Lies, damn lies and statistics

[harpo_72]

Congu itself thinks that its acceptable for 19-28 handicappers to play 5 shots over their handicap. This is mad, it hurts those trying to lower their handicap by increasing the number of players in the buffer zone and thus influencing their calculation of the CSS... Come on if your 5 strokes adrift of your handicap when others aren't, you had a bad day.
Another interesting conversation during the round concerned the scratch league, it was general knowledge that my club had a 2-3 hole advantage for home matches. Plus the 5 handicapper has an American handicap of 1, but I have experienced their system and I am at odds with that as well. Basically it boils down to the fact it is nigh on impossible to equalise handicaps across courses and threads saying stuff like a 19 handicapper took the prizes shooting 8 over par etc, suggest he plays some where harder ...and not necessarily a cheat!

 

[Fish]

Congu itself thinks that its acceptable for 19-28 handicappers to play 5 shots over their handicap. This is mad, it hurts those trying to lower their handicap by increasing the number of players in the buffer zone and thus influencing their calculation of the CSS... Come on if your 5 strokes adrift of your handicap when others aren't, you had a bad day.
Another interesting conversation during the round concerned the scratch league, it was general knowledge that my club had a 2-3 hole advantage for home matches. Plus the 5 handicapper has an American handicap of 1, but I have experienced their system and I am at odds with that as well. Basically it boils down to the fact it is nigh on impossible to equalise handicaps across courses and threads saying stuff like a 19 handicapper took the prizes shooting 8 over par etc, suggest he plays some where harder ...and not necessarily a cheat!

Cat 4's have no influence on the CSS, it is only calculated on the scores from Cat 1's to Cat 3's.

My handicap travels well as I think my home course is a tough test, fair, but testing and as such I do score well away from home, its just one of those things. I'd rather have it that way around than play an easier course and have a unrealistic handicap that I couldn't compete anywhere else.

 

[Ian_S]

What do you mean by that?

It was just to be used as a rule of thumb. If all you knew about a comp was the percentage of players scoring 34 pts or more (or in the OP's case, 33 pts or more, due to SSS being one-over) then you would be able to work out the CSS correctly most of the time.

 

[Ian_S]

Congu itself thinks that its acceptable for 19-28 handicappers to play 5 shots over their handicap. This is mad, it hurts those trying to lower their handicap by increasing the number of players in the buffer zone and thus influencing their calculation of the CSS... Come on if your 5 strokes adrift of your handicap when others aren't, you had a bad day.
Another interesting conversation during the round concerned the scratch league, it was general knowledge that my club had a 2-3 hole advantage for home matches. Plus the 5 handicapper has an American handicap of 1, but I have experienced their system and I am at odds with that as well. Basically it boils down to the fact it is nigh on impossible to equalise handicaps across courses and threads saying stuff like a 19 handicapper took the prizes shooting 8 over par etc, suggest he plays some where harder ...and not necessarily a cheat!

Agree with that and I do think the concept of slope rating is a good one because it's fairly intuitive that two courses might play the same difficulty for a scratch golfer, but completely differently for a bogey golfer (suppose they both had wide fairways and similar greens, so that the scratch golfer is very rarely in trouble, but the penalty for missing the fairway is much higher on one than the other so the bogey golfer, with his wayward driving, will suffer).

An 18 handicap at the 'tougher' course will find his drives go unpunished at the easier course and he'll (probably) shoot well under handicap. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of the 'bandits' come from tougher courses for this very reason.

 

[lyden]

Agree with that and I do think the concept of slope rating is a good one because it's fairly intuitive that two courses might play the same difficulty for a scratch golfer, but completely differently for a bogey golfer (suppose they both had wide fairways and similar greens, so that the scratch golfer is very rarely in trouble, but the penalty for missing the fairway is much higher on one than the other so the bogey golfer, with his wayward driving, will suffer).

An 18 handicap at the 'tougher' course will find his drives go unpunished at the easier course and he'll (probably) shoot well under handicap. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of the 'bandits' come from tougher courses for this very reason.

In my experience someone's congu handicap has always been a good indication of how proficient they are at the game as a whole. For example I'm a 16 and I'm average to poor on all courses.

