Small field CSS

[scubascuba3]

Had a competition couple of days ago, small field of 6. Conditions were tricky, on a Sat medal would usually produce a CSS of SSS or SSS+1. As 3 of us were within buffer it meant CSS went to SSS-1, which is just not right IMO. So my playing partner will go up .1 even though he shot SSS+1. What this highlights is for a small field it distorts the "normal" CSS so i probably won't play in the comp when a small field is likely.

So in conclusion, i say bring on the new handicap system ASAP.

 

[davemc1]

I have a similar problem week in week out. Difference in the sss though. Meaning you have to hit 39 to get a cut.

Takes a bit of getting used to

 

[scubascuba3]

Sounds like your course's SSS is too high

 

[DCB]

So, on a normal comp day, if half the field buffered, what would you expect the CSS to be ?

 

[scubascuba3]

So, on a normal comp day, if half the field buffered, what would you expect the CSS to be ?

On a normal medal day under the same conditions (100+ field), I'd expect buffer 20-35% of field.

 

[scubascuba3]

So, on a normal comp day, if half the field buffered, what would you expect the CSS to be ?

Daft trick question, just look at the table

 

[rulefan]

So in conclusion, i say bring on the new handicap system ASAP.

What is the new handicap system going to change in that respect?

 

[scubascuba3]

What is the new handicap system going to change in that respect?

I don't know much of the detail as it Isn't available as i can see, but there wouldn't be a CSS. So in my example a fairer outcome on the comp day would have been SSS rather than SSS-1, so the new system would be better.

 

[rulefan]

but there wouldn't be a CSS.

Where did you get that from? Given that 3 of the 4 current major systems have a sort of equivalent it is highly likely that something similar will continue.

 

[scubascuba3]

Where did you get that from? Given that 3 of the 4 current major systems have a sort of equivalent it is highly likely that something similar will continue.

I think i got it from this forum where the new system would most likely be similar to the US slope system, is there a CSS on the day? I'm actually surprised the new system isn't discussed much, maybe it's a secret.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I think i got it from this forum where the new system would most likely be similar to the US slope system, is there a CSS on the day? I'm actually surprised the new system isn't discussed much, maybe it's a secret.

What new system ?

Maybe it's not being discussed because there was been nothing decided on any new system that will be used.

It's quite clear you have a dislike of the current HC system - maybe just play scratch comps then ?

 

[scubascuba3]

What new system ?

Maybe it's not being discussed because there was been nothing decided on any new system that will be used.

It's quite clear you have a dislike of the current HC system - maybe just play scratch comps then ?

That's just silly

 

[rosecott]

Had a competition couple of days ago, small field of 6. Conditions were tricky, on a Sat medal would usually produce a CSS of SSS or SSS+1. As 3 of us were within buffer it meant CSS went to SSS-1, which is just not right IMO. So my playing partner will go up .1 even though he shot SSS+1. What this highlights is for a small field it distorts the "normal" CSS so i probably won't play in the comp when a small field is likely.

So in conclusion, i say bring on the new handicap system ASAP.

I really can't see why you're complaining. If more than around 46% of a normal sized field buffer, CSS is SSS-1. 50% of your small field buffered. Tricky conditions is a bit subjective - 50% in buffer isn't.

 

[scubascuba3]

I really can't see why you're complaining. If more than around 46% of a normal sized field buffer, CSS is SSS-1. 50% of your small field buffered. Tricky conditions is a bit subjective - 50% in buffer isn't.

What this proves is the system doesn't work for small fields. CSS should have been SSS or SSS+1 based on conditions and difficulty. Ended up being CSS-1 due to small field. Funny in a way that my playing partner and i both within buffer was responsible for it going to SSS-1.

 

[Wabinez]

What this proves is the system doesn't work for small fields. CSS should have been SSS or SSS+1 based on conditions and difficulty. Ended up being CSS-1 due to small field. Funny in a way that my playing partner and i both within buffer was responsible for it going to SSS-1.

Surely conditions were not that difficult that a 1/2 of the entered players made buffer. If it was difficult, then 1, possibly 2 making buffer, would prove this. Why was there only a small field?

 

[scubascuba3]

Post just disappeared...not in a million years would a 100+ field with the conditions a couple of days ago produce a CSS of SSS-1. My playing partner and i are cat 1's and 33% of the field, it's just distorted being a small field. You probably wouldn't understand unless youve analysed small field results.

 

[rosecott]

Post just disappeared...not in a million years would a 100+ field with the conditions a couple of days ago produce a CSS of SSS-1. My playing partner and i are cat 1's and 33% of the field, it's just distorted being a small field. You probably wouldn't understand unless youve analysed small field results.

I would hazard a guess that CONGU did analyse small field results before publishing the tables in the manual - or perhaps you could enlighten them with your analysis.

 

[Wabinez]

Post just disappeared...not in a million years would a 100+ field with the conditions a couple of days ago produce a CSS of SSS-1. My playing partner and i are cat 1's and 33% of the field, it's just distorted being a small field. You probably wouldn't understand unless youve analysed small field results.

a 100+ field would bring around so many variables, so of course it wouldn't produce a SSS-1. You can't expect near 50% of of a 100+ field to make buffer. The fact is though, that your small field had less variables, and 3 people who played to near their handicap...so CSS reflects this

I genuinely don't see the point you are complaining about

 

[rulefan]

I think i got it from this forum where the new system would most likely be similar to the US slope system, is there a CSS on the day? I'm actually surprised the new system isn't discussed much, maybe it's a secret.

It will certainly use the Slope system which is why England Golf via the counties are up to their eyes re-rating all 2000 courses under the USGA rating system.

Slope is not about CSS but about having a Course Rating (in effect a SSS) for both scratch and bogey players (ie about 20 hcap).
The Europeans have had Slope fitted in to a CONGU based system for years.

The discussions are mainly concerned with sorting out how to cope with merging the USGA's 'All scores count' with the CONGU and European 'Competition scores' philosophy.

The USGA have already a made a move now by not allowing 'unaccompanied' players to return cards. It may be the first step to a sort of Supplementary Scores procedure.

I doubt we'll see it much before 2020.

 

[Old Skier]

I doubt we'll see it much before 2020.

As they normally work on a 5 year plan that's a given.