CSS Farce

[HawkeyeMS]

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.

The competition and handicap adjustments are two separate things. The competition is your score against others, your handicap is against the course. You don't have to have cuts in a competition and winning one doesn't give you the right to a cut if in doing so you failed to beat the course or your handicap.

In fact, in a medal, it is quite possible with roundings to nett double, that the winner can be in the buffer and not get cut and 2nd place not win but get cut after adjustments.

 

[chrisd]

I think that we all pretty much understand CSS and why it's done, but, my view is that the SSS at mine is 72 ( as is par) and I would just like my handicap to get the full cut if I better that score! I understand the arguments the other way but on the 30% of comps where I play around my handicap I would like to think that my handicap will be reduced on that magical day when I better the SSS

I understand the why's and wherefore's but when I go out in a comp I'm only trying to break par (plus my handicap) and no argument will convince me that if I come in 2 under (nett) that I should not get a cut because the course played easier that day. If CSS was scrapped I still believe the handicap system would survive!

 

[doublebogey7]

if I come in 2 under (nett) that I should not get a cut because the course played easier that day. If CSS was scrapped I still believe the handicap system would survive!

At 2 under handicap you would get cut.

 

[chrisd]

At 2 under handicap you would get cut.

Not necessarily as much if the CSS went down.

 

[delc]

Under the USGA handicapping system, playing in difficult conditions will probably just result in a poor score that will be disregarded. In the CONGU system only qualifiers and supplementary cards count towards your handicap. Our club runs mostly drawn competitions, and we get enough drop outs as it is if there is a poor weather forecast. If only SSS was to be used for handicapping purposes, I would suggest that we would get a lot more! At least an adjustable CSS gives you more chance of making buffer or getting a cut in such conditions. I also note that most supplementary cards are put in on very easy days!

 

[MashieNiblick]

I think that we all pretty much understand CSS and why it's done, but, my view is that the SSS at mine is 72 ( as is par) and I would just like my handicap to get the full cut if I better that score! I understand the arguments the other way but on the 30% of comps where I play around my handicap I would like to think that my handicap will be reduced on that magical day when I better the SSS

I understand the why's and wherefore's but when I go out in a comp I'm only trying to break par (plus my handicap) and no argument will convince me that if I come in 2 under (nett) that I should not get a cut because the course played easier that day. If CSS was scrapped I still believe the handicap system would survive!

But if I play the next day when conditions are harder and as a result I don't score as well, the extra benefit you already had from playing when conditions were easier is magnified. How fair is that?

Your handicap isn't just a measure of your ability it has to relate to the ability of everyone else, not just at your club, not just on that day, but for all players at all clubs all the time.

If you only play when conditions are good, and I play a lot when they are bad, would our handicaps reflect our relative abilty better or worse without CSS?

If your course is playing really easy and mine is playing really hard, would your 1 under SSS represent better golf than my 3 over? Your CSS might = -1 and mine = +2. No h/cap change for either of us. That might actually on balance be the fairer result.

CSS only makes a marginal difference but it helps in making the playing field on which we are measured a bit more level. Especially as we all play on different fields .

I'd need to see a good argument to convince me that there should be no allowance for conditions on the course on the day in calculating handicaps, they are a big factor in golf.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I'd need to see a good argument to convince me that there should be no allowance for conditions on the course on the day in calculating handicaps, they are a big factor in golf.

I'm not sure that I'm arguing for that as I can see the rationale for doing so. My big problem is that CSS, as it currently operates in the club competitions I play in, just does not seem to work. I am completely unable to guess based on conditions whether CSS will go up, down or stay the same.

Faced with a choice between a fixed scratch score or a seemingly-randomly adjusted one, I'd take the former. With a more accurate calculation method, I'm persuadable. Problem is I'm not sure what changes to achieve that would be practical.

Maybe, as a starting point, I'd say that CSS cannot go down unless there are enough players to make it significant. I'm no statistician but maybe 100 players? Certainly a lot more than the current 7 or whatever it is.

 

[MashieNiblick]

I'm not sure that I'm arguing for that as I can see the rationale for doing so. My big problem is that CSS, as it currently operates in the club competitions I play in, just does not seem to work. I am completely unable to guess based on conditions whether CSS will go up, down or stay the same.

Faced with a choice between a fixed scratch score or a seemingly-randomly adjusted one, I'd take the former. With a more accurate calculation method, I'm persuadable. Problem is I'm not sure what changes to achieve that would be practical.

Maybe, as a starting point, I'd say that CSS cannot go down unless there are enough players to make it significant. I'm no statistician but maybe 100 players? Certainly a lot more than the current 7 or whatever it is.

Yes I do think the specific issues you have are understandable and valid. Small fields with uneven handicap spreads does undermine the validity of CSS as a method of factoring in conditions on the day. As you say a higher minimum field or some other method may be better. I suppose if the whole system is going to be changed soon anyway (I'm not fully up to speed on this) it may be that it stops being a problem.

