Val
Ryder Cup Winner
So CSS played to SSS + 2 then? Sounds like it was tough.
Lies, damn lies and statistics
- Thread starter harpo_72
- Start date
So CSS played to SSS + 2 then? Sounds like it was tough.
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
In fact you said earlier SSS is 72, if CSS is 73 and you score 37 (ie 1 better) why are you cut 0.6?
Foxholer
Blackballed
Par ('equivalent' to 36 points) is 71
37 points is 'equivalent' to 70
CSS is 73
So 3*0.2 cut.
Other way to calc
35 Points = SSS, so 37 points = 2 shots better than SSS. CSS = SSS+1, so 37 points is 3 shots better than CSS.
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
Sorry par is 71, sss 72 off the whites where all competitions play from in the season.
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
Well the members don't normally complain and they were grumping the scores reflected it. One chap walked in and said he shot 36 pts on the mid week medal and today (i.e. saturday) he shot 23 ... which sounds like a nightmare! But as I stated before we had rain at the start of the week and the greens were uncut until friday afternoon. So they were taking spin and slow, saturday they were not taking spin and the were quick and getting crusty as the day wore on .. So yeah it was tough when combined with some of the pin positions.
I had a 6ft putt for birdie, I touched it it rolled 8ft by and I walked off with a bogey.... getting out of bunkers was frankly a mare if you had less than 20ft of green. (I am not bad out of bunkers by the way, I prefer to be in them than on the fringes)
Foxholer
Blackballed
Make your mind up whether it's 'Handicap' or 'average'
Explain how setting CSS at 31 points (equivalent to the 'bad day' the Cat 4 you mentioned had) isn't actually giving those who have had a pretty poor day a cut!
My point was that a 'stable' golfer might get cut for the first few comps, but would then simply score poorer in subsequent comps,. so all that would happen would be a reduction in the number. This is pretty much exactly what happened when Ladies changed to Stableford adjusted scores in about 2005.
Remember that playing to Congu Handicap corresponds to a good-to-very-good round. If you change the goalposts to have a 'harpo handicap' which equates to a 'better-than-average' round, then all that will happen is the stable handicap will get cut to such a level that he will have to have a 'good-to-very-good' round to play to the average!
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Agreed - usual misconception about how many points equates to your 'day-to-day / I played OK' round of golf. It's 32pts - absolutely NOT 36pts. That said around our track where their is a significant difference in distance and difficulty between our Comp Tees and Tees of the Day - 36pts stableford is more probable from your reasonable/OK round of golf. That may apply more generally - I don't know.
In general I din't think we should be looking beyond our own play for 'excuses/reasons' if we play OK and 'only' score about 32 pts.
Last edited:
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
Think you have totally misunderstood the point of the discussion, the par is not relevant, historically it hasn't been when we look at the links courses. What I am saying the par for the day should be gauged by the scores coming in, expecting people to play below their handicap is as bad as expecting them to play better than it. The expectation should be to play to it, if you can't you get an addition, however that addition should be dependant on how hard the course played. How simple a concept is that to grasp? Using the buffers to calculate the CSS is where all the problems lie, the buffers should be applied last and then the handicaps adjusted from there. This will not create artificially low handicaps (god knows why you want them high... Then complain about bandits ... ...?) all it will do is respect the difficulty of the course fairly ..IMO
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
Quite correct, I'm wrong to assume par and ss the same.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
As with many simple concepts it's the practical aspects that cause the problems - it is a fact that the range of scores increases as the handicap increases; lie, dammed lie or statistic - call it what you will it's a fact. None of the changes you are suggesting will impact that one bit - all they do is change the handicap distribution that overlays the inevitable performances ie the scores will remain but the handicaps of the players shooting them will differ (as a moving average over time).
If you want the proportion of times a player plays to his handicap (matches SSS) to be the measure of the system the net effect will be to -
1. increase the handicap of the higher handicappers significantly (40% @ 20 would be guesstimate)
2. increase the handicap of everybody else above scr proportionate to this eg 20% @ 10, 10% @ 5.
