CSS Farce

[delc]

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

Yes it would have been if you submitted 3 cards outside qualifying comps, because there were no other players to compare your scores to! Do you not understand that the course varies in difficulty from day to day due to weather conditions and/or course set up, which the CSS is designed to correct for? However to estimate this you need a statistically significant number of scores from other players on the day, which you should get in a formal qualifying competition.

 

[chrisd]

Yes it would have been if you submitted 3 cards outside qualifying comps, because there were no other players to compare your scores to! Do you not understand that the course varies in difficulty from day to day due to weather conditions and/or course set up, which the CSS is designed to correct for? However to estimate this you need a significant number of scores from other players, which you should get in a formal qualifying competition.

Surprisingly I do understand the system Del, I just happen to think that comps should be handicapped on SSS.

 

[delc]

Surprisingly I do understand the system Del, I just happen to think that comps should be handicapped on SSS.

If you did that, I suspect you wouldn't get too many players entering a comp on a difficult day, unless they were bandits who were trying to get their handicaps up!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

If you did that, I suspect you wouldn't get too many players entering a comp on a difficult day, unless they were bandits who were trying to get their handicaps up!

How do you know it's going to be a difficult day until on the course - the CSS can't be judged until all the scores are in

 

[delc]

How do you know it's going to be a difficult day until on the course - the CSS can't be judged until all the scores are in

If it's blowing a hoolie, then you might expect it to be difficult! One of the problems we get at our club is a large number of players dropping out of drawn competitions on the strength of a poor weather forecast.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

If it's blowing a hoolie, then you might expect it to be difficult! One of the problems we get at our club is a large number of players dropping out of drawn competitions on the strength of a poor weather forecast.

But until someone is at the course you never know how it's going to be

If people pull out because it's a poor weather forecast then that's on their conscience

Even someone could still go out and score well

 

[the smiling assassin]

It occurred to me that we have a few days on which both men's and women's competitions take place so a comparison of each CSS might be informative. If CSS was a fair and accurate representation of difficulty then surely the difference between SSS and CSS for both men and women would tend to match?

From the results still accessible to me on the website, there were 8 such days in the last year. This image shows the analysis, I haven't drawn any conclusions from it but it seems things worked out the same only 3 times out of the 8. Interesting but fairly inconclusive without a much larger sample set, I think.

View attachment 16452

This happens every comp for us. Men's Css makes more or less perfect sense every week. Ladies is pretty random as it's based on such a small number of competitors.
Css is essential and the handicap system would be majorly flawed without it. SSS rating is just a benchmark.

 

[the smiling assassin]

Surprisingly I do understand the system Del, I just happen to think that comps should be handicapped on SSS.

They are... SSS+/-...

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Yes it would have been if you submitted 3 cards outside qualifying comps, because there were no other players to compare your scores to! Do you not understand that the course varies in difficulty from day to day due to weather conditions and/or course set up, which the CSS is designed to correct for? However to estimate this you need a statistically significant number of scores from other players on the day, which you should get in a formal qualifying competition.

Your initial handicap should be allocated against SSS regardless of whether you did the cards during a qualifying comp. CSS has no bearing on it.

 

[the smiling assassin]

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.

Css dropping is a bit unnecessary in my opinion. Few people play enough handicap qualifiers per year to get an appropriate handicap as it is, Congu should be increasing the possibility for handicap chops at all opportunities. SSS-1 occurring regularly is more an indication that the SSS rating is borderline to high, and that the club ought to adjust the course set up to justify it's rating.

Personally I think having a separate system for ladies handicaps in the first place is a far greater pharse, this being one of the issues it creates - inconsistent handicapping. Scrap it for a universal, unisex handicap system. There are plenty of senior men golfers, for example, who suffer similar issues to perceived issues faced by female golfers.

Once the universal system is brought in, simply play a balance of competitions from the whites/ yellows/ reds open to all of the membership. No boundaries between men and ladies sections. Truly inclusive with everyone playing under a single system.

