

What I should have said is that I think you have misunderstood the nature and point of this particular rant! :cheers:

No need to apologise.

I have understood your original post rant, your argument [rant] being that when you have played well in tough conditions and thought you have met buffer, the score of others have moved the CSS and instead of making buffer the change in CSS has meant you miss buffer and get a 0.1 rise.

I appreciate that the lower category golfers have less margin for error then the higher category counterparts, but doesn't the difference in buffer reflect the ability of the golfer? And while a few Cat 3 and 4 golfers scores will affect the CSS calculation, there will be just as many who will miss buffer.

However, I still standby my comment about playing the course and I will add to that the conditions, especially as your comment below seems nothing more than sour grapes.

Cat 1 and cat 4 players in particular are playing the game in very different ways to the extent that conditions can penalise one and benefit the other. For example, short hitters love firm fairways for the extra distance it affords them whereas it can bring an additional problem for better players dealing with hard bounces and the prospect of running out of fairway etc. Similarly the wind can be a big factor for better players to consider while higher handicaps find it little more than an annoyance since they don't launch the ball high at the best of times.

As you write above, being a Cat 1 golfer you approach the game different to that of a Cat 4 golfer, us Cat 4 golfers just hack the ball around the course keeping our fingers crossed the ball is going to go where we were aiming, us Cat 4 golfers don't worry or take into consideration the course or weather conditions as we rarely hit a good shot and when we do it's more out of good luck than good management, but being a Cat 1 golfer you carefully consider the state of the course, the direction the wind is blowing and see problems for the shots you play e.g. the ground is to hard therefore the high ball into the green is going to roll past the hole, possibly off the green. Change your shot.

While you rant about Cat 4 golfers, the game we play to that of which you, a Cat 1 golfer plays, is no different, to me we play the same game, we are after the same results, that is to end with the best score possible, based on our individual ability and conditions for which we are presented on any given round. If that results in a cut, great we beat the course, if it results in a lift, it's a shame we didn't beat the course an we try harder next time.

While missing buffer by 1 for a Cat 1 golfers is annoying because of the CSS changing, it's just as annoying for a Cat4 golfer missing buffer by 1 stroke as well.

 

[chrisd]

Personally I'd scrap CSS!

I'd be very happy to have a cut, or an increase, in handicap based on SSS. I don't see how many other players finding the course easy or tough affects my game on a given day and it brasses me off that I don't get the cut I was hoping for just because the weather is kind! I know I'll be in a minority of one on this view but so be it. At least our club has finally got par and SSS the same!

 

[FairwayDodger]

Got to laugh, so you think I should play differently in high winds and hard ground conditions than I would normally? If only I'd thought of that I'd have shot a better score than my somewhat terrible 4 over par....

My point is that I played pretty well, had a great score considering the conditions but the goalposts moved.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree but I will add that while it's more annoying when CSS goes down my argument is that it's also wrong when CSS goes up.

I understand what CSS is trying to achieve but when it goes down in tough conditions or up in benign ones it has failed and results in spurious handicap adjustments (for everyone, but cat 1 disproportionately so). My experience is that CSS is almost completely random and bears no relation to conditions except in the rare instances where it's so bad as to be practically unplayable.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Personally I'd scrap CSS!

I'd be very happy to have a cut, or an increase, in handicap based on SSS. I don't see how many other players finding the course easy or tough affects my game on a given day and it brasses me off that I don't get the cut I was hoping for just because the weather is kind! I know I'll be in a minority of one on this view but so be it. At least our club has finally got par and SSS the same!

Definitely not a minority of one - I am with you Chris!

 

[MendieGK]

lets just remove handicaps. wont be an issue then

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I fully sympathise with the OP

Last year I played to my HC 4 times but went up .1 each time due to the CSS drifting to 69 ( par 71 ) - I was extremely frustrated. Also I shot a few 1 under HC and didn't get any cuts

I was assured by county that they would look at the Cat 1 results and take it into account at their AR ( they didn't )

I don't know what a better system is but I would like SSS and CSS to be scrapped and all scars for HC to be matched against the Par of the course

 

[pbrown7582]

Scrap Css and buffer, you get cut under SSS up 0.1 over only time of no change is if you match SSS.

 

[pbrown7582]

Where's Imurg...... You know you want too......