3. require the introduction of a new set of 'allowances' in the various formats to enable fair competition - although the higher handicapper will now basicaly be unbeatable if there is a large field (statistically someone will shoot at the edge of the range for that group) so you would have to introduce handicap categories to enable fair play.
Basically you would be back where we were 25 years ago..........
Foxholer
Blackballed
H'mm. Not a lot I agree with in that post!
You state that expectation should be playing to handicap (which is harder) but are also saying that Congu generates a 'falsely inflated' handicap - making it even harder to do so!
Yep. That's the way CSS works.
I want handicaps that are appropriate. Congu ones seem to work quite well - as do Slope ones (against Slope courses), though the 2 systems are incompatible. Bandits/Sandbaggers are always a danger - and are not caused by either system. They'd be just as likely in any system you proposed!
As another check, is playing of you Yellow blocks much easier than playing off your White ones? What's the difference in distance? And what's the difference in SSS? I'd hazard a guess that it's either 1 or 2. That's pretty much the same sort of difference that a White comp under 'tough' conditions would generate over a 'standard' White Tee (CSS=SSS) comp.
I don't think so. Though given the structure of your first post, that would be justifiable!
Never said it was (except here needed to equate it to SSS/Stableforsd points). How does the relationship to Par differ between links courses and other types?
Yep. That's CSS in the Congu system.
Same thing in my book!
Now here's where we differ! Congu'expects' you to play about 125% + 1.5 of your Congu handicap (actually, that's not quite the expectation, but close enough for this discussion). This is confirmed by analyzing thousands of rounds in the CDH, so a pretty good sample.
You state that expectation should be playing to handicap (which is harder) but are also saying that Congu generates a 'falsely inflated' handicap - making it even harder to do so!
Yep. That's the way CSS works.
The 'percentage ithin buffer of SSS' is purely used to identify whether the CSS should change from SSS. It used to be that SSS+2 was the reference point to determine the percentages, but it was proposed, and indeed found, that SSS+Buffer was a more appropriate value to measure against. The actual difference is actually not all that significant.
That's what happens.
If you are expecting players to play to handicap, Congu stats demonstrate that that handicaps need to be increased, not reduced like you want, so yes it will! Setting CSS higher WILL mean more reductions! And if you want to set them at the AVERAGE score that ill be loads more reductions! What percentage of players in that comp got a cut? and ho many ould have under your CSS= Average Score?
I want handicaps that are appropriate. Congu ones seem to work quite well - as do Slope ones (against Slope courses), though the 2 systems are incompatible. Bandits/Sandbaggers are always a danger - and are not caused by either system. They'd be just as likely in any system you proposed!
I believe I've already shown that it does - at least reasonably.
As another check, is playing of you Yellow blocks much easier than playing off your White ones? What's the difference in distance? And what's the difference in SSS? I'd hazard a guess that it's either 1 or 2. That's pretty much the same sort of difference that a White comp under 'tough' conditions would generate over a 'standard' White Tee (CSS=SSS) comp.
