CSS Farce

[FairwayDodger]

Thanks. How do the local unions rate the courses?

They have trained assessors who visit the courses in their area.

 

[duncan mackie]

Ah, thanks for that, I'd missed that I'd get added to the cat 2 %age and that makes sense.

Looks like I'll need to bite the bullet and read CONGU if I want to get into the nitty-gritty but I'm still of the opinion that it doesn't work very well, especially for women's competitions at club level.

Of course, I reserve the right to be completely wrong and come back with a new opinion in the future!

I think you have made some excellent points in this thread, and provoked others to clarify theirs as well. Personally I'm already gearing up for the discussions post 2020 - and any CSS elements will be an extremely small part of those (if at all)! People are already getting wound up about 90% BB allowance in matches next year - especially the low handicap seniors who have become used to the current advantage they have (whilst bleating about giving loads of shots) and cannot believe it!!!!!! They can get quite aggressive when I don't support their arguments.

 

[Matty2803]

They use rating manuals and sheets.

Factors include length, hazards, fairway size, nature of rough , size and slopes and speeds of the greens etc etc

He USGA rating system is now being used and all courses are being re rated over the next 5 years if they haven't been recently rated to it. The manual is online in the handicapping section of the USGA website.

Cool- thanks!

 

[patricks148]

sort of agree with you about conditions Kaz.

we had a comp about a month ago where all the morning players went out in 40mph wind and lashing rain. When i put my score in the CSS was 77+ (sss73) there were a few guys playing after 2.30 when the rain stopped and the wind disappeared. all shot ok scores and the CSS went down again to 73. One of my mates shot 72 gross is terrible conditions in the morning and another guy who went out last also had gross 72.

who played better?

 

[Backache]

Well, you can claim CONGU's figures prove your hypothesis if you like, I know they make that claim.

I am not trying to claim that any figures prove anything the data set is far to limited I do think that they tend to support the hypothesis that the adjustments tend to be reasonable.
I believe your figures show the same thing as all movements were in the same direction.
I do not believe that the movements will always be 'right', but on the evidence presented on average the movements will tend to be 'right'

 

[FairwayDodger]

I think you have made some excellent points in this thread, and provoked others to clarify theirs as well. Personally I'm already gearing up for the discussions post 2020 - and any CSS elements will be an extremely small part of those (if at all)! People are already getting wound up about 90% BB allowance in matches next year - especially the low handicap seniors who have become used to the current advantage they have (whilst bleating about giving loads of shots) and cannot believe it!!!!!! They can get quite aggressive when I don't support their arguments.

Thanks Duncan, I appreciate that, as well as your rational and well-informed posts. I never seem to play BB so not losing much sleep over that one at least!

 

[FairwayDodger]

I am not trying to claim that any figures prove anything the data set is far to limited I do think that they tend to support the hypothesis that the adjustments tend to be reasonable.
I believe your figures show the same thing as all movements were in the same direction.
I do not believe that the movements will always be 'right', but on the evidence presented on average the movements will tend to be 'right'

This is the subtlety, I guess. The difference between accuracy and "tending towards accuracy".

I do, however, disagree with your assessment of my own figures. Of the seven times that one of the CSS figures moved, only three times did both move in the same direction and in one case the difference was significant despite being in the same direction.

I know that in this data set they never moved in the opposite direction but I don't doubt that would be observed if I could go back further.

As I said, I only posted these for interest and really don't want to argue about them. The big thing about statistics is they can often be manipulated to support different cases.

 

[Backache]

This is the subtlety, I guess. The difference between accuracy and "tending towards accuracy".

I do, however, disagree with your assessment of my own figures. Of the seven times that one of the CSS figures moved, only three times did both move in the same direction and in one case the difference was significant despite being in the same direction.

I know that in this data set they never moved in the opposite direction but I don't doubt that would be observed if I could go back further.

As I said, I only posted these for interest and really don't want to argue about them. The big thing about statistics is they can often be manipulated to support different cases.

I guess I prefer tending towards accuracy than tending towards innacuracy. I would certainly agree that it is not precise all the time.
My main point about your figures is that they do suggest that CSS going up in the womens golf as a result of Cat 4's is not a frequent problem as if it is not represented in a random sample of 8 points it probably has a frequency of less than 30%.

Still I wish I had your problem, my admiration of someone who has attained a category 1 handicap is boundless.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I guess I prefer tending towards accuracy than tending towards innacuracy. I would certainly agree that it is not precise all the time.
My main point about your figures is that they do suggest that CSS going up in the womens golf as a result of Cat 4's is not a frequent problem as if it is not represented in a random sample of 8 points it probably has a frequency of less than 30%.

Still I wish I had your problem, my admiration of someone who has attained a category 1 handicap is boundless.

Really don't read too much into those 8 comps, most of which are the main monthly medal with a relatively high turnout.

Thanks though.... ironically I probably wouldn't be cat 1 if it wasn't for CSS!

 

[rosecott]

Thanks. How do the local unions rate the courses?

They use rating manuals and sheets.

Factors include length, hazards, fairway size, nature of rough , size and slopes and speeds of the greens etc etc

He USGA rating system is now being used and all courses are being re rated over the next 5 years if they haven't been recently rated to it. The manual is online in the handicapping section of the USGA website.

As Duncan says, but the starting point and the one that carries by far the most weight is the measured length of the course. The shorter the course, the lower the starting point of SSS before the other factors are taken into account

 

[rosecott]

sort of agree with you about conditions Kaz.

we had a comp about a month ago where all the morning players went out in 40mph wind and lashing rain. When i put my score in the CSS was 77+ (sss73) there were a few guys playing after 2.30 when the rain stopped and the wind disappeared. all shot ok scores and the CSS went down again to 73. One of my mates shot 72 gross is terrible conditions in the morning and another guy who went out last also had gross 72.

who played better?

