SSS: how to add 'one', and other matters

Apparently: Lengthening the course by approximately 180 yards, extending 9 holes by between 5 and 25 yards each, more focussed greenside bunkering either side of long par 3 greens, and some new strategic fairway bunkers to catch the long hitters at 270-300 yards from the back tees, is the answer!

A fairly ambitious project anounced by my away club last week, and something I'm actually quite excited about.

The second hole will be a tough par 4 at approx 440 yards, a better tee shot in my opinion, one which forces a concious decision between 3 wood and driver off the tee due to the location of whin bushes and an existing fairway bunker not currently in play for players of reasonable length. 8 other holes have been ear-marked for extension and the proposals for these look well thought out, with new bunkers tightening up landing and running-in-to areas, requiring the player to be thoughtful of shot selection... The course has always been a toughie off an SSS of 69 and the new proposals including the anticipated new SSS rating of 70, should provide some fun.

One thing of additional interest to me was the confirmation of what the SSS rating actually stands for (as reported by the club):

"Please note that the changes being put forward are to target the scratch golfer both in playing length and difficulty. The SSS is a measure of the playing difficulty of a golf course that a scratch player is expected to return in normal mid-season and weather conditions over a measured course."

Is this really an effective way to measure the difficulty of a course for those of handicaps above scratch? We could assume it would be fairly accurate for lower handicappers, but for those of Category 4 handicaps, for example, I'm not so sure.

I've played with a good friend at Kilspindie and Duddingston several times over the last couple of months. Their SSS ratings are 66 and 72 respectively. His average score has been at least 15 shots a round better at Kilspindie, and therefore the handicap he would have been assigned should he have handed in his cards there would be considerably lower than his actual handicap that he holds at Duddingston... There's something not quite right there with the system!

Would it not be better to make changes to a course with the intention of making a round more enjoyable for more people, without even thinking about sss. If the changes to impact the sss then that is a side note which should be of no concern when designing a course or making changes to one.

I dont understand why you would have a goal of changing the sss?

My home course is a par 70 with SSS of 70 off yellows, 71 off whites and 72 off blue tees. The club mixes the medals between all three tees so three different tests. For me being a very short hitting 5 handicapper the yellows 70 is easier than blue 72 to break my handicap but my mate who is a long hitting 1 handicapper much prefers the blue 72 to break his handicap.

The SSS system is based on 10 measures per hole based on a scratch golfer as you say and must be complex and lengthy. If a similar measure was made for another handicapper then double the work. If the outcome was a different SSS then the whole handicap system stops work.

If we agree the system works and the SSS on different courses are correct for scratch golfer then I would agree some courses will be easier or more difficult for higher handicappers, but the difference should be small provided the course design is based on common sense. Certainly too many long carries to fairways and too many raised greens is to the higher handicappers disadvantage.

I basically can't see a solution unless the system is radically changed. Does the US system not include some grading or slope factor that attempts to fix this problem? Sorry, I don't know the details.

Mac, perhaps because people don't always see things through the rose tinted, yearning of the golf of yesteryear and the romantic connotations with golf course design that you do.

You don't have a handicap, and you don't play competitive golf so of course it doesn't matter to you.

mac, i think the goal is to target scratch players by making the course more hazardous, but also balancing the scoring requirements for the low boys. several low handicap members have joined other clubs to maintain their handicaps, as it can be a very tricky 69 at times.

in my view some of the changes actually reduce the difficulty for higher handicappers (presumably making it more enjoyable for them), with some alternative routing on the long par 3s to encourage some imagination for ball flight and run on entry to the greens.

its an ambitious series of proposals which hopefully will add interest to the course as a whole.

One of my courses is currently slashing back the vegetation/gorse/trees, which presumably will make it a bit easier for the wayward chopper. Perhaps this will impact on a lower SSS for everyone, but directly affects the lower handicap who didn't find themselves in these areas in the first place, therefore shooting a good score, but not getting a handicap reduction may impact the satisfaction/enjoyment quotient of a round.

Not to mention how it affects the aesthetic appeal of the course.

Super,

I agree the SSS is a big factor. Most of my golf was played on a par 71 SSS 69 and now the homecourse par is 70 but SSS of 72 off the back tees.

Makes a huge difference for low handicappers. In the old days trying to hold a scratch or 1 with SSS two less than par on a links course in a breeze was not easy.

In my view having the same par and SSS is best, having one extra shot is okay but having two extra shots or any fewer is not ideal.

super, as the sss is calculated solely on how a scratch golfer plays the course then these areas of change that you mention should not affect the sss rating unless they significantly impact the ease of playing shots. for example, a bunker 20 yards short of a 200 yard par 3 green is entirely discounted from the sss calculation, apparently, so you could remove it and others without impacting the sss rating one jot.