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
Player Score New ExactHandicap
M J Hartley 38 7.4
harpo_72 37 7.7
M A Knight 37 11
Michael R Wright 36 14.5
J Maling 35 5.6
A Cairns 35 13.9
B P Godwyn 35 4.2
D Harding 35 18.4
E Galloway 34 11
R B Plummer 34 18.7
J White 34 16.5
J V Wells 34 15.9
J R Allison 34 4.9
I Payne 34 8.2
P Dawson 33 17.3
R K Wilkinson 33 6.5
G Groom 33 7.6
K Croxon 33 7.7
R S Rydings 33 13.9
D W Daly 33 18.7
M Dallas 33 18.3
P M Heslop 33 8
N S Pountney 33 9.5
D W Tomlins 32 11.3
J D Holdcroft 32 19.8
D H Slade 32 8.3
N Handscombe 32 7.7
P H Watson 32 17.1
M J White 32 15
R Dawson 32 6.6
P Tiffin 31 12.9
R W Crisp 31 3.9
S Clark 31 8.2
D Ivers 31 7.5
N Harrison 31 10.7
S Shelly 31 5.8
R L Lawson 31 12.5
M Jaquest 31 10.5
P Siriyatorn 31 6.6
G Whiteside 31 8.3
Stefan Williams 31 2.4
M G Sheffield 30 12.9
R M Hunt 30 15.6
B Moscrop 30 5.3
D Redwood 30 7.6
D H Price 30 6.6
J Hopkinson 30 9.3
J P Oldroyd 30 11.8
D P Huggett 30 11
I Green 30 20.2
I Girdwood 30 12.1
P Winwright 30 15
Dr S L Taylor 29 12.5
R J Fearnley 29 9.1
M Rogers 29 10.3
K S Benton 29 7.9
P J Scott 29 11.9
N Macbeth 29 8.4
I Goodman 29 11.1
D S Brooker 29 12.6
C Cook 29 5.5
A R Wilkinson 29 3.6
A Byrne 29 11.2
P Stratford 29 13
C Bate 28 13.3
S H Hyams 28 6.3
M Short 28 14.5
J M Deas 28 13.3
A J Clarke 28 18.9
J M Hardy 28 8.5
B Hodson 28 17.5
D G Turner 28 15.4
H B McLennan 28 9.8
I Camp 28 15.4
K Froud 28 11.7
P W S Bent 28 6
G Crane 28 19.2
D K Harris 28 11.3
C J Cox 28 19.4
J Ryan 27 6.9
Robert Phillips 27 16.3
A Holmes 27 11.7
D L Smith 27 15.8
N Peters 27 5.4
C A Young 27 7.4
Lee Palmer 27i 26.7
R Stollery 27 13.9
G F Smith 27 15.3
D Draffan 27 17.6
J R Clymer 27 13.5
A Packard 27 11.4
M W Walls 27 10.9
S R Clark 27 15.1
M H Reaston-Brown 27 15.5
A J Haynes 27 23.9
P J Orpin 26 16.5
A Walker 26 8.8
L M Wakelam 26 9.4
S Ottridge 26 17.6
D Witherspoon 26 17.4
G A Finch 26 5.5
B R Staines 26 21.6
G Dallamore 26 19.6
J A Cashin 25 10.1
I Travers Smith 25 16.4
A J Bone 25 18
J Sanderson 25 13.9
T E Bratton 25 16.1
P J Hope 25 14.9
S G Hipperson 25 13
V Michael 25 20
J M M Boyce 24 13.8
D C Williams 24 14.3
P Holland 24 23.2
G G Boosey 24 13.9
F C Purdy 24 17.9
G Knight 24 16
D R Stevenson 24 6.1
B M Sims 24 7.1
A G Pilkington 23 15.2
A W Dobbing 23 10.3
J G Hutton 23 28
J G H Findlay 23 10.5
G J Brooks 23 17.5
R J Altmann 23 11
J W French 22 7.4
R Shelley 22 7.3
S Dawson 22 22.8
J E Creamer 22i 16.4
K D Anderson 21 21.1
D Gollop 21 14.5
J N Hilton 20 13.4
A Sims 20 13.2
K Clutterbuck 20 20.5
R M Thorne 20 14.1
S W Booker 20 13.4
W F Partridge 19 19
F G Durrans 19 16.1
P J Nolan N/R 7.7
D J Stanley N/R 13.6
The scores of the day in question....
