css

[duncan mackie]

We have a strange situation at my club.....

Ladies medals are played on both Friday and Saturday - you choose which day you play. I noticed last year that the CSS on a Friday is almost always higher than on a Saturday. Without wishing to offend anyone, I put that down to the younger (I use the term loosely) women - those with jobs - play on Saturday while the older ones play on Friday. Conditions are irrelevant - this even happens on weekends where the Friday saw perfect conditions and the Saturday was awful - the standard of golf played by the "Saturday Girls" is usually higher.

it's not strange at all - it happens all over and I posted earlier in this thread as to the cause....

 

[bobmac]

Grrrr!

:ears:

 

[rosecott]

To be fair Bob, that's the way I've always played and the way I'll always play.
And it's getting a little off my main issue with CSS, which is my handicap being adjusted on the basis of others scores.
I can shoot buffer, 75 gross, and Fragger could be the last player to finish the comp.
If he holes his putt then he shoots buffer +2. If he misses then it's buffer +3.
He holes it, CSS goes down as a result and I go up. If he misses CSS stays the same and I don't.
That is my handicap being directly affected by someone else's play.
Is that fair on me?

Yes, because you cannot "lay the blame" on the last player in because it's not what he may or may not do, its what the whole group of players have already done and their overall performance is governed by how they, as an entity, have played in the conditions presented - weather, tough rough, awkward pinpositions etc. etc..

 

[FairwayDodger]

it's not strange at all - it happens all over and I posted earlier in this thread as to the cause....

Strange as in weird/annoying rather than unusual then!

So (looking back in the thread) you're saying the older ladies handicaps are too low and should be adjusted upwards?

 

[duncan mackie]

So that's the US Slope? Always seemed to make sense to me...

no it's not - and Socketrocket's post is also consistent with this misunderstanding.

in terms of the course rating process the US and CONGU's SSS calculations are almost identical ie the assessments would produce the same ratings. there are 2 fundamental differences that follow that though.

1. the US play to par, but adjust the handicap for difficulty ie an 12 handicap for a lower rated course will not be at the same level as a 12 handicap player from a high rated course. Within their club events it doesn't matter - when they go somewhere else they adjust the handicap to that courses rating before play. CONGU handicaps to the rating so a 12 is a 12 is a 12, and when they travel they play of........12

2. the other difference, which is really the crux of 'slope' for handicap golfers, is that they rate their courses 2 ways. One as above and a second rating for an average 18 handicapper. this is designed to recognise (rightly to me) that certain factors affect an 18 handicap player but wouldn't have the slightest impact on a scratch golfer - water carries are a simple example, green side bunkers are another. in practice the two ratings are combined and applied proportionally to the various handicap players to produce their playing handicap at that course. this step would have no impact on a scratch golfers handicapping/course ratings but can have a significant one on a higher handicap player (there are courses where it has none). it is most effective for ladies and seniors where player's strengths and weaknesses are a little more predictable than the average male 18 handicap player (ie there is no such thing - some are short consistent some long wild)

Hope this helps

 

[duncan mackie]

Strange as in weird/annoying rather than unusual then!

So (looking back in the thread) you're saying the older ladies handicaps are too low and should be adjusted upwards?

I might suggest that despite significant evidence there is a reticence to increase handicaps at the annual review.......... you have the evidence, do you believe otherwise? Arguably it is you, in your post, that is saying that they are too low!

From a system perspective it's a bit of a catch 22, as raised often, because they play together and their failure to play to handicap delivers RO results. However, someone has to look at 12 failures to play to buffer in such events and draw a conclusion.

A question to you, and Amanda, how many handicaps were increased at last years review?

 

[Ethan]

in terms of the course rating process the US and CONGU's SSS calculations are almost identical ie the assessments would produce the same ratings. there are 2 fundamental differences that follow that though.

I agree the '95% of best 10 of 20 scores' element in the USGA handicap produces much the same effect as our CSS and 0.x increment method, but I think that course ratings tend to run higher in the US than we would have for SSS here. There are plenty of courses in the US with course ratings of 74 or more, but there are very few courses around there that have a base SSS as high as that. As a result, I think US player handicaps run a bit lower (maybe 1 or 2 points) than the same players would have here.

 

[Imurg]

Yes, because you cannot "lay the blame" on the last player in because it's not what he may or may not do, its what the whole group of players have already done and their overall performance is governed by how they, as an entity, have played in the conditions presented - weather, tough rough, awkward pinpositions etc. etc..

So at a club where you enter your scores into a computer when you come in, the first 99 competitors have put their scores in and CSS is unchanged.
Fragger is the 100th player. He makes a putt at the last to score buffer +2. He puts his score in and he completes the "x" % needed to reduce CSS.
If he'd missed he would have been buffer +3 and CSS would remain static.
Not blaming anyone but the fact is that his score could tip the CSS one way or the other.
Therefore my handicap is directly influenced by Fraggers final putt.

