Grrrrr - who moved the bloody CSS?

[Lgl]

Who makes up the flipping rules that says a higher handicap affects the outcome of my game?

I'm trying very hard to get to 4 and it seems that no matter what I do I'm thwarted at every turn!

I've played about 12 or more medals at away courses this year in lots of national competitions but am basically happy with them as I started the season on 5 and ended it on 5 even after all my up and down rounds. 

The last 2 weeks I have played a qualifier at my own club. Last Tuesday I played a medal on our green course.  I shot 4 over gross in windy conditions and thought great, that will cut me 0.1 to 4.9.  Wrong, I lost on countback to a high handicapper and the CSS moved one and I stayed the same.

Today I played a stableford on our blue course in even windier conditions.  Scrambled 37 points.  Great.  0.1 down?  NO.  Lost to a high cap on 38 points and the CSS moved again and I'm still 5.0.

Now I have no problem losing the comp, really don't care in the least.  But, I shoot 20% below my handicap in tough conditions twice and how other people play affect what happens to my handicap?

If a 20 handicapper shoots 20% below their handicap (4 shots) and they don't get a cut because a someone with a handicap 4 times higher than them plays well, would that seem fair to you?

Rant over.

 

[Sid]

But in coming down you must have taken advantage of the high handicapper affecting the CSS at some stage, unfotunately it's not a perfect system (that's well documented).

[SkankyShanky]

I thought the system is weighted as well, so the scores from cat 1 players have more effect than those from Cat 3 and 4?

LGL - how did you score compared with other Cat 1 players?

EDIT I guess you must have been the best, but you'd still need hole by hole scores I think. E.g. other cat 1's might have add the odd blow up hole, but on average maybe the holes were playing easier that SSS suggests? I don't know.

[Ant]

Cat 4 aren't counted at all (CAT 5 for women)

[Yanner]

Life fair?  Who said?

[Lgl]

Only one other cat 1 played yesterday and she had 29 points.

The system has only moved the other way for me once this season as far as I can remember.  I played in a Seniors Southern Regional Championship with 80 players, 90% cat 1 and the rest were higher single figures.  I had the lowest gross with 77 (par 73) and got cut 0.2 instead of 0.1.  I still think it owes me!

[Mr2points]

Life fair?  Who said?

There is only one fair thing in golf

and that is the fairway - which the majority of golfer avoid 

[SkankyShanky]

Only one other cat 1 played yesterday and she had 29 points.

No idea then! It does seem weird if few are breaking level 2s

[Stu-Pid]

and that is the fairway - which the majority of golfer avoid 

Depends on how you define 'fairway' I guess...

[Blofeld]

I thought the system is weighted as well, so the scores from cat 1 players have more effect than those from Cat 3 and 4?

There is no weighting or bias towards scores achieved by any handicap category.

All that is done to determine CSS (example for MEN) is (ignoring the scores of cat 4 players)...

1) Calculate the relative proportions of Cat 1, Cat 2 and Cat 3 players in the field.
2) Calculate the percentage of scores returned by the category 1, 2 and 3 players as a whole, which were two over the Standard Scratch Score of the course, or better.
3) Use a look up table to cross reference the calculations in (1) and (2) to determine if any adjustment in CSS is necessary

Another popular misconception is that extremely low nett scores also have an undue effect on CSS....this is not the case....it doesnt matter whether a player shoots a nett 63 or a nett 69....he is still just a single player shooting better than SSS+2.

[SkankyShanky]

is CSS correction done considering scores per hole or just the total score? I guess per hole?

[Blofeld]

is CSS correction done considering scores per hole or just the total score? I guess per hole?

No.

It's based on the 18 hole Nett score v. SSS.

[SkankyShanky]

No.

It's based on the 18 hole Nett score v. SSS.

What if we have 9 scratch players (not Modsquad'ers, obviously ), each player gets 16 pars and 2 double bogies, but no player doubles the same two holes. Then all holes are played in par by 8 out of 9 players, but the nett score is +4.

I don't think CSS should go up in the case, because on average most of the holes play to par by most of the field.

[Blofeld]

What if we have 9 scratch players (not Modsquad'ers, obviously ), each player gets 16 pars and 2 double bogies, but no player doubles the same two holes. Then all holes are played in par by 8 out of 9 players, but the nett score is +4.

I don't think CSS should go up in the case, because on average most of the holes play to par by most of the field.

Just because zero percent of the field played worse than SSS+2 (I take it you are assuming that SSS=PAR) it doesnt necessarily mean that the CSS will go up. You need to take into account that you will have a 100/0/0 percent breakdown between cat 1, 2 and 3 players and look up on the table what that really means in terms of affecting CSS.

If anyone has a CONGU book available and can look up what the appropriate adjustment would be in this scenario.......

[SkankyShanky]

Yes, assuming par=SSS. Note in my case 100% of the field was worse than SSS+2 (they were all +4) not 0%, yet on "average" each hole was played in par by 8/9 players.

It sounds like the real answer is that all the fudging is in the look up table? And I guess they don't say where those numbers come from?