CSS's BEHAVING ODDLY

Played a midweek competition last week where the winning score was 36 pts but the CSS for the day changed from 36 pts to 37 pts because quite a few players scored 35's or 36's, so nobody actually even equalled the CSS. The result for me was that my fairly decent, two shots off the pace, 34 pts just meant another 0.1 in my portfolio.
I understand how the CSS is calculated for the day but just thought this seemed a bit quirky.

Sounds to me like they have got it wrong. CSS is based on number of scores better than SSS, if nobody bettered the SSS then I don't see how the CSS can go up.

Unlucky to have gone up 0.1, I'm assuming you are not Cat1 though as your buffer would then only be 1 shot?

34 points from 37 CSS, he could be Cat 2 no and 1 shot outside his buffer?

drive4show wrote:Sounds to me like they have got it wrong. CSS is based on number of scores better than SSS, if nobody bettered the SSS then I don't see how the CSS can go up.

D4S - isn't it based on the number of scores better than (or equal to) SSS + 2?

Davie wrote:

drive4show wrote:Sounds to me like they have got it wrong. CSS is based on number of scores better than SSS, if nobody bettered the SSS then I don't see how the CSS can go up.

D4S - isn't it based on the number of scores better than (or equal to) SSS + 2?

That's what I was thinking and is supported by this:

http://www.congu.com/faqs/css.pdf

Sounds very wrong to me! If no-one has beat the SSS then there is no way under CONGU that CSS should have increased. I'd be having words with the tournament/handicap committee about that one

Was there a lack of cat 1 players in the comp?

Maverick wrote:Sounds very wrong to me! If no-one has beat the SSS then there is no way under CONGU that CSS should have increased. I'd be having words with the tournament/handicap committee about that one

The CSS didn't increase, it was decreased.

There weren't many Cat 1's in the comp so that wouldn't have helped. I'm off 10 so cat 2 and so was 1 shot outside my buffer zone (which was 35 after the CSS change). Apparently, because about 12 of the 40 players scored 35 or 36 points (which meant equalling or bettering SSS +2) the CSS went up one as it was deemed to be playing easier than normal.

Mercurio wrote:

Maverick wrote:Sounds very wrong to me! If no-one has beat the SSS then there is no way under CONGU that CSS should have increased. I'd be having words with the tournament/handicap committee about that one

The CSS didn't increase, it was decreased.

Apologies misread it! Must open eyes when reading.

I hate CSS and anecdotally, I'm far from convinced they have their algorithm remotely correct.

Mercuri

I have been working on the CSS in Stableford terms so it got harder by going from 36pts to 37 pts. You're right though in that if it was a medal rather than a stableford it would have meant a reducion from 69 to 68

Maverick wrote:

Mercurio wrote:

Maverick wrote:Sounds very wrong to me! If no-one has beat the SSS then there is no way under CONGU that CSS should have increased. I'd be having words with the tournament/handicap committee about that one

The CSS didn't increase, it was decreased.

Apologies misread it! Must open eyes when reading.

After reading the original post, I did think it all sounded reasonable to me and couldn't understand why bloxboy thought it was quirky.

Bloxboy wrote:Mercuri

I have been working on the CSS in Stableford terms so it got harder by going from 36pts to 37 pts. You're right though in that if it was a medal rather than a stableford it would have meant a reducion from 69 to 68

It got easier by going from 36 to 37.

What it's saying is that the par stableford score is normally 36, but due to the high number of players who scored par or got within 2 shots of par, the par score increases to 37.

Now I'm confusing myself!!!! When I say it got harder by going from 36 to 37 that really means that the course was deemed to be getting easier. Just harder for me to get those pesky points

Mercurio,
I just thought it was quirky that with the course playing so 'easy' nobody managed to play better than their handicap

Bloxboy wrote:Mercurio,
I just thought it was quirky that with the course playing so 'easy' nobody managed to play better than their handicap

Sorry, yes, that's a fair comment

This is where the CSS system is flawed, as it looks at scores within SSS +2. It should be the SSS and that's it.

