Lies, damn lies and statistics

[DappaDonDave]

To summarise, please use paragraphs

To cut a long story short, that was hard to read.

On a lighter note, congrats on the second place.

 

[harpo_72]

Sorry,
sorry,
and thank you.

and no I am not moaning for the sake of it, I was offering up an opinion based on what I see.

 

[Foxholer]

You seldom get pitch mark indentations on good greens

That really is tosh!

Mind you, so is Harpo's comment about the CSS. Or at lest it's self-defeating!

Think of it logically!

If the current CSS style truly produced handicaps that are 'falsely high' then it would be logical to expect more players would actually play to their handicaps than they do. But as that doesn't happen, the assertion must be wrong!

 

[Val]

Sorry,
sorry,
and thank you.

and no I am not moaning for the sake of it, I was offering up an opinion based on what I see.

Are you telling me your club do not base the CSS on they play on the day?

 

[Foxholer]

Par 71, SSS 72

As I posted, Par is relevant because your scoring was Stableford.

What was CSS?

If anything, I believe the current system produces marginally lower handicaps than it should.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

That really is tosh!

Please explain why?

I am talking about bruising, minor mark.......not visible holes.

 

[Ian_S]

I disagree with the statistical manipulation of the CSS and I don't think it reflects the course conditions.

Ahhh intuition, trumps calculated statistics every day.

That said, I do think there's something to changing to a course&slope rating system, and calculating those for each competition to adjust handicaps - but I'm happy with the current system until I gather enough data to prove to myself the new way would be better.

 

[Foxholer]

Please explain why?

I am talking about bruising, minor mark.......not visible holes.

But you simply posted 'seldom get pitch mark indentations'. That covers everything from a barely visible mark to a ball-depth crater!

Then defended that post with garbage about Pros struggling to find them. Pros go straight to their pitch marks. Just watch tonight's final rounds.

So visible dents DO happen on good greens. But I agree, deep holes rarely.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Now that is tosh.
I think my idea of a good green probably is a lot different from yours.

 

[harpo_72]

As I posted, Par is relevant because your scoring was Stableford.

What was CSS?

If anything, I believe the current system produces marginally lower handicaps than it should.

CSS was predicted at 73 when I left it. Which led me to question it all. Suggesting or implying someone is clueless due to their posts is a bit rude I mean I have not dismissed your opinion based on the fact that you usually don't think carefully about your posts and generally offer up aggressive replies to others ...

 

[harpo_72]

Ahhh intuition, trumps calculated statistics every day.

That said, I do think there's something to changing to a course&slope rating system, and calculating those for each competition to adjust handicaps - but I'm happy with the current system until I gather enough data to prove to myself the new way would be better.

i would not have started the thread without looking carefully at what was going on. As for intuition regarding numbers, yes some people can do a bit of maths, stats isn't maths because it doesn't provide a definitive categoric answer and is open to interpretation and manipulation. Hence the thread title ...

 

[Val]

CSS was predicted at 73 when I left it. Which led me to question it all

It's not unsual for a predicted CSS to change once all scores arein and known.

 

[Junior]

CSS is a funny animal and i dont profess to know the ins and outs of it. However, where I play, I've never seen the CSS go up which is strange until someone told me that its actually depended upon the % of golfers who are in the buffer zone, and that increases by the amount of cat 1's who hit the buffer. So in short, if a lot of cat 1 guys buffer, even though the rest of the field struggle, then CSS will more than likely stay the same.

**this is only 2nd hand information from a chap at the club so I stand to be corrected

 

[Val]

CSS is a funny animal and i dont profess to know the ins and outs of it. However, where I play, I've never seen the CSS go up which is strange until someone told me that its actually depended upon the % of golfers who are in the buffer zone, and that increases by the amount of cat 1's who hit the buffer. So in short, if a lot of cat 1 guys buffer, even though the rest of the field struggle, then CSS will more than likely stay the same.

**this is only 2nd hand information from a chap at the club so I stand to be corrected

It's exactly as I understood it too

 

[Foxholer]

It's not unsual for a predicted CSS to change once all scores arein and known.

So it has gone up 1 shot for the conditions. That's pretty much what I would have expected from the sort of conditions and moaning that seems to have gone on (maybe actually SSS+2).

Cat 1 golfers have no more or less influence on CSS than any others - CSS excludes Cat 4 (men) or 5 (Ladies) from the calc. And a really low score doesn't affect it any more than any other either. The importorant stat is 'percentage of nett scores in Category Buffer or better'

 

[Ian_S]

So if par is 71, SSS is 72 then 33-35 pts is your usual cat 2 buffer zone. At SSS 73, cat 2s can score 32-34 pts for buffer and cat 1s 33-34. Both your playing partners were therefore at the top end of their buffer zones, and you were 3 under CSS. Doesn't sound like its a million miles out. If anything, judging by your write up, a cut is almost undeserved for the way you played, suggesting CSS should be lower, not higher.

What do you feel an appropriate CSS would have been?

 

[Foxholer]

stats isn't maths because it doesn't provide a definitive categoric answer and is open to interpretation and manipulation.

:rofl:

 

[harpo_72]

So if par is 71, SSS is 72 then 33-35 pts is your usual cat 2 buffer zone. At SSS 73, cat 2s can score 32-34 pts for buffer and cat 1s 33-34. Both your playing partners were therefore at the top end of their buffer zones, and you were 3 under CSS. Doesn't sound like its a million miles out. If anything, judging by your write up, a cut is almost undeserved for the way you played, suggesting CSS should be lower, not higher.

What do you feel an appropriate CSS would have been?

i scrambled my way round, I turned my front 9 round with a birdie at 6 and then just level golf on that nine, the back nine which is easier I managed to throw some shots away at 10 & 11. I thought it was slipping and managed to pull it back, just missing a birdie on the last. I figured there were lots of people in the same position, it was tricky putts running away down hills etc..
The two other guys were scrambling as well, I have yet to see where the other cat 1s and 2s ended up but there were only two other scores of 36 on the board. One 38 and two 37s, so that's 3 people under par out of 130 ish. So we'll see where it all falls when the howdidido results come in ( as an aside the titleist order of merit is way beyond me! )

 

[Ian_S]

The CSS adjustments are made mostly on SSS+2, so in your comps it's (roughly) percentage of people scoring 33 pts or more thats the important number.

Out of interest, once the results come through I'd be interested to know what the 5th, 10th, 25th and 50th percentile scores are and how they compare to a 'normal' competition's percentiles. In theory, if the CSS method is right they'd be roughly 1 shot lower.

 

[Foxholer]

The CSS adjustments are made mostly on SSS+2, so in your comps it's (roughly) percentage of people scoring 33 pts or more thats the important number.

Out of interest, once the results come through I'd be interested to know what the 5th, 10th, 25th and 50th percentile scores are and how they compare to a 'normal' competition's percentiles. In theory, if the CSS method is right they'd be roughly 1 shot lower.

What do you mean by that?

Appendix B of this document shows how the CSS is calculated. http://www.englandgolf.org/e-brochure/index.html

Btw. Irrespective of how handicaps are calculated, they are just comparative numbers. The Congu one, however, does have a 'goal' which is to make the likelihood of either player of a match between players of differing abilities as close to 50:50 as possible.

The Annual Return Report uses analysis that established that average score is a shot or 2 more than 125% of a player's handicap. That somewhat clashes with the OP's suggestion that handicaps are 'falsely inflated'