 

[Ethan]

So at a club where you enter your scores into a computer when you come in, the first 99 competitors have put their scores in and CSS is unchanged.
Fragger is the 100th player. He makes a putt at the last to score buffer +2. He puts his score in and he completes the "x" % needed to reduce CSS.
If he'd missed he would have been buffer +3 and CSS would remain static.
Not blaming anyone but the fact is that his score could tip the CSS one way or the other.
Therefore my handicap is directly influenced by Fraggers final putt.

We need CONGU to accept a change to handicapping that Fragger's score will never be allowed to affect CSS.

 

[rosecott]

So at a club where you enter your scores into a computer when you come in, the first 99 competitors have put their scores in and CSS is unchanged.
Fragger is the 100th player. He makes a putt at the last to score buffer +2. He puts his score in and he completes the "x" % needed to reduce CSS.
If he'd missed he would have been buffer +3 and CSS would remain static.
Not blaming anyone but the fact is that his score could tip the CSS one way or the other.
Therefore my handicap is directly influenced by Fraggers final putt.

And a butterfly fluttering in Beijing.

 

[Bomber69]

A lot of tosh getting talked about here, seems someone will use any excuse not to play in competitions maybe that's why he prefers to submit bounce games in for handicap when he plays well....lol.

 

[duncan mackie]

I agree the '95% of best 10 of 20 scores' element in the USGA handicap produces much the same effect as our CSS and 0.x increment method, but I think that course ratings tend to run higher in the US than we would have for SSS here. There are plenty of courses in the US with course ratings of 74 or more, but there are very few courses around there that have a base SSS as high as that. As a result, I think US player handicaps run a bit lower (maybe 1 or 2 points) than the same players would have here.

I think the main difference in this context is that the US has many more courses with Black tees (as well as many more measured tees per course for general play). We have few courses here that get close to the distances and hazard structure - although in recent years some are starting to appear! Of the old established courses I can only think of Hoylake.

However, I agree that (esp at the lower end - 2 though + handicaps) they're between 1 and 2 shots weaker, but more for the handicap calc in cat 1. The calc's run v close through cat 2 and 3 though.

 

[AmandaJR]

I might suggest that despite significant evidence there is a reticence to increase handicaps at the annual review.......... you have the evidence, do you believe otherwise? Arguably it is you, in your post, that is saying that they are too low!

From a system perspective it's a bit of a catch 22, as raised often, because they play together and their failure to play to handicap delivers RO results. However, someone has to look at 12 failures to play to buffer in such events and draw a conclusion.

A question to you, and Amanda, how many handicaps were increased at last years review?

I don't know the answer Duncan as new to the handicap secretary role this year. I do know the Congu changes have meant hardly any R/O at our club and in fact just 2 where only 2 players took part (don't ask!). I have suggested 2 handicap increases this year thanks to some input from Jim and only 1 player accepted the offer. When I run the annual review report I'll be strongly pushing that they are accepted. My gut feel is that our senior section does have players whose handicaps are too low but perhaps indicative of lots of comps played, 2 days in the sun for a decent cut and then way outside buffer for all the rest but not enough to make up for the cuts...

 

[FairwayDodger]

I might suggest that despite significant evidence there is a reticence to increase handicaps at the annual review.......... you have the evidence, do you believe otherwise? Arguably it is you, in your post, that is saying that they are too low!

From a system perspective it's a bit of a catch 22, as raised often, because they play together and their failure to play to handicap delivers RO results. However, someone has to look at 12 failures to play to buffer in such events and draw a conclusion.

A question to you, and Amanda, how many handicaps were increased at last years review?

Can't say for sure but I don't know of anyone who was increased. A handful were given cuts - some of them weren't happy about it!

Testing the Friday CSS theory today; I've sneakily played on Friday instead of Saturday. Shot 76, net 69 - 1 over SSS. Lets see what the CSS does today!

 

[bobmac]

I've sneakily played on Friday instead of Saturday

You've got a busy afternoon ahead then.
Washing, ironing, shopping, cooking, gardening, dusting and hoovering, all before HID gets home

 

[FairwayDodger]

You've got a busy afternoon ahead then.
Washing, ironing, shopping, cooking, gardening, dusting and hoovering, all before HID gets home

I went to the supermarket and got stuff in for dinner. Completely forgetting we're eating out tonight! D'oh!

 

[bobmac]

I went to the supermarket and got stuff in for dinner. Completely forgetting we're eating out tonight! D'oh!

Fish suppers?
I haven't had one for AGES

 

[FairwayDodger]

Fish suppers?
I haven't had one for AGES

Thai.

Hmm.... would prefer a fish supper now you mention it!