 

[jp5]

Agree with that and I do think the concept of slope rating is a good one because it's fairly intuitive that two courses might play the same difficulty for a scratch golfer, but completely differently for a bogey golfer (suppose they both had wide fairways and similar greens, so that the scratch golfer is very rarely in trouble, but the penalty for missing the fairway is much higher on one than the other so the bogey golfer, with his wayward driving, will suffer).

An 18 handicap at the 'tougher' course will find his drives go unpunished at the easier course and he'll (probably) shoot well under handicap. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of the 'bandits' come from tougher courses for this very reason.

I don't think you can call someone a bandit who happens to play at a tougher home course. That can only be worth a couple of shots a round max in my opinion, not bandit territory.

 

[Foxholer]

It was just to be used as a rule of thumb. If all you knew about a comp was the percentage of players scoring 34 pts or more (or in the OP's case, 33 pts or more, due to SSS being one-over) then you would be able to work out the CSS correctly most of the time.

Ah, I see. That changed a little while go (2012 I believe) from 'SSS + 2 or better' to 'buffer or better'. So that rule of thumb isn't quite so useful these days.

The US system does tend to result in slightly lower numbers, though that difference surprises my a little.

A couple of question for harpo. Why do you think a Congu handicap is 'inflated'? What are you trying to achieve by having a different system?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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.

My rule of thumb is to keep Emails no longer than the Gettysburg address and paragraphs no longer than the 3rd para of same.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Submitted in solidarity with John from NC

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

...I am not saying my round was brilliant, far from it, what I am saying is that those people who shot 30 -34pts played well under the conditions and the CSS is not respecting that and forcing us into this position of falsely inflated handicaps. I have to say I have little sympathy for those that come on here arguing that they shot a good round and got cut too much ... so please don't offer that as excuse.

Absolutely consistent with the statistical fact that most golfers will score 30-34pt stableford playing their OK game - with 32 being the average (not 36 pts as many seem to think - and in truth the natural thing to think). The tougher the set up and conditions clearly the lower the winning score will be i.e. someone having all the luck run their way - so 37pts does not surprise as a 2nd place score. I'll guess the winning score was 40pts.

 

[harpo_72]

Absolutely consistent with the statistical fact that most golfers will score 30-34pt stableford playing their OK game - with 32 being the average (not 36 pts as many seem to think - and in truth the natural thing to think). The tougher the set up and conditions clearly the lower the winning score will be i.e. someone having all the luck run their way - so 37pts does not surprise as a 2nd place score. I'll guess the winning score was 40pts.

38 pts won the competition.
As for my objective, well I just don't feel the cuts are being applied because we have this CSS regulation which seems to keeping people on their handicap. So we have discussed that cat 4s don't influence the CSS but that still leaves us with the cat 3s who can influence the CSS ( I knew that I could go to single figure rounds if I applied some course management - seriously these guys can if they are sensible!) but they have a 3 shot buffer? ( is it related to the cut number?) So my objective is to get people cut and force them to play to their new handicaps. I don't and perhaps opinions on here differ to mine but I want to see cuts. The buffer zone is too big for it to influence the numbers, apply the buffer after the CSS is calculated and not to use it to influence the CSS.
Hence my feeling that the game has changed and we have better scoring with new equipment and handicap average should have dropped ... But it can only be the CSS calculation that is masking this.

 

[harpo_72]

I don't think you can call someone a bandit who happens to play at a tougher home course. That can only be worth a couple of shots a round max in my opinion, not bandit territory.

Bandit is a generic term over used particularly on this forum, when the issue is the lack of parity between courses and a CSS calculation.

 

[USER1999]

38 pts won the competition.
As for my objective, well I just don't feel the cuts are being applied because we have this CSS regulation which seems to keeping people on their handicap. So we have discussed that cat 4s don't influence the CSS but that still leaves us with the cat 3s who can influence the CSS ( I knew that I could go to single figure rounds if I applied some course management - seriously these guys can if they are sensible!) but they have a 3 shot buffer? ( is it related to the cut number?) So my objective is to get people cut and force them to play to their new handicaps. I don't and perhaps opinions on here differ to mine but I want to see cuts. The buffer zone is too big for it to influence the numbers, apply the buffer after the CSS is calculated and not to use it to influence the CSS.
Hence my feeling that the game has changed and we have better scoring with new equipment and handicap average should have dropped ... But it can only be the CSS calculation that is masking this.