 

[delc]

I'm not sure that I'm arguing for that as I can see the rationale for doing so. My big problem is that CSS, as it currently operates in the club competitions I play in, just does not seem to work. I am completely unable to guess based on conditions whether CSS will go up, down or stay the same.

Faced with a choice between a fixed scratch score or a seemingly-randomly adjusted one, I'd take the former. With a more accurate calculation method, I'm persuadable. Problem is I'm not sure what changes to achieve that would be practical.

Maybe, as a starting point, I'd say that CSS cannot go down unless there are enough players to make it significant. I'm no statistician but maybe 100 players? Certainly a lot more than the current 7 or whatever it is.

Our men's comps generally attract 60 or more players, which is more than enough to be statistically significant for calculating a CSS, even though a percentage of those will be cat-4 players who do not count at present. The fields in our ladies comps do tend to be somewhat smaller though. Can I applaud CONGU for including cat-4 men and cat-5 ladies in the CSS calculation as from next year, as this should further increase the degree of certainty in the CSS.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Our men's comps generally attract 60 or more players, which is more than enough to be statistically significant for calculating a CSS, even though a percentage of those will be cat-4 players who do not count at present. The fields in our ladies comps do tend to be somewhat smaller though. Can I applaud CONGU for including cat-4 men and cat-5 ladies in the CSS calculation as from next year, as this should further increase the degree of certainty in the CSS.

Well, I have no idea what the number should be 100, 60, 50 whatever but certainly more than 7!!!

Including cat 4 men and cat 5 women means including players on the maximum handicap, some of whom play to buffer once in a blue moon. So it's hard to see how that's going to help the calculation!

 

[delc]

Well, I have no idea what the number should be 100, 60, 50 whatever but certainly more than 7!!!

Including cat 4 men and cat 5 women means including players on the maximum handicap, some of whom play to buffer once in a blue moon. So it's hard to see how that's going to help the calculation!

Yes but you also get some cat 4 and 5's who are rapid improvers, or at least perfectly capable of playing to their handicaps, so this should balance this out. Remember it is only the percentage that make buffer that counts, so the odd complete 28+ duffer will make little difference. I can only think of 2 or 3 members at our club who are in this category anyway. Maybe you should exclude players who have an exact handicap greater than 27.9?

 

[FairwayDodger]

Yes but you also get some cat 4 and 5's who are rapid improvers, or at least perfectly capable of playing to their handicaps, so this should balance this out. Remember it is only the percentage that make buffer that counts, so the odd complete 28+ duffer will make little difference.

It's only a small percentage if you have a big enough field. I expect this change will exacerbate the issue I have observed.

 

[delc]

It's only a small percentage if you have a big enough field. I expect this change will exacerbate the issue I have observed.

In our Seniors mens comps, about 40% of the field may be Cat-4's, so the relative performance of a small number of cat 2 and cat 3 players can make a difference to the CSS. We only have one cat-1 senior and he rarely plays in senior comps.

 

[BTatHome]

At present how to people outside of Cat4 actually play at golf clubs? Do they have an allocated h/cap of 28 even when they can't play to it? When the new rules come in will they have to hand in 3 cards?

 

[duncan mackie]

At present how to people outside of Cat4 actually play at golf clubs? Do they have an allocated h/cap of 28 even when they can't play to it? When the new rules come in will they have to hand in 3 cards?

Handicap committees are encourage to use significant latitude when allocating initial handicaps to those who show promise rather than being able to illustrate the capabilities of a 28 straight away.

This is partially because the initial calculation of a 28 is stronger than a 28 (stableford adjustment based on gross), partially because new golfers are expected to improve and do so faster with a handicap - easy to play competitive golf) and there's a flip side of players who are going back up and are stuck at 28.0 despite being 36 or so!

 

[doublebogey7]

Not necessarily as much if the CSS went down.

CSS can only ever be 1 under SSS

 

[delc]

CSS can only ever be 1 under SSS

But it can be 3 over in unfavourable conditions, which helps those who choose to play in them. Otherwise you will only get fair weather players!

 

[duncan mackie]

But it can be 3 over in unfavourable conditions, which helps those who choose to play in them. Otherwise you will only get fair weather players!

It only really helps those that can handle these unfavourable conditions - quite rightly

 

[NWJocko]

I think that we all pretty much understand CSS and why it's done, but, my view is that the SSS at mine is 72 ( as is par) and I would just like my handicap to get the full cut if I better that score! I understand the arguments the other way but on the 30% of comps where I play around my handicap I would like to think that my handicap will be reduced on that magical day when I better the SSS

I understand the why's and wherefore's but when I go out in a comp I'm only trying to break par (plus my handicap) and no argument will convince me that if I come in 2 under (nett) that I should not get a cut because the course played easier that day. If CSS was scrapped I still believe the handicap system would survive!

At the risk of repeating myself.....

The problem here is you associating your handicap to par rather than SSS/CSS! Shooting under par and under your handicap are 2 different things.

 

[chrisd]

At the risk of repeating myself.....

The problem here is you associating your handicap to par rather than SSS/CSS! Shooting under par and under your handicap are 2 different things.

Par and SSS are the same at mine and initially my handicap was allocated based on SSS