 

[Khamelion]

Got to laugh, so you think I should play differently in high winds and hard ground conditions than I would normally? If only I'd thought of that I'd have shot a better score than my somewhat terrible 4 over par....

Well perhaps if you had played differently, that terrible 4 over par, could have been a glorious 2 over par and 0.1 cut.

Do you change you shot though? Being a better player the wind obviously affects you more than a poorer player, "seeing that higher handicaps don't launch the ball high."

Similarly the wind can be a big factor for better players to consider while higher handicaps find it little more than an annoyance since they don't launch the ball high at the best of times.

Okay the above may be a little harsh twisting you own words to suit and just for the purposes of argument, but what scheme would you propose? If CSS was scraped? Keep it on SSS for each individual course? Great if you only ever play your own course, but what about opens at other courses? Just because your courses SSS is 68 doesn't mean that my course also with a SSS of 68, will be equal to yours.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Well perhaps if you had played differently, that terrible 4 over par, could have been a glorious 2 over par and 0.1 cut.

Do you change you shot though? Being a better player the wind obviously affects you more than a poorer player, "seeing that higher handicaps don't launch the ball high."



Okay the above may be a little harsh twisting you own words to suit and just for the purposes of argument, but what scheme would you propose? If CSS was scraped? Keep it on SSS for each individual course? Great if you only ever play your own course, but what about opens at other courses? Just because your courses SSS is 68 doesn't mean that my course also with a SSS of 68, will be equal to yours.

See now you're just being mean, of course I altered the way I played; I had to! I've played much worse than last night and walked away with a handicap cut. 4 over par in that wind was an achievement for me. And I'd have needed to shoot 1 over par for a handicap cut last night!

I also think you're getting a bit unnecessarily touchy about my remarks about the ball flight of high handicap players - remember I'm talking about high handicap women. I accept 20-something handicap men can generally hit the ball high and hard and that accuracy is probably more their problem.

Yes, every course has a SSS so I'd just play all competitions off that. Why not? As I said, I don't see any correlation in the comps I play between CSS and difficulty of the course conditions on the day.

 

[garyinderry]

I missed a small cut at the weekend because quite a few players managed good scores on firm sandy hollow tinned greens and a fair bit of wind.

I didn't think it was that easy out there and certainly didn't expect the amount of good scores that came in.

I am in the 'it's completely random' camp.


Although it may be hat time of the year where most people's games are beginning to click and good scores are to be expected along with a lower Css.

 

[Khamelion]

See now you're just being mean, of course I altered the way I played; I had to! I've played much worse than last night and walked away with a handicap cut. 4 over par in that wind was an achievement for me. And I'd have needed to shoot 1 over par for a handicap cut last night!

I also think you're getting a bit unnecessarily touchy about my remarks about the ball flight of high handicap players - remember I'm talking about high handicap women. I accept 20-something handicap men can generally hit the ball high and hard and that accuracy is probably more their problem.

Yes, every course has a SSS so I'd just play all competitions off that. Why not? As I said, I don't see any correlation in the comps I play between CSS and difficulty of the course conditions on the day.

I know that was a little bit mean, but hell, if you're going to provide the ammunition, it'd be rude not to use it. As for the ball flight, everyone is different, doesn't matter who, men or women, there will be those regardless of HC, that will launch low and some high.

I do not think that using SSS would be a good option, the variables that go into calculation SSS are going to be different at each course, and just because the SSS comes out the same, doesn't mean the course plays equally.

 

[Imurg]

Where's Imurg...... You know you want too......

Hello Boys.....and Girl.!

I detest the fact that my handicap is affected by how other people play.

No doubt the Pro CSS'ers will argue their case well but I'll never be convinced.

We use SSS for allocation of handicaps - we should use it to adjust them too.
Then you know what target you have at the start of the round.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

My views on CSS are well known and I don't see why we can't just use SSS and be done with it.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I do not think that using SSS would be a good option, the variables that go into calculation SSS are going to be different at each course, and just because the SSS comes out the same, doesn't mean the course plays equally.

I'm not really too aware of how SSS is allocated but my understanding was that it represents the score a scratch player should shoot on a good day? And the whole point of it is precisely to provide a meaningful comparison of the difficulty of courses.

Naturally it doesn't mean that two courses with the same SSS provide the same challenge in detail, just the same overall level of difficulty. So one might be shorter than the other but requiring greater accuracy off the tee etc.