M J Hartley 38 7.4
harpo_72 37 7.7
M A Knight 37 11
Michael R Wright 36 14.5
J Maling 35 5.6
A Cairns 35 13.9
B P Godwyn 35 4.2
D Harding 35 18.4
E Galloway 34 11
R B Plummer 34 18.7
J White 34 16.5
J V Wells 34 15.9
J R Allison 34 4.9
I Payne 34 8.2
P Dawson 33 17.3
R K Wilkinson 33 6.5
G Groom 33 7.6
K Croxon 33 7.7
R S Rydings 33 13.9
D W Daly 33 18.7
M Dallas 33 18.3
P M Heslop 33 8
N S Pountney 33 9.5
D W Tomlins 32 11.3
J D Holdcroft 32 19.8
D H Slade 32 8.3
N Handscombe 32 7.7
P H Watson 32 17.1
M J White 32 15
R Dawson 32 6.6
P Tiffin 31 12.9
R W Crisp 31 3.9
S Clark 31 8.2
D Ivers 31 7.5
N Harrison 31 10.7
S Shelly 31 5.8
R L Lawson 31 12.5
M Jaquest 31 10.5
P Siriyatorn 31 6.6
G Whiteside 31 8.3
Stefan Williams 31 2.4
M G Sheffield 30 12.9
R M Hunt 30 15.6
B Moscrop 30 5.3
D Redwood 30 7.6
D H Price 30 6.6
J Hopkinson 30 9.3
J P Oldroyd 30 11.8
D P Huggett 30 11
I Green 30 20.2
I Girdwood 30 12.1
P Winwright 30 15
Dr S L Taylor 29 12.5
R J Fearnley 29 9.1
M Rogers 29 10.3
K S Benton 29 7.9
P J Scott 29 11.9
N Macbeth 29 8.4
I Goodman 29 11.1
D S Brooker 29 12.6
C Cook 29 5.5
A R Wilkinson 29 3.6
A Byrne 29 11.2
P Stratford 29 13
C Bate 28 13.3
S H Hyams 28 6.3
M Short 28 14.5
J M Deas 28 13.3
A J Clarke 28 18.9
J M Hardy 28 8.5
B Hodson 28 17.5
D G Turner 28 15.4
H B McLennan 28 9.8
I Camp 28 15.4
K Froud 28 11.7
P W S Bent 28 6
G Crane 28 19.2
D K Harris 28 11.3
C J Cox 28 19.4
J Ryan 27 6.9
Robert Phillips 27 16.3
A Holmes 27 11.7
D L Smith 27 15.8
N Peters 27 5.4
C A Young 27 7.4
Lee Palmer 27i 26.7
R Stollery 27 13.9
G F Smith 27 15.3
D Draffan 27 17.6
J R Clymer 27 13.5
A Packard 27 11.4
M W Walls 27 10.9
S R Clark 27 15.1
M H Reaston-Brown 27 15.5
A J Haynes 27 23.9
P J Orpin 26 16.5
A Walker 26 8.8
L M Wakelam 26 9.4
S Ottridge 26 17.6
D Witherspoon 26 17.4
G A Finch 26 5.5
B R Staines 26 21.6
G Dallamore 26 19.6
J A Cashin 25 10.1
I Travers Smith 25 16.4
A J Bone 25 18
J Sanderson 25 13.9
T E Bratton 25 16.1
P J Hope 25 14.9
S G Hipperson 25 13
V Michael 25 20
J M M Boyce 24 13.8
D C Williams 24 14.3
P Holland 24 23.2
G G Boosey 24 13.9
F C Purdy 24 17.9
G Knight 24 16
D R Stevenson 24 6.1
B M Sims 24 7.1
A G Pilkington 23 15.2
A W Dobbing 23 10.3
J G Hutton 23 28
J G H Findlay 23 10.5
G J Brooks 23 17.5
R J Altmann 23 11
J W French 22 7.4
R Shelley 22 7.3
S Dawson 22 22.8
J E Creamer 22i 16.4
K D Anderson 21 21.1
D Gollop 21 14.5
J N Hilton 20 13.4
A Sims 20 13.2
K Clutterbuck 20 20.5
R M Thorne 20 14.1
S W Booker 20 13.4
W F Partridge 19 19
F G Durrans 19 16.1
P J Nolan N/R 7.7
D J Stanley N/R 13.6
The scores of the day in question....
