CSS Farce

[delc]

The Competition Scratch Score is intended to be an adjustment for the weather and course conditions. Provided most of the players in the field have correct handicaps to start with, then you would expect a greater percentage of the field to make buffer on a benign day than on a difficult windy day. Scoring a nett 2 or 3 over SSS on a difficult day may be just as good as being 2 or 3 under on an easy day. Cat-4 golfers are generally poorer than Cat-1s in terms of nett scores, but have a wider buffer zone. Seems fair enough to me!

 

[FairwayDodger]

The Competition Scratch Score is intended to be an adjustment for the weather and course conditions. Provided most of the players in the field have correct handicaps to start with, then you would expect a greater percentage of the field to make buffer on a benign day than on a difficult windy day. Scoring a nett 2 or 3 over SSS on a difficult day may be just as good as being 2 or 3 under on an easy day. Cat-4 golfers are generally poorer than Cat-1s in terms of nett scores, but have a wider buffer zone. Seems fair enough to me!

We all know what it's intended for. I'm ranting because it doesn't work - it singularly fails to do its job. CSS often goes up in easy conditions (regularly) and down in difficult ones (last night for example).

I've seen a CONGU statistical analysis that attempts to prove CSS works but it's all based on a quantitative analysis of the frequency in which CSS moves up or down or matches SSS. What is pointedly missing is a qualitative assessment about the playing conditions on the days that CSS moves.

I stand by my anecdotal observation that CSS is almost totally random and direction of movement can only be reliably guessed on days where conditions are so bad as to be almost unplayable.

 

[Backache]

Maybe it's different in women's medals with lower turnouts but my impression is it works reasonably well at my course.
I must admit I would be a bit pissed off if I was a member on a windy links course and get on getting my handicap put up when everyone is shooting high scores.
Probably like a lot of things in golf there is an element of rub of the green and the chances are if you play frequency your cuts and rises will even out and your handicap will reflect your play.

 

[Khamelion]

My understanding of SSS, is that it is the score a scratch golfer could get, but also SSS is calculated on course length, tightness of fairways, number of bunkers, playability out of those bunkers, rough (how high, how much), OOB, number of trees, contours of the green, plus a few others.

MY course may have an SSS of 68, calculated on length, a lot of trees, not many bunkers and fairly level greens, your courses SSS of 68, would again be on length, but you might not have as many trees or bunkers, but a lot of water and OOB with tight fairways and undulating greens, therefore while the SSS is the same the way you would play the courses is entirely different. I would find playing my course easy, but then I come to yours and it's a different ball game altogether.

 

[USER1999]

I'm with the op on this. It's just random. Take this Sunday for example. Beautiful day, next to no wind. Shorts out. Perfect.

I play garbage. Utter rubbish. Net 75, which should miss buffer by 1. However, it appears everyone else was rubbish too, so css goes up from 72 to 73 and I buffer. But the course conditions were perfect. It's daft.

 

[Matty2803]

Silly, I hate the Css.

At my home course the SSS 3 under and the Css rarely changes, 4 under handicap for a 0.2 cut...

I know it should reflect the course's difficulty, and the playing conditions but its defo not 3 under difficult!!!

 

[chrisd]

Blimey ! I'm not the only one to want the scrapping of CSS, I thought I'd get hammered for that one. I just want the full cut when I shoot under par and I'll take the .1 if I have to when I go, say, 2 over SSS

 

[Jacko_G]

Separate CSS for each class.

Agree with opening poster all the way. I also think the current handicap system is poorly thought out. There has to be a fairer way and more accurate.

 

[NWJocko]

Silly, I hate the Css.

At my home course the SSS 3 under and the Css rarely changes, 4 under handicap for a 0.2 cut...

I know it should reflect the course's difficulty, and the playing conditions but its defo not 3 under difficult!!!

Are you not making the mistake of comparing your handicap to par rather than SSS here?

I'm no expert but I thought for handicapping par is an irrelevance and all you're bothered about is SSS for initial allocation and CSS (essentially an adjusted SSS for conditions that day) thereafter?

4 under handicap would be 4 under SSS not par no?

 

[chrisd]

Are you not making the mistake of comparing your handicap to par rather than SSS here?

I'm no expert but I thought for handicapping par is an irrelevance and all you're bothered about is SSS for initial allocation and CSS (essentially an adjusted SSS for conditions that day) thereafter?

4 under handicap would be 4 under SSS not par no?

At mine SSS is now the same as par for the course off the white comp tees .

 

[USER1999]

At mine SSS is now the same as par for the course off the white comp tees .

Same for me. Par 72, sss 72. Just leave it alone.

Css is supposed to take inclement conditions into account, but that's cods too. The weather can change hugely during the day, so it's not a constant.

 

[chrisd]

Same for me. Par 72, sss 72. Just leave it alone.

Css is supposed to take inclement conditions into account, but that's cods too. The weather can change hugely during the day, so it's not a constant.

A couple of weeks ago we had 3 juniors shoot stupid low in a midweek that I had 41 points, I guess that affected my cut?

 

[Matty2803]

Are you not making the mistake of comparing your handicap to par rather than SSS here?