JPX wrote:This is where the CSS system is flawed, as it looks at scores within SSS +2. It should be the SSS and that's it.

Yeah, but using the SSS on a day with 20-30 mph winds and rain would not be right, either.

I think it's a very good system. It's not perfect but you'll never get any countrywide system perfect.

Mercurio wrote:

JPX wrote:This is where the CSS system is flawed, as it looks at scores within SSS +2. It should be the SSS and that's it.

Yeah, but using the SSS on a day with 20-30 mph winds and rain would not be right, either.

I think it's a very good system. It's not perfect but you'll never get any countrywide system perfect.

Exactly, so it's harder to hit the SSS, rather than SSS +2 in high winds, no?

JPX wrote:

Mercurio wrote:

JPX wrote:This is where the CSS system is flawed, as it looks at scores within SSS +2. It should be the SSS and that's it.

Yeah, but using the SSS on a day with 20-30 mph winds and rain would not be right, either.

I think it's a very good system. It's not perfect but you'll never get any countrywide system perfect.

Exactly, so it's harder it hit the SSS, rather than SSS +2 in high winds, no?

Yes, but just taking SSS, the chances are that everyone will get 0.1 added to their handicap, even if they've played well, which is unfair.

You've misunderstood, I was talking about the formula that the CSS uses, it looks at scores that are SSS +2, so why +2? Why not just use the scores that come in at SSS to calculate the CSS.

The OP is a perfect example, because there were scores with SSS +2 the CSS went to -1, if it had used scores on SSS then it would probably have stayed at level or even gone to +1, which would be far more realistic.

Maybe the calculation should be done on SSS + (whatever your buffer zone is) ?

My missus had possibly the worst example of its quirks a couple of years ago. The ladies alternate day is Sunday at our club but has very few who play in the comp. This particular day she ended up being the only entrant and shot 3 over her handicap/SSS. Both a little surprised when she got cut.
Actually bought the Congu book to work it out and was correct by the rules which are that if 100% of the field are outside +2 CSS goes up 3 and (the kicker) the stableford rule where big scores on a hole get adjusted down to net double bogey menat she was adjusted down to 2 over handicap, one under CSS, hence the cut.
Like you say it aint perfect but it's what we've got.

JPX wrote:You've misunderstood, I was talking about the formula that the CSS uses, it looks at scores that are SSS +2, so why +2? Why not just use the scores that come in at SSS to calculate the CSS.

The OP is a perfect example, because there were scores with SSS +2 the CSS went to -1, if it had used scores on SSS then it would probably have stayed at level or even gone to +1, which would be far more realistic.

Ah, right. I'm with you.

I certainly think +2 is the maximum. but I'm not sure just SSS is appropriate either - let's split the difference and go +1!

Q. What happens if you get cut but you also have a 7 at a par 4 on your card, which I get a shot at the hole. Does that count as a double bogey at worst for handicap purposes or is it still a 7 as I had a shot at the hole anyway?

If you were receiving 1 shot on that hole it would still count as a 7 for handicap purpose.

Basically all scores get reduced to the lowest score you would score zero on if it were Stableford

Thats what i thought, cheers Davie.

If, hypothetically, the whole field of cat 1 to 3 golfers scored 34 points stableford ie within 2 of SSS (assuming that par and SSS are the same) then CSS would go down one. That means that all cat 1 and 2 players in the field would get 0.1 back because the "par" score would become 37 points and with 1 and 2 shot buffers, no cat 1 or 2 players would have done that. Cat 3 players would be just inside the buffer! Seems strange but there you go.

I guess what they are saying is that if everyone scores 34 points, playing conditions are easy.

If 100% of cat 1 to 3 players got inside SSS+2 surely the CSS would come down more? Or is it limited to a maximum of SSS-1?

Davie

CSS can only go down 1 and up 3 after that it becomes a non-counting qualifier, which means that nobody gets 0.1 back but those below CSS still get cut against CSS+3 (I think)

I think it only becomes non qualifier when over +3, there's no limit under par that I'm aware of. I've certainly played numerous comps where the CSS was -2.