Didn't realise that, ban. Still think an SSS being on parity with Par is the most amenable arrangement. I would never join a club where SSS was two below par.

Ban-Ban,

Even if the SSS does not reduce, if the course becomes easier for higher handicappers then their scores will improve and the playing SSS is more likely to come down a shot until the higher handicapper play enough rounds to correct their handicap.

I suppose SSS isn't really as relevant as CSS for the competitive golfer.

Which handicap brackets influence CSS?

super_realist wrote:Didn't realise that, ban. Still think an SSS being on parity with Par is the most amenable arrangement. I would never join a club where SSS was two below par.

exactly the issue - current: par 71 sss 69.
i have suggested reducing the par on one of the 5s to 4 (borderline at 469 yards) as part of the proposals, to give par=sss=70, but i don't think this is on the cards.

Ban, I also think that it damages the perception of a course. People might think that it indicates a rubbish or easy course. It isn't necessarily true though, but might affect visitor numbers.

For men Cat 1 (up to 5), Cat 2 (6-12) and Cat 3 (13-20) all count. Scores from higher handicappers does not count.

Calculate the percentage of golfers that buffer or better in each category. Note that for Cat 1 the buffer is 1 shot, Cat 2 the buffer is 2 shots and Cat 3 the buffer is 3 shots. Note that decent scores from higher handicappers has a big effect (i.e. a 14 handicapper missing his handicap by 3 shots counts the same as the winner of the handicap medal).

These three percentages are carried into tables and a match if found to one of the tables. Different tables if less than 30 players. I can't find copies of the tables on-line but recall that the percentages differ across categories and the tables are weighted between Categories. The table gives the correction to SSS (e.g. 1 less).

All done by computer now of course. Almost as complicated as the world Rankings!

My old course was one of three clubs playing the same course. Very seldom would each club have the same CSS on any medal day. On a Wednesday medal mainly the keen players played and more often than not the CSS on Wednesday was 1 less than the Saturday even when the weather was the same. I also recall playing scratch evens with all Category 1 players. The CSS was typically higher so always good for the handicap - must be a quirk of the system. A nightmare if you were waiting for one more card and you had to tee it up in a 36 or 72 hole open when the weather was bad.

All this being said, its much, much better than the old system - to get cut a shot you had to break your handicap from either 3 medals in a run of 8 or 4 medals in a run of 12 (I think those were the numbers) all based on a fixed SSS with no allowance for conditions.

Oops. Put one sentance in the wrong paragraph and it made even less sense.

ScottieD18 wrote:For men Cat 1 (up to 5), Cat 2 (6-12) and Cat 3 (13-20) all count. Scores from higher handicappers does not count.

Calculate the percentage of golfers that buffer or better in each category. Note that for Cat 1 the buffer is 1 shot, Cat 2 the buffer is 2 shots and Cat 3 the buffer is 3 shots. Note that decent scores from higher handicappers has a big effect (i.e. a 14 handicapper missing his handicap by 3 shots counts the same as the winner of the handicap medal).

These three percentages are carried into tables and a match if found to one of the tables. Different tables if less than 30 players. I can't find copies of the tables on-line but recall that the percentages differ across categories and the tables are weighted between Categories. The table gives the correction to SSS (e.g. 1 less).

All done by computer now of course. Almost as complicated as the world Rankings!

My old course was one of three clubs playing the same course. Very seldom would each club have the same CSS on any medal day. On a Wednesday medal mainly the keen players played and more often than not the CSS on Wednesday was 1 less than the Saturday even when the weather was the same. I also recall playing scratch evens with all Category 1 players. The CSS was typically higher so always good for the handicap - must be a quirk of the system.

All this being said, its much, much better than the old system - to get cut a shot you had to break your handicap from either 3 medals in a run of 8 or 4 medals in a run of 12 (I think those were the numbers) all based on a fixed SSS with no allowance for conditions. A nightmare if you were waiting for one more card and you had to tee it up in a 36 or 72 hole open when the weather was bad.

ban_bam wrote:

super_realist wrote:Didn't realise that, ban. Still think an SSS being on parity with Par is the most amenable arrangement. I would never join a club where SSS was two below par.

exactly the issue - current: par 71 sss 69.
i have suggested reducing the par on one of the 5s to 4 (borderline at 469 yards) as part of the proposals, to give par=sss=70, but i don't think this is on the cards.

Bear in mind that you can have different SSS for different tees. So for club competitions you might want to have the SSS higher against the par, but for bad weather days, or midweek stuff and visitors you might want the course to be a bit easier with a lower SSS.

The new tees are in and ready for competitive use. First round for me today on the new layout. Quite excited to see how the lengthened holes play. 2,3,4,7,8,11 and 12 have been lengthened by 10-40 yards. New bunkers in play, and some old ones taken out. Should be fun.