Cat 4 effect on CSS

Alrite Chief

How do you guys think this will effect CSS in general? In 2016 Cat 4 cards will be included in the Cat 3 entries to make up the CSS.

I discussed this with a couple people over the weekend. One believes we could start to see a lot more cuts as the higher h/c guys are less likely, in general, to hit the SSS buffer. Its a fair assumption given a higher h/c player will have more really bad rounds. Another believes with Cat 4 golfers allowed 4 shots net diff they find it easier to hit the buffer. Which is also true.

If you weight up the two theories I'm half wondering will it make a difference at all?

First Up

Alrite Chief wrote: »

How do you guys think this will effect CSS in general? In 2016 Cat 4 cards will be included in the Cat 3 entries to make up the CSS.

I discussed this with a couple people over the weekend. One believes we could start to see a lot more cuts as the higher h/c guys are less likely, in general, to hit the SSS buffer. Its a fair assumption given a higher h/c player will have more really bad rounds. Another believes with Cat 4 golfers allowed 4 shots net diff they find it easier to hit the buffer. Which is also true.

If you weight up the two theories I'm half wondering will it make a difference at all?

Surely if they don't hit the buffer (which I assume would usually be 32) they get a .1 back - not a cut?
If the system works for Cats 1,2 and 3, it ought to work for Cat 4 too - the odd bandit notwithstanding.

spacecoyote

First Up wrote: »

Surely if they don't hit the buffer (which I assume would usually be 32) they get a .1 back - not a cut?
If the system works for Cats 1,2 and 3, it ought to work for Cat 4 too - the odd bandit notwithstanding.

I think that he meant that it will be easier for others to get cuts, as the large portion of cat 4s missing buffers would lower the CSS

First Up

Would that be enough to influence the CSS? Thought that was based on gross scores but I'm not an expert.

Hoof Hearted2

First Up wrote: »

Would that be enough to influence the CSS? Thought that was based on gross scores but I'm not an expert.

No it's not based on gross scores, it's slightly complicated but the easiest way to explain it is this, the field is essentially split into two, those that hit the buffer or beat SSS and those that miss their buffer.

Back to the OP, I think the change coming on Jan 1st is a good one, it never seemed right that a players score was totally disregarded based on his HC category, it'll be interesting to see what if any effect it will have on CSS, but whatever the outcome it will be a truer reflection of the field that play on that particular day.

First Up

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

No it's not based on gross scores, it's slightly complicated but the easiest way to explain it is this, the field is essentially split into two, those that hit the buffer or beat SSS and those that miss their buffer.

Back to the OP, I think the change coming on Jan 1st is a good one, it never seemed right that a players score was totally disregarded based on his HC category, it'll be interesting to see what if any effect it will have on CSS, but whatever the outcome it will be a truer reflection of the field that play on that particular day.

So its on the percentage of the field in each group or something like that? I heard it explained once by I forget the details.
The CSS hardly ever varies in our place - 74, 72 or 71 depending on which tees.
I'd be surprised if the Cat4 change made any difference but I'm open to correction. A fair few Cat4's tend to be already maxed out on 28 anyway.

big_drive

is this to do with mens handicaps increasing their max to 36?

PARlance

First Up wrote: »

So its on the percentage of the field in each group or something like that? I heard it explained once by I forget the details.
The CSS hardly ever varies in our place - 74, 72 or 71 depending on which tees.
I'd be surprised if the Cat4 change made any difference but I'm open to correction. A fair few Cat4's tend to be already maxed out on 28 anyway.

Three main things needed to calculate CSS
1. The % of the field* (Cat 1-3, excluding 4) shooting SSS +2 or better. Some people say it's buffers or better but I don't think that's the case. E.g. 21% of field.
2. The % split of the field in terms of Categories 1 & 2. These are rounded to nearest 10%. E.G Cat 1 =30% Cat 2 = 20%
3. Congu Table.

Once you have these 3 figures:
21% of field* shooting SSS +2 or better
Cat 1 = 30%
Cat 2 = 20%
Then you just go to the Congu CSS table and it will spit out a result. The CSS would be SSS +1 based on that example.

The inclusion of Cat 4's will give a fairer reflection as now the whole field is included. It will probably drag down the % of the field shooting SSS +2 or better. The 21% above may go to 18% for e.g.

But the % of Cat 1's and 2's are the main driver. If they were the same as above, CSS would still be SSS +1.

Perfect way to spend lunch.

