The mystery of the CSS calculation

I'm sure some of you golfing scholars will shed light on this one for me...how exactly is the CSS calculated.
Motive for asking being that I had a really solid round at the weekend. 40 points (off 7) consisting of 2 birdies, 2 bogeys, 13 pars and a...Cough... Triple. So 3 over gross.
Lost div 1 on countback. Was expecting a 0.8 cut but only got 0.4
par 72 SSS 71 but CSS was 70 that day. I also thought Triples got rounded down to doubles for hcp workings (I'm now assuming as it was S.I. 2 I messed up that it's net doubles). But remain perplexed at how CSS is calculated.

From CONGU:

For Men; Discount all scores returned by category 4 players (handicaps 21 to 28), for Ladies; Discount all scores returned by category 5 players (handicaps 29 to 36)
Calculate the percentage of players who competed in the competition in each of categories 1, 2 and 3 [and 4 for Ladies],
Calculate the percentage of scores returned by the category 1, 2 and 3 [and 4] players which were two over the Standard Scratch Score of the course, or better.
Use the percentages from (2) and (3) to determine the Competition Scratch Score by referring to a table supplied by CONGU for the purpose.



I could probably find the table if you wanted... but it all has to be done on a computer now anyway.

It certainly is a black art, JAS. I've asked many times in different places and never got a complete answer, but I have at least a partial understanding now. The catch is that it's all driven off some magic table that only seems to be available in the CONGU handbook. Can't find a copy of it online anywhere! (I guess it's copyrighted or something).

Basically, first you must know if it was a competition open to all handicaps or restricted to certain categories. If it is open to all then the first thing they do is discard all Cat4 players' scores when calculating CSS.

Shot adjustment for handicap purposes is done to reduce any score to the lowest score where you wouldn't have scored a stableford point. So if you don't get a shot on a hole it is reduced to double-bogey, if you do get a shot it's reduced to triple (I think).

Next they take the percentage of the remaining players who have equalled or bettered SSS + 2 (after the above adjustment). That percentage is then looked up in the mystery table which gives a cross reference to how many shots the CSS will be + or - of the SSS.

So without having access to the CONGU handbook it is impossible to know what the calculated CSS will be, though the above info may go some way to explaining why the CSS is lower or higher than you expected.

It can work both ways. I have played in a couple of C medals (cat 3 and 4 only) where the CSS has come out really unexpectedly.

One was played in very difficult conditions where the winner was only level with the CSS (won on countback after 3 or 4 tied on that score). Yet when the Cat 4 players were discarded from the calculations, there were enough on that level par mark to bring the percentage up enough that the CSS was reduced! (i.e. the CSS was lower than SSS even though the SSS wasn't beaten on the day).

Conversely there was another C Medal that was won by a cat4 player who shot around 7 under CSS with quite a few other scores under SSS, yet as many cat4 scores were discarded for calculation purposes, the CSS was set at equal to SSS!

Strange workings....

(edited as I see LJ has provided a similar answer while I was typing it all out!

Completley baffles me, and the wife was informed recently that she was being cut by 1.5 because of a comp' that happened weeks ago. After the comp she was cut 0.5 only to find out much later that there was a chicken-up due to CSS for that event?

Now I always thought that this was done after the cards were back in, and using the CONGU system which would automatically adjust handicaps?

If this is correct, then obviously some numpty entered wrong values somewhere. She finished up coming 2nd on countback, but when weeks later she was given the extra cut, she of course didn't get her winnings because it had been given to someone else.

When I was competition secretary, I was grateful for the computer programme which did it for me! It's certainly a black art as far as I'm concerned - and the majority of club golfers, too. Makes me wonder, when people say they work out their own handicaps, do they take the CSS into consideration or do they just go by the par of the course?

I do sympathise with Mrs Doc. I lot of ladies seem to find it impossible to enter their scores on a computer screen without making a mistake. I ended up with a lot of grey hairs trying to sort out their mistakes.

It starts getting nasty when you have to take into account the CSS, buffer zones, hole adjustments to scores and the like.

It's not impossible to do it manually... but it does take a dogs age to get it right.

As for people maintaining their own handicaps... I think they do it to par without even a reference to SSS let alone CSS

[As for people maintaining their own handicaps... I think they do it to par without even a reference to SSS let alone CSS[/quote]

LJ 100% correct. I've just mentioned on another thread about fannying about last year sorting my h/c out as i had only done 2 QC's, so lapsed. Put 3-cards in and thought great, I'm going to be playing off 13 or 14. New handicap came through at 17.4. Asked why and was told that gone are the days when 3-cards are averaged out, its all down to CONGU and CSS. So I accepted it and thought to myself, 'have they checked what the SS was for each of those 3 dates, or have they just whacked it in and used the data for that particular date they logged it. 2 of the 3 rounds were in wet, blustery conditions and I played really well. Don't get it.