So you want to cut someone who didn't play to their handicap?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So you want to cut someone who didn't play to their handicap?

There is perhaps a case that says 32pts is playing to your general day-to-day ability - but not your handicap. If you want handicap to reflect general day-to-day ability and not your capability then, yes, somone scoring say 34pts would be cut. But handicap is meant to reflect your capability and not your day-to-day scoring.

 

[harpo_72]

The physical number of your handicap is only relevant to the CSS, so if the CSS was set at 31 pts and you scored 33 a cut should result. As it is the CSS is calculated via the buffer zones and hence it's inflated above the general average of play score and those people shooting 33 pts will not receive a cut for what on the day was a good round...
So yeah cut people when they play well, or you will have bandit issues and general cheat comments. The course difficulty should be reflected by the general play average not some nonsense about buffers, those should be applied after the general play average has been calculated.

 

[Foxholer]

38 pts won the competition.
So my objective is to get people cut and force them to play to their new handicaps. I don't and perhaps opinions on here differ to mine but I want to see cuts. The buffer zone is too big for it to influence the numbers, apply the buffer after the CSS is calculated and not to use it to influence the CSS.
Hence my feeling that the game has changed and we have better scoring with new equipment and handicap average should have dropped ... But it can only be the CSS calculation that is masking this.

Re the Bold Bits.
That's certainly not the objective of the Congu Handicap system!

And your approach would still be 'self-defeating'. Cuts would only happen during a settling in period, then the fact that players were off a 'falsely low' handicaps would be reflected in their (nett) scores and the 'CSS'

The Congu system already rates 'handicap' at more than 20% below 'average' score. If that doesn't provide incentive, then explain how an even more sever difference would. And again, if a system rates someone as a '10' when they normally score 16-18 over, it's not going to change them (on average) any more than a system that rates them at 13! The only thing that will be different is the number

Re the Underlined bit.
That's a myth that the OEMs don't want to become widespread. Though the increased length of courses and the greater availability of Golf ill certainly have an effect. As per the title, Stats can indeed be misleading.

 

[Foxholer]

Come on if your 5 strokes adrift of your handicap when others aren't, you had a bad day.

The physical number of your handicap is only relevant to the CSS, so if the CSS was set at 31 pts and you scored 33 a cut should result.

Seems to me that this is a bit of a contradiction!

 

[harpo_72]

Seems to me that this is a bit of a contradiction!

Come come ... 5 shots off the average round suggests you had a bad day! Or does everything have to be spelt out to you, common sense would have worked that out.
your other point makes no sense either, please clarify why everyone would be playing at unobtainable handicaps?

 

[duncan mackie]

The physical number of your handicap is only relevant to the CSS, so if the CSS was set at 31 pts and you scored 33 a cut should result. As it is the CSS is calculated via the buffer zones and hence it's inflated above the general average of play score and those people shooting 33 pts will not receive a cut for what on the day was a good round...
So yeah cut people when they play well, or you will have bandit issues and general cheat comments. The course difficulty should be reflected by the general play average not some nonsense about buffers, those should be applied after the general play average has been calculated.

strange confused thread - but that's normal with such discussions on here

firstly, in the example you have used the CSS has gone up one shot (and therefore come down one stableford point) which reflects a course and conditions playing harder than normal.

you state the course was playing harder than normal

it worked as it's designed and as you seem to be saying it should....but for some reason I don't understand you think that's wrong?

 

[harpo_72]

Incidentally the CSS and handicap change has been posted on howdidido but none of the stats. I was cut by 0.6 and the CSS was 73.

 

[harpo_72]

strange confused thread - but that's normal with such discussions on here

firstly, in the example you have used the CSS has gone up one shot (and therefore come down one stableford point) which reflects a course and conditions playing harder than normal.

you state the course was playing harder than normal

it worked as it's designed and as you seem to be saying it should....but for some reason I don't understand you think that's wrong?

i don't think it moved enough to reflect the scoring on the day, due to the calculation method.