The change won't have any drastic effects on CSS. An educated guess would say that CSS will lower in general on average, over a year. But there shouldn't be much drastic changes.

slave1

Wherever we're seeing Reductions Only comps we're going to see a lot more IMHO and wherever we're close to RO comps they are going to start coming into play IMHO

First Up

PARlance wrote: »

Three main things needed to calculate CSS
1. The % of the field* (Cat 1-3, excluding 4) shooting SSS +2 or better. Some people say it's buffers or better but I don't think that's the case. E.g. 21% of field.
2. The % split of the field in terms of Categories 1 & 2. These are rounded to nearest 10%. E.G Cat 1 =30% Cat 2 = 20%
3. Congu Table.

Once you have these 3 figures:
21% of field* shooting SSS +2 or better
Cat 1 = 30%
Cat 2 = 20%
Then you just go to the Congu CSS table and it will spit out a result. The CSS would be SSS +1 based on that example.

The inclusion of Cat 4's will give a fairer reflection as now the whole field is included. It will probably drag down the % of the field shooting SSS +2 or better. The 21% above may go to 18% for e.g.

But the % of Cat 1's and 2's are the main driver. If they were the same as above, CSS would still be SSS +1.

Perfect way to spend lunch.

The change won't have any drastic effects on CSS. An educated guess would say that CSS will lower in general on average, over a year. But there shouldn't be much drastic changes.

Thanks. Yes, I remember now - it was complicated.

Hoof Hearted2

First Up wrote: »

So its on the percentage of the field in each group or something like that? I heard it explained once by I forget the details.
The CSS hardly ever varies in our place - 74, 72 or 71 depending on which tees.
I'd be surprised if the Cat4 change made any difference but I'm open to correction. A fair few Cat4's tend to be already maxed out on 28 anyway.

Once you get into the finer detail, yes it's based on the % playing in each category and their performance in relation to their buffer. It's all available in the CONGU UHS manual, although you'd nearly need a masters in maths to understand most of it.

big_drive wrote: »

is this to do with mens handicaps increasing their max to 36?

No, mens max HC is staying at the current 28, but this may change down the line when there is a move to standardise the golf HC system worldwide.

Hoof Hearted2

PARlance wrote: »

Three main things needed to calculate CSS
1. The % of the field* (Cat 1-3, excluding 4) shooting SSS +2 or better. Some people say it's buffers or better but I don't think that's the case. E.g. 21% of field.
2. The % split of the field in terms of Categories 1 & 2. These are rounded to nearest 10%. E.G Cat 1 =30% Cat 2 = 20%
3. Congu Table.

Once you have these 3 figures:
21% of field* shooting SSS +2 or better
Cat 1 = 30%
Cat 2 = 20%
Then you just go to the Congu CSS table and it will spit out a result. The CSS would be SSS +1 based on that example.

The inclusion of Cat 4's will give a fairer reflection as now the whole field is included. It will probably drag down the % of the field shooting SSS +2 or better. The 21% above may go to 18% for e.g.

But the % of Cat 1's and 2's are the main driver. If they were the same as above, CSS would still be SSS +1.

Perfect way to spend lunch.

The change won't have any drastic effects on CSS. An educated guess would say that CSS will lower in general on average, over a year. But there shouldn't be much drastic changes.

Below is copied and pasted from CONGU UHS manual, with the important bit underlined and in bold.


The mechanics of the CSS calculation are:

• Establish the composition of the of the 'field' as a percentage of each handicap category excluding category 4 for men and category 5 for ladies.

e.g 10% Cat.1 50% Cat.2 40% Cat.3[+ Cat.4 for ladies]

• Establish the percentage of the 'field' (Cat.1 + Cat.2 + Cat.3[Cat.4] with a net score within their respective Buffer Zones, or better e.g. 20%
• Refer to Table A in Appendix B, and if appropriate Table B
• Using this example, the CSS would be the SSS+1

PARlance

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

Below is copied and pasted from CONGU UHS manual, with the important bit underlined and in bold.


The mechanics of the CSS calculation are:

• Establish the composition of the of the 'field' as a percentage of each handicap category excluding category 4 for men and category 5 for ladies.

e.g 10% Cat.1 50% Cat.2 40% Cat.3[+ Cat.4 for ladies]

• Establish the percentage of the 'field' (Cat.1 + Cat.2 + Cat.3[Cat.4] with a net score within their respective Buffer Zones, or better e.g. 20%
• Refer to Table A in Appendix B, and if appropriate Table B
• Using this example, the CSS would be the SSS+1

The attached Congu pdf says SSS +2.

Perhaps they have since clarified your quote above. If the CSS has yet to be established, then there cannot be any buffer zones.

Hoof Hearted2

PARlance wrote: »

The attached Congu pdf says SSS +2.

Perhaps they have since clarified your quote above. If the CSS has yet to be established, then there cannot be any buffer zones.