Stop exaggerating Patrick. You know that SSS 73 can only rise to CSS 76 - then on to 76 RO as a maximum. .

 

[FairwayDodger]

sort of agree with you about conditions Kaz.

we had a comp about a month ago where all the morning players went out in 40mph wind and lashing rain. When i put my score in the CSS was 77+ (sss73) there were a few guys playing after 2.30 when the rain stopped and the wind disappeared. all shot ok scores and the CSS went down again to 73. One of my mates shot 72 gross is terrible conditions in the morning and another guy who went out last also had gross 72.

who played better?

Yeah, and that really is tough luck. Much like pros who end up on the "wrong" side of the draw when weather is changeable.

I'm pretty sure that's what happened to us on Monday - playing in tougher conditions than the non-workers who were out during the day before the wind got up.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I've been looking a bit more at the demographics of this and noticed a couple of things. I wonder if Duncan or anyone can comment on the likely impact on CSS.

First, in the comp that triggered this rant I have noticed that not only am I the only cat 1 playing but there were no cat 2 players at all.

Second, currently we only have one cat 1 player and 7 cat 2s in the club so most of our comps will be dominated by cat 3, 4 and 5 players.

 

[drdel]

As time goes on the various committees in the R&A, CONGU etc. will keep on thinking and tinkering - mostly to occupy their time and to ensure they are seen to have done 'stuff'. Just look how many pages the Rules of Golf and the CONGU handbook now require to explain a simple game involving getting a ball from point A to a hole at point B !!

The CSS is a system dreamt up by committee, enacted by committees and falls foul of the "Law of Unintended Consequences".

Those characters who like to feel important and join committees will love it because they can treat the rest of us like children.

I just enjoy my golf, play fairly and honestly against my handicap while trying to tune out the noise; but its getting harder.

 

[rosecott]

As time goes on the various committees in the R&A, CONGU etc. will keep on thinking and tinkering - mostly to occupy their time and to ensure they are seen to have done 'stuff'. Just look how many pages the Rules of Golf and the CONGU handbook now require to explain a simple game involving getting a ball from point A to a hole at point B !!

The CSS is a system dreamt up by committee, enacted by committees and falls foul of the "Law of Unintended Consequences".

Those characters who like to feel important and join committees will love it because they can treat the rest of us like children.

I just enjoy my golf, play fairly and honestly against my handicap while trying to tune out the noise; but its getting harder.

You don't know what you're talking about. Until a couple of years ago James Crampton was running England Golf's department that dealt with the CONGU system but has moved further up the chain. As I remember, James was off plus 6.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

As time goes on the various committees in the R&A, CONGU etc. will keep on thinking and tinkering - mostly to occupy their time and to ensure they are seen to have done 'stuff'. Just look how many pages the Rules of Golf and the CONGU handbook now require to explain a simple game involving getting a ball from point A to a hole at point B !!

The CSS is a system dreamt up by committee, enacted by committees and falls foul of the "Law of Unintended Consequences".

Those characters who like to feel important and join committees will love it because they can treat the rest of us like children.

I just enjoy my golf, play fairly and honestly against my handicap while trying to tune out the noise; but its getting harder.

I have my issues with CSS, but this is just nonsense

 

[delc]

We played a Seniors Stableford competition in less than ideal conditions this morning. Our course is par 72, SSS 71, equivalent to 37 points. Enough players, including myself, made buffer to keep the CSS at 71, but the winning score was only 37 points, so nobody got a handicap cut. I would argue that since the winner had beaten 35 other players in the conditions, from a statistical point of view he should have been cut. Maybe basing the CSS on, say the average nett score of the top 20% of the field, would have allowed this.

 

[duncan mackie]

We played a Seniors Stableford competition in less than ideal conditions this morning. Our course is par 72, SSS 71, equivalent to 37 points. Enough players, including myself, made buffer to keep the CSS at 71, but the winning score was only 37 points, so nobody got a handicap cut. I would argue that since the winner had beaten 35 other players in the conditions, from a statistical point of view he should have been cut. Maybe basing the CSS on, say the average nett score of the top 20% of the field, would have allowed this.

As the key structure of this thread is that handicapping should be based on performance relative to the course and not the performance of other players on the day it doesn't seem to have much merit in the eyes of either those with that view, or those believing that the system is inherently right.

What would you do if 10 players tied scoring SSS - cut the one who won on countback?

 

[delc]

As the key structure of this thread is that handicapping should be based on performance relative to the course and not the performance of other players on the day it doesn't seem to have much merit in the eyes of either those with that view, or those believing that the system is inherently right.

What would you do if 10 players tied scoring SSS - cut the one who won on countback?

Fairly unlikely, but cut all of them if that where to happen.

 

[Imurg]

We played a Seniors Stableford competition in less than ideal conditions this morning. Our course is par 72, SSS 71, equivalent to 37 points. Enough players, including myself, made buffer to keep the CSS at 71, but the winning score was only 37 points, so nobody got a handicap cut. I would argue that since the winner had beaten 35 other players in the conditions, from a statistical point of view he should have been cut. Maybe basing the CSS on, say the average nett score of the top 20% of the field, would have allowed this.

But the winner hasn't beaten the course....
CSS can go down if enough people make buffer - nobody has to beat it for it to move.
That doesn't seem to make much sense.