Handicap/css query

FixdePitchmark

Lads - if I had a ND of 6 - any reason why Golfnet is not showing a handicap adjustment - it is showing HA = 0

Confused - should be a 0.1 .

kieran.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Lads - if I had a ND of 6 - any reason why Golfnet is not showing a handicap adjustment - it is showing HA = 0

Confused - should be a 0.1 .

Possibly a reductions only competition?

FixdePitchmark

kieran. wrote: »

Possibly a reductions only competition?

Well was an Open - reductions only - why would that be ?

Conditions were hard and very few got over 35.

kieran.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well was an Open - reductions only - why would that be ?

Conditions were hard and very few got over 35.

In extreme conditions where the CCS is SSS +3 and scoring is unusually difficult the competition can become downward handicap reductions only.

agusta

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well was an Open - reductions only - why would that be ?

Conditions were hard and very few got over 35.

What does it say under event type "TYP" ie, QRS- qualifying reduction only stableford

FixdePitchmark

agusta wrote: »

What does it say under event type "TYP" ie, QRS- qualifying reduction only stableford

Yes - you got it says - NSH.

Was non qualifiying for some reason ?

agusta

A competition where application of the CSS calculation determines that the competition is Reduction only.How that calculation is done by the computer i have no idea.Although im thinking is has something to do with the amount of players playing i.e low numbers and a kieran said course playing extremely hard [or too many 0.1 builders playing i.e in an open singles competition ]
For example if i club runs an open singles and 20 players play.19 of them are only playing to collect a 0.1,the other guy thats trying shoots 35 pts,the highest score in the field.id be fairly sure in this case it would be non qualifying event

FixdePitchmark

agusta wrote: »

A competition where application of the CSS calculation determines that the competition is Reduction only.How that calculation is done by the computer i have no idea.Although im thinking is has something to do with the amount of players playing i.e low numbers and a kieran said course playing extremely hard [or too many 0.1 builders playing i.e in an open singles competition ]
For example if i club runs an open singles and 20 players play.19 of them are only playing to collect a 0.1,the other guy thats trying shoots 35 pts,the highest score in the field.id be fairly sure in this case it would be non qualifying event

It was very hard due to wind.

I'd say your onto something - reducing only. SO many people made a balls of it - me included.

PARlance

agusta wrote: »

A competition where application of the CSS calculation determines that the competition is Reduction only.How that calculation is done by the computer i have no idea.Although im thinking is has something to do with the amount of players playing i.e low numbers and a kieran said course playing extremely hard [or too many 0.1 builders playing i.e in an open singles competition ]
For example if i club runs an open singles and 20 players play.19 of them are only playing to collect a 0.1,the other guy thats trying shoots 35 pts,the highest score in the field.id be fairly sure in this case it would be non qualifying event

Course was playing hard, wind was up but not a gale.
Winner had 39 points (CAT 4), I was 3rd (joint 2nd) with 36 and fourth had 35.
59 entrants.

I was told CSS was 33. Will I get my cut Augusta?
Won't be a happy camper if not.
Was delighted with it.

FixdePitchmark

PARlance wrote: »

Course was playing hard, wind was up but not a gale.
Winner had 39 points (CAT 4), I was 3rd (joint 2nd) with 36 and fourth had 35.
59 entrants.

I was told CSS was 33. Will I get my cut Augusta?
Won't be a happy camper if not.
Was delighted with it.

PARlance

But at least there's the consolation of beating a 7 Handicapper, in strokes, on his home course......

FixdePitchmark

PARlance is the new Tones.

Flying down.

The bandit basher - bandit.

agusta

PARlance wrote: »

Course was playing hard, wind was up but not a gale.
Winner had 39 points (CAT 4), I was 3rd (joint 2nd) with 36 and fourth had 35.
59 entrants.

I was told CSS was 33. Will I get my cut Augusta?
Won't be a happy camper if not.
Was delighted with it.