I'm no expert but I thought for handicapping par is an irrelevance and all you're bothered about is SSS for initial allocation and CSS (essentially an adjusted SSS for conditions that day) thereafter?

4 under handicap would be 4 under SSS not par no?

Yeah, and four under my handicap (4 under nett par) gets a 0.2 cut because its 1 under the Css.

Par = 70

SSS = 67

 

[duncan mackie]

We all know what it's intended for. I'm ranting because it doesn't work - it singularly fails to do its job. CSS often goes up in easy conditions (regularly) and down in difficult ones (last night for example).

I've seen a CONGU statistical analysis that attempts to prove CSS works but it's all based on a quantitative analysis of the frequency in which CSS moves up or down or matches SSS. What is pointedly missing is a qualitative assessment about the playing conditions on the days that CSS moves.

I stand by my anecdotal observation that CSS is almost totally random and direction of movement can only be reliably guessed on days where conditions are so bad as to be almost unplayable.

How many cat 1 - 4 players were there in this comp Karen?

Part of the apparently random nature of CSS calculations for Ladies is that they frequently use the small field calculation - which is very different.

Interestingly this was requested for and designed by the better Ladies and CSS ends up a function of the better score rather than buffer percentage. The reason it was requested was to deal with the catch 22 of the higher players who couldn't play to their handicaps resulting in RO so they never went up!

As CSS can only go down 1, and the percentage of relevant players scoring buffer (without any stableford adjustments!) to create that is pushing half the field or more, it should, as you fairly recognise in your posts, be a good (and safe) factor. I also accept fully the fact that on some courses what helps some offers little to others - rhis is a function of inclusive handicapping that covers such a wide range of course lengths and layouts. No rating system can - but its the biggest strength of the inclusion of the bogey index in the USGA one.

As to why we have a CSS - again it's primarily about elite amateurs. There is clear evidence that they are selective both on the courses and the conditions they play in the quest to lower their handicaps. CSS tries to make such decisions easier!

Personally I think it's appropriate and we'll structured but completely accept that it's not perfect. I hope that from 2020 it disappears (but suspect that the Australian contribution to the multifaceted system implemented will be to include a factor for T (C, Q, or whatever designation Tournament scores get).

Time will tell.

Good luck in your endeavours.

 

[duncan mackie]

A couple of weeks ago we had 3 juniors shoot stupid low in a midweek that I had 41 points, I guess that affected my cut?

No more than I'd they had just shot buffer.

 

[mcbroon]

I'd keep CSS to take account of weather etc. but I don't agree with it going down. CSS being lower than SSS says to me that SSS is wrong.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Same for me. Par 72, sss 72. Just leave it alone.

Css is supposed to take inclement conditions into account, but that's cods too. The weather can change hugely during the day, so it's not a constant.

That was a big part of the issue. The wind increased through the day. It hadn't seemed too bad earlier on but was getting problematic when we started and very quickly became challenging.

 

[pbrown7582]

Silly, I hate the Css.

At my home course the SSS 3 under and the Css rarely changes, 4 under handicap for a 0.2 cut...

I know it should reflect the course's difficulty, and the playing conditions but its defo not 3 under difficult!!!

But the 3 under is taken into account when allocating handicaps as they are calculated off SSS not par. So 3 under par is actually only playing to your handicap.
A couple of short par 5's or driveable par 4's by any chance?

 

[FairwayDodger]

Thanks Duncan for the informative reply.

We had 32 players so using the normal CSS calculation. Not sure of the exact breakdown but only one cat 1 :smirk:

One thing I like about the small field calculation is that CSS never goes down but in the other direction its completely dependent on one player's score so a bit strange sometimes. My other club has so few females in medals that the small field calculation is always used and I find that means that, usually, if I don't play within three of my handicap it goes RO. Means that handicaps rarely go up there even though the course can be quite tricky.

 

[Ethan]

We all know what it's intended for. I'm ranting because it doesn't work - it singularly fails to do its job. CSS often goes up in easy conditions (regularly) and down in difficult ones (last night for example).

I've seen a CONGU statistical analysis that attempts to prove CSS works but it's all based on a quantitative analysis of the frequency in which CSS moves up or down or matches SSS. What is pointedly missing is a qualitative assessment about the playing conditions on the days that CSS moves.

I stand by my anecdotal observation that CSS is almost totally random and direction of movement can only be reliably guessed on days where conditions are so bad as to be almost unplayable.

CSS is just a statistical correction factor to take account of certain patterns in a data set. As such, it operates according to the formula used, so it therefore works as well as the formula was designed to make adjustments. It is not random at all, nor is it arbitrary, which is what I think you actually mean. It would be perfectly possible to amend the formula to make CSS increases or decreases more or less likely, or to take lesser account of certain handicap categories.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to have a CSS, and it isn't just to do with weather. At Bearwood Lakes, we have seen CSS go up on days when the greenskeeper has put every flag on the side of a slope and/or the greens are so slippery you need metal spikes to stay on them. Weather is a factor too, but whatever the reason, it is simply a way of adjusting relative scoreability.