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
Average 28.39
5th percentile 20.00
25th percentile 26.00
50th percentile 28.00
75th percentile 31.00
98th Percentile 37.00
Mode 28
Okay I extracted the cat 4's ... these are are all the male results that will govern the CSS.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
so, breaking it all down, the actual buffer after the CSS was 31-34points (cat dependent obviously) which was about as close a match to your wish as you could get.
only 14% of the eligible field played to the original SSS buffer, and whilst I don't have the matrix here (and haven't broken down the cat entries either) I believe that this will be right on the margin for SSS+2 - which would have met your wish list bang on! However, you have to draw the line somewhere!
looks to me as if the system fundamentally does what you expect, but that in this particular case the dice fell the wrong way for the result you expected - although it got pretty close as set out.
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
Not really 50th percentile is 28 pts the 75th is 31 .... its worse than I thought initially.
Foxholer
Blackballed
PM sent - for some Cat 4 'stats'.
Foxholer
Blackballed
I've done a bit of an analysis taking a different approach to calculating 'CSS'. On the premise that the overall change in handicaps doesn't change significantly, I summed all the cuts and all the +0.1s and subtractded the total cuts from the total 0.1s
Calculations are rough, so not absolutel accurate - and Cat 4 cuts/+0.1s are absent
Using CSS as per Congu (SSS+1)
Sum of cuts - 3.4; sum of +0.1s =10.5 - overall +7.1 (+5%)
If CSS was 1 shot more (SSS+32, Sum of Cuts = 6.7; Sum of +0.1 = 9 - overall +2.3 (1.5%)
If CSS was 2 shot more (SSS+3) Sum of Cuts = 9.9; Sum of 0.s - 7 approx - overall -3 (-2%).
Now given that this as deemed a (very) difficult setup, I don't believe an overall reduction in the handicaps of the competitors would be likely. So I reckon the CSS as calculated (a completely different way) is pretty much fine - though 1 shot higher wouldn't have been too bad either.
Now I'm not sure how often that sort of calculation would end up with 'reasonable' results as I have seen comps where no cuts occur!
What it really shows, to me, is that if a different method of determining CSS is used, then the rate of cuts would have to be assessed too - not <net differential> * <Cat>, but less. That of course would create its on problems - speed of reduction of improvers would be a greater issue.
Basically, you can't just look at CSS alone!
Calculations are rough, so not absolutel accurate - and Cat 4 cuts/+0.1s are absent
Using CSS as per Congu (SSS+1)
Sum of cuts - 3.4; sum of +0.1s =10.5 - overall +7.1 (+5%)
If CSS was 1 shot more (SSS+32, Sum of Cuts = 6.7; Sum of +0.1 = 9 - overall +2.3 (1.5%)
If CSS was 2 shot more (SSS+3) Sum of Cuts = 9.9; Sum of 0.s - 7 approx - overall -3 (-2%).
Now given that this as deemed a (very) difficult setup, I don't believe an overall reduction in the handicaps of the competitors would be likely. So I reckon the CSS as calculated (a completely different way) is pretty much fine - though 1 shot higher wouldn't have been too bad either.
Now I'm not sure how often that sort of calculation would end up with 'reasonable' results as I have seen comps where no cuts occur!
What it really shows, to me, is that if a different method of determining CSS is used, then the rate of cuts would have to be assessed too - not <net differential> * <Cat>, but less. That of course would create its on problems - speed of reduction of improvers would be a greater issue.
Basically, you can't just look at CSS alone!
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
okay .. it was speed of improvement that was my main issue
Foxholer
Blackballed
These days, a fast improver - like Juniors who occasionally sprout and get stringer! - can get down pretty quick - ESRs for big scores and a once a week Supplementary can help.
In fact, Congu can be faster to respond to improvement than Slope - which is only updated 1 or 2 times a month.