Sorry can't open that attachment for some reason.
Buffer zones are calculated in relation to SSS not CSS and are fixed and never change. e.g. SSS is 70 on a par 71 course, the SSS is 37 stableford points, then the buffer for a Cat.1 golfer is SSS +1 or 71 nett or 36pts stableford, and for a Cat.2 it's SSS+2, 72 nett or 35pts, Cat.3 it's SSS+3, 73 nett or 34pts, Cat.4 it's SSS+4, 74 or 33pts.

PARlance

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

Sorry can't open that attachment for some reason.
Buffer zones are calculated in relation to SSS not CSS and are fixed and never change. e.g. SSS is 70 on a par 71 course, the SSS is 37 stableford points, then the buffer for a Cat.1 golfer is SSS -1 or 71 nett or 36pts stableford, and for a Cat.2 it's SSS-2, 72 nett or 35pts, Cat.3 it's SSS-3, 73 nett or 34pts, Cat.4 it's SSS-4, 74 or 33pts.

CAT 1 Golfer playing on SSS 37 points.
They shoot 35 points.
CSS is 34 points.
What happens their HC?

First Up

PARlance wrote: »

CAT 1 Golfer playing on SSS 37 points.
They shoot 35 points.
CSS is 34 points.
What happens their HC?

They would be cut I would imagine but how often would the CSS be three shots worse than the SSS?

Hoof Hearted2

PARlance wrote: »

CAT 1 Golfer playing on SSS 37 points.
They shoot 35 points.
CSS is 34 points.
What happens their HC?

In that example he gets cut .1, not sure what your point is though?.
Getting back to your attachment above, where did you pull that from?.

Edit to say: I assume you pulled it from CONGU websites FAO's, that more than likely relates only to the other 3 countries in CONGU, there is an Irish only version of the UHS and my extract above was pulled from the GUI website, so I'd fairly certain that it's up to date and correct for the GUI.

PARlance

First Up wrote: »

They would be cut I would imagine but how often would the CSS be three shots worse than the SSS?

Happens a fair bit with Links golf when the wind is up.

First Up

PARlance wrote: »

Happens a fair bit with Links golf when the wind is up.

Maybe so. If its that bad they usually close the course because balls are moving on the greens!

PARlance

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

In that example he gets cut .1, not sure what your point is though?.
Getting back to your attachment above, where did you pull that from?.

Edit to say: I assume you pulled it from CONGU websites FAO's, that more than likely is a relates only to the other 3 countries in CONGU, there is an Irish only version of the UHS and my extract above was pulled from the GUI website, so I'd fairly certain that it's up to date and correct for the GUI.

My point is that there cannot be a buffer zone without the calculation of a CSS.

Yes he gets cuts 0.1.
In your explanation of a buffer zone above, you say it's based on SSS and that Cat 1's buffer zone is 36-37 points. That's not the case. Buffer zones are based on net differential from CSS.
He shoots 35 (1 less than his buffer zone in your view) and gets cut 0.1.

PARlance

First Up wrote: »

Maybe so. If its that bad they usually close the course because balls are moving on the greens!

I've played plenty of comps with CSS of 33 and it doesn't need to be balls moving off green type gales.

Hoof Hearted2

PARlance wrote: »

My point is that there cannot be a buffer zone without the calculation of a CSS.

Yes he gets cuts 0.1.
In your explanation of a buffer zone above, you say it's based on SSS and that Cat 1's buffer zone is 36-37 points. That's not the case. Buffer zones are based on net differential from CSS.
He shoots 35 (1 less than his buffer zone in your view) and gets cut 0.1.

Did you read the edit of my post above?, there is an Irish only version of the UHS, and it contains a number of different rules that are unique to Ireland only.
That version can be found on golfnet.


I think your understanding of the buffers is slightly foggy, there are two elements to buffers zones, one which is fixed and is directly linked to SSS(as per my post above) and the second one is used for HC adjustments which is calculated against CSS. In your example above the Cat.1 golfer missed his buffer in relation to SSS but the scoring by the field was so bad that the CSS was calculated at SSS+3 so in terms of the scoring on that particular day he was still better then most and rightly got cut .1

Hoof Hearted2

First Up wrote: »

Maybe so. If its that bad they usually close the course because balls are moving on the greens!

PARlance wrote: »

I've played plenty of comps with CSS of 33 and it doesn't need to be balls moving off green type gales.

You'd see it happening in scratch cups fairly frequently, especially when you have a CSS calculated for away players, and conditions wouldn't have to be that poor for that situation to occur.

First Up

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

You'd see it happening in scratch cups fairly frequently, especially when you have a CSS calculated for away players, and conditions wouldn't have to be that poor for that situation to occur.

