CSS

[Lord Tyrion]

It is to many

 

[bobmac]

None of this makes any sense to me at all. As far as I'm concerned your handicap is against the par, and thus so are your scores. I've never paid attention to CSS or SSS. Don't even know what they are at my place, they might just be the same as the par hence why I'd never noticed.

Edit: Just checked Howdidido and every recent comp just says "Par 68, CSS 68" at the top.

Ok, try this
You have 3 courses close to each other and they are all par 72
1 is 5000yds long
2 is 6000yds long
3 is 7000yds long

If you score 82 on course 1 you're off 10
If you score 82 on course 3, you're also off 10

Would that be fair?

The SSS has to reflect how difficult the course is in relation to the par.

Then you have the CSS which gives a score that is relevant to the day of the comp. One day could be perfect weather and the next day storm conditions so the CSS for each day would be different.
The idea is to keeps things fair

 

[Orikoru]

Ok, try this
You have 3 courses close to each other and they are all par 72
1 is 5000yds long
2 is 6000yds long
3 is 7000yds long

If you score 82 on course 1 you're off 10
If you score 82 on course 3, you're also off 10

Would that be fair?

The SSS has to reflect how difficult the course is in relation to the par.

Then you have the CSS which gives a score that is relevant to the day of the comp. One day could be perfect weather and the next day storm conditions so the CSS for each day would be different.
The idea is to keeps things fair

I kind of get the concept but it's hard to think of in real terms. I mean, nobody at our club is lower than 4 handicap, so straight away the CSS should likely be 3 or 4 shots above the par shouldn't it? Since no one is going round under par or even level par.

I have a feeling they just don't bother with it at our place, since as I said, Howdidido just says 'par 68 CSS 68' on all the comps.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I kind of get the concept but it's hard to think of in real terms. I mean, nobody at our club is lower than 4 handicap, so straight away the CSS should likely be 3 or 4 shots above the par shouldn't it? Since no one is going round under par or even level par.

I have a feeling they just don't bother with it at our place, since as I said, Howdidido just says 'par 68 CSS 68' on all the comps.

No, the CSS is based on nett scores not the gross scores. Are the 4hcp guys going round in 72 or thereabouts?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Bob, to counter the course 1 and 3 argument. Course 1 may be tight fairways, dog legs, pot bunkers, small saucer greens. Course 3 could be big wide fairways, flat and large greens, hardly any bunkers. Length does not necessarily equal difficulty, different skills are required, as you well know.

I do understand the CSS issue as that brings in conditions of the day, very sensible. I pretty much understand the SSS from the explanations given but it still seems overly cumbersome. Ask people at your club this week if they both know and understand the SSS for their course. I'm pretty sure the % who know both will be single figures (unless of course you start by asking the h/cap and comp secretaries )

 

[patricks148]

Bob, to counter the course 1 and 3 argument. Course 1 may be tight fairways, dog legs, pot bunkers, small saucer greens. Course 3 could be big wide fairways, flat and large greens, hardly any bunkers. Length does not necessarily equal difficulty, different skills are required, as you well know.

I do understand the CSS issue as that brings in conditions of the day, very sensible. I pretty much understand the SSS from the explanations given but it still seems overly cumbersome. Ask people at your club this week if they both know and understand the SSS for their course. I'm pretty sure the % who know both will be single figures (unless of course you start by asking the h/cap and comp secretaries )

but all your points would be addressed by the SSS. if it was easy then the SSS would be low if it was hard the SSS would be high.

and CSS conditions don't come into it, its how everyone plays

 

[bobmac]

Bob, to counter the course 1 and 3 argument. Course 1 may be tight fairways, dog legs, pot bunkers, small saucer greens. Course 3 could be big wide fairways, flat and large greens, hardly any bunkers. Length does not necessarily equal difficulty, different skills are required, as you well know.

You could also factor in uphill, downhill, prevailing winds, good/bad greens etc etc
I was trying to keep things simple

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Absolutely :thup:

 

[Orikoru]

No, the CSS is based on nett scores not the gross scores. Are the 4hcp guys going round in 72 or thereabouts?

Oh ok. Yeah sometimes.

 

[duncan mackie]

All chat in golf is about par, par is king.

Nope - the first question is what's your handicap?

If the answer is either "I'm a professional", or "Scr or better", then talk about how many you went round in becomes relevant in chat terms 😎

In terms of these forums it's pretty evenly split between those who would say they went round I 2 under, and when questioned further that would be 2 under SSS; and those for whom the comment would have been related to par. Many many threads illustrate this.

Given that such chat is meant to be in some way indicative of performance, and that par is an entirely arbitrary allocation that can be changed at will, it's difficult to argue relevance.

 

[rosecott]

Bob, to counter the course 1 and 3 argument. Course 1 may be tight fairways, dog legs, pot bunkers, small saucer greens. Course 3 could be big wide fairways, flat and large greens, hardly any bunkers. Length does not necessarily equal difficulty, different skills are required, as you well know.

I do understand the CSS issue as that brings in conditions of the day, very sensible. I pretty much understand the SSS from the explanations given but it still seems overly cumbersome. Ask people at your club this week if they both know and understand the SSS for their course. I'm pretty sure the % who know both will be single figures (unless of course you start by asking the h/cap and comp secretaries )

I know my members pretty well and the vast majority have a pretty good grasp of SSS and how CSS is affected by the performance of all competitors. Maybe because someone has explained it to them. As our SSS is one less than par, pretty well all of them know that 37 points is playing exactly to handicap.

 

[rosecott]

Remedy - stop thinking par, start thinking SSS. If I stand on the 17th tee, I'm usually thinking I need 6 points on the last two holes to reach 33 and into buffer.

That's assuming 33 is your buffer.....you may need 34, you may need 32, you just don't know.
I've stopped really worrying about SSS/CSS as I'm not in control of it. I just hit the ball as few times as I can and let those that think it's a good idea tell me what my handicap is..

As I can't second guess what all the others are doing, my minimum target is to buffer in relation to SSS. However, as Bob says, my plan is still to play each hole to the best of my ability.

 

[Foxholer]

...
and CSS conditions don't come into it, its how everyone plays

It's an assumption, whether good or bad, that it's 'the conditions', either weather or course setup, that have affected 'how everyone plays'. With sufficient players, that's normally a pretty good assumption - save, perhaps, aberrations like a comp the day after a well supported club bash! For 'small fields' it can be very hit and miss, as Karen has frequently encountered!

And the actual calculation is weighted more by the performance of Cat 1s too because, statistically, they are more consistently reflective of the conditions!

 

[jim8flog]

The SSS is the standard number of strokes they've decide a player of handicap 0 would take to play the course on average.

So your course is judged to be one shot harder than par.

If CSS goes up to 74 it means that on that particular day the results of those in handicap categories 1 to 3 have determined that the course was playing one shot harder that day.

.

Cat 4s are now included in the calculation (2016 rule change)