When your handicap laspes I thought you played in events which are not requiring an active handicap. That this was used in a standard manner to your current lapsed handicap and the adjustments were standardised to those. And then it was just re-activated.

If there were a major discrepancy between your re-activation scores and your lapsed handicap then clause 23 of the CONGU is invoked for a reduction.

Well there you go LJ, even more confusion. As it happened, I was able to use the scores from the 2 QC's I'd played and then hand in 3 more cards??

Same thing was going to happen this year, as again I'd only played in 2QC's, which is why I contacted ny away club. They confirmed that I could play in a QC, have the card entered onto my away clubs CONGU page, and then take my card back to my home club. This now meant I had 3 QC's so handicap would stay current.

I'm not a big QC player, especially at my home club (Spoken before about the reasons) so I really only want a current handuicap in case I ever need it. I play for enjoyment and never worry too much about trophy's or seeing my name on the board.

To be honest it sounds a bit like your clubs comp people are a bit messed up with the whole thing. It's not that hard really.

Here are my most recent handicap changes - you can see the adjustments that are made to scores:

Hmm. I'm surprised I was only cut 1.5 having shot nett 64 (with one treble) when the lowest gross score on the day was 78. I was expecting to be cut at least 2 shots (which would have got me down to the magic 18 handicap and ergo got me into the Saunton Open at Easter) :grr:

As I understand it, the Stableford adjustment thing when you have a bad hole works on the basis that you only get an adjustment if the number you score on a hole is more than the total of:

* Par for the hole
* The number of shots you receive on the hole, and
* 2

So, if a 19-handicapper played a Par 4 that was stroke index 1, his score would not be adjusted unless he had at least a 9.

Mercurio wrote:As I understand it, the Stableford adjustment thing when you have a bad hole works on the basis that you only get an adjustment if the number you score on a hole is more than the total of:

* Par for the hole
* The number of shots you receive on the hole, and
* 2

So, if a 19-handicapper played a Par 4 that was stroke index 1, his score would not be adjusted unless he had at least a 9.

That's what I said (only quicker)

It gets reduced to nett double bogey. Some people find it easier to think of it as the lowest score that you WOULDN'T get a point for in Stableford

Davie wrote:

Mercurio wrote:As I understand it, the Stableford adjustment thing when you have a bad hole works on the basis that you only get an adjustment if the number you score on a hole is more than the total of:

* Par for the hole
* The number of shots you receive on the hole, and
* 2

So, if a 19-handicapper played a Par 4 that was stroke index 1, his score would not be adjusted unless he had at least a 9.

That's what I said (only quicker)

It gets reduced to nett double bogey. Some people find it easier to think of it as the lowest score that you WOULDN'T get a point for in Stableford

Sorry, Davie - I was skim-reading

Davie

Yes that is correct, score does get adjusted down to the lowest score that you not get a point for in a stableford competition. :friend:

ps Don't think I'm going out tonight so will try to tune in later :-)

drive4show wrote:
ps Don't think I'm going out tonight so will try to tune in later :-)

Nice one. I'm listening to some music here at work now trying to figure out what to play tonight. Friday is always a "noisy night" where we get a little heavier (at times even too heavy for me but I have listeners to cater for).

As usual if anyone has any requests I'll play them if I've got them. Just wondering at the moment if I can get away with an 8 minute John Petrucci live solo :P

Davie wrote:

drive4show wrote:
ps Don't think I'm going out tonight so will try to tune in later :-)

Nice one. I'm listening to some music here at work now trying to figure out what to play tonight. Friday is always a "noisy night" where we get a little heavier (at times even too heavy for me but I have listeners to cater for).

As usual if anyone has any requests I'll play them if I've got them. Just wondering at the moment if I can get away with an 8 minute John Petrucci live solo :P

Unlikely... but considering the listeners you are describing I reckon Richard Marx might be the way to go :whistle:


Also... in relation to the actual CSS conversation. It's calculated differently in stroke and stableford play. But the handicap calcs are generally the same.

How is it different in stroke and stableford play, LJ? Surely they are the same? OK in stableford you can return a "blob" on a hole but that would return just the same adjusted figure as if you'd returned a 12 in stroke play.

No Richard Marx tonight (or any night from me) - sorry for the off topic but we need to keep the posts up or those pesky boxing fans will overtake us!

It's to do with nett differentials and similar to the hanidicapping rules it applies in some way to the stableford scores for blobs and also medal for any score over a souble bogey whilst taking into account shot allowances.

It's all a bit messed up to be honest.

As for being no Richard Marx... Shame. How about a bit of Perry Como then?