Fair enough. I think I remember one CSS of 34 but don't think I ever played in a 33. Probably means I wimped out.

PARlance

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

Did you read the edit of my post above?, there is an Irish only version of the UHS, and it contains a number of different rules that are unique to Ireland only.
That version can be found on golfnet.


I think your understanding of the buffers is slightly foggy, there are two elements to buffers zones, one which is fixed and is directly linked to SSS(as per my post above) and the second one is used for HC adjustments which is calculated against CSS. In your example above the Cat.1 golfer missed his buffer in relation to SSS but the scoring by the field was so bad that the CSS was calculated at SSS+3 so in terms of the scoring on that particular day he was still better then most and rightly got cut .1

My understanding of a buffer zone is the zone in which you will have no adjustment (up or down) and it's in relation to CSS. I would guess that 99% of golfers think the same when they talk about the buffer zone.

Given that SSS and CSS can vary, using the term buffer zone for both only leads to fog.

Hoof Hearted2

PARlance wrote: »

My understanding of a buffer zone is the zone in which you will have no adjustment (up or down) and it's in relation to CSS. I would guess that 99% of golfers think the same when they talk about the buffer zone.

Given that SSS and CSS can vary, using the term buffer zone for both only leads to fog.

To be fair I did say above it's complicated and the more you try to explain it the more detail you have to go into the more scope there is for misunderstanding, but the starting point for calculating CSS is based on how many players hit their buffer relative to their category in relation to SSS, and that isn't based on SSS+2 as you stated above, but on the transcript I posted above from the current UHS relating to Ireland only.

Alrite Chief

Can anyone tell me who sets the course's SSS? GUI or the committee? It seems to drastically effect CSS in our place. Off the whites SSS is 71 but off the yellows its 69 (Par 72 course). Is a 2 shot difference normal between tees?

If the comp is set off the yellows we get a CSS of 38 points regularly. Bloody impossible to get a cut. The away CSS on an open day might be 36 points.

Earlier in the thread it was suggested the CSS was based on the field hitting their buffer based on the SSS. Surely the computer doesn't spit out CSS's of 38 points if you need to be shooting a better stableford score than your h/c from the start.

Russman

Alrite Chief wrote: »

Can anyone tell me who sets the course's SSS? GUI or the committee? It seems to drastically effect CSS in our place. Off the whites SSS is 71 but off the yellows its 69 (Par 72 course). Is a 2 shot difference normal between tees?

If the comp is set off the yellows we get a CSS of 38 points regularly. Bloody impossible to get a cut. The away CSS on an open day might be 36 points.

Earlier in the thread it was suggested the CSS was based on the field hitting their buffer based on the SSS. Surely the computer doesn't spit out CSS's of 38 points if you need to be shooting a better stableford score than your h/c from the start.

It's the GUI that set the SSS. We had it a few years ago in my club when we built a couple of new holes, they sent up a delegation to inspect and give a new SSS. They hadn't been up in many years and turns out with the 2 new holes and the maturing over the years the SSS went from 37pts off the back tees to 35pts.

Senna

I don't trust the css score in my club at all, I can normally tell you exactly what it will be before the comp is even played. Saturday always 36, Sunday always 37, based on changed tees. I played in a away comp a few weeks ago, had an OK score so though I might get cut so look up winning scores, there was 10 players 36+ and the css was 35, pervious week comp in my club was almost exact scoring, 10 player 36+, handicap spread about the same, but css 37 again.

I know css has a lot of variables but should that not mean it changes regularly.

spacecoyote

Russman wrote: »

It's the GUI that set the SSS. We had it a few years ago in my club when we built a couple of new holes, they sent up a delegation to inspect and give a new SSS. They hadn't been up in many years and turns out with the 2 new holes and the maturing over the years the SSS went from 37pts off the back tees to 35pts.

Yeah, an aunty of my wife is on some GUI committee that travel to courses setting ladies indexes & looking at SSS. sounds like a great number

Kingswood Rover

Russman wrote: »

It's the GUI that set the SSS. We had it a few years ago in my club when we built a couple of new holes, they sent up a delegation to inspect and give a new SSS. They hadn't been up in many years and turns out with the 2 new holes and the maturing over the years the SSS went from 37pts off the back tees to 35pts.

Thats odd, you would think with the trees getting bigger and more dense that the SS would have gone up.

Russman

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

Thats odd, you would think with the trees getting bigger and more dense that the SS would have gone up.

It did go up.....?

From 68 as a par 69 course, to 71 as a par 70.

Kingswood Rover

Russman wrote: »

It did go up.....?

From 68 as a par 69 course, to 71 as a par 70.

Yep it sure did Russ am deffo losing it.