It will never happen, because all the elite ladies golfers would kick up a massive stink when their plus handicaps suddenly became higher cat 1or even cat 2 handicaps. A great shame as it would really help break down barriers at clubs and assist equality as the norm.

 

[FairwayDodger]

This happens every comp for us. Men's Css makes more or less perfect sense every week. Ladies is pretty random as it's based on such a small number of competitors.
Css is essential and the handicap system would be majorly flawed without it. SSS rating is just a benchmark.

Surely if CSS is "pretty random" then the handicap system is already majorly flawed?

 

[FairwayDodger]

Personally I think having a separate system for ladies handicaps in the first place is a far greater pharse, this being one of the issues it creates - inconsistent handicapping. Scrap it for a universal, unisex handicap system. There are plenty of senior men golfers, for example, who suffer similar issues to perceived issues faced by female golfers.

Once the universal system is brought in, simply play a balance of competitions from the whites/ yellows/ reds open to all of the membership. No boundaries between men and ladies sections. Truly inclusive with everyone playing under a single system.

It will never happen, because all the elite ladies golfers would kick up a massive stink when their plus handicaps suddenly became higher cat 1or even cat 2 handicaps. A great shame as it would really help break down barriers at clubs and assist equality as the norm.

I'm a big advocate of mixed comps like that but you don't need to merge handicaps like that, just have both a men's and women's SSS measured from each set of tees.

Big differences in the way men and women play golf based on physical strength so it would be wholly inappropriate (and demoralising) to handicap us in the same way, IMO.

 

[the smiling assassin]

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!

 

[chrisd]

They are... SSS+/-...

The +/- bit says they are not !

 

[delc]

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!

One of the problems that affects both women and senior men is that as things stand, many of them have handicaps that are too low for historical reasons. This tends to make nett scores too high, which forces the CSS up, often to Reductions Only so that no handicap increases occur! A classic Catch 22 situation where because the handicaps are too low, one of the mechanisms for increasing them is blocked!

 

[MashieNiblick]

The +/- bit says they are not !

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?

 

[Imurg]

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...

 

[delc]

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...

In theory at least, the tough course should have a higher SSS than the wide open, easy one.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Yes, an interesting debate. I sympathise with Chris' view regarding getting bigger cuts but believe that without CSS the handicap system overall would be a poorer system. I'd also add that if the CSS is going down from SSS more than a handful of times in a season then the SSS is probably incorrectly assessed........Chris, if this happens often, would you be happier if the SSS was re-assessed to 71? I doubt it, but it probably should be. SSS should be based on normal conditions. It's much less often that conditions improve significantly whereas they can deteriorate much more from the same benchmark.

 

[duncan mackie]

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...

there's a bit of yes and no in a full response to this!

whilst both the USGA and CONGU rating systems, resultant handicapping and allowances do a good job at enabling competitive golf between players who predominantly have their handicaps based at different courses it is impossible to effectively achieve this for all playing characteristics.

as a more detailed example - 5600 course v 7200 yard course. All other things being equal you would expect a difference of 8 between their SSS (68/76 probably). However, at this extreme difference in hole averages you wouldn't need many hazards at all on the longer course to see that many players who are able to hit 180/140 could handle the former with it's shot average below 160 but 8 additional shots wouldn't be enough to get them round the course with a 200 shot average - it's a rough and ready way of looking at it but it is fundamentally valid.

that shorter courses tend to have more hazards and are tighter and tree lined, may be true for some but isn't universally valid. It does provide an element of balance in some situations but not for all golfers - there are those who play on longer courses who can actually hit it straight too!

you don't even have to look across different courses to see this in practice; we have players who score well in the summer months when there's roll, but cannot handle the additional length required at other times of the year; these same players enjoy the yellow tee competitions but simply can't handle the white, despite being given an additional 2 shots - for their playing capabilities they need more like 10 shots more! Some courses take this to extremes - West Hill is a good example. There are carries from nearly every tee; from the whites it's about 190. If you can only carry 170 you have no way to play it (other than play from the yellow or green tees of course!)

Long and tight, with tough well protected greens, will travel extremely well to anywhere !