I Wasn't aware of CSS more than -2 makes a non qualifier. Certainly aware of the +3 limit having played in several "blowing a hoolie" opens.

Determining a non qualifier can be a fickle business as well. My Trilby Tour event last week was a non qualifier, basically because they used a mix of tees (mostly White with a couple of blues and a yellow). More bizarrely the 1st round of our club champs was deemed a non qualifier due to non conforming cups (the top of the plastic was too near the green surface).

by JPX Today at 9:10 am


I think it only becomes non qualifier when over +3, there's no limit under par that I'm aware of. I've certainly played numerous comps where the CSS was -2.

You certainly haven't JPX, CSS can only go down a maximum of 1 from SSS, it can never go down by more than 1.

It can also be +3 and a qualifier and +3 and reduction only, depending on how poor the scoring is.

I most certainly have Ralph on more than one occasions.

Par = 70
SSS = 69 (-1)
CSS = 68 (-2)

JPX wrote:I most certainly have Ralph on more than one occasions.

Par = 70
SSS = 69 (-1)
CSS = 68 (-2)

Errr, isn't that only SSS -1?

Yes, I was talking relative to course par, which ralph incorrectly said couldn't happen.

Surely CSS is always calculated relative to SSS (not par) - so his assertion that it can go no lower than -1 is correct?

Yes apologies I have read back, I was referring to course par whereas you were relative to SSS.

SSS -1
CSS -2

Both correct!

jpx
the css can only be between sss-1 and sss+3. it is possible for the css to be sss+3 and counting, or reduction only depending just how poor the scoring is. not sure what the exact requirements are.
i'm up at my away course this week, where the par is 71 and the sss is 69. my hcp is 5 but effectively i'm trying to go out and play off 3 as everyone basically loses 2 shots before they start due to the 'easy' rating of the course. as you're off +1 you'd need to shoot 3 under par for level hcp, 4 under for a 0.1 cut.

Cheers ban_bam

On another note, how is SSS determined? I know it is a assessed but by who? How often etc. I aksed my club this questions as a lot of members are of the opinion that the SSS (-1) is not reflective of the course, they didn't know the last time it was assessed "probably 90's" was the answer.

The SSS should be re-assessed regularly, though don't think there is a set time limit. I know we have had the county assessor round at our place at least twice in the last 5 years.

I have managed to find a copy of the Congu tables that determines the CSS for the day. The field is broken into 3 groups (Cat 1, Cat 2 and Cat 3&4) and the percentage of each category in the field determines the amount of players that need to score in the SSS+2 bracket for SSS to remain where it started. There is a matrix giving all the possible permutations from 100% Cat 1 players (most scratch events I would imagine) to 100% Cat 3/4 players.
In a scratch event with all Cat 1 players, if between 37% and 68% score SSS+2 or better, then CSS will be the same as SSS. If only 10%-15% managed this score the CSS would go up by 3 and if 9% or less scored this the CSS would be plus 3 but reduction only. For the CSS to go to minus 1 69% of players would need to make a score of SSS+2.
In a normal club competition with a mixed entry of say 10% Cat 1, 50% Cat 2 and 40% Cat 3 then CSS=SSS if between 22-43% of the field score SSS+2 or better. 44% or more moves CSS to -1.

It is a bit mind boggling but does make some sort of sense, whether you agree with the whole thing or not. I think it's not so much the SSS+2 bit that's the problem - more the %'s in the table.
Going back to my original post, it is possible, according to this table, for 14 of 33 players to score 35 or 36 points and nudge the CSS down by one shot.

If golf adopted my way there would be no handicaps and this would all be a lot simpler.

I had a few misplaced passes at footie last night, why not just apply a handicap and give my team an extra goal to make up for my lack of ability?

Because golf isn't wussball (thank God)

Just wondering .............. can you do a degree in this ? Sound like you need one to understand it !