I couldnt see how CSS could be that low,i could be wrong.If it was you would be cut.Un fortunately you were 3rd,not joint 2nd:),It would be very rare to get a joint 2nd.I finished 3rd in a presidents prize once with 40pts.In my eyes at the time i was joint 1st.Top 3 had 40 pts.I was beaten for 1st on the back 9,beaten for 2nd on the back 6,My brother won it!,The pain of it,I came 3rd

PARlance

agusta wrote: »

I couldnt see how CSS could be that low,i could be wrong.If it was you would be cut.Un fortunately you were 3rd,not joint 2nd:),It would be very rare to get a joint 2nd.I finished 3rd in a presidents prize once with 40pts.In my eyes i was joint 1st.Top 3 had 40 pts.I was beaten for 1st on the back 9,beaten for 2nd on the back 6,My brother won it!,The pain of it

Thanks, I called the club and they said it was 33.
I've been cut with a 34 before so it wouldn't be the first time.

And I said 3rd joint second was in brackets to illustrate that we both had 36
Only 4 out of 59 entrants scored 35 or higher so I've no reason to doubt that CSS was 33.
Past results on their site show plenty of 74 's... SSS 71.... Links course with wind up, prob varies more than a parkland.

agusta

PARlance wrote: »

Thanks, I called the club and they said it was 33.
I've been cut with a 34 before so it wouldn't be the first time.

And I said 3rd joint second was in brackets to illustrate that we both had 36
Only 4 out of 59 entrants scored 35 or higher so I've no reason to doubt that CSS was 33.
Past results on their site show plenty of 74 's... SSS 71.... Links course with wind up, prob varies more than a parkland.

Well done.ive never seen a 33 CSS before.You have earned a nice cut so

Arsenium

agusta wrote: »

Well done.ive never seen a 33 CSS before.You have earned a nice cut so

Did Fix not say it was NSH - non qualifying stableford home? So no cut? Reductions only would be QRO?

agusta

Arsenium wrote: »

Did Fix not say it was NSH - non qualifying stableford home? So no cut? Reductions only would be QRO?

I forgot it was NSH.

Barnaboy

The stats below are from our members comp on Sunday. From looking at the results I'm staggered that the CSS wasn't lower. Only 1 person in a field of 67 beat the SSS and only by one shot too!

SSS 71, CSS 71
Cat 1: 13 (0 beat SSS, 1 equalled)
Cat 2: 17 (1 beat, 1 equalled)
Cat 3: 14 (0 beat, 0 equalled)
Cat 4: 23 (0 beat, 1 equalled)

Surely this can't be right? Have I provided enough info for someone in the know to calculate the CSS?

charlieIRL

Barnaboy wrote: »

The stats below are from our members comp on Sunday. From looking at the results I'm staggered that the CSS wasn't lower. Only 1 person in a field of 67 beat the SSS and only by one shot too!

SSS 71, CSS 71
Cat 1: 13 (0 beat SSS, 1 equalled)
Cat 2: 17 (1 beat, 1 equalled)
Cat 3: 14 (0 beat, 0 equalled)
Cat 4: 23 (0 beat, 1 equalled)

Surely this can't be right? Have I provided enough info for someone in the know to calculate the CSS?

I dont feel as bad now!!

Carpo86

Barnaboy wrote: »

The stats below are from our members comp on Sunday. From looking at the results I'm staggered that the CSS wasn't lower. Only 1 person in a field of 67 beat the SSS and only by one shot too!

SSS 71, CSS 71
Cat 1: 13 (0 beat SSS, 1 equalled)
Cat 2: 17 (1 beat, 1 equalled)
Cat 3: 14 (0 beat, 0 equalled)
Cat 4: 23 (0 beat, 1 equalled)

Surely this can't be right? Have I provided enough info for someone in the know to calculate the CSS?

I think the number of players in the buffer also has an impact, albeit that does seem strange.

Arsenium

Is the CSS calculation not printed out on the noticeboard beside the competition results? I've notice that in quite few places which is very handy. Albeit I stopped trying to understand it.

You would however need to be in the locker room for it